NOW Herr Obama wants to limit your savings...

[MarkT]

Fox news just reported the dictator has declared that $3Mil is ENOUGH for your life savings in your 401k.  Beyond that - you no longer get the tax break. This amount is a normal 401k savings (with interest) for say a police sergeant who retires at age 50, and lives a normal lifespan, could easily run out of money before the end.

Sorry don't have a link yet.

Geez.  Where is the limit to King Obama's gall?

IMPEACH OBAMA.

[alph]

it'll START at $3 million, then by the end of his reign it'll be down to around $100,000 or so.

i've had this argument with MANY MANY people who were educated and considered "smart".  but, what do i know, i'm just a college dropout working as an electrician......

my oldest brother (the asshole) use to take out a loan to have money to invest.  i (at the age of 14) asked him; "what investment can he possible make that would guarantee 8%?" (the amount of his loan at the time)  he said that getting an 8% return isn't hard to do if you can "find" the right stock, i then replied, "the bank found one......" (he didn't get what i was implying)

my advice to anyone is this; pay off your bills first before you consider retiring.

[FLAVALK]

Well then if he says so, it surely must be the right (or is it the left) thing to do.  

[old2soon]

Makes me wonder when this P O S is gonna release"his"10 commandments??  RIDE SAFE.

[FLAVALK]

it'll START at $3 million, then by the end of his reign it'll be down to around $100,000 or so.

i've had this argument with MANY MANY people who were educated and considered "smart".  but, what do i know, i'm just a college dropout working as an electrician......

my oldest brother (the asshole) use to take out a loan to have money to invest.  i (at the age of 14) asked him; "what investment can he possible make that would guarantee 8%?" (the amount of his loan at the time)  he said that getting an 8% return isn't hard to do if you can "find" the right stock, i then replied, "the bank found one......" (he didn't get what i was implying)

my advice to anyone is this; pay off your bills first before you consider retiring.

Done

[MarkT]

I might add - Obummer is pobably doing us a favor by discouraging saving.  Because with him printing money as an income source for his spending spree, and running up the nat'l debt FAST, dollars will soon have little value.  Like 1920's Germany, you'll need a wheelbarrow of cash to buy a meal.  You won't need to buy firewood, because cash will have so little value you'll burn that for heat and cooking instead.

Put your money in durable barter goods, guns, ammo and gold.

And of course chrome, especially custom pipes...

[cookiedough]

my advice to anyone is this; pay off your bills first before you consider retiring.

Alph for President! 

Back when we were younger and had a home loan at around I believe 6-7% in the 90's, we had money saved up since working right out of college.  After a few years we thought to ourselves why do we have all this money in the bank account earning only say 4-5% interest and still paying 6-7% on our house, doesn't make sense. So, we got smart and paid off the house a few years later. 

My theory in life is if you can't afford to buy it without financing much, don't buy it period can live life without it. 

[WayneH]

This amount is a normal 401k savings (with interest) for say a police sergeant who retires at age 50, and lives a normal lifespan, could easily run out of money before the end.

Without commenting one way or another on the proposal, the quote about the police sergeant came from the WSJ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324050304578412932073225110.html and the quote is:

The feds may think $3 million is all you need after a lifetime of work, but that's roughly the value of a California police sergeant's pension if she works for 30 years, retires at age 50 and lives to normal life expectancy.

But, here's the catch.  How much does a police sergeant make?  Even if you say $100,000 per year, how much of that would go into a 401K?  To make it to $3 million in 30 years, the officer would need to tuck away $40,000 per year at 5 percent.  How many of you are tucking away $40,000 per year?  How many of you nearing retirement have $3 million in your 401K?  Even at 8 percent return (hard to get for the last 10 years), you'd still need to ante up $20,000 per year into your 401K.  

The quote is nonsense (unless of course, you are talking about bloated police pensions, perhaps), and whether you agree or disagree with the policy (I happen to think it is too complicated and really only represents pocket change in terms of taxes), it only affects 0.1 percent of taxpayers, that is, 1 taxpayer in 1000, and amounts to about $9 billion per year... chump change in the overall budget.

The real opportunity for significant savings lies in the military budget... bloat, waste, corruption, incompetence, thievery, self dealing, and lobbying that is out of control... none of which improves USA security or the lives or service men and women.

[alph]

But, here's the catch.  How much does a police sergeant make?  Even if you say $100,000 per year, how much of that would go into a 401K?  To make it to $3 million in 30 years, the officer would need to tuck away $40,000 per year at 5 percent.  How many of you are tucking away $40,000 per year?  How many of you nearing retirement have $3 million in your 401K?  Even at 8 percent return (hard to get for the last 10 years), you'd still need to ante up $20,000 per year into your 401K.  

the thought of being able to retire at age 50 eludes even the best of us.  to even suggest that a police sergeant has the ability to save up to $3 million suggests that it is most likely that the sergeant has been accepting kickbacks from some unsavory individuals!!  in that case i would agree that a crook cop should be taxed at a higher rate than the honest cop, but, since we're talking about the current administration, the only crooks turn out to be those who pay taxes for an honest day's wage.  

laws are made to punish the honest, law breakers can careless about the laws.
what we need is less laws, more enforcement of the current laws.

[MP]

But, here's the catch.  How much does a police sergeant make?  Even if you say $100,000 per year, how much of that would go into a 401K?  To make it to $3 million in 30 years, the officer would need to tuck away $40,000 per year at 5 percent.  How many of you are tucking away $40,000 per year?  How many of you nearing retirement have $3 million in your 401K?  Even at 8 percent return (hard to get for the last 10 years), you'd still need to ante up $20,000 per year into your 401K.  

the thought of being able to retire at age 50 eludes even the best of us.  to even suggest that a police sergeant has the ability to save up to $3 million suggests that it is most likely that the sergeant has been accepting kickbacks from some unsavory individuals!!  in that case i would agree that a crook cop should be taxed at a higher rate than the honest cop, but, since we're talking about the current administration, the only crooks turn out to be those who pay taxes for an honest day's wage.  

laws are made to punish the honest, law breakers can careless about the laws.
what we need is less laws, more enforcement of the current laws.

I believe the reference was to the California pension system.  And, I believe, it is accurate.  It is what the pension will pay out.  A Sgt. can retire at that age, and, over the course of their average lifespan, collect that money.  ie, retire at 50 yrs, and live 30 yrs on ave.  Their pension will pay $100,000/yr for life!  (nice gig!).   30 yrs X $100,000 = 3 mil.

And, Wayne, it is NOT the military where the big money is, it is in entitlements.  THEY are what will eat us for lunch over the next 30 years, IF we do not do something to slow their increase in cost.  They are EXPLODING in cost.

MP

[alph]

And, Wayne, it is NOT the military where the big money is, it is in entitlements.  THEY are what will eat us for lunch over the next 30 years, IF we do not do something to slow their increase in cost.  They are EXPLODING in cost.

MP

easy solution, require a drug test for the recipients of ALL government hand outs (even social security).  problem solved.  although this will never happen since many of the worst drug users reside in washington DC....

[WayneH]

And, Wayne, it is NOT the military where the big money is, it is in entitlements.  THEY are what will eat us for lunch over the next 30 years, IF we do not do something to slow their increase in cost.  They are EXPLODING in cost.

MP

MP,

I disagree on several points here.  First is the name that is being applied:  "Entitlements", as though somehow I am getting something that I don't deserve.  Fact is, I've paid into social security and medicaid all my working life.  What I am "entitled" to is getting at least some of my money back that I paid in. 

Second, social security is solvent and will be for the next 25 years.  With an increase in the salary cap for deductions, social security could be solvent for far longer than that.  Social security is invested in Treasury bonds so returns will be lower than if in the stock market, but safer.

Third, social security and medicaid are funded by taxes completely separate from all other taxes raised... in fact, it is a requirement of the social security program that it raise its own funds and not be dependent on contributions from the federal government Treasury.

Fourth, medicaid is growing far more quickly than its revenues, and it will shortly be in trouble.  Like it or not, Obamacare was designed to try and cope with this issue.  If Medicare is cut back, it will affect those 65 and older, and aside from the moral/ethical questions of leaving seniors with no medical care or extremely expensive private insurance, trying to cut Medicaid is also political suicide... why else did Obamacare make it through Congress (it went into effect Mar, 2010 when Republicans controlled the House). 

Health costs are out of control in the USA (do you know I had to pay $953 for a 3 minute visit for an emergency room physician?), rising much more rapidly than any other cost index items, and this contributes to exploding medicare costs.

Fifth, there is a link between social security and the federal budget and it is this:  If social security ever goes into an annual deficit position (outlays exceed revenues), it will have to start cashing in its US Treasury notes, and this is what the federal government doesn't like because it will have to give social security cash it does not have.  But while social security is in a positive cash flow mode, it contributes zero to the deficit and cutting social security will do absolutely nothing to rein in the deficits... it is a completely separate tax.

Finally, the USA military budget is corrupt, bloated, and everything else I said.  $300 or $400 billion pissed away in Iraq "rebuilding" that amounted to nothing.  Military weapons that have $200 billion overruns but still can't be killed because of political pressure even when the Pentagon wants to kill them?  USA military spending is larger than the next 60 countries combined.  What are we doing "protecting" Europe at a cost of many billions of dollars per year when they have their own first workd economies?

And when you cut social security out of the pie chart (different tax base), you quickly begin to see that military spending consumes at least 50 percent of non-FICA revenues... this is the problem.

[MP]

Why do you think entitlements means something you are NOT entitled to?  Entitlements means things you ARE entitled to!  Look up entitled in a dictionary.

Just means the gov't HAS to pay it out, without a yearly appriation, ie "entitled" to it.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree that we can cut all of our spending out of military.  I realize that you would like to cut our military to zero, but so do our enemies.  There is NO WAY there is enough fraud in the military to cover our expenses.

We have a little over 4 trillion dollar budget.  For fiscal year 2014, the Federal Gov't anticipates that it will spend $618  Billion dollars on defense.   http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/military_budget.htm

You can cut military spending to ZERO, and it would only cover about 80% of the deficet for the year!   How can you cut it out of there?

The Progressives think that just by cutting back the military, you can keep spending and spending without regard for anything else.  Math will not allow that to work.

MP

[BradValk48237]

I plan on retiring at 50.....

47 for 2 more weeks......

So with my financial planning, 401K, Roth and all my other investments I've made over the years....

I have to only $2,999,999 to go in the next 2 years and I'll be all set.......


Brad

[WayneH]

I realize that you would like to cut our military to zero, but so do our enemies.  

You are mistaken on this point.  I full well realize the need and necessity for a strong military.  I lived in Singapore.  Our USA carrier strike forces came through regularly as they headed for Hong Kong and the south China sea, just to ensure that China was aware they aren't the only ones in the water.

And, I've been privileged to attend seminars put on the by Rear Admiral of the Pacific Fleet, where she explained the new types of ships, new types of situations, and new types of warfare that the navy is anticipating.  I see clearly everyday that the USA must maintain a strong presence in the middle east, the FUBAR of the Iraq invasion, notwithstanding.

Having said that, I believe that the military budget could be cut by 25 percent without materially affecting USA security and without denying essential tools to service men and women... drones, for example.  But, I doubt it will happen... President Eisenhower was right all those years ago... the military/industrial complex is indeed upon us, and there doesn't see to be a way out.

.

For your military expenditure percentages, I note again that this is computed from all government revenues (see the graph below).  But when you remove social security and medicare spending, which is funded by their own separate taxes and do not contribute to the deficit, you see that military spending percentages are much higher.

Total spending - SS+MC spending = Total non-FICA spending
3,456 - (793 + 701) = 1,962 billion

Military spending / Total non-FICA spending = Military percentage
689 / 1,962 = 35.1%... and really, that number is low because it does not include veterans support, veterans pensions or the "off budget" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.



Again, so long as medicare and social security are solvent (and they are) they do not contribute a penny to the national debt.

http://www.nasi.org/sites/default/files/research/Is_Medicare_Solvent_and_Sustainable.pdf

And just for fun... a few websites outlining Pentagon excesses.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/category/department-of-defense/

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/19/17362769-waste-fraud-and-abuse-commonplace-in-iraq-reconstruction-effort?lite

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/11/dod-wastes-billions-on-non-military-projects/

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Military_Fraud.html (yes, it's somewhat dated but does highlight the nature of the problems, including hidden military spending... and none of this has really changed.

[MP]

So, how does cutting $120 billion solve a close to 1 Trillion shortfall?  The military took a 80 Billion a year hit a year ago, and now sequester is doing about the same again.  That IS about your 25%, so you want ANOTHER 25%?  Cut it in half?

You believe there is 50% waste?

The fact you believe we can keep going with all our other spending without cuts amazes me.  The spending on social programs is exploding.

MP

[PAVALKER]

The real opportunity for significant savings lies in the military budget... bloat, waste, corruption, incompetence, thievery, self dealing, and lobbying that is out of control... none of which improves USA security or the lives or service men and women.

In just this sentence alone.... substitute "military" with "government" and you have the big picture savings.   Government has grown, costs have risen and spending on duplicated efforts within the government as a whole is outrageous.   Those pencil pushers and their staffs need cut, not the military.

[Chattanooga Mark]

Seriously Wayne, stop drinking the Kool Aide. Obama is gutting Medicare and forcing us all onto his plan. Costs will continue to escalate beyond belief. No country, state or nation can tax, print, borrow and spend their way to prosperity.

All the best,

Mark

[WayneH]

Seriously Wayne, stop drinking the Kool Aide.

This contributes a lot to the debate.

[Daddie O]

You tell'em angry white man!  lol  
 You guys really do fit into the sterotype don't you!

Every rational person knows conservatives always, yes always get everything wrong.  The list is so extensive it's laughable.  I wish I could take credit for writing the following, but it's eloquence is mostly cut and pasted.

     In the 16th century, medical pioneers set out to chart the workings of the human body. Where the old doctrines relied on sacred symbols and mystical "spirits" and "humours," the new science mapped internal organs, watched blood circulate and began to uncover the physical causes of disease. These first steps toward modern medicine filled conservatives with horror, and they tried hard to bring the whole enterprise to a stop. They opposed the use of autopsies to learn how the body worked. They insisted that disease was caused by Satan's influence, epidemics by collective sin, and mental illness by demonic possession.  Even as the scientific facts were becoming known, later conservatives kept up the fight against further new developments, like vaccines and anesthetics – which, they said, violated "nature" and usurped God's right to decide who should suffer and die.

    In the 17th century, while Galileo was fighting his battles, other debates were getting underway over the sources of government power – whether it lay within families and was rightly conferred by birth, or whether it rose from the people and should rest on the consent of the governed. Against proposals for electing rulers and other novel "democratical" ideas, conservative opinion came down firmly on the side of aristocratic privilege and the so-called divine right of kings.

    In the 18th century, movements developed with the aim of reforming the system of criminal justice. Liberal thinkers argued for speedy and public trials, rejected the "cruel and unusual" in favor of penalties that fit the crimes, and supported modest efforts to see that even prisoners were treated humanely. Why did these arguments need to be made? Because at a time when dozens of minor offenses carried the death sentence, when political and religious dissent was criminalized, and when legal penalties included literally cutting people to bits, conservatives thought the laws were, if anything, too soft.

     In the 19th century, women were still unable to vote, own property or practice professions. When reformers called for giving them these rights, conservatives invoked both nature and the Bible to prove that women were created subservient to men, belonged in the home, and didn't need to participate in public decision-making because men knew their interests better than women themselves did.
   
    In the 20th century, another movement declared that people should be treated equally regardless of race. Progressive reformers like Martin Luther King Jr. called on America to live up to its founding promise, and to honor Scripture's true meaning, by guaranteeing civil rights for all. Conservatives – including some still alive today – replied that King was distorting the Constitution, which left it up to each state to decide how racist to be. Defiantly standing in the schoolhouse door (literally and figuratively), conservatives darkly warned that "unnatural" mixing of the races would lead to all manner of social evils.

    In these and innumerable other history-shaping debates the conservative position was discredited, sometimes quite soon thereafter, and the godless, un-biblical, unnatural, liberal / progressive position came to be all but taken for granted. Today it's not controversial that the earth goes around the sun, and that, in any case, priests shouldn't be prosecuting scientists for heresy. Today it's universally agreed that people should be able to elect and un-elect their leaders, that women should be able to vote, and that a person's skin color shouldn't determine what school she can go to or where she can sit on a bus. But the reason these matters aren't controversial is that in each case, the conservative side lost.

    Precisely because they lose, however, it's forgotten that conservatives have repeatedly taken positions that no one but a crank would even try to defend today. Conservatism perversely benefits from its own failures: Because its past arguments were beaten back and its fierce resistance overcome, we don't hear those arguments anymore. They've faded into history, and we have to study history even to know they were once made.

    This is crucial to the conservatism of today. If the public recognized the American conservative movement as the latest growth of the same tangled weeds that previously tried to choke off science, democracy and civil rights, today's conservatives would have a much tougher time. Like the friend who's always wrong, they'd be asked to explain why the rest of us should put any stock in the typical conservative arguments of today – arguments like:



    The Bible is the best guide to the natural history of life on earth. Evidence indicating that human beings evolved like any other species will prove to be some kind of illusion or huge mistake, and even though science eventually displaced biblical doctrine in astronomy, physics, geology, chemistry, meteorology, historiography, and even linguistics, in this one case the Bible (or one interpretation of it) will at last be vindicated, and a whole, worldwide scientific enterprise proved wrong.  Also wrong and contrary to nature, meanwhile, is research on cloning and stem cells, which should be subordinated to theology even if this delays discoveries that could cure diseases and save lives.  The science behind climate change is all wrong too.
   
     Huge inequalities of wealth and power, and the persistence of these from one generation to the next – the various means by which privilege is routinely passed on from parents to children – are just the way things are. Any serious attempt to reform these arrangements will lead to either anarchy or totalitarian oppression.

    Due process is fine – except for criminals, and especially "terrorists," for whom some of the old methods need to be revived (and have been). OK, maybe the death penalty is wrong for children under, say, 14. (or maybe not), but life sentences aren't. And while we grudgingly accept a penal system that treats even the worst offenders somewhat humanely, we nonetheless want those people killed, in substantial numbers, and the sooner the better.

    America is a uniquely virtuous nation; its decisions in world affairs are best for people everywhere, even when those people themselves don't see this. It's ludicrous to think that anyone else, even in the democratic West, might have equally good ideas about how the world should be organized.
 
    Same-sex relations are sinful and should never stand on an equal footing with the natural, God-given, heterosexual order of things. The fact that America lags most other advanced societies, which have rejected this view and are rapidly liberalizing their policies in this area, isn't a sign of where the world is headed; it's merely further proof of America's unique virtue (see previous point).

   
     Looked at in historical perspective, all these arguments rest on one big claim: that conservatism is finally getting it right. OK, conservatives are in effect saying, maybe conservative positions of the past look foolish to us now. Maybe, time and again, conservatism has subverted reform, perpetuated injustice and slowed changes which, in retrospect, we can all see were needed. But never mind all that. The issues today are different, and if you don't agree with us now then you're the fool or subversive. The positions we conservatives are taking today, unlike conservative positions of the past, won't be found lying on history's trash heap in thirty, fifty or a hundred years, after we've lost these arguments too and the world has once again moved on.

    Needless to say, contemporary conservatives would deny that this is their message and reject the parallels I've been drawing. If we remind them of their sorry track record, they'll swear it isn't theirs at all: They can't be blamed for the mistakes and limited vision of those benighted conservatives of old. They weren't even around when Galileo was on trial or when women were demanding suffrage. If they had been (they no doubt imagine), they would have taken the forward-looking side in those disputes. They, unlike their forebears, would not have been loudly insisting that progressive proposals were wrong-headed, impossible, and a threat to everything good. No, they merely insist that today's progressive proposals are wrong-headed, impossible and a threat to everything good.

    Conservatives' default assumption is that the wealthy must deserve to be where they are (because our society is basically fair), and by the same token most people who aren't wealthy must not be trying or willing it hard enough. It follows that social-welfare programs are mostly just subsidies or, worse, breeding grounds for the shiftless. Attacks on "government handouts" are a standard part of the conservative repertoire. But when we trace wealth to its original sources, what we find – besides the fact that some people "earned" their fortunes while still in the womb – are the friendly policies, favorable treatment and sometimes outright giveaways that are the taxpaying public's contribution to the social welfare of big moguls.
   
    The same holds when we trace the origins of society's larger "fortune," the prosperous modern economy, which could never have come into existence without big helpings of public investment. Conservatives fully support these government handouts of the past, even treat them as a kind of entitlement. They're not praised openly, of course, because that might lend them credibility as precedents for today. Instead they're just conveniently left out of the story. In this as in many other ways, conservative mythology depends crucially on a lot of things being forgotten.

[CoachDoc]

Daddie O, that is a superbly written piece. Thank you for sharing your logic and knowledge.

[musclehead]

This amount is a normal 401k savings (with interest) for say a police sergeant who retires at age 50, and lives a normal lifespan, could easily run out of money before the end.

Without commenting one way or another on the proposal, the quote about the police sergeant came from the WSJ... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324050304578412932073225110.html and the quote is:

The feds may think $3 million is all you need after a lifetime of work, but that's roughly the value of a California police sergeant's pension if she works for 30 years, retires at age 50 and lives to normal life expectancy.

But, here's the catch.  How much does a police sergeant make?  Even if you say $100,000 per year, how much of that would go into a 401K?  To make it to $3 million in 30 years, the officer would need to tuck away $40,000 per year at 5 percent.  How many of you are tucking away $40,000 per year?  How many of you nearing retirement have $3 million in your 401K?  Even at 8 percent return (hard to get for the last 10 years), you'd still need to ante up $20,000 per year into your 401K.  

The quote is nonsense (unless of course, you are talking about bloated police pensions, perhaps), and whether you agree or disagree with the policy (I happen to think it is too complicated and really only represents pocket change in terms of taxes), it only affects 0.1 percent of taxpayers, that is, 1 taxpayer in 1000, and amounts to about $9 billion per year... chump change in the overall budget.

The real opportunity for significant savings lies in the military budget... bloat, waste, corruption, incompetence, thievery, self dealing, and lobbying that is out of control... none of which improves USA security or the lives or service men and women.

a billion here and a billion there, pretty soon your talking about some real money
I agree the pentagon is a giant black hole where many billions are wasted, in fact the government suffers the same problem. do you agree?

[musclehead]

wow Daddie-o, I'll get into this after work. it's going to take some time to debunk most of that.

[Daddie O]

wow Daddie-o, I'll get into this after work. it's going to take some time to debunk most of that.

Well you could use the tried and true method that conservatives use to debunk progressive ideas.

Conservatives' tarring of liberals as America-haters who "want the terrorists to win" and the like is an example of a certain mode of bogus argument, an exercise in phony logic that we might call the "Game of Extrapolation." Understanding this game is crucial to understanding, and anticipating, today's arguments from the right. The rules of Extrapolation are simple:



1. Select one of your opponent's positions or proposals.

2. Imagine some possible result this proposal might have if enacted. Bonus points if – here's the extrapolating – this result lies far removed from the proposal's actual, stated goal.

3. Now imagine some cost, trade-off or downside which that result might theoretically entail.

4. Take this distant, hypothetical cost you've imagined, present it as a certainty, and declare it to be your opponent's "plan" or real, though secret, intent.


Further bonus points can be earned by making either or both of these moves:

a) Extrapolate from two, preferably unrelated, positions of your opponent's, and multiply their hypothetical costs to get an even more hypothetical cost.

b) Clear the board of every last token of your opponent's actual motive – the problem that originally prompted his proposal, the benefits it might have, or anything else that might make your opponent's position seem even remotely reasonable.



    In recent years conservatives have become absolute masters of this game. If a Democratic President floats a proposal for modest changes in the health-care system, we don't hear what's wrong with the proposal – let alone how many millions of people it could benefit – but rather that the candidate "plans to raise taxes by $900 billion," as if he not only said that himself but offered it up out of thin air. But he didn't, so where is it coming from? Well, it's possible that his proposal might cost X, and in theory some of his other proposals could cost Y, and if you add X + Y and throw in some other assumptions, the result could be a tax increase of $900 billion. So that's his "plan," not anything having to do with health care.  Or maybe it's because what he really wants is "death panels".



    Or, creating a Department of Homeland Security might improve the federal government's response to terrorists threats, so any U.S. Senator, say, who opposes even a single element of a Republican president's proposal for one is arguably helping the terrorists. While the two legs and an arm he lost in Vietnam might look like more straightforward evidence of his loyalties, it's fair to suggest that this Senator is probably a secret bin Laden sympathizer. And by a similar but even longer series of (il)logical leaps, anyone who questions absolutely any feature of the war in Iraq must want the terrorists to win, or at least must "hate the military" and "not support our troops." By this laundered logic, criticism of virtually any aspect of U.S. foreign policy can be turned into the next best thing to treason. Extrapolating to "they hate America" isn't just easy, it's the game's next logical move.

    Or Herr Obama, King Obama, Obummer the dictator, has decided 3 million is "enough" for your savings.  Oh, that's just the start, soon he will say $100k is "enough".  "I wonder when he is going to come out with his 10 commandments."  Now the poor policeman will live in squalor if he retires!  Now for some bonus points:  What we need to do is cut entitlements and govt pencil pushers, and institute drug testing for anyone receiving government assistance, problem solved!


    Politics in general is a tough game, and we can't expect those who play it to be scrupulously fair. It can be a public service to analyze an opponent's position for its possible consequences, even if this is done with something less than academic rigor. No one looks to politicians anyway to enlighten the public, raise people's esteem for the other party or tell the whole truth even when it's politically inconvenient.

    The problem arises when one side shies away from the game while the other is busy raising it to an art form. While conservatives have learned to bank on public ignorance and to redefine "truth" as whatever serves their political goals, Democrats have continued playing a different, older and milder game in which certain kinds of demagogic arguments are off-limits. They've been astonishingly slow, not just to see the conservative attacks coming but to mount such attacks of their own. And today's conservatism is a target-rich environment.  It really does include a vitriolic hatred for America, as we've seen, if by America we mean the actual, smut-infested, soft-on-crime, evolution-teaching, terrorist-coddling, heterosexual-hostile, gun hating den of iniquity in which, somehow, the left has been forcing everyone else to live. If Democrats choose to play Extrapolation themselves, they have so many fine moves available that it's hard to know which one to pick first:



      Why do conservatives prefer a poorer, more primitive America to the prosperous, modern nation we've got? (This is implied in their attacks on public investment, and their misunderstanding of its historic importance in creating wealth.)



      Why do conservatives want to give China control of the U.S. economy, and force your children and grandchildren to work longer hours? (These are logical consequences of tax cuts and the need they create for massive government borrowing.)


      Why do conservatives favor the spread of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Disease, and apparently feel that we need more rather than fewer paralyzed children? (These are not-implausible results of putting limits on stem-cell research.)


     Why do conservatives want stronger storms, more drought, species of animals and insects to go extinct, and our coastal cities flooded?  (Consequences of denying climate change.)



    And so on. Under the rules of Extrapolation, the conservatives' own game, these are all fair questions. Artfully framed – and that's what political strategists are paid to do – they could force answers (or defensive non-answers) from conservatives, at the very least changing the dynamics of the debate.



    Some say Democrats shouldn't go this route because it will further "lower the level of political discourse." But that objection overlooks both the logic of deterrence and the psychology of bullying. Deterrence keeps the peace by neutralizing either side's advantage. If Republicans knew that the same weapons were aimed at them, shameless demagoguery might not look like such a good bet. And bullies are famous for panicking when they come up against someone willing to fight back. Before he became House Speaker, and at times after, Newt Gingrich cut a fine figure as a political bully. Once, he advised fellow Republicans to make frequent use of words like "sick" and "traitor" in characterizing their opponents. But when President Clinton accused them of proposing to cut Medicare, those Republicans suddenly didn't know what to do. Gingrich got nowhere with his spluttering protests that the word "cut" was an underhanded Clintonian extrapolation.  From then on the advantage was all Clinton's, and Gingrich – once touted as the obvious next president – was gone even before Clinton left office.

[MP]

What a load of c**p!

MP

[R J]

What a load of c**p!

MP

Amen MP.

[musclehead]

ok Daddie-o, first off saying that conservatives are always wrong means that libs are never wrong. which is of course a fallacy.

the first point is about modern medicine and how CONS were agin it, actually the beginings of modern medicine started after the french revolution. back then there were two classes of doctors, physicians and surgeons. physcians were the aristocrats and catered to the royalty and other aristocrats, surgeons were on par with barbers. surgeons that served on the battlefield shared ideas of wound dressing and such, physcians closely gaurded thier secret remedies. surgeons did what was nessesary to save the patient, physcians did what the patient wanted to make them feel better. kinda like micheal jacksons doctor did micheal.

when the french revolution started chopping heads the only ones left were the lowly surgeons. when word got around to england physcians that there were doing autopsies in france they were appalled. but it caught on. so if you want to say the aristocracy were consevatives I'd have to argue no they weren't of any political stirpe

gallileo didn't actually fight with the church over the order of the solar system, he had his work published after his death. now he was concerned because in 1600 or so the church had imprisoned a man called bruno detalia (sp) for saying the stars are notihng but other suns and around those suns were other planets like ours and on those planets were beings like us. well quicker then you can say "magician" he was in prison and 10 years later was burned at the stake.
you could make the case that the catholic church was the conservative of the day it wouldn't be too far of a stretch.

more to follow after work.

[MP]

 These have just as much validity.  You are doing exactly what you CLAIM Conservatives are doing!



     Why do progressives/liberals prefer a poorer, more primitive America to the prosperous, modern nation we've got? (This is implied in their attacks on capitalism, and their misunderstanding of its historic importance in creating wealth.)

    Why do progressives/liberals want to give China control of the U.S. economy, and force your children and grandchildren to work longer hours? (These are logical consequences of exploding gov't overspending and the need they create for massive government borrowing.)


      Why do progressives/liberals favor the spread of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's Disease, and apparently feel that we need more rather than fewer paralyzed children? (These are not-implausible results of the controls and limitations on choice put into the Obama Healthcare bill.)


     Why do progressives/liberals want stronger storms, more drought, species of animals and insects to go extinct, and our coastal cities flooded?  (Consequences of destroying our economy by requiring use of energy sources that are MUCH higher cost, and have their own negative impacts on climate change.) ie the batteries used are very non environmentally friendly

And to propose that conservatives WANT bad storms, drought, extinct animals, etc. is just plain stupid, and insulting to me, a farmer, and others.

MP

[Daddie O]

Yes MP.  As stated, what I posted would be the discourse IF progressives played the same "Extrapolation Game"  that conservatives play.  The game you continue to try to play.  The game that us progressives HAVEN'T been playing.  Reading comprehension is an important skill.  All your extrapolations are false.  Your tired game of extrapolation is see through, and I am not naive enough to be fooled by it.

Examples of your game:  progressive attacks on capitalism
                                 exploding govt. overspending
                                 limitations on choice

Who is attacking capitalism?  Noone.  

Exploding government overspending?  Please read this article from Forbes magazine.  Really, read it.  Forbes is not some bastion of progressive propaganda.  The article shows that Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Limitations on choice under Obamacare?  I certainly don't have any of my choices limited.  I guess you mean the insurance companies are limited in choosing to kick you off the policy if you are sick, or limited by not being allowed to have lifetime benefit caps?  Maybe you are referring to the insurance companies being not allowed to charge women more for insurance because they are women.  Maybe you meant insurance companies are limited by not being able to kick kids off your policy at 18yrs old.  I guess in that sense choices are limited.  For the insurance industry.

Musclehead, I have given many examples of where progressives have gotten it right and conservatives have gotten it wrong.  Please give me some examples of where conservatives have gotten it right on science, on civil rights, on anything.  You will have to dig through the trash heap of discredited conservative ideas and struggle to find something, because as it stands conservatives have been on the wrong side of everything.  
     

[..]

Please give me some examples of where conservatives have gotten it right on science, on civil rights, on anything.  You will have to dig through the trash heap of discredited conservative ideas and struggle to find something, because as it stands conservatives have been on the wrong side of everything.  
     

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/25/michael-steele/steele-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196/

That's all I can be bothered to put forward.

EDIT

How about this as well???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats

Still not convinced that Repubs aren't the spawn of the devil?

That's YOUR narrow minded problem

EDIT

This is too easy.

Gorebal warming. Just recently discreditd by TA-DA The Federal Government.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Last year's huge drought was a freak of nature that wasn't caused by man-made global warming, a new federal science study finds.

Scientists say the lack of moisture usually pushed up from the Gulf of Mexico was the main reason for the drought in the nation's midsection.

Thursday's report by dozens of scientists from five different federal agencies looked into why forecasters didn't see the drought coming. The researchers concluded that it was so unusual and unpredictable that it couldn't have been forecast.

"This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years," said lead author Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event."

Researchers focused on six states — Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Iowa — but the drought spread much farther and eventually included nearly two-thirds of the Lower 48 states. For the six states, the drought was the worst four-month period for lack of rainfall since records started being kept in 1895, Hoerling said.

Note that records have OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONLY been kept since 1895.

[Valker]

I suggest you read "Why I Am a Republican" by Martin Luther King Jr.

[Daddie O]

Britman your post is a big bucket of fail.  We are discussing progressive vs conservative ideals.  The 60's Democratic party of the south that opposed civil rights is the Republican party of today.  Seriously, did you even read the links you posted?  Here is a quote from the very first paragraph:

Eventually "Redemption" was finalized in the Compromise of 1877 and the Redeemers gained control throughout the South. As the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left (at least economically),Southern Democrats largely stayed as conservative as they had always been, with some even breaking off to form farther right-wing splinters like the Dixiecrats.  After the Civil Rights Movement successfully challenged the Jim Crow laws and other forms of institutionalized racism, and after the Democrats as a whole came to symbolize the mainstream left of the United States, the form, if not the content, of Southern Democratic politics began to change.

You can change the party label but progressive are for progress and conservatives are for keeping things the same.  Southern Democrats of the 60's = Southern Republicans of today.  If you read the article that you linked you would see that even conservatives of today say they think private businesses should have the right to discriminate!  Really!  Read your own link please.

I never said Repubs are the spawn of the devil.  Yet another false extrapolation.  You simply can't stop yourself from playing that game can you?  Climate change discredited, another laughable anti-science argument.  Global warming is a warming of the average temperature of the globe.  Some areas will be colder, but on average the globe will be warmer and its effects are deleterious.  Climate change is a better label.  Some areas will be drier, others wetter.  Storms will be more frequent and more violent.  Weather patterns will be unpredictable.  This is why drought wasn't able to be predicted, BECAUSE of climate change. 

[..]

I'll agree to disagree with you.

Goodbye.

[Patrick]

Oh my gosh ! What has this thread become !

[Daddie O]

A reasoned rebuttal to another conservative extrapolation game.

[Patrick]

A reasoned rebuttal to another conservative extrapolation game.
end quote


Not from my point of view.

[musclehead]

Britman your post is a big bucket of fail.  We are discussing progressive vs conservative ideals.  The 60's Democratic party of the south that opposed civil rights is the Republican party of today.  Seriously, did you even read the links you posted?  Here is a quote from the very first paragraph:

Eventually "Redemption" was finalized in the Compromise of 1877 and the Redeemers gained control throughout the South. As the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left (at least economically),Southern Democrats largely stayed as conservative as they had always been, with some even breaking off to form farther right-wing splinters like the Dixiecrats.  After the Civil Rights Movement successfully challenged the Jim Crow laws and other forms of institutionalized racism, and after the Democrats as a whole came to symbolize the mainstream left of the United States, the form, if not the content, of Southern Democratic politics began to change.

You can change the party label but progressive are for progress and conservatives are for keeping things the same.  Southern Democrats of the 60's = Southern Republicans of today.  If you read the article that you linked you would see that even conservatives of today say they think private businesses should have the right to discriminate!  Really!  Read your own link please.

I never said Repubs are the spawn of the devil.  Yet another false extrapolation.  You simply can't stop yourself from playing that game can you?  Climate change discredited, another laughable anti-science argument.  Global warming is a warming of the average temperature of the globe.  Some areas will be colder, but on average the globe will be warmer and its effects are deleterious.  Climate change is a better label.  Some areas will be drier, others wetter.  Storms will be more frequent and more violent.  Weather patterns will be unpredictable.  This is why drought wasn't able to be predicted, BECAUSE of climate change. 

I see so Al Gore SR is/was a conservative? Robert Byrd a conservative? they philbustered the civil rights bill. can you post your own opinion or do you only cut and paste huge swaths from left leaning blogs?

[johng316]

The real opportunity for significant savings lies in the military budget... bloat, waste, corruption, incompetence, thievery, self dealing, and lobbying that is out of control... none of which improves USA security or the lives or service men and women.

In just this sentence alone.... substitute "military" with "government" and you have the big picture savings.   Government has grown, costs have risen and spending on duplicated efforts within the government as a whole is outrageous.   Those pencil pushers and their staffs need cut, not the military.

Agreed.  The truth is we need to cut BOTH military and entitlements, not either/or.  But in addition, other government functions must be trimmed.  This will make few people happy, but it must be done before we are slogging through shiznit and can no longer fund even basic services.

Hard decisions must be made.  I doubt our government in its current form is able to wield the axe.

[musclehead]

Yes MP.  As stated, what I posted would be the discourse IF progressives played the same "Extrapolation Game"  that conservatives play.  The game you continue to try to play.  The game that us progressives HAVEN'T been playing.  Reading comprehension is an important skill.  All your extrapolations are false.  Your tired game of extrapolation is see through, and I am not naive enough to be fooled by it.

Examples of your game:  progressive attacks on capitalism
                                 exploding govt. overspending
                                 limitations on choice

Who is attacking capitalism?  Noone.  

Exploding government overspending?  Please read this article from Forbes magazine.  Really, read it.  Forbes is not some bastion of progressive propaganda.  The article shows that Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Limitations on choice under Obamacare?  I certainly don't have any of my choices limited.  I guess you mean the insurance companies are limited in choosing to kick you off the policy if you are sick, or limited by not being allowed to have lifetime benefit caps?  Maybe you are referring to the insurance companies being not allowed to charge women more for insurance because they are women.  Maybe you meant insurance companies are limited by not being able to kick kids off your policy at 18yrs old.  I guess in that sense choices are limited.  For the insurance industry.

Musclehead, I have given many examples of where progressives have gotten it right and conservatives have gotten it wrong.  Please give me some examples of where conservatives have gotten it right on science, on civil rights, on anything.  You will have to dig through the trash heap of discredited conservative ideas and struggle to find something, because as it stands conservatives have been on the wrong side of everything.  
     

trying to defend 6 trillion in debt like it never happened is beyond sticking your head in the sand, Obama promised to CUT the debt in half by the end of his first term. he campaigned on what  GW did  was unpatriotic. 16 trillion 800 billion last time I looked
$30,000 for every man woman and child. remember? way above that now.
Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

that's easy, "on anything" = we shouldn't spend more then we take in taxes. found at least one
your labeling is suspect, as I have said Al Gore SR was a conservative? really?

[..]

Yes MP.  As stated, what I posted would be the discourse IF progressives played the same "Extrapolation Game"  that conservatives play.  The game you continue to try to play.  The game that us progressives HAVEN'T been playing.  Reading comprehension is an important skill.  All your extrapolations are false.  Your tired game of extrapolation is see through, and I am not naive enough to be fooled by it.

Examples of your game:  progressive attacks on capitalism
                                 exploding govt. overspending
                                 limitations on choice

Who is attacking capitalism?  Noone.  

Exploding government overspending?  Please read this article from Forbes magazine.  Really, read it.  Forbes is not some bastion of progressive propaganda.  The article shows that Obama is the smallest government spender since Eisenhower.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Limitations on choice under Obamacare?  I certainly don't have any of my choices limited.  I guess you mean the insurance companies are limited in choosing to kick you off the policy if you are sick, or limited by not being allowed to have lifetime benefit caps?  Maybe you are referring to the insurance companies being not allowed to charge women more for insurance because they are women.  Maybe you meant insurance companies are limited by not being able to kick kids off your policy at 18yrs old.  I guess in that sense choices are limited.  For the insurance industry.

Musclehead, I have given many examples of where progressives have gotten it right and conservatives have gotten it wrong.  Please give me some examples of where conservatives have gotten it right on science, on civil rights, on anything.  You will have to dig through the trash heap of discredited conservative ideas and struggle to find something, because as it stands conservatives have been on the wrong side of everything.  
     

trying to defend 6 trillion in debt like it never happened is beyond sticking your head in the sand, Obama promised to CUT the debt in half by the end of his first term. he campaigned on that the GW did it was unpatriotic.
$30,000 for every man woman and child. remember?
Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic.

C'mon, don't let a fact or two rebutt anothers bias.