[Shinrei]

"I am not disagreeing with your assessment regarding fiscal irregularities, I just reckon that the budget allocation for Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare is going to nosedive and David Walkers sole job is to create such Hysteria, that people will just roll over and accept it. The only people that are going to suffer is the poor and young families, but thats okay, because they don't have pressure groups, but are the very people that rely on these benefits. So why not include Defense in there, I bet there is mountains of cash at stake? Also, they crapped on the idea that growth might be able to alleviate the problem, but failed to show any data on that either."

Why in the world are you assuming this? I'm not saying I accept Walkers at face value, but why the conspiracy belief?

[frookenhauer]

Shinrei no Shintai;361045 said:

Why in the world are you assuming this? I'm not saying I accept Walkers at face value, but why the conspiracy belief?

There is very little doubt in my mind that the words that leave Walker mouth serve the policy makers and their future intentions. If they did not, then they would have defended themselves by now, instead they have remained silent. He is almost certainly paving the way for some harsh reforms.

All his criticisms are aimed at the three evils of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Whether its a slash and burn or even a freezing of increases that takes place in the coming decades, people are going to get hard done by it.

By going 'rebel' and highlighting these issues as the key to Americas fiscal future, he has effectively distanced himself from the policy makers and given himself and his ideas a 'glamour' if you will, also he's gained credibility by being allied to the institutions he tours with. Very sophisticated and very slick in his operation. He's clever, but would he be able to pull all this off on his own without help?

His disregard of growth the fact that he doesn't include it in his calculations doesn't improve his credibility rating with me. The reason is that his opponents, those pesky rogue economists, have said that growth has a major impact on his findings, yet all he does is state that these people know nothing about economics and cant do arithmetic, wow, guess he showed them, great analysis Dave especially since you obviously don't know that the percentage values in a pie chart should really add up to 100.

These are the reasons why I think hes a cipher, a g-man accountant. But why do all this? What purpose can all this possibly serve? Here is a scenario that might fit:

Fiscal mess, loads of debt, big trouble...
What can we cut?
Defense? hell no! Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? Why not?
The people will riot man. Blood in the streets. My mom will hate me.
Okay, how do we warm them up, prep them for it?
Don't worry I have a plan...

A conspiracy? Who the hell knows, I'm only guessing. I could be wrong, its happened before and will probably happen again.

[Shinrei]

For the record, I think you're wrong.

"the words that leave Walker mouth serve the policy makers and their future intentions"

What policy makers? What future intentions? The congress currently is democrat, with a very popular democrat knocking at the white house door. They want to ADD programs like nationalized health care, not get rid of them. The bureaucrats? They don't want to give up their management (mismanagement?) of social security and medicare which would surely mean the loss of their jobs.

For my purposes, if I want to believe in a conspiracy theory, try this:

Other than this 60 minute piece, where have you come across Walker in the news?

That's right, no where. I'd never even heard of the guy, nor heard of him since that 60 minute bit. He isn't marginalized, he's non-existant. Just like Ron Paul, the only people making fiscal sense these days are swept under the rug as irrelevant and fringe elements who aren't to be taken seriously.

Benefits bestowed by the government = control. This control benefits the republicans as well as democrats. Neither want to give this up. Walker can run around the US talking to rooms filled with 20 people until he's blue in the face, and nothing will change.

THAT, is a scenario far more likely than what you're talking about.

[frookenhauer]

Shinrei no Shintai;361814 said:

For the record, I think you're wrong.

Straight back at you baby. Looks like I aint going to convince you and you aint going to convince me. It was an interesting topic and both of us have said our piece. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Long live Obama!

[frookenhauer]

Damn it Shinrei, I was ready to call it evens, but you wanted to revive this thread, so be it!

Shinrei no Shintai;361814 said:

What policy makers? What future intentions?

The future intentions are either to reduce spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, or at the very least freeze increases as I have already stated, do keep up, its usually a good idea to read all the post before replying .

In Britain, we have the prime minister in charge of the country, with him are his cabinet of ministers. Policies and Laws and such like are debated in parliment and also the house of lords. This is the apex of all decision making in the UK. In the next stage we have the senior civil servants and their respective departments. We did not appoint these people. These are the people that carry out executive orders, but also these are the people that advise the ministers, they are the people that provide information to the people who lead us. Our government does not get its information from CNN or BBC, its the senior civil servants who decide what gets noticed and what can be sidelined or even ignored by clever use of reports. Our leadership is forced to use these methods because they are too busy to have a look at everything themselves. Thats a hell of a lot of power given to a person and then combine that with the relative anonymity of not being in the limelight. Its a heady combination, no? These are the people I would describe as the policy makers, what is their counterpart in the States?

The policies of the policymakers: These people aren't dumb, in fact they are some of the brightest people in society, the elite if you prefer. They have to be, to get to the positions they are in. They might even have had to compromise themselves in some way to attain their positions, but that is beside the point.
They realize that the USA is heading towards fiscal meltdown, the need to save money and reduce the deficit is the order of the day, but what to do?

Reduce the military budget? (call it defense if you want) Hell no! Too many pissed off people and countries around to want to do any of that.
Reduce intelligence spending? Hell no! Look what happened the last time.
Trim the budgets and the workforce of our institutions? Er, no! I like my job, do you realize how much sh1t I ate to get this job, how many stabbed backs?

Eventually the decision was made to pick the softest of the targets (Reasons already stated, so please do not ask for clarification ). Don't worry about their buddies that run the institutions, they are just trying to cut spending by reducing benefits, not infrastructure and jobs. A pretty deft maneuver, because there are no howls of protest coming from Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are there?

Shinrei no Shintai;361814 said:

Other than this 60 minute piece, where have you come across Walker in the news?

Pretty much every where on the net. And that I think is the key, because who spends more and more time on the net than any other demographic. The young, the people in their early twenties, and even some in their thirties. And this covers the rich and poor. Its a targeted campaign aimed at us, and some of us are buying it. David Walker needs you!
In terms of his campaigns real world impact, I believe he is gaining momentum. Today its sixty minutes, so who knows what will happen next in TV. Its just not sexy enough yet and there are no bodies attached, so no prime time slots for him just yet.

Shinrei no Shintai;361814 said:

Walker can run around the US talking to rooms filled with 20 people until he's blue in the face, and nothing will change..

But look at the 'quality' of those twenty people. His speeches are at the town halls, where city officials sit, who end up talking to their wives and husbands, who talk to the maids, who talk about it to...The best way to start people talking about a subject is to go to the top of the pile and start the stories there. Like I said, very clever and very slick.

And finally its the company he keeps:

The concord coalition: An institution that considers itself the moral champion of ending The deficit spending and promoting a balanced budget. It was founded by ex senators and continues to be run by them. Should have used a better style for their website, it looks a bit sh1t. Don't mess with them, an ex Navy SEAL is the co chair

The Brookings Institute, one of Americas oldest think tanks, recently criticized for its support of the Bush presidencies foreign policies and administration position, ho hum. They are also noted for being on Nixons' 'enemies' list. Their website is very slick and pretty informative, they've obviously used a better quality of web designers, concord take note!

The heritage foundation is also a think tank, fairly new and is noted for supporting G W Bush's administrations almost wholeheartedly. B@stards. "Heritage's influence is also due in part to its decision to publish shorter policy papers that are designed to convey usually complex topics in an executive summary format more likely to be read by governmental officials. Other Washington think tanks historically have produced lengthier publications or book-length works, which Heritage also publishes, but only rarely." Sounds very familiar to our senior civil servants job, doesn't it? their website is also very slick, but from their title, do they consider themselves kingmakers?

He certainly keeps fine company. Not exactly at the fringes is he? Nor is he marginalized. The campaign is in it for the long haul and I predict that the campaign will reach its climax within a decade. Watch this space.

Thoughts?

[Shinrei]

You make a convincing case. I don't have the time to really get into a big reply as I'm off to a study group session, but I have to ask,

How do you identify the ultimate goal as cutting social security and medicare except through speculation? Walker doesn't actually say in that 60 minute piece that we need to cut those items, or even scale them back. He just points out that government-wide fiscal irresponsibility will make it difficult to honor those programs. And don't say, "well, the conclusion is obvious" because although it is a possible conclusion, it doesn't make it any more obvious than any number of other possibilities such as he's merely on a campaign for fiscal responsibility. The main message I took from that piece when I watched it was the government needs to get its books in order, cut spending, and spend more wisely. That combined with sustained economic growth could at least keep the status quo even if we're technically bankrupt. (except I happen to already think we're bankrupt, only the US brand name is keeping us afloat) But I guess I'm always an optimist.

Except when I'm a pessimist, as in the results of peak oil wiping out our easy living standards long before those programs would need to be cut...

[frookenhauer]

I am beginning to understand the inner workings of your mind, don't ask, means ask etc. How did you survive this long? crossing streets must have been a real problem, I mean don't walk...

Shinrei no Shintai;363316 said:

.., but I have to ask,

How do you identify the ultimate goal as cutting social security and medicare except through speculation? Walker doesn't actually say in that 60 minute piece that we need to cut those items, or even scale them back. He just points out that government-wide fiscal irresponsibility will make it difficult to honor those programs. And don't say, "well, the conclusion is obvious" because although it is a possible conclusion, it doesn't make it any more obvious than any number of other possibilities such as he's merely on a campaign for fiscal responsibility.

For me it seems to be the bottom line of all his arguments, I came to this conclusion after watching those two badly dubbed youtube videos:

http://www.youtube.c....eature=related
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3ngGtnp6COU

He states that there need to be reforms in these big three entitlements, also highlighted was taxation reforms too. The emphasis is always on 'the big three' and statements were made that they do not want to increase tax to European levels, which will lead to stagnant growth.

If you need help sleeping, it might be an idea to look at a typical university presentation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-uVw7iXDAk&feature=related

It really is dry stuff, but one thing has come out of flicking through it. They are not trying to cut doctors pay in their reform plan, but are going to try and reduce the types of operations that would be allowed under present entitlements.

Wiki's summary of the fiscal wake up tour is the same as mine, only its better explained:

Quote

Since the Tour's inception in 2005, the team has spoken in over 40 cities[1], stressing such concerns as:

* The combination of the "big three" entitlements – Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid – will double from the current 8 percent of GDP to 15 percent when today’s newborn graduates from college, to nearly 20 percent of GDP when today's college graduate reaches retirement in 2050.[2]
* The unfunded federal future obligations of the federal government are now the equivalent of a mortgage of over $50 trillion ($38.8 trillion of which is due to Medicare and Social Security). This translates into a financial burden of $170,000 for each American.[3]

* Without reform of entitlements, balancing the budget would mean driving up taxes to European level within a generation at the risk of European economic stagnation.[4]

A lot better. hope this helps.

Long live Obama! I love Gore!

[Shinrei]

I think my problem is that you've presented your conclusion like it's obvious, and your case is compelling and holds together logically. I think I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the thought that they could actually get away with this, no matter how they try to obfuscate it now and run a PR campaign.

Are you really predicting that far of a shift in the thinking of the american people that they could be convinced that social security and medicare have to be cut or else? If anything, popular thought is drifting more towards having the government take on more and more money/programs/responsibility and damn the fiscal consequences. Your idea of a nose dive into hysteria... that sounds more like it would spark a major economic meltdown which might lead to the programs being cut, but would probably wipe out far more people than the poor like you suggest.

What makes it sound so conspiratorial is your conclusion as to why policy makers haven't spoken out against Walker's assertions. Doesn't this preclude, as co-conspirators, that they actually agree with him and want his dire predictions to pass? Somehow I find that hard to agree with. I think many/most in washington don't want to see anything bad happen to social security and medicare, but the fiscal responsibility is an 800 pound gorilla in the room (or 2 ton squid if you watch Family Guy), that no one knows what to do with and are helpless to talk about it. Business as usual, and let's hope it blows up in the next guy's face...

Edited to add: I've also had to re-read your posts a couple of times, and I'm still probably glossing something over that I shouldn't. I don't know, I think all my studying broke my brain. I'm not intentionally being dense, and I'm not an idiot, I swear!

[frookenhauer]

Shinrei no Shintai;363423 said:

I think my problem is that you've presented your conclusion like it's obvious, and your case is compelling and holds together logically. I think I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the thought that they could actually get away with this, no matter how they try to obfuscate it now and run a PR campaign.

If anything, my conclusion has been toned down from outright cutting off benefits to merely reducing/freezing increases purely by continuation of this debate. I actually think a consensus is close . The key word that comes round again and again is reform. The Fiscal Tour uses the word reform in conjunction with the high costs of benefits and that led me to the conclusion that cuts were what they were driving at. The uber boring university presentation corroborates this idea by stating that they want restrictions on what operations should be covered by medicare/medicaid. I'd probably be able to cite some more examples if I had the constitution to sit through an hour and a half of tedium, but I don't. Feel free to have a go yourself, the link is on the last post.

Shinrei no Shintai;363423 said:

Are you really predicting that far of a shift in the thinking of the american people that they could be convinced that social security and medicare have to be cut or else? If anything, popular thought is drifting more towards having the government take on more and more money/programs/responsibility and damn the fiscal consequences. Your idea of a nose dive into hysteria... that sounds more like it would spark a major economic meltdown which might lead to the programs being cut, but would probably wipe out far more people than the poor like you suggest.

I think that it may be because of the popular thought with regards to money/programs/responsibility, which has made it more necessary to create the fiscal tour (to create hysteria => nosedive in budget allocation, see post ). Its not so much shifting their way of thinking, but making them come to accept it as something that needs to be done, I'm thinking boils and lances.

Shinrei no Shintai;363423 said:

What makes it sound so conspiratorial is your conclusion as to why policy makers haven't spoken out against Walker's assertions. Doesn't this preclude, as co-conspirators, that they actually agree with him and want his dire predictions to pass? Somehow I find that hard to agree with. I think many/most in washington don't want to see anything bad happen to social security and medicare, but the fiscal responsibility is an 800 pound gorilla in the room (or 2 ton squid if you watch Family Guy), that no one knows what to do with and are helpless to talk about it. Business as usual, and let's hope it blows up in the next guy's face...

I think you're taking the wrong route here, they do not want the fiscal problems to grow, the last thing they want to happen is economic meltdown. The plan is designed to head off the problem and the sacrifice needed has been chosen to be the big three. Fukk me, they sound like patriots and I bet in their minds they think they are, they are out to save the unwashed masses from their own stupidity and excess.

Here endeth the plot. If you want this to continue please watch the full university video and after you have woken up we'll continue

I recently read somewhere that the gulfstream has slowed, if this has something to do with desalinisation of the atlantic are we going to be in deep sh1t soon? Just like in the day after tomorrow. Its cold enough here in the UK as it is.

Long live Obama

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Yeah, if we screw up the gulfstream we''re doomed. Bad things, man. Bad things.

[HoosierDaddy]

Want to know why Republicans win elections?

I went to the bookstore about 30 minutes ago, and I was browsing the "newly arrived" section. There were at least 4 books by Conservative authors and members of Republican think tanks, want to know their jist? Here you go:

1. Obama is a radical leftist, has long ties to islamic terrorism, and is very close to the Chicago political machine and their corruptions. #3, while a stretch is okay. Numbers 1 and 2 are stupid.

2. The government is stealing your money, here is why liberals and democrats are to blame. I actually nearly vomited reading this.

3. Obama has ties to communists and communist groups.

4. "Obama: The left and its Cult of Personality": Obama has zero experience, and the only reason he won the nomination is because the media was so biased against Hillary.

Want to know what the leftist books were?
1. A plan to get out of the Middle East
2. A book about Obama, a kind of biography.

That's it.

That is why Democrats lose elections.
1. Conservatives do not give a shit about telling the truth, it is all about winning.
2. Democrats and liberals do not hit back, the market place of ideas is crowded by idiots like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly (whose new book is "Culture Warrior" *puke), and the conservatives from the New Republic and other Conservative think tanks whose only job is to win elections.

[Terez]

orily's new book is on my dad's coffee table. It makes me want to puke every time I see it.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez;365650 said:

orily's new book is on my dad's coffee table. It makes me want to puke every time I see it.

Do you classify your father, outside familial obligations, as "the enemy"?

Thank god all my family members are liberal. Not liberal like me, but at least on the side of good.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy;365686 said:

Do you classify your father, outside familial obligations, as "the enemy"?

No, he's my dad. Just because his way of looking at the world is completely different from mine doesn't make him my enemy.

HD said:

Thank god all my family members are liberal. Not liberal like me, but at least on the side of good.

I live in Mississippi. NOBODY is liberal here. Most of the Democrats are Dixiecrats or the substantial black population of the south, and the southern blacks aren't really all that liberal in general. And I don't really care all that much that it's sort of taboo to generalize when it comes to race, because in this case it's true. There are only a shortlist of things that are important to the vast majority of voters (of all races), and obviously civil rights are going to be a priority for southern black folks in particular, and since that priority tends to outweigh most else, they vote for liberal candidates. For example, our vote on the amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage passed 86%-14%, and it was on the ballot with the 2004 presidential race, where Al Gore got a fairly substantial percentage of the vote, which I am too lazy to calculate but estimate to be at around a third of the total vote.

So yeah...the only really liberal people here are a few crazy people like me. Most of my profs at school are pretty liberal but that's because they largely come from Elsewhere.

[HoosierDaddy]

Terez;365691 said:

No, he's my dad. Just because his way of looking at the world is completely different from mine doesn't make him my enemy.


I live in Mississippi. NOBODY is liberal here. Most of the Democrats are Dixiecrats or the substantial black population of the south, and the southern blacks aren't really all that liberal in general. And I don't really care all that much that it's sort of taboo to generalize when it comes to race, because in this case it's true. There are only a shortlist of things that are important to the vast majority of voters (of all races), and obviously civil rights are going to be a priority for southern black folks in particular, and since that priority tends to outweigh most else, they vote for liberal candidates. For example, our vote on the amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage passed 86%-14%, and it was on the ballot with the 2004 presidential race, where Al Gore got a fairly substantial percentage of the vote, which I am too lazy to calculate but estimate to be at around a third of the total vote.

So yeah...the only really liberal people here are a few crazy people like me. Most of my profs at school are pretty liberal but that's because they largely come from Elsewhere.

Bah, I'm drunk and that came off poorly. What I meant is do you get into intellectual debates/non-argumental arguments with your pops.

I live in Indiana, the most damned Southern state in the North. I'm surrounded by conservatives. If I saw an Orally book on somebody's coffee table I'd ask them why they owned it, and if they've read it. If they said yes to either question, I'd not bother ever talking politics with them, because they have been brainwashed.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I've said it before, Republicans are good at politics and getting elected, but are no good when they actually get there. Democrats suck at politics and getting elected, but if they do manage to get in they do what i consider a good job most of the time.

I'm the only liberal in my entire family, that's counting in-laws, grandparents, everyone other than my wife. It leads to problems. I got an email form my brother in law last night that was one sentence long: "You're not going to vote for Obama are you?"

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy;365693 said:

Bah, I'm drunk and that came off poorly. What I meant is do you get into intellectual debates/non-argumental arguments with your pops.

Every now and then. They usually end with him hyperventilating so I try to avoid them these days. He's not used to having his religious beliefs in particular questioned, because most people around here just don't do that, lol. Even the ones that aren't religious for the most part are not about to try to get into a debate with anyone about it...

[HoosierDaddy]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;365700 said:

"You're not going to vote for Obama are you?"

Well, I guess in your family RLY you need to be tactful, seeing as how you are outnumberd 20+:1. I say, as a Stocking Stuffer, you purchase a digital edition of The Audacity of Hope, and print it off about 25 times for those family members.

I hate the U.S. sometimes.

@Terez: That entire post explains everything I needed to know. The mixture of politics and religion is one of the most easily accepted and easily combustible combinations. You can't mix the two and have debates. One side, in my opinion, quickly becomes heretical.

I hate the U.S. even more sometimes.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I remember when I told my dad I was planning on voting for Kerry. He turned red and started shaking. I've never seen him that upset at me. He was pissed.

[Optimus Prime]

I can't name one member of my family who isn't liberal. My dad told me two rules for the woman I marry.

1. She can't smoke or chew tobacco
2. No god damn Republicans.

Seriously, you mention Bush's name and my dad has a near apoplectic fit.