Explain Glen Beck - Page 3 - Mountain Buzz
 



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-03-2010   #21
 
Grand Junction, Colorado
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 434
blutzski,
Obviously you don't understand just how bad our debt problem is at this point. Even without the wars, we're in way over our heads with the big 3 entitlements. We're on track to have a deficit of 4 times our GDP annually. We need social services cuts, war cuts, and tax increases to barely stay afloat. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010   #22
 
El Flaco's Avatar
 
Golden, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1984
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,879
Cutting the wars won't do it all, unfortunately. It will help, but not to the degree which Walker claims is necessary.

Congressional Budget Office - The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020

Click on "Reduce troops in Iraq & Afghanistan to 30,000" link below the graph.

Again, the "Menu of Delayed Pain". I'll give Beck credit for introducing me to that term. but I must deduct 96% for an obtuse disregard for understanding its message.

Fun fact: One of only 3 republicans to vote yesterday to extend just the middle class tax cuts was Dr. Ron Paul.
El Flaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010   #23
 
Golden, Colorado
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,012
I mentioned cutting the wars in response to Outwaw stating we can't extend the tax cuts while we have two wars going on. No, scaling back two wars won't get our financial house in order. But closing all our military bases around the world and focusing on having a strong national defence instead of occupying and bullying the rest for the world will. We have 700 military bases around the world costing us TRILLIONS. Why do we need bases in places like Japan and Germany? What would we think if China had a base in Tenessee? WAKE UP OUTLAW! I'm not supporting one more dime in taxes until that shit stops.
blutzski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010   #24
 
Golden, Colorado
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Flaco View Post
I guess the current "conservative" mantra provides that we trust government officials to finally constraint the spending if the purse string are tightened, but anyone with a shred of realism would have to acknowledge that 'starving the beast' is purely a political term and in no way a reasonable means of addressing entitlement reform.
Josh, you would have to convince me that Government, once given power, ever relinquishes it voluntarily before I would agree with that. The only reason government is now considering deficit reduction is that they have no other choice. Our path is unsustainable. Give them more taxes and you just take the pressure off. 50% of my income (considering income taxes, sales taxes, social security tax, medicare tax, real estate taxes, capital gains tax, on and on) is enough. That's all they get. Time for them to make the cuts. I'll let them start with the military before getting to the unpopular decisions.

Or what I would agree with is they come up with a plan to cut spending that is signed into law first. Then, if they have made all the cuts possible, we could then agree to make up the difference in a tax increase. Otherwise we would just be putting our faith in a system that has done nothing to earn our faith and which created the whole mess to begin with.
blutzski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010   #25
 
Bay Area, California
Paddling Since: 1998
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by blutzski View Post
I mentioned cutting the wars in response to Outwaw stating we can't extend the tax cuts while we have two wars going on. No, scaling back two wars won't get our financial house in order. But closing all our military bases around the world and focusing on having a strong national defence instead of occupying and bullying the rest for the world will. We have 700 military bases around the world costing us TRILLIONS. Why do we need bases in places like Japan and Germany? What would we think if China had a base in Tenessee? WAKE UP OUTLAW! I'm not supporting one more dime in taxes until that shit stops.
yes!!! liquidate the american empire!

it's nice to see an informed citizen who can acknowledge one of the biggest problems facing america right now -- the costs of maintaining an empire. this problem is entirely ignored by the corporate mainstream media and the politicians who serve the military-industrial-complex. so it is no wonder to me why so few americans understand (or are even aware) of the vast american empire that exists and the costs to continue operating this empire. omission of facts is a wonderful tool to keep people in the dark.

a few minor corrections on your comment:
- the american gov't (not we, cuz how much say do us citizen really have in this matter) has 823 military bases in other people's countries (not including the ones they have in iraq and afghanistan) and 86 more in US territories.

here is a good book review article that touches on the costs of maintaining the empire. chalmers johnson (who wrote this book review and recently just died) also has three amazing books on the american empire. they are so worth the read. i haven't had the chance to read the book that chalmers is reviewing.
A_Visceral_Revolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010   #26
 
Grand Junction, Colorado
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by blutzski View Post
I mentioned cutting the wars in response to Outwaw stating we can't extend the tax cuts while we have two wars going on. No, scaling back two wars won't get our financial house in order. But closing all our military bases around the world and focusing on having a strong national defence instead of occupying and bullying the rest for the world will. We have 700 military bases around the world costing us TRILLIONS. Why do we need bases in places like Japan and Germany? What would we think if China had a base in Tenessee? WAKE UP OUTLAW! I'm not supporting one more dime in taxes until that shit stops.

Dude!! yes, we should begin closing all these bases, but the budget killer is actually entitlements such as social security, medicare, and medicaid. These three entitlements will amount to 80 percent of the US budget within the next 20 years. This is our real problem!
Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2010   #27
 
Bay Area, California
Paddling Since: 1998
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw View Post
..but the budget killer is actually entitlements such as social security, medicare, and medicaid. These three entitlements will amount to 80 percent of the US budget within the next 20 years. This is our real problem!
whether or not your statement is the total truth depends on which economists you choose to believe. when reading a report from an economist (or any article that pushes an economic slant) you should ask yourself two questions: 1) who is funding the economist? 2) who benefits from the results of their theories?

and it is safe to say that just because an economist is a professor at an ivy league school doesn't equate to them being right. for example: harvard has an endowment of $25 billion, Yale $15 billion, Stanford $12 billion. why do people and corporations donate this type of money to these schools? what do these donors expect in return? are we to really think that this type of money won't come with a few strings attached?

hell, here is a wonderful example of a harvard economist in action:

n. gregory manikow was a professor of econ at harvard and was appointed as bush's second chairman of the council of economic advisors (cea). bush's first cea chairman was glenn hubbard, a professor at columbia, who pushed through bush's first tax cut on corporate dividends and capital gains because he believed it would promote investment in america. how's that working out for us? but let's get back to manikow: manikow actually argued that the act of making a hamburger (yes, the dude making your hamburger at burger king) should be classified as a 'production' job, and not a service job. seriously. they decided that a dude who puts lettuce, tomato and onions on your burger should be put into the same classification of a person who is making a car. why? to make the stats for american production not look so fucking dismal in the day and age of outsourcing.

or, take a look at how a team of economists changed the methodology for calculating the unemployment rate, or the consumer price index -- all for padding the stats to make it look like everything is just fine and dandy in america. woot woot! america is number 1!

and we sit here and wonder why people listen to and agree with glen beck? maybe it's because nobody else is giving them answers that make sense. and while beck is giving his audience crazy, shallow, and mis-leading answers, they at least match the emotional tonality of how americans are feeling - pissed off cuz something ain't right! and the happy-go-lucky-always-stay-rational-lacking-real-emotions, you know, the yuppies, just don't make sense right now.

anyway. these are the type of things our 'top' mainstream economists are peddling these days. if big money funds their 'research' you can bet that the policies and theories they come up with will directly benefit their donors. you can also bet that if they are getting a ton of airtime on corporate news channels and print they will 'never bite the hand that feeds them.' and, just because they work for the gov't surely doesn't equate to them being non-biased (as the example of bush's appointments of cea's can prove. and, don't even get me started on who obama appointed to his economic team). plus, time and time again the same people who are getting it absolutely wrong again and again and again, are the same people who get the most airtime on corporate news (surprise!), and who are same the fucktards who are now telling us that we need to get rid of social security and medicare to solve the 'real problem'. hmmm... why is that? and, just so you know, there are economists who have been getting it right for decades. michael hudson, paul craig roberts, peter schiff, ravi batra, joseph stiglitz, simon johnson, robert reich are a few people off hand (all of varying political stances) who have been getting it right for awhile now. so there are people we can listen to - if we STOP LISTENING to the hacks who continually get it wrong just because they are able to dominate the corporately controlled airwaves with THEIR neatly crafted talking points.

well, let's get back to social security and medicare.

i think your statement is missing some valuable information. why has social security and medicare become a problem? now, this in itself opens up a debate from the numerous sides of the political spectrum. but, again, i would point you back to the two questions that should be asked when reading a report from an economist. also, would any of these economists or media pundits bother to ask questions about who jimmy rigged the social security fund to allow them to blow it on general gov't spending (823 military bases), unnecessary wars and bailouts? this earmarked tax wasn't supposed to be spent this way ya know?

i think it is important to dig a little deeper to see which group of people are the ones pushing the 'we need to cut social security and medicare' meme. and forget about the bought and paid for politicians - the majority of these jackasses are in the back pockets of the certain groups of people who are shoving this meme down our throats!

here is a head start on the digging: read this article and tell us that you already knew about how the social security fund had been robbed by previous presidential administrations and their teams of economic advisors. tell us that the american people should suffer by losing the social safety net that they paid into their ENTIRE LIVES because a group of ruling oligarchs have been fucking robbing the working men and women of this country.

the article was written by a former assistant secretary of the US treasury under the reagan admin, so he kind of has an idea of what happens behind the curtains.
excerpt:
Quote:
We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.
i'm sorry to come down on you like this, and i'm sorry for my potty mouth. but i'm tired of hearing people regurgitate the ridiculous memes that continue to fuck over the good hard working people of america, while enriching the fucking bastards that are STEALING from you and I --- IN BROAD FUCKING DAYLIGHT!

So, yes! Let us all WAKE THE FUCK UP!
A_Visceral_Revolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2010   #28
 
Grand Junction, Colorado
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 434
I don't support cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid. I'm merely saying that we CAN'T cut taxes for millionaires in a time when we have squandered money in past generations. I know that there has been an astronomical amount of money squandered in the past, but the question today is whether we sit idle or do something to fix the problem. Instead of sitting around bitching about it, I'd like to do what is necessary to save these programs. This is why I believe that tax increases and contraction of government are absolutely necessary while we still have a choice in the matter.
Outlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2010   #29
 
DurangoSteve's Avatar
 
Durango, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2001
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by basil View Post
Can someone out there explain the appeal to Glen Beck? He clearly is popular in some circles. But, I don't get it. Please explain.

Thanks.
PT Barnum explained it.
__________________
You can never step into the same river; for new waters are always flowing on to you. - Heraclitus of Ephesus
DurangoSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2010   #30
 
BoscoBoater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 233
Ha! Best answer yet!
BoscoBoater is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
someone please explain this to me. bobbuilds The Eddy 6 03-31-2009 01:14 PM
Can someone explain the St Vrain gauges to me? deepsouthpaddler Whitewater Kayaking 2 06-17-2008 04:34 PM
Strainer @ Glen Edan Bridgeon the Elk rivergirl1974 River Access & Safety Alerts! 1 06-17-2008 09:35 AM
Can somebody explain pro and con of Amendemnt 38? brendodendo The Eddy 4 11-05-2006 11:04 PM
Can anyone explain the difference in Taylor Dam and Altmont? thecraw Whitewater Kayaking 7 05-25-2006 12:46 AM

» Classified Ads
Race skis

posted by VACO

I have five pair of race skis that my kids have out grown. ...

New Zeland whitewater...

posted by go-with-the-Flo

Get ready to paddle in New Zeland with the New Zeland...

Used Jackson Karma RG

posted by 4CRS

Used 2016 Jackson Karma RG whitewater expedition kayak -...

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.