Glenn Beck news on bombings in Boston

[Domina Nostra]

If you looked at the government like a charity, and your tax dollars as contributions...how much overhead from the charity is ok with you before you shake your head and find a different one. Federal Government has great intentions but lacks the ability to deliver because 1) they underpay compared to industry . . .

I've always heard the federal goverenment overpays everyone except the most highly educated. In other words, unless you are a doctor, lawyer, or PhD, goverenment is a sweet gig:

Chart of the Day: Federal Government Pay vs. Private Sector Pay | Mother Jones

 

[phgreek]

I've always heard the federal goverenment overpays everyone except the most highly educated. In other words, unless you are a doctor, lawyer, or PhD, goverenment is a sweet gig:

Chart of the Day: Federal Government Pay vs. Private Sector Pay | Mother Jones

depends...this is a cut of data which looks at education. Fair enough. But remember the part where years of service = increase or "step" pay. Since the government folks are an older workforce, that drives up the numbers...if you could look at that bar chart with both degree and years of service lined up, it would look different in most cases. In the case of engineering and IT folks the government has tried to close the gap over the last decade, but they aren't there.

I have always been able to hire civilians away from government, and they usually end up between 20 and 30% better off.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Yes, because a degree in Art history makes you "educated"

Progressives are the most hypocritical people on the planet. Progress to them is for everyone to think and act like them...or else you're slapped with some label.

Congrats. You're the MTV party, nothing more.

Actually, I don't know anyone who has watched MTV since 2002. I don't believe we are their demo. But this is what I mean about perception. So far in this thread alone we have had progressives labeled as terrorist sympathizers, radical feminists, and now the "MTV" party. I couldn't name one show on MTV (unless the Real World still exists, which I doubt), and I would rather set myself on fire than watch 30 minutes of MTV. The other side is also fond of calling us communists or socialists, which if you knew what I did for a living would seem just as absurd as calling me a terrorist sympathizer.

So when I am dismissive of what you're saying, you have to understand that from my perspective it appears that you really don't know what you are talking about, and it reinforces the idea that is shared among a lot of young, city dwelling professionals that right wingers are out of touch and believe the crazy ideas being fed to them by the snakeoil salesmen in the right wing media.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...tis true. But truth be told I am guilty of unfair reps distribution to those with whom I agree...don't follow the other part though.

Oh, I'm just as guilty -- just pointing it out. It is a little awkward though when people rep someone they agree with, and then put it in a comment too, "Reps!". As if we're all here competing for their reps and that particular comment "won".

 

[autry_denson]

Reality is, government CANNOT add efficiency to ANY process wherein cost is assigned to their "service". If you looked at the government like a charity, and your tax dollars as contributions...how much overhead from the charity is ok with you before you shake your head and find a different one. Federal Government has great intentions but lacks the ability to deliver because...
...not the Best...you gotta be kidding. If you could concoct a situation that would lead to failure in business...well you know where this is headed...

I don't think anyone considers our system of governance to be particularly efficient, and we all understand that it is not perfect. But then many of us recognize that the alternative of a decentralized system without extensive regulation is also problematic, as it entails all kinds of market inefficiencies and failures that no one wants. We should all recognize that a centralized government does some things extremely well - e.g. how often do we think about the fact that the elderly used to be the most vulnerable segment of the population with the highest rates of extreme poverty, and now the elderly are probably the most secure segment of the population with the lowest rates? That's government policy at work. And we should all understand that the current system is wildly inefficient in many ways, and is often distorted by our unique system of interest-group politics and our imperfect system of federalism.

That said, even if no one loves our system I think most agree that it's dramatically better than virtually any other system that's ever been invented in human history.

With that as a backdrop, instead of just railing against what's in place let's think for a minute about some alternatives to our system of governance.

For progressives, social democracies like those in Scandinavia are often seen as closer to the ideal form of government. They have less extreme poverty, better health, better education systems, more mobility than the US. As a tradeoff, they are not particularly efficient in many cases, they have heavy tax burdens and more of a communitarian style of life. For those who believe that government should be primarily focused on promoting society-wide goals like reducing extreme poverty, opening up opportunity, enhancing education and improving health, these countries are a model b/c they do a better job than the US of achieving all of these goals. But they are not ideal and have tremendous faults and problems, which is why many progressives might not actually choose to push our country in that direction.

What are the best models for conservatives or libertarians that actually exist in the world? What are the advantages of moving toward these models and what are the disadvantages?

 

[NDFan4Life]

I watched Beck only once. That was to see an interview he had with Marcus Luttrell.

I think Beck's a pompous ***.

 

[irishpat183]

The problem is, with the evolution of social media and other outlets is that the blowhards and shock jocks have even more ways to reach more people. Guys like Beck, love him or hate him, are extremely popular and accessible these days.

Hell, for all the hate towards Rush limpballs, he's probably the most listened too radio personality. the dude is a ratings monster.


Because Americans love this sh*t. Doesn't matter your poltical affiliation. You will want to hear what Glenn says on this issue.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't think anyone considers our system of governance to be particularly efficient, and we all understand that it is not perfect. But then many of us recognize that the alternative of a decentralized system without extensive regulation is also problematic, as it entails all kinds of market inefficiencies and failures that no one wants. We should all recognize that a centralized government does some things extremely well - e.g. how often do we think about the fact that the elderly used to be the most vulnerable segment of the population with the highest rates of extremely poverty, and now the elderly are probably the most secure segment of the population with the lowest rates? That's government policy at work. And we should all understand that the current system is wildly inefficient in many ways, and is often distorted by our unique system of interest-group politics and our imperfect system of federalism.

That said, even if no one loves our system I think most agree that it's dramatically better than virtually any other system that's ever been invented in human history.

With that as a backdrop, instead of just railing against what's in place let's think for a minute about some alternatives to our system of governance.

For progressives, social democracies like those in Scandinavia are often seen as closer to the ideal form of government. They have less extreme poverty, better health, better education systems, more mobility than the US. As a tradeoff, they are not particularly efficient in many cases, they have heavy tax burdens and more of a communitarian style of life. For those who believe that government should be primarily focused on promoting society-wide goals like reducing extreme poverty, opening up opportunity, enhancing education and improving health, these countries are a model b/c they do a better job than the US of achieving all of these goals. But they are not ideal and have tremendous faults and problems, which is why many progressives might not actually choose to push our country in that direction.

What are the best models for conservatives or libertarians that actually exist in the world? What are the advantages of moving toward these models and what are the disadvantages?

this is an excellent, thoughtful post. the bolded portion especially. I can only speak for myself, but I will take a wildly inefficient system that fixes major ills like the one you use an example over the alternative of having an extremely efficient system that allows people to suffer needlessly. I don't think there is a person on this board who believes that we should not strive to make our government as efficient as we can. That does not mean gutting programs that help people and returning to the problems these programs were designed to fix in the first place.

 

[irishpat183]

Actually, I don't know anyone who has watched MTV since 2002. I don't believe we are their demo. But this is what I mean about perception. So far in this thread alone we have had progressives labeled as terrorist sympathizers, radical feminists, and now the "MTV" party. I couldn't name one show on MTV (unless the Real World still exists, which I doubt), and I would rather set myself on fire than watch 30 minutes of MTV. The other side is also fond of calling us communists or socialists, which if you knew what I did for a living would seem just as absurd as calling me a terrorist sympathizer.

So when I am dismissive of what you're saying, you have to understand that from my perspective it appears that you really don't know what you are talking about, and it reinforces the idea that is shared among a lot of young, city dwelling professionals that right wingers are out of touch and believe the crazy ideas being fed to them by the snakeoil salesmen in the right wing media.

Yes, the demo of "progressives" is young, idealists in college. The liberal arts student.

LOL...I agree with you there.

And I don't think you're a terrorist sympathizer. I never said that. I think it's, in general, that the left tends to "humanize" these guys. Whereas the right just labels them as "terrorists". It's an emotional reaction. The left is too emotional, the right is too rigid.


And, as a young professional myself, think city dwelling professionals are out of touch and have likely never really "worked" a full day in their lives and think their degree makes them experts on everything. There is nothing more hilarious than 20 something, city dweller, telling people that don't live in cities what's best for them.

 

[irishpat183]

this is an excellent, thoughtful post. the bolded portion especially. I can only speak for myself, but I will take a wildly inefficient system that fixes major ills like the one you use an example over the alternative of having an extremely efficient system that allows people to suffer needlessly. I don't think there is a person on this board who believes that we should not strive to make our government as efficient as we can. That does not mean gutting programs that help people and returning to the problems these programs were designed to fix in the first place.

You assume that old people would just die in the streets without government? LOL......

I'm not arguing that government has no place, it does...but we keep giving it more and more control under the guise of "people will die". And it's horsesh*t.

 

[connor_in]

Actually, I don't know anyone who has watched MTV since 2002. I don't believe we are their demo. But this is what I mean about perception. So far in this thread alone we have had progressives labeled as terrorist sympathizers, radical feminists, and now the "MTV" party. I couldn't name one show on MTV (unless the Real World still exists, which I doubt), and I would rather set myself on fire than watch 30 minutes of MTV. The other side is also fond of calling us communists or socialists, which if you knew what I did for a living would seem just as absurd as calling me a terrorist sympathizer.

So when I am dismissive of what you're saying, you have to understand that from my perspective it appears that you really don't know what you are talking about, and it reinforces the idea that is shared among a lot of young, city dwelling professionals that right wingers are out of touch and believe the crazy ideas being fed to them by the snakeoil salesmen in the right wing media.

Originally Posted by Rhode Irish
I find the perception of progressives that exist among some on this board surprising and strange. Progressives are just like everyone else, only educated.

Rhode...I love you on here, I really do...I do know you are very educated...which makes some of the statements you make all the more "crazy-ifying"!

You argue and rebel against being labeled and pigeon-holed, then make the comment about right wingers, even after having made the second statement quoted above.

I guess the only thing I can say on behalf of my fellow "right wingers" who hold doctorates and matsers but are evidently only "morans" is ...

stix n stones mae brake my bonez, but werds will ne'er hert mee

 

[Rhode Irish]

I have already said I was joking about the "only educated" comment. Maybe the joke was in poor taste, but it was born out of frustration.

 

[magogian]

We should all recognize that a centralized government does some things extremely well - e.g. how often do we think about the fact that the elderly used to be the most vulnerable segment of the population with the highest rates of extreme poverty, and now the elderly are probably the most secure segment of the population with the lowest rates? That's government policy at work.

Social security is nothing but an example of how a Ponzi scheme works as long as you have sufficient new investors (workers) to pay off upstream investors (retirees).

Here is what is expected to happen as a result of the Baby Boomers retiring and the ratio of workers to retirees decreasing.

And SS is in much better shape that Medicare.

* I under that Heritage is a conservative institution, but, from my understanding, the figure is accurate. If anyone has a problem with the source, please suggest a different one. But this was one of the clearest charts I could find.

 

[BeauBenken]

...So what did Glenn Beck say?

Or is this all just random political rants?

 

[connor_in]

I have already said I was joking about the "only educated" comment. Maybe the joke was in poor taste, but it was born out of frustration.

The biggest problem I feel we have in our current political climate is the fact that many people who think about the left what you stated and people on the left think what you said about people on the right.

Now I am not calling for political correctness (...I actually think there should be way more political incorrectness instead of thought police), but there are too many on either side that have no respet for their political opponents or opposing ideas and feel that the referred to views are not jokes.

I don't know how to get us out of this political trenches mess we are in, but I look forward to the day when fewer and fewer hurl talking points and attacks and more and more rationally discuss and work toward mutually beneficial compromises. When I was younger, i thought politics was a thrilling game...but no more. It is currently a bar fight with the vocal antics of both sides fringe wings banging the drums the loudest and whipping up the frenzy we have.

May God help us all!

 

[autry_denson]

Social security is nothing but an example of how a Ponzi scheme works as long as you have sufficient new investors (workers) to pay off upstream investors (retirees).

Here is what is expected to happen as a result of the Baby Boomers retiring and the ratio of workers to retirees decreasing.

And SS is in much better shape that Medicare.

* I under that Heritage is a conservative institution, but, from my understanding, the figure is accurate. If anyone has a problem with the source, please suggest a different one. But this was one of the clearest charts I could find.

Yes, these programs need to be altered. They haven't changed in many decades, it's not surprising that the model for how we provide social insurance should be updated every half-century or so. (Incidentally, some scaled benefit reductions based on wealth would solve this 'crisis' pretty quickly, along with other relatively modest tweaks that are politically doomed b/c of the power of the AMA and AARP).

The point is that the purpose of these programs was to to reduce elderly poverty and vulnerability, and they did so with remarkable results. Conservatives point to these programs and say they're disastrous b/c the model we set up 70 years ago no longer works as well - but consider, for a second, the fact that the elderly now have the lowest rates of poverty of any demographic group. My point here: if we value goals like reducing elderly poverty, government is often the best of many inefficient mechanisms of doing so, and centralized programs sometimes work extremely well at accomplishing what they're set up to do.

The larger question: What are the models for conservatives or libertarians that exist in the world? I haven't seen any responses.

 

[magogian]

So far in this thread alone we have had progressives labeled as terrorist sympathizers, radical feminists, and now the "MTV" party.

Spare us the pity party. First, you routinely say far worse about your political opponents. So, I don't think anyone is feeling sorry for you. But this isn't about who is worse. So, let's continue.

Second, you object to progressives being labeled as terrorist sympathizers. Sympathize is defined as "To feel or express compassion, as for another's suffering." That is precisely what so many liberals/progressives do w/r/t Guantanamo detainees. They are constantly trying to portray these men, most of whom are hardened terrorists, as innocents in the wrong place at the wrong time and subjected to awful conditions to engender sympathy for their plights. Of course, they rarely speak about all the "recidivists" who then continue or increase their terrorist activities after release, thanks in large part to their "sympathizers" roles as useful idiots.

You may not agree, but it is a very mainstream position in the progressive movement. Or, at least, in the subset that is Big Law and the detainee/foreign policy focused advocacy and litigation groups.

 

[Rocket's Rocket Fan]

...So what did Glenn Beck say?

Or is this all just random political rants?

Here is a link to what he was talking about. Sorry can't put the video on here too busy today.

TheBlaze Exclusive: Congressional sources confirm Saudi national was to be deported for security related grounds – Glenn Beck

 

[Rhode Irish]

For what it's worth, assuming Beck's "big news" had to do with the supposed "12 man sleeper cell," that theory has been repudiated by law enforcement officials, who continue to believe that the two brothers acted alone. I'm not sure why it is so important to some people to believe that this was a big organized operation that they continue to make the claim without any supporting evidence. I must be missing something.

Magogian, I'm certainly not looking for pity. I brought these things up as a way of explaining why it is so easy to dismiss many of the arguments coming from the right on this board. It is difficult to believe that someone has a good command of the issues and facts when they don't even understand who they are arguing with. If you can be so wrong as to think I am a terrorist-sympathizing socialist then I can't really trust that you know anything about anything.

EDIT: OK, just saw that Beck's big story was about that poor Saudi kid. I don't know how much clearer it could be that the Saudi kid wasn't in cahoots with the Chechen terrorists, so this is even more stupid than what I thought he was going to say. This kid was a victim of both terrorism and overzealous profiling last Monday, and for that he obviously should be deported. Maybe some racist in our federal government actually did want him deported, but the story should be about that person losing their job and not further dragging this kid through the mud.

 

[DSully1995]

For what it's worth, assuming Beck's "big news" had to do with the supposed "12 man sleeper cell," that theory has been repudiated by law enforcement officials, who continue to believe that the two brothers acted alone. I'm not sure why it is so important to some people to believe that this was a big organized operation that they continue to make the claim without any supporting evidence. I must be missing something.

Magogian, I'm certainly not looking for pity. I brought these things up as a way of explaining why it is so easy to dismiss many of the arguments coming from the right on this board. It is difficult to believe that someone has a good command of the issues and facts when they don't even understand who they are arguing with. If you can be so wrong as to think I am a terrorist-sympathizing socialist then I can't really trust that you know anything about anything.

If it was a organized attack they did a bad job

 

[irish1958]

You assume that old people would just die in the streets without government? LOL.......

You may laugh out loud, but that is exactly what did happen in this country before FDR's New Deal. The idea behind social security was to stop this from happening.
And this is still happening to old people (and, alas to children) in many parts of the world.

 

[irishpat183]

Interesting stuff:


Boston Marathon Bombing: Just a hunch. « JΞSTΞRS COURT – OFFICIAL BLOG

 

[irishpat183]

You may laugh out loud, but that is exactly what did happen in this country before FDR's New Deal. The idea behind social security was to stop this from happening.
And this is still happening to old people (and, alas to children) in many parts of the world.

And the New Deal is why we're in the financial crisis we're in. (more so the fact that government continued a program that was supposed to be a bandaid)


And people "die in the streets" because they depend on government for everything and don't have to be self sufficent

 

[GoIrish41]

this is an excellent, thoughtful post. the bolded portion especially. I can only speak for myself, but I will take a wildly inefficient system that fixes major ills like the one you use an example over the alternative of having an extremely efficient system that allows people to suffer needlessly. I don't think there is a person on this board who believes that we should not strive to make our government as efficient as we can. That does not mean gutting programs that help people and returning to the problems these programs were designed to fix in the first place.

You assume that old people would just die in the streets without government? LOL......

I'm not arguing that government has no place, it does...but we keep giving it more and more control under the guise of "people will die". And it's horsesh*t.

I'm not assuming anything. I said "suffer needlessly" not "just die in the streets." Ask yourself why these programs were created in the first place. As was mentioned in an earlier post by AD, the elderly were the most vulnerable in our society, and lived in poverty at a higher rate than anyone else prior to programs like social security. It was put in place to address a specific problem -- our elderly citizens were suffering needlessly. These are the same people that worked their whole lives only to land in the indignity of poverty when capitalism no longer had a need for them. We are a better country than that. It isn't about control, it is about taking care of our citizens like it says in the Preamble to the Constitution ...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[DSully1995]

Since the 70s rally neither party has truly cared about balanced budgets, R's are the tax cut party and D's the spending party. As chicago displays alot of people dont even think debt matters (which is doesnt when shits fine but whenit goes sour people want their money back and safe).

Gotta get back to balanced bugets, real growth and real money.

 

[GoIrish41]

And the New Deal is why we're in the financial crisis we're in. (more so the fact that government continued a program that was supposed to be a bandaid)


And people "die in the streets" because they depend on government for everything and don't have to be self sufficent

So if you are rich you are immortal? Or do you mean you die in an expensive hospital bed instead of dying in the streets?

Think of the government as a family. If of your children were sick, would you be willing to saccrifice some of your wealth to ensure they got medical treatment they needed, or food to sustain them so that they didn't suffer? I know I would.

 

[irishpat183]

I'm not assuming anything. I said "suffer needlessly" not "just die in the streets." Ask yourself why these programs were created in the first place. As was mentioned in an earlier post by AD, the elderly were the most vulnerable in our society, and lived in poverty at a higher rate than anyone else prior to programs like social security. It was put in place to address a specific problem -- our elderly citizens were suffering needlessly. These are the same people that worked their whole lives only to land in the indignity of poverty when capitalism no longer had a need for them. We are a better country than that. It isn't about control, it is about taking care of our citizens like it says in the Preamble to the Constitution ...

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"promote general welfare" is just that...PROMOTE it. Don't provide it.

 

[DSully1995]

"promote general welfare" is just that...PROMOTE it. Don't provide it.

Tax breaks for donations to the elderly?

 

[irishpat183]

So if you are rich you are immortal? Or do you mean you die in an expensive hospital bed instead of dying in the streets?

Think of the government as a family. If of your children were sick, would you be willing to saccrifice some of your wealth to ensure they got medical treatment they needed, or food to sustain them so that they didn't suffer? I know I would.

Again...stop with the emotional crap.


The government already takes in BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of our dollars and can't pay it's bills???


If the government was my family member? I'd kick it's *** because it keeps blowing my money and then coming back for more.

 

[IrishLion]

I can't follow any of these arguments because I keep reading Pat's posts in Charlie Day's voice, and it's throwing me off.