patrick.net

Bellingham Bill says

No it doesn't, if the actual abusive treatment of prisoners has been stopped.

Agreed. If the abusive treatment stopped. It didn't. It was just transferred elsewhere. Obama had the opportunity to take the high moral ground. He didn't. No words can change that.

Bellingham Bill says

Arguing that accused terrorists have rights is not a winning political position in this country.

Accused terrorists do have rights. Accused anything has rights. Simply being accused of a crime does not make you guilty of it. Have we learned nothing from McCarthyism? How about the Nuremburg Trials?

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

And even if the party is guilty, there is still rule of law. Any society that says otherwise does not deserve to exist.

So screw politics. Obama wasn't elected to be a politician. He was elected to be a leader. If he doesn't know the difference, then he does not deserve the crown. The only reason he's going to keep the crown is that the Republicans will nominate someone worse.

Bellingham Bill says

Good. If al-Alwaki doesn't want to end up in the midst of a rapid thermobaric expansion he needs to surrender his person to the nearest US embassy forthwith.

Oh, wait, too late.

This just proves that America is not a nation of laws and there is no reason for any other nation to take us seriously when we talk about Democracy, rule of law, and human rights issues. How is that a good thing?

If al-Alwaki was guilty of any crimes, he should have been brought to trial in a fair and open court. To have killed him without trial was an act of cowardice and a betrayal of every principle our nation claims to believe. There is no honor in that.

Furthermore, the long term consequences of such cowardice far outweigh any short term gains. America is destroying its reputation by doing such things, and thus we are destroying our ability to negotiate peacefully with other nations. It's not how righteous your own citizens think your country is, it's how righteous people in other countries think you are. And that is the most important political capital.

America totally fucked up the opportunity it had in the 1990s right after the cold war, when it was the uncontested superpower. We could have used our credibility to drastically change the world for the better. Instead, we blew it.

Bellingham Bill says

But Obama is attempting to reign in the military on this.

I'm sure eventually even Kadafi would have "reigned in his military" after all the rebels were dead. That doesn't forgive the war crimes.

Bellingham Bill says

Well it is if you're a simpleton who can only see black & white.

I'm not saying warfare or the political situation in the Middle East is simple. But complexity is no excuse for war crimes. Oh, it's complicated. Therefore, we have to blow apart kids. A leg here, a head there, a torso spelled along the road.

Even in war, there are laws. I expect my president to obey them even when the laws aren't convenient. The same laws that protect Afgan civilians from our military, protect our civilians from other country's militaries. It goes both ways or it goes neither way. So even if you don't care about people in other countries, care about International Law because it protects your ass and your family.

Bellingham Bill says

This is a shitty country with shitty politics, and to change things is going to take more than one man.

Of course. But anyone running for president should still expect to be judged based on his policies. If that's too much for him, then don't run. There are plenty of other people who would be willing to offer solutions. The office comes with accountability.

Now, I would be open to getting rid of the post of president if it's too much for any one man to handle. We could discuss that.

Kevin what does being rich have to do with an understanding of economics?..Obama gets support from people in these positions because they will get something in return. You really need to read the federalist papers so you can get a grasp on the meaning of things. No, the supreme court is NOT the final word. Re read the 10th amendment. As far owning a business i don't mean a little internet thing. I am not trying to to be harsh here but trying to defend what will be known as the worst president in our country"s history is a little embarrassing. Also instead of worrying about periods and comas open your mind to the fact that free market capitalism is the only economic system that is moral and allows for true freedom. I can suggest a lengthly reading list if you like.

Why can"t the obots get over Bush. It's not about him he is gone. We are talking about what we have right now. The argument always seems to be, well he is not as bad as bush. What is it you like about him. Is it gun walker, fast and furious, corrupt green companies, tony rezko. I could go on but you get the point.

adultsupervision says

No, the supreme court is NOT the final word. Re read the 10th amendment

The supreme court pretty much is the final word. The 10th amendment doesn't make any exemptions If it isn't specifically written in the us constitution then states can do what they want. If CA wants really high building codes that's fine, if VT wants single payer health for their citizens that's fine, if ID wants to prop up makes of vodka that's fine....Dan8267 says

The commander in chief does not need political capital to bring war criminals to trial. Send in Seal Team 6.

On what charge(s) though? If we make the argument of lying over wmd's well we were still bombing iraq on a weekly basis for eight years. If it is OK for a democrat to go to war but not ok for a republican then that's a tad screwed up. Congress gave the OK for use of force (John Kerry claims he thought it would be sanctions...even though Iraq was under sanctions already). Hillary voted for the war and now she's the secretary of state!! The democrats didn't purge their membership of those that voted for the war. Without doing that first Obama would appear to be a bit hypocritical.

I don't hate Obama. I'd respect him more if it seemed like he was trying. Even if he did something I didn't agree with I can recognize an attempt. I just don't get that same feeling of someone being "in charge" with Obama vs The prior 28 years.. I can go days if not weeks without seeing the president on TV...30 years ago that would have been impossible.

Most of my republican friends hate Obama because they think he spends all of their tax dollars on "welfare for lazy blacks". That pretty much sums up the theme that I've heard from everyone. Nevermind that Clinton ended welfare and that the remaining programs such as foodstamps and temporary assistance for needy families make up something like 2.5% of the federal budget - and whites are largest recipient group, by race.

Bingo.

@billy bell ..so many incorrect assumptions here. No i have never voted republican. No i don't agree with any of the wars this country has been in. You have embarrassed yourself. I ask you not to. Go read the intent of the commerce clause. My definition of loony is anyone who will actually call himself a democrat. We all believe it is ok to take other peoples money when we are young,then we grow up and realize that it is a crime . It does not matter how noble you think the cause is. Why don't you research the cause of the housing implosion and be honest. Its right there with Bawny frank and the rest of the leftist.I understand the republicans are nut jobs, but there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils and we are talking a chasm here.

Hate is too strong of a word, but here are the reasons I think Obama should not be re-elected.

1. The lifeblood of an economy is energy. Obama has done nothing to lower the cost of energy. In fact, the environmentalist under Obama hurt energy production, delay production, etc. in their pursuit of a green job pipe dream. This policy mistake is cost America millions of Jobs. Back in the Great Depression, Democrats were building dams and power plants like crazy and this action greatly helped grow the west coast cities and win WWII.

2. The stimulus plan has ultimately made our economic problems worse, because so much of the stimulus just went to prolonging what is now happening without fixing the problem. For example, Bailing out overly rich public employee pensions is not solving the problem. We have a structural economic problem in America, not a "stimulative" problem. Structural problems need to be fixed structurally. For example, Medicare has a huge financial problem -- structural fixes are raising the age to get benefits, reducing benefits, etc. For example, in my field companies cannot build fabs time effectively in this country -- yet instead of making it easier, federal, state, and local governments continue to pile on regulations and worse permit delays driving out jobs.

3. Sarbanes Oxley has cost America at least 2 million jobs over the last ten years. Bush didn't fix it, Obama hasn't fixed it. We need to make Sarbanes Oxley less costly for young companies. IPOs are down 75% over the past 10 years = 2 million jobs.

4. Obama and leadership: we are in a very tough economic time. For Obama to Golf 30+ times this year, plus basketball, plus vacations all over, taking vacations on the Spanish Rivera, taking his and her jets to Martha's vineyard ... sends the wrong message.

5. I have no idea what is trying to be accomplished in Afghanistan. Under Bush it was clear that we had a minimal force just large enough to keep any terrorist group from having a safe haven. Obama's surge and promise to then leave completely confuses me ... Even if Afghanistan becomes stable once we leave -- instability will return with a single minor coup that a country like Pakistan or Iran could accomplish in a few weeks. So I see us spending billions and billions for ???. I don't get it.

6. I don't like the Obama foreign policy of being critical of the US when he travels the world. That might seem like a good idea in the liberal mindset to show how reasonable and kind we are, but that is extrapolating our culture naively onto others. I travel a lot and these negative comments are viewed as weak, give opponents fresh ammo, and reopen old wounds while gaining us nothing. A weak president cannot accomplish much and so we see that Obama is getting increasingly ignored worldwide. And an ignored American president is very dangerous for our interests and allies.

7. Obama promised many things - Gitmo would close. I'm glad he didn't close it, but his promise and then subsequent realization that the Bush policy was actually pretty good really showed how naive he was when entering the office. I'm glad Obama made the decision to go after OBL and his general conduct in killing terrorists.

8. Obama really lost a lot of support on Obamacare. I really wish the Government would fix the things they are responsible for rather than continue to try to grab more responsibility. Medicare is going broke. Fix it first, and show the citizens how great of job you are doing before grabbing even more the private economy. And while you are at it, fix Social Security, the Post Office, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, SSI, the Federal Employee Pension Plan, and get an SEC that actually does their job, etc. Why aren't mortgage fraud executives in Gitmo :-). Obama has done essentially nothing to bring anyone in the meltdown to justice.

9. Smoke and Mirrors. This is a problem with both parties. The whole debate over raising the debt limit vs. cutting spending and the super committee was all nonsense on both sides. Voters are really tired of meaningless political theater. $1.2T in cuts are basically nothing when spread over 10 years, and all back loaded so the next Congress can rescind them. Yet, the voters were lied to by Obama and the Democrats that the US could default, and lied to by the Republicans that they were actually fighting for cuts. Both parties got what they wanted an increase in the debt limit, political points to get their base fired up, and no change in the status quo.

John McDonald says

Obama has done nothing to lower the cost of energy. In fact, the environmentalist under Obama hurt energy production, delay production, etc.

I wouldn't exactly call him an environmentalist but at the same point the government generally should be neutral with prices.

Natural gas is how most people heat their homes (outside of the northeast)
It has tanked over the past few years. I'm not saying Obama is responsible but the prices have dropped to the point where the USA might switch from being a net importer to net exporter pretty soon

This is probably one of the most underreported pieces of news in the past few years
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/energy-future-lurks-where-sun-dont-shine/story-e6frg8y6-1226206430096

http://markets.financialcontent.com/pennwell.ogj/news/read/20047451/u.s._shale_boom_reduces_russian_influence_over_european_gas_market

"In 2009, the US surpassed Russia as the largest producer of natural gas, while shale gas production in the US has increased from almost nothing a decade ago to about 30 per cent of its natural-gas supply, and likely to be 50 per cent in the next few years. This has created more than 200,000 jobs, no small boost at a time of mass unemployment in the US. More importantly, it has kept gas prices down while other energy prices are rising."

If anyone owns property in the northeast I'd highly recommend they convert to natural gas.

John McDonald says

For Obama to Golf 30+ times this year, plus basketball, plus vacations all over, taking vacations on the Spanish Rivera, taking his and her jets to Martha's vineyard ... sends the wrong message.

You have some good points, but this one is classic Fox News bullshit. Obama took less than half as much vacation as Bush:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/

No, I take that back. Obama toook about one third as much vacation as Bush:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/17/eveningnews/main20093801.shtml

John McDonald says

I don't like the Obama foreign policy of being critical of the US when he travels the world.

More spin and bullshit. Example quotes please, with places and dates.

John McDonald says

Obama really lost a lot of support on Obamacare. I really wish the Government would fix the things they are responsible for rather than continue to try to grab more responsibility.

Obama GAINED a lot of support because of Obamacare too. We have a desperately bad health insurance system in America (notice I said "insurance", not "care") and he's the only president who has gotten any kind of universal coverage laws passed.

It was gamed by the insurance companies to prevent the necessary government insurance option, and we should not be forced to pay private insurers (the Republican wet dream is enslaved customers by law), but it's still better than what we had.

John McDonald says

Obama has done nothing to lower the cost of energy. In fact, the environmentalist under Obama hurt energy production, delay production, etc. in their pursuit of a green job pipe dream. This policy mistake is cost America millions of Jobs.

No it hasn't.

I agree though that Obama hasn't done much to address one of the most pressing issues we face this century.

There's nothing we can do to lower the cost of oil (on the supply side). That's going to be set by the market, and we done pumped most of our oil already. The price of oil is going to be determined by what Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Venezuela can produce, not us.

Obama was actually making a push for nuclear investment, then Fukushima happened.

John McDonald says

Voters are really tired of meaningless political theater.

So why are you blaming Obama for this?

It's the Republicans doing the song & dances. The Bush tax cuts were obviously a colossal mistake, but they don't want to reverse them, since it's going to be a painful shock to the economy (which has grown increasingly reliant on free money).

Obama proposed a compromise that only the top 2% of the country go back to the Clinton rates. I think this is much too weak but it was a start on the road to fiscal sanity.

The bottom line though is that this country is going to have to decide whether it wants guns or butter, socialism or corporatism.

This is a bitterly divided country, and I doubt we're going to be able to get our shit together this decade or next.

and we should not be forced to pay private insurers

This is just an extension of car insurance mandates.

By getting more people into paying their insurance we can reverse the cost of hospitalization, which is the long pole in the tent wrt costs.

Theoretically.

John McDonald says

the voters were lied to by Obama and the Democrats that the US could default

No, the debt limit is a very hard limit in law, rightfully so since Congress has the power of the purse, not the Executive.

Without sufficient tax revenue coming in, bills won't get paid. If debt isn't repaid, that's default.

Whether or not Geithner could do some shuffling with the trust funds to keep Congress' game going is neither here nor there. The Republicans were playing with some very dangerous fire May - August, and the Administration danced to their insane tune long enough.

John McDonald says

Medicare is going broke. Fix it first, and show the citizens how great of job you are doing before grabbing even more the private economy

PPACA is not "grabbing the private economy". It's main problem is that it is not doing so, it's trying to patch the inefficiencies and rent-seeking in the private economy with tax subsidies, not that great idea but it's all that the 40th least progressive senator would let pass in 2009.

John McDonald says

And while you are at it, fix Social Security, the Post Office, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, SSI,

Social Security is not broken, thanks to the Greenspan Commission it's got enough money to last up to two decades as it is.

The Executive can't "save" the Post Office, since it is a creature of the Constitution and its operations are regulated by law and thus Congress.

Congress makes the law in this country, not the Executive.

The GSEs are beyond fixing. They were destroyed 2005-2007 when pushed themselves into the maw of the housing bubble just before it collapsed.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HHMSDODNS

John McDonald says

Obama has done essentially nothing to bring anyone in the meltdown to justice.

In 2009 the optics on this were bad. Wall Street has some very powerful rich friends in this country -- and money controls the mass media after all. If the Obama team had demonized Wall Street, conservative like you would have slimed the administration for attacking capitalism and thus preventing the recovery from happening.

What conservatives like yourself fail to understand though is that the pump & dump of 2002-2007 was entirely legal. Unethical, but legal.

Asking for more government involvement now -- after the $5T of the bubble has been burned -- but wanting government out of the enforcement business while the actual market insanity is occurring is why I don't like conservatives.

You guys are all talk and no action. Well, no action that actually improves anything, you guys are really good at making problems worse.

mdovell says

Huh? Can't?

The Constitution has to say what powers the government has. Logically you cannot disprove a negative..that's like saying (like southpark said) that there was no evidence that there were no aliens at Thanksgiving so that means there were.

The constitution says plenty of things that the government CAN'T do. They CAN'T establish a state religion, they CAN'T force a person to condemn themselves, etc.

The constitution establishes up powers and limits, it does not set up laws.

Since there's no article barring forced purchase of a service, you're left with the framework that establishes laws.

mdovell says

Obviously the supreme court makes the decisions. But necessary and proper have limits. To have something be open ended frankly won't make sense.

And yet the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly on the issues, and past rulings argue strongly that the insurance mandate is well within the federal government's rights.

mdovell says

More importantly the obamacare system (it is really romneycare..I've lived in mass all my life) makes a bit of an assumption that people will pay.

Uh, yeah, dude, that's what "mandate" means.

mdovell says

If they don't pay what's the recourse? Jail? A fine? it is one thing to suggest that the payment of taxes requires someone to keep records..ok fine since the government collects it as a source of revenue. But with this what is the argument...there are plenty of people that cannot legally work so how does that work for them? Children under 18, people in jail, people that are mentally disabled etc.

Why are you making this issue up? The law clearly establishes who is required to have insurance, and the penalties for not having it.

"Children under 18" are covered by their parents policies (also a part of "Obamacare"), or by state programs in the event that they have no parental coverage.

"People in jail" are covered by the prison's medical system.

"People that are mentally disabled": See "Children under 18".

You're making up an issue instead of having an actual argument. There are literally hundreds of pages explaining this. Is all you know of "Obamacare" what you hear on TV and radio?

mdovell says

It isn't that hard to see as to how this would work out given how some have ruled in the past. I'd bet this just doesn't pass. There is nothing within the context of the plan (or in mass) that increase the number of nurses and doctors so waiting times will increase. That's what happened in Mass.

What do you mean "will not pass"? It's already passed, and becomes effective in a few years. The only thing that might change is if the supreme court rules that the mandata is unconstitutional, at which point only that specific part of the legislation becomes invalid. There's no "passing" to be done.

Kevin says

within the federal government's rights.

powers. Governments don't have rights, people do.

adultsupervision says

Why can"t the obots get over Bush. It's not about him he is gone. We are talking about what we have right now.

The negative consequences of a president's policies do not suddenly end when that president leaves office. The effects of an administration can and do last over a century. It will be a long time before we repair all the damage the Bush/Cheney administration has done.

Furthermore, the current set of Republican presidential candidates (except Ron Paul) are pretty much Bush clones. Rick Perry is so much like Bush it's like a sad joke.

Egomaniacal assholes like Bush become president so that they can become immortal by getting their name in history. It's fitting that he should be immortalized as a jackass, fool king with no ethics.

mdovell says

On what charge(s) though?

Oh, I think we can find quite a few national and international laws that Bush has violated. Here's someone who started that research and came up with this preliminary list of charges. If you don't like those charges, I'm sure we can find others. Everything we tried Saddam for, could in some form or another, apply to Bush.

Janine says

Most of my republican friends hate Obama because they think he spends all of their tax dollars on "welfare for lazy blacks". That pretty much sums up the theme that I've heard from everyone.

Agreed. However, as I've stated, there are plenty of reasons to hate Obama that have nothing to do with welfare for blacks. However, accepting my reasons require also hating Bush, and no Republican is capable of that.

No, I take that back. Obama toook about one third as much vacation as Bush:

When Bush was president, I wanted him to take as many vacation days as possible. I also sent him gifts of hard pretzels every week.

"We are talking about what we have right now."

We're still reliant on $100 oil since Bush didn't do anything to get the country started on alternative energy.

We've got a $300B/yr trade deficit with China since Bush didn't do anything to reverse our reliance on the charity of our trading partners.

We've got $700B/yr+ military expense burden entirely thanks to Bush building up that sector much more than we need.

We've got a $10.3T national debt, up from the $3.3T that Bush inherited, thanks to him unwisely getting his tax cuts while also massively expanding government spending in all areas.

The first two were continuations of Clinton miscues, but the latter two were reversals of Clinton policy.

This country is in serious shit, and if we don't understand how we got here we won't be able to get ourselves out this mess.

To Patrick in reference to my comment "I don't like the Obama foreign policy of being critical of the US when he travels the world."

Let's look at Obama's Cairo speech in 2009.
A. US Colonialism denied Muslims rights and opportunities. The reality is: the US did a lot to free the Muslim world from European Colonialism.
B. US Cold War hurt the aspiration of Muslims. The reality is the US stopped communism from spreading into the Muslim world and with few exceptions has pushed for human rights and pumped trillions of dollars into Middle East economies as we bought their oil instead of easily stealing it.
C. Credits Islam for paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. Reality, the Renaissance began in Florence and I don't know any credible scholar that has Obama's reading of history.
D. Implies the US was unwise to go into Iraq. Quoting Thomas Jefferson. Remember this is to a foreign audience.
E. 9/11 Caused America to act contrary to our ideals. Implies that America tortures people. Appropriate for an American debate, total inappropriate for a foreign audience. Apparently, Obama did not get the message about not taking foreign policy debates into foreign countries.
F. Has a very weird view of the civil rights struggle in the USA. Leaves out that thing called the Civil War and President Lincoln and the hundreds of thousands of white guys who died to free their black brothers to show how effective non-violence is in achieving full and equal rights.
G. Says that our ally Israel is creating a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, forgetting to mention that Israel allows tons and tons of aid to flow into Gaza and is simply trying to keep weapons out.
H. Reminds everyone that the US played a role in the overthrow of a regime in Iran 1953.
I. Says that rules in America make it hard for Muslims to give to Charity.
J. Equates the struggle for woman's equality in the Muslim world to the continued effort for woman's equality in America. Really? Last time I check our woman get to vote, drive, uncover their face in public, and shop by themselves.

That's just 1 speech.

To Patrick,

On Obamacare: I don't want the US government to take over more responsibility when they have already proved they cannot financially manage Medicare today. Any new insurance program will just become another entitlement with politicians promising more than can be delivered to get elected. Everyone will love it to start with, then it will go the same way as all government programs - red ink as far as the eye can see. Nothing is free, my friend. And has bad as a private sector decision maker can be -- a government decision maker even less efficient and friendly.

To Patrick,

Two guys taking excessive vacation does not make it okay.

I really did not like Bush's Supreme Court pick of Harriet Meyers, that doesn't mean that Obama is now okay to pick incompetent judges.

This business that someone how one party's failure is cover for another party's failure is poor logic and bad for America.

To Bellingham Bill

You repeated one of the common statements on the phony budget battle. The USA was always taking in enough money to cover the debt payments thus their would be no default. This lie was shouted far and wide by the Obama Administration to panic their supporters and paint the Republicans as extremists. Even some of the big government Republicans were spouting the same thing. All political theater. http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/07/25/obama-to-banks-were-not-defaulting/

Here is one more reason to not re-elect Obama. S&P warned very clearly that if the US did not cut at least $4 Trillion over 10 years it would lose it's AAA rating. We didn't and we lost the rating. Losing a credit rating having been warned is a serious event for an executive like Obama and is a bad mark on his record. Then all the Democrats acted surprised and wanted S&P investigated. Unbelievable. Other rating agencies are going to cut in the next 12 months as our deficit and debt simply are not sustainable. Imagine our budget deficit if interest rates kicked up to historically average levels of 6 to 8% or higher. Folks we be screwed, Republican or Democrat. Hold on tight.

To Bellingham Bill

A. I agree with you that Bush has a beautiful opportunity to help re-direct our country away from foreign oil and accomplished almost nothing. Sad.
B. Nuclear energy is the only viable alternative in the long run. Thankfully, there is a small but growing number of left wingers starting to come to this realization. A left wing organization in CA put on a report calling for 30 new nuclear plants in CA before 2050. So I'm a little encouraged, but still doubtful that all the insane chicken little leftist propaganda about the dangers of nuclear power for the past 30 years can be overcome quickly. But for kids economic future I hope so.
C. I dropped my Republican registration because of massive overspending on the part of G. Bush. But since there are only two viable parties in the US. I rejoined once Obama made Bush look frugal.

To Bellingham Bill,

Completely agree with your last statement

To Bellingham Bill,

Social Security is an interesting issue.

If Social Security were a stand alone program, then your statement is entirely correct.

However, it is not a stand alone program ... financially it is recorded as just another part of the general budget, so it rest entirely upon the ability of the US to pay it's bills just like any other program -- thus it is in just as bad of shape as any other government program which means it is in bad shape.

I think Social Security really should be pulled out of the budget, and then most of SSI dropped, and then a guaranteed return of at least 2 to 3% applied, and then stop Congress from re-defining what a cost of living adjustment means. Today social security essentially will pay you back exactly what you put in over 40 years with 0% interest. Congress swiped the interest on all that money. The return is likely to go negative in the years to come.

No one would ever sign up for a program like Social Security in the private sector who made an average income given the choice. So we are coerced into sending nearly 13% of our income to the government for a retirement program that pays 0% interest. What a bad deal.

John McDonald says

financially it is recorded as just another part of the general budget

No it's not.

so it rest entirely upon the ability of the US to pay it's bills just like any other program

No it doesn't. Even if you conservatives succeed in hand-waving away the $2.5T+ you owe FICA payers, SS could just moderately raise FICA contributions to remain in the black going forward.

SS is not broken, and thus does not need to be fixed.

So we are coerced into sending nearly 13% of our income to the government for a retirement program that pays 0% interest. What a bad deal.

SS is genius in that it provides a baseline security. As a pay-as-you-go program, Congress has not swiped anything, yet.

Since 1957, there has been $12.8T paid into the program and $11.7T disbursed to enrollees.

"Interest" is not a free lunch -- for someone to receive interest someone else must pay it. The magic of SS is that it avoids this idea of interest altogether, relying on future productivity increases to be able to give the retired population a better standard of living than they woud get from their contributions alone.

No other modern economy worth the name doesn't have a solid social pension foundation. Other than China and Japan I guess, but the former will be hitting that wall soon and the latter's economy is moribund partially because it does not have its fiscal house in order that well.

John McDonald says

I rejoined once Obama made Bush look frugal.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/the-obama-spending-non-surge/