A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You ain't Gilligan, no offense. If you had been around back then, when GGG was all full of himself and all, you might have taken Gilligan honors. But you weren't around.

Remind me to get all smug on you more often, Fezzik.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Then state regulation is similarly constrained -- no more, no less.

Then I think what you are saying is that the 2nd Amendment, as applied to the states, has no teeth. That would be fine and good, except it is radically different than the application of the other amendments to the states.

efs

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Then I think what you are saying is that the 2nd Amendment, as applied to the states, has no teeth. That would be fine and good, except it is radically different than the application of the other amendments to the states.

efs

I don't understand why you're making this complicated. In my view, every individual has a right under the Second Amendment to bear arms in connection with militia service. This right protects them from laws -- state or federal -- which would frustrate that right.

When you say that on my view the Second Amendment has "no teeth," you seem to be complaining that it doesn't let people carry guns if they're not part of a militia. But if the point of the Second Amendment is to ensure a "well-regulated militia," what's the beef?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Kevin Drum:

SOCIAL SECURITY AND ME....Matt Yglesias makes an important point about Social Security framing today:

• I'm not sure the older liberals who run the show quite understand how overwhelmingly important it is to keep the "there is no crisis" message front and center in the Social Security debate. Most of the young people I know -- including myself until very recently -- have been taken in by a decades-long effort on behalf of privatizers into believing that Social Security is in "crisis," and that if we do nothing the system will "go bankrupt" before we retire, meaning that the system will somehow collapse and we won't get any benefits.

This is true, and I used to be one of these people too. As a well-informed citizen, I knew that Social Security was unsustainable, that life expectancies were increasing, that fewer workers would be supporting more retirees in the future, and in general, that the program was facing a demographic timebomb that would cause it to go bankrupt within a couple of decades.

This was back in the mid-90s, and for some reason I took an interest in finding out more. So I wrote off for a copy of the trustees report, read up on tax policy and demographic projections, pored through various analyses, and — to my surprise — learned that the problem was either (a) fairly modest and quite solvable or (b) not a problem at all.

Social Security is going to get more expensive over time, but it's not going to keep getting more expensive forever. Starting in about a decade costs will go up, but then, after about 20 years, they'll flatten out. And the size of the increase, from about 4% of GDP to 6% of GDP, just isn't a crisis. What's more, when you start to study the trustees' projections, you realize that even their "intermediate" projection is pretty conservative. It's quite possible that if we leave the system completely alone it will be fine. And even if it's not, there's plenty of time to make the small tweaks necessary to keep it properly funded.

In other words, after actually studying the issue, I changed my opinion almost 180 degrees. Nothing is going bankrupt, benefits will continue to be paid forever, and future funding problems are both modest in size and not that hard to deal with.

Unfortunately, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and now George Bush, each for their own reasons, have found it politically convenient to use Social Security as a useful bogeyman for scaring the public. The difference is that, unlike me back in 1995, they all know better. It's too bad they couldn't have figured out some real problems to focus on instead.

[baltassoc]

How do you solve the problem of 5.3 million Californians without health insurance?

Turn them into felons.

• SACRAMENTO — The concept of requiring all Californians to carry their own health insurance is gaining momentum in the Capitol, as some lawmakers and healthcare advocates see it as a politically viable way to deal with the state's 5.3 million uninsured.
  
  With the November defeat of Proposition 72 halting efforts to require employers to provide healthcare coverage, the concept looks likely to be part of next year's legislative debate. But it faces huge hurdles over how to make it financially feasible for the poor and enforce it.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by baltassoc
How do you solve the problem of 5.3 million Californians without health insurance?

Turn them into felons.

• SACRAMENTO — The concept of requiring all Californians to carry their own health insurance is gaining momentum in the Capitol, as some lawmakers and healthcare advocates see it as a politically viable way to deal with the state's 5.3 million uninsured.
  
  With the November defeat of Proposition 72 halting efforts to require employers to provide healthcare coverage, the concept looks likely to be part of next year's legislative debate. But it faces huge hurdles over how to make it financially feasible for the poor and enforce it.

They could also solve their homeless problem by requiring everyone to buy a home. I don't know why they didn't think of this sooner.

[Gattigap]

The Bull Moose forwards the argument that the Bush Administration, instead of embracing an inauguration that would make Chairman Mao proud, should honor the troops by not having an inauguration at all.

• The Moose recommends an Inauguration that truly honors the armed services.
  
  The official Presidential Inaugural Committee has announced its plan for a $40 million extravaganza. The Washington Times reports,
  
  "The official theme for the events surrounding Mr. Bush's Jan. 20 inauguration is "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service," and was selected to recognize that "we are a nation at war" and to thank the troops who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, said Jeanne Phillips, chairwoman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee."
  
  It appears that the Inauguration will have the usual complement of parties and balls with the lavish funding coming from the coffers of the taxpayers and private corporate donations.
  
  The Moose suggests that since we are at war, perhaps an "Inauguration as Usual" is not appropriate. One of the most striking aspects of this war is that the public has not been asked to sacrifice. So, why doesn't the President send a message to America that this will be a different type of inauguration?
  
  Dispense with all of the hoopla and festivities and direct the private donations that would have gone for the partying to the soldiers and families of those who have been disabled and killed in this war. The President can be sworn in at the Capitol and then address the nation. And in his inaugural address he can ask the nation to contribute to a fund to help wounded troops and the families of those who have lost loved ones.
  
  Somehow it is obscene for party goers to be dancing the Texas Two Step at the Black Tie and Boots Ball while across town young men and women are struggling to walk again at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval.
  
  Please, Mr. President, make this inauguration worthy of the courage of our soldiers and the uniqueness of the moment.

I do not recall our history in inaugurals during other times of war, but this has some instinctive appeal.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The Bull Moose forwards the argument that the Bush Administration, instead of embracing an inauguration that would make Chairman Mao proud, should honor the troops by not having an inauguration at all.

• The Moose recommends an Inauguration that truly honors the armed services.
  
  The official Presidential Inaugural Committee has announced its plan for a $40 million extravaganza. The Washington Times reports,
  
  "The official theme for the events surrounding Mr. Bush's Jan. 20 inauguration is "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service," and was selected to recognize that "we are a nation at war" and to thank the troops who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, said Jeanne Phillips, chairwoman of the Presidential Inaugural Committee."
  
  It appears that the Inauguration will have the usual complement of parties and balls with the lavish funding coming from the coffers of the taxpayers and private corporate donations.
  
  The Moose suggests that since we are at war, perhaps an "Inauguration as Usual" is not appropriate. One of the most striking aspects of this war is that the public has not been asked to sacrifice. So, why doesn't the President send a message to America that this will be a different type of inauguration?
  
  Dispense with all of the hoopla and festivities and direct the private donations that would have gone for the partying to the soldiers and families of those who have been disabled and killed in this war. The President can be sworn in at the Capitol and then address the nation. And in his inaugural address he can ask the nation to contribute to a fund to help wounded troops and the families of those who have lost loved ones.
  
  Somehow it is obscene for party goers to be dancing the Texas Two Step at the Black Tie and Boots Ball while across town young men and women are struggling to walk again at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval.
  
  Please, Mr. President, make this inauguration worthy of the courage of our soldiers and the uniqueness of the moment.

I do not recall our history in inaugurals during other times of war, but this has some instinctive appeal.

I think they are planning on cutting back from past inaugurals a little- one thing- no Presidential blow jobs from interns- and also no obese Senators invited.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
They could also solve their homeless problem by requiring everyone to buy a home. I don't know why they didn't think of this sooner.

They have -- it's just federal, not state. Look for this to be Step 43 of the Ownership Society. Once GWB takes care of this pesky little Social Security thing, he'll get right on it.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
They could also solve their homeless problem by requiring everyone to buy a home. I don't know why they didn't think of this sooner.

Just think what it's going to do for the whole prison overcrowding problem.

Actually, the insurance thing probably wraps most of the homeless problem. How many homeless you think have medical coverage? Once you round up the uninsured and put them in jail, you've really got very few homeless left. And they'll be able to move in cheap to the low-income housing stock left empty.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I think they are planning on cutting back from past inaugurals a little- one thing- no Presidential blow jobs from interns- and also no obese Senators invited.

If there's no fucking of Sharon Stone at the Bush II Redux inagural, it's certainly GWB's prerogative, but to me it sounds like that's Bush's loss.

[Gattigap]

[Replaced_Texan]

But-for-the-paperwork marriages seem to be the new thing.

In the interest of sanctity, the Social Security Administration will not acknowledge any marriage from New Paltz, New York. One of those brides could have had a dick, you know.

Jesus fucking Christ.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
But-for-the-paperwork marriages seem to be the new thing.

In the interest of sanctity, the Social Security Administration will not acknowledge any marriage from New Paltz, New York. One of those brides could have had a dick, you know.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Uh, how does the female half of a straight couple married in SF get her name changed with the SSA? I like this, because I hate when people fucking change their fucking names, but given the popularity of the practice, this seems problematic.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
They have -- it's just federal, not state. Look for this to be Step 43 of the Ownership Society. Once GWB takes care of this pesky little Social Security thing, he'll get right on it.

Funny to pin it on Bush when the DEMs control the capital here.