Let's face it....the West is finished

J. Morrison would not like to hear that.

The West is The Best
The West is The Best

So, when It is All Finished, how will you be sitting Mr. AZ? Pretty I bet.

Probably sitting at a Poker Table with The K-Bros and Grover laughing your a$$es off. Smoking BIG C-Gars.

I hope I am able To View The Crash. Being old, bald and fat I'll be A Target of The Gathering Rabble Mob.

Time to Refresh The Supplies in The Bunker. Dust off The Pictures of "My Leader".

If only I could convince a Young Ms. Agutter Clone to be my Bunker Buddy. Man 'O Live, that Southern Brit Accent is Heavenly.

DugInDull

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

So was the downgrade from AAA to AA enough? Should the downgrade been more to say a B?

---

My apologies, Lord Charpentier, I misread your lambastations.

BarryAZ is your name betreger? betreger did.

Sorry if I was over the top, it just seems that when things get confused they turn into flambe very fast.

---

Where did you get life from duty of care?

Actually, never mind, I wouldn't understand it as I don't have any mushrooms handy.

Gary, I got that from the implication from your powerful reference source Wikopedia, "In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm other"
More to the point you seem to disparage the messenger when you do not like the message, re myself and Barry. That is a time tested tactic. For that I give you extra points.

---

Where did you get life from duty of care?

Actually, never mind, I wouldn't understand it as I don't have any mushrooms handy.

Gary, I got that from the implication from your powerful reference source Wikopedia, "In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm other"
More to the point you seem to disparage the messenger when you do not like the message, re myself and Barry. That is a time tested tactic. For that I give you extra points.

So you ignore my entire point about inalienable rights and go to tort law an entirely different subject. Legislatures can make laws about anything, inalienable rights are not made by legislatures or constitutions. Laws are not rights. Rights are not duties.

I also note the quote you give from Wikipedia is from a different article than the section of the article I cited.

In any case the duty of care you cite from Wikipedia is not the same that BarryAZ was talking about which requires you to act. The duty in Wikipedia allows you to sit and do nothing or only act if you are paid for your services. If you didn't know there are laws that require persons/businesses to act even if they will not be paid for services rendered, which I take as BarryAZ's observation.

My point/question was: Is a requirement for someone to render service to another without compensation a right? A government may impose such a duty, like the draft, but that doesn't make it a right. The opposite for someone to not do something to another, such as not murdering them may involve rights.

---

Good grief. Such gloom and doom. I'm surprised that y'all aren't in a cabin in Montana cradling an AR and munching on canned beans.

While you are wringing your hands, remember that tomorrow when the sun rises, you will wake up in a warm bed in a dry, warm dwelling. You will have plenty of food and safe drinking water. You will continue to have unlimited opportunities to live your lives in secure countries with the finest military and police protection and governed by the rule of law.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Most of all, never forget there are several billion human beings on this planet who would gladly trade places with you in a second.

Have a safe, healthy and happy new year.

---

Join the PACK!

Well, being old, but not (yet) bald -- I'm not so sure. Then again, since I've been pretty 'unAmerican' (married once, 30 years+ so far, lived in the same house for 30 years, and no debt to speak of), and since I frankly never expected much of Social Security (which we will actually be starting to collect within a couple of years), I built up a goodly amount for our retirement (whenever we make that choice), I actually expect to be OK. Given our financial situation, we are outliers -- we don't hold with the 'let them die' or 'are there no work houses' crowd. That really makes us rather strange in this state.

So, when It is All Finished, how will you be sitting Mr. AZ? Pretty I bet.

Probably sitting at a Poker Table with The K-Bros and Grover laughing your a$$es off. Smoking BIG C-Gars.

I hope I am able To View The Crash. Being old, bald and fat I'll be A Target of The Gathering Rabble Mob.


DugInDull

No -- AA might be about right. It is more a matter of needing a balanced approach to the budget -- there is clearly a need to deal with entitlements -- but in my view (with my mushrooms) I see entitlements more inclusively defined -- that is, I include corporate and upper income tax entitlements as well. If the TeaPublicans are right to resist the 'tax holiday' action of the Democrats regarding Social Security (and I can accept that they might well be right), then they also need to revert taxes to a pre-Bush tax cut level. Maintaining the Bush tax cuts in the face of two wars and a burgeoning deficit was foolish by 2003 and now is simply off the charts foolish in view of the current deficit.

On the Medicare side of things, the handling of end of life care (funded heroic intervention to support life on tubes for weeks as an example) makes very little sense -- the only beneficiaries of this approach are the hospitals and some doctors. Earlier use of hospice care makes a lot of sense to me. Further the fee based structure in Medicare (which heavily influenced the for profit health insurance industry as well) has resulted in far too many procedures which are at best of marginal value and at worst are flat out waste. Dealing with Medicare properly though requires collaborative political will -- and that simply doesn't exist today.

So was the downgrade from AAA to AA enough? Should the downgrade been more to say a B?

I just knew the possibility of suggesting something of a balanced approach would shut down discussion here <sigh>

I think we've got the measure of most posters here by now, and their likely response.

Such Hubris

Some people here say things anonymously...we don't know who people really are

But they have Hubris

You can take my word for it

And you are?

I just don't intend to take it all so seriously in 2012

I'll be The Judge of that.

AnonymousTrollyRidingDull

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Balanced approach... Ha Ha Ha Ha!

The U.S. has had a balanced approach since Nixon completely separated the value of the U.S. Dollar from anything of real value and look where we are now.

Ya, more of the same is what we need....

Okay, I'll bite. What countries are on any precious metal standard today? Are their economies in good shape?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Theory

the earliness with which a country left the gold standard reliably predicted its economic recovery from the great depression. For example, Great Britain and Scandinavia, which left the gold standard in 1931, recovered much earlier than France and Belgium, which remained on gold much longer. Countries such as China, which had a silver standard, almost avoided the depression entirely. The connection between leaving the gold standard as a strong predictor of that country's severity of its depression and the length of time of its recovery has been shown to be consistent for dozens of countries, including developing countries. This may explain why the experience and length of the depression differed between national economies.

Bernanke, Ben (March 2, 2004), "Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke: Money, Gold and the Great Depression", At the H. Parker Willis Lecture in Economic Policy, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Virginia.

---

No -- AA might be about right. It is more a matter of needing a balanced approach to the budget -- there is clearly a need to deal with entitlements -- but in my view (with my mushrooms) I see entitlements more inclusively defined -- that is, I include corporate and upper income tax entitlements as well. If the TeaPublicans are right to resist the 'tax holiday' action of the Democrats regarding Social Security (and I can accept that they might well be right), then they also need to revert taxes to a pre-Bush tax cut level. Maintaining the Bush tax cuts in the face of two wars and a burgeoning deficit was foolish by 2003 and now is simply off the charts foolish in view of the current deficit.

On the Medicare side of things, the handling of end of life care (funded heroic intervention to support life on tubes for weeks as an example) makes very little sense -- the only beneficiaries of this approach are the hospitals and some doctors. Earlier use of hospice care makes a lot of sense to me. Further the fee based structure in Medicare (which heavily influenced the for profit health insurance industry as well) has resulted in far too many procedures which are at best of marginal value and at worst are flat out waste. Dealing with Medicare properly though requires collaborative political will -- and that simply doesn't exist today.

So was the downgrade from AAA to AA enough? Should the downgrade been more to say a B?

Ah, maybe AAA. I say this because of the total lack of anyone willing to take on the hard problems. I'm worried about say 30 year treasury bonds, but have no worry about say 1 year treasury notes.

Yes, entitlements need dealing with. Somehow I can't find where Congress is supposed to be allowed to issue any of them in the Constitution. But that seems to be moot as SCOTUS doesn't agree with me.

As to that balanced budget, when we are going to add more to the national debt this year than the government will take in in revenue, that is a serious problem. The government can't be piling debt up like a drunken sailor on credit cards.

The no tax people understand that no matter how high taxes are, until there is realization that you can't spend like a drunken sailor, that all more tax money coming in will do is make the problem worse, as more and more debt will pile up before the inevitable bankruptcy or collapse.

This country is going to have to make some tough decisions. Half the government is likely going to need to be laid off for a decade. That may bring us into some area where recovery without disaster is possible. We are going to have to decide if roads and sewers are more important than welfare payments or TSA agents. We need to look at agencies and decide does spending a tax dollar there generate more or less than a dollar in tax revenue coming back.

As to the payroll tax holiday, a lot of people missed the key point in the media circus. The teapublicans wanted a one year extension with a payback plan attached. The voted for it and sent it to the Senate. The other side was violently opposed to a payback plan so they offered a 2 month emergency extension, hoping that they could keep offering extensions so there never would be a payback plan.

As for Medicare, you are right about the foolishness of end of life care. Because people don't pay for it anymore they say do everything. If Granny's estate was paying for it, she would be in a hospice PDQ.

The only way I see for this mess to get taken up and cleaned up is a balanced budget amendment. One that finally sets a zero debt limit, with accrual accounting, except in time of declared war with a draft and actual combat happening. Maybe give two decades from adoption to get there considering the size of the mess we are in.

---

Half the government being laid off -- interesting.

Start at the top paid side of things -- half the generals, half the admirals, half of congress and the senate. Then, to get nice sized numbers, half of the military. DEA could use with a really big cut. Hey, I'm on a roll.

But much of the budget is not in people (I'm sure you know this), it is on the entitlement side of things. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI -- things like that.

If a serious approach to the revenue side (federal taxes as a piece of GDP are at their lowest point since 1950), joined with a serious approach of the expenditure side, there might be a chance. But for now, in the 'I'm right, you're wrong' mode of politics, all we have is one side saying it is 100% expenditures, and the other side saying it is 25% expenditures and 75% revenue. There is no middle ground, and thus, lacking either a Democrat domination (not going to happen) or a TeaPublican domination (I don't see that happening either), we won't get anything done. Now, if compromise and governance were not four letter words, perhaps we'd get something done short of a dictatorship.

You are not going to see a balanced budget amendment -- simply not going to happen -- also it creates its own series of governance issues -- such as responses to war, major disasters, recessions/depressions. But I suspect you know that.

The Democrats proposed to offset the continued payroll holiday with a surcharge on those earning >$1M -- Something I suspect you noticed as well. That went over real well with the TeaPublican crowd -- NOT.

I guess for me, I look at the 2001 Bush tax cuts as a 'tax holiday' -- it was left in place in spite the wars and government deficits. There seemed to be very little inclination to balance that budget then with the elimination of the Bush tax holiday.

So to start with, let's accept as an honest assessment, that neither party has the political will or inclination to balance the budget. Elsewise we simply get lost in a 'he said, he said' waste of effort.

The only way I see for this mess to get taken up and cleaned up is a balanced budget amendment. One that finally sets a zero debt limit, with accrual accounting, except in time of declared war with a draft and actual combat happening. Maybe give two decades from adoption to get there considering the size of the mess we are in.

You are not going to see a balanced budget amendment -- simply not going to happen -- also it creates its own series of governance issues -- such as responses to war, major disasters, recessions/depressions. But I suspect you know that.

The Democrats proposed to offset the continued payroll holiday with a surcharge on those earning >$1M -- Something I suspect you noticed as well. That went over real well with the TeaPublican crowd -- NOT.

I guess for me, I look at the 2001 Bush tax cuts as a 'tax holiday' -- it was left in place in spite the wars and government deficits. There seemed to be very little inclination to balance that budget then with the elimination of the Bush tax holiday.

So to start with, let's accept as an honest assessment, that neither party has the political will or inclination to balance the budget. Elsewise we simply get lost in a 'he said, he said' waste of effort.

The only way I see for this mess to get taken up and cleaned up is a balanced budget amendment. One that finally sets a zero debt limit, with accrual accounting, except in time of declared war with a draft and actual combat happening. Maybe give two decades from adoption to get there considering the size of the mess we are in.

Sure there could be a balanced budget amendment. In times of war and economic troubles the Gov't would just have to massively increase taxes to cover their costs. This of course is unreasonable on its face value. This makes the system we have a better choice.

One amendment we could have it Pay The Debt Down Amendment. When times are good we should be running deficits. If we are then taxes need to be raised or spending cut. In down times its OK to run a bit of a deficit to get things economically rolling again.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The only way I see for this mess to get taken up and cleaned up is a balanced budget amendment. One that finally sets a zero debt limit, with accrual accounting, except in time of declared war with a draft and actual combat happening. Maybe give two decades from adoption to get there considering the size of the mess we are in.

In effect taking a more managed policy approach/control to anything fiscal. But to do so politicians must play second fiddle in the process. Much in the way Germany approaches and controls it's state finance's post WW2 and very successful this approach has been too.

One amendment we could have it Pay The Debt Down Amendment. When times are good we should be running deficits. If we are then taxes need to be raised or spending cut. In down times its OK to run a bit of a deficit to get things economically rolling again.

You should aim to run a surplus in good economical times not deficits. This
then holds-back money to pump back into the economy during the down times.
Once you have to start cutting government spending and also raising tax levels
during the down times will only compound upon the effects the down time is
having on your economy. Running a fiscal deficit in good times means your
most probably pumping too much money into the economy and hence generating a
growth rate that is unsustainable. Much like what happened circa year 2000
with much of this money going straight into banking too leading to the
horrendous banking debacle we have today.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Well there is some merit -- in WW II taxes were increased to deal with some of the additional expense. Prior to the Bush Wars of 2001 and on, taxes were cut to eliminate what was expected to be an ongoing surplus. Unfortunately, those tax cuts were not rescinded when we got into 'permanent war' mode.


"Sure there could be a balanced budget amendment. In times of war and economic troubles the Gov't would just have to massively increase taxes to cover their costs. This of course is unreasonable on its face value. This makes the system we have a better choice. "

..Sure there could be a balanced budget amendment. In times of war and economic troubles the Gov't would just have to massively increase taxes to cover their costs. This of course is unreasonable on its face value....

Sounds quite reasonable to me. It would make the government and the population think a lot more carefully about if a war was really necessary, and the government would have to be a lot more convincing that the WMD's really existed.

T.A.

So to start with, let's accept as an honest assessment, that neither party has the political will or inclination to balance the budget. Elsewise we simply get lost in a 'he said, he said' waste of effort.

I'm not sure that is true. Each party recently has seriously proposed it, to have the other veto it. I believe it has more to do with not wanting the other party to be able to claim a victory in a truly good for America item.

This is perhaps why more than anything else, the Senate should not be elected by the people, but should be elected by the state, as it originally was. Stop the identical special interest bickering of the house and senate and substitute an entirely different set of special interest bickering in the senate. When they are bought for different types of things, those ideas that are good for everyone may get through.

---