Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » Friday Ramblings: From the WSJ poll to limiting the damage Democrats can do

Friday Ramblings: From the WSJ poll to limiting the damage Democrats can do

Well it’s Friday again and it’s time to recap some of the conversations I had this past week in the trenches.  Some were lighthearted while some were extremely heated.  I started off on Monday with a conversation about the union members and how they are sheep being led to the slaughter.  The discussion went on about how they were being used by communist/socialist forces to advance the left’s radical agenda under the guise of workers’ rights.  By the end of the week I found myself in a silly debate about creating policies to limit the damage the left can do to our republic.  Today like always I picked two that I thought were the most interesting and entertaining.

The first was a discussion over the WSJ poll that showed that Americans were not very enthusiastic about entitlement reform.

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was “unacceptable” to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security “unacceptable.”

You can read the article here>>

This reminded me of a post I wrote back in August 2010 titled Truth-Lite: Tell me what I want to hear.  The following is excerpt from that post.

Sharron Angle is currently struggling with her message in Nevada against Harry Reid.  She was supported by the Tea Party movement in Nevada because she spoke the hard truth about Social Security and entitlement programs and the movement bought into it.  She stated that Social Security was unsustainable and we must look at the possible privatization or outright reform of it in order for it to remain solvent for those currently receiving it.  After she won the Republican nomination Harry Reid used her words against her by calling her someone with extreme views.  He fed the voters a modified much happier version of the truth and painted a picture of a sustainable Social Security program that would last forever even though most reasonable thinking people know this is utter nonsense.  But it worked.  His poll numbers went up and Angle’s numbers dipped.

You can read the entire post here>>

Sharron Angle lost to Harry Reid not because her ideas were wrong; but because the people decided that the truth about entitlement programs was too tough of a pill to swallow.  This is why the WSJ poll didn’t surprise me.  A large segment of our society knows that our entitlement programs are tanking; the problem we all must tackle is how to fix them.  There are no easy choices here.  Extending the age to 69 years old only kicks the can down the road and solves nothing, and yet this is exactly what the majority polled are in favor of doing.  Now one problem is the conservatives have done a lousy job in showing just how privatization of social security can actually net the average person twice as much in monthly income than the current plan.  These are not high risks investments; these are slow growth fairly stable and safe investment plans.  Yet the minute someone raises the privatization flag all you hear from the left is how someone could lose everything in the stock market and have nothing when they retire.  They’re using the fear people have of the stock market against them.  Let me reciprocate the favor; the unfunded liability of social security is $14 trillion.  The entire national debt is $14 trillion and they would have us believe that privatizing social security is a scarier thing than the above number.  Give me a break.  The one thing I can say with complete confidence and surety is that social security under its current system is nothing more than a ponzi scheme that is unsustainable and will not be solvent by the time we reach the retirement age of 75.  Heck it’s not solvent now!    So I say to the left, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

The second conversation was a bit more lighthearted.  I made the suggestion that the congress should craft a bill that place heavy restrictions on what bills the Democrats can propose.  If any bill contains language that has the potential to steal liberties and do significant economic damage to our country, that bill should be quarantined and removed from the discussion.  Furthermore any Democrat that seeks to impose destructive policies on our republic should be stripped of their power because clearly they cannot be trusted.   The way I see it is our congress is reactive by nature and when a crisis occurs they tend to knee jerk react and pass legislation in attempt to place limitations on the entity that caused the crisis.  Well the Democrats have ran up our debt, passed ObamaCare, the financial reform bill, bailed out the automotive and bank industry, and passed a massive stimulus package that did nothing to improve our economy or unemployment rate.  Can you think of anything more destructive than this?  I know I can’t.  So I feel it’s the duty and responsibility of those in congress who still believe they serve the people to restrict their actions through the legislative process to minimize the damage they can do.  How do you like those apples?

Anyway those were a few of my conversations in the trenches.  The last one definitely earned me some looks.  Have a great Friday!

Liberty forever and freedom for all!

Share
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , , , ,

opinions powered by SendLove.to
Comments
  • Trestin Meacham March 4, 2011 at 5:02 AM

    So far the cuts from both sides have been at best token gestures. Without reform of our entitlement programs these cuts are meaningless.
    Trestin Meacham recently posted..ARE THERE CONSPIRACIESMy Profile

  • Jim Gourdie March 4, 2011 at 8:16 AM

    I love this post! Great job, John.

    I wondering if maybe the GOP needs to change its tactics. maybe they should say; ” Okay, president Obama, Senator Reid, Congresswoman Pelosi we will agree to leave Social Security and Medicare alone provided that you can tell us how you are going to fund them.” Put the monkey on their back sort of speak.

  • Bunkerville March 4, 2011 at 12:31 PM

    In truth, It is hard for me to swallow entitlement reforms and support them when we have such a corrupt goverment. Billions to fake Blacks, Hispanics, women who pretend to be farmers…G.E. Immelt in bed with Zero and on and on. Why should I have my S.S. cut when I and my employer have paid in for decades? I did the calculations.. if the same amount had been invested in the market, I would be close to over $500,000. Why should I have my Medicare cut.. which will result in rationing when the government gives money away by the Billions. Fix the corruption then come my way.
    Bunkerville recently posted..Salazar lies to Congress – says Gulf oil production at ‘all time high’My Profile

    • John Carey March 4, 2011 at 10:38 PM

      You’re correct Bunker we do have a great deal of corruption that waste billions of our hard earned dollars each year. The problem with running down corruption is you must operate within an already corrupt system. The game is fixed even before you start because its a tangled web with strands that go off in countless direction. The best way to fix corruption is through the ballot box. We need to boot the enablers of it and vote in people with integrity. This is the first step, because of people of honor and integrity gives us the best chance to fix corruption. I also understand that we have all paid into this ponzi scheme; however it is 100 percent unsustainable and in the end we will all lose out. So why continue to pump our hard earned dollars into something that simply won’t be there? Why not try something different? Medicare and Social Security gobble up near half our budget. I say tackle these two elephants now.
      John Carey recently posted..Friday Ramblings- From the WSJ poll to limiting the damage Democrats can doMy Profile

  • Country Thinker March 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM

    I’m going to take a slightly different tack here. I actually want to put social security cuts at the end of the line; although I would eagerly support privatization. The reason is I call social security and medicare “quasi-entitlements.” I say “quasi” because you have no obligation to contribute to a true entitlement. Baby boomer retirees not only piad in, but paid in more than they had to – to the tune of $2.5 trillion – the size of the so-called trust fund that Congress squandered. In other words, unlike food stamps recipients, these retirees paid in.

    (Side note: the best proposal I’ve heard yet for SS reform is means-testing; if you don’t need SS you won’t get it.)

    I have a surprise proposal that will undoubtedly help with our budget problems: legal reform. The only ones who would lose would be the lawyers. For example, I heard a talk from a Swedish health administrator last week, and let’s face it, their system costs half and provides quality outcomes. I asked him afterward if they had med mal liability. He said no, and described a system EXACTLY like I have proposed for years; a no-fault worker’s comp-like system in which anyone who is a victim of malpractice gets guaranteed follow-up treatment, but no private cause of action.

    If implemented, we would have ZERO ambulance chasers, lower malpractice costs, and less defensive medicine ($60b-$200b/yr.). I would reign in the lawyers before cutting grandma’s social security or medicare – especially since she paid to play.

    (Oh, and about that medicare fraud that consumes 5%+ of our health care dollars????)

    • Bunkerville March 4, 2011 at 4:11 PM

      I agree completely. The malpractice insurance for Neurosurgeons and OBs in my area is $200,000 to $300,000 per year. The cost for a Hospital system i the same area is $35 million with a 3 million dollar deductible.
      Bunkerville recently posted..Salazar lies to Congress – says Gulf oil production at ‘all time high’My Profile

    • John Carey March 4, 2011 at 10:52 PM

      I cannot find any flaws in your logical approach to this issue. I actually find it very interesting and see how it would work. We do need to get a handle on the legal aspect of health care. I do see where reform in this area would save us a great deal of money. They have always seemed to avoid this conversation. I’m not sure I’m down with means-testing for SS because the smells of preferential treatment of one group over another.
      John Carey recently posted..Friday Ramblings- From the WSJ poll to limiting the damage Democrats can doMy Profile

      • Country Thinker March 6, 2011 at 6:19 AM

        John, when you consider our legal system as a whole, I think you will find that legal reform in a variety of areas offers a rare bright spot of hope for our budget woes. The reforms I’m talking about would be worth many times what Republicans have put on the table, and would make life better for most Americans.

        Consider not only med mal, but also product liability law that jacks up the cost of pharmaceuticals tremendously. Consider that American businesses pay twice as much in legal fees as any other nation in the world. i can go on about this all day, but I think you can see some pretty tremendous positive budget effects that would flow from legal reform.

  • Matt March 6, 2011 at 12:33 AM

    I haven’t had time, but I’d like to get into the internals of some of the polls this week, particularly the questions. They can be worded to obtain a response.

    • John Carey March 6, 2011 at 11:12 AM

      Indeed Matt. You can get pretty much any desired result you want with the right wording.