A few pro-abort bloggers are complaining Democrat presidential candidates weren't up front enough in last night's Vegas debate about their intention to choose Supreme Court nominees based their belief that abortion is a constitutionally protected right.
Bloggers thought candidates coded this by saying they would pick nominees who believe 1) in the "right to privacy," and 2) that Roe v. Wade is "settled law."
This should indeed be a concern. Note no one is saying these days they believe abortion is constitutionally sound on The Point: preborn humans aren't constitutionally protected persons....
The other side would lose the battle today on The Point. The exact moment of conception can now be viewed under microscope. Preborn humans are now filmed. Other laws are starting to stack up against Roe that consider preborns persons and killing them murder, like Laci and Connor's Law.
So one's "right to privacy" is nullified when one kills an innocent person.
And you can't really find much more pathetic straw grasping than the "settled law" argument since the Supreme Court has overturned plenty of prior bad decisions. Dred Scott. Brown vs. Board of Education. Etc.
The lamenting bloggers apparently don't get this. Their candidates cannot argue the constitutional merits of abortion on abortion itself.
The transcript of the pertinent section of last night's Democrat debate below. Note something very telling John Edwards said:
But I want to go beyond what some others have said here, because it is so crucial, if you grew up like I did in the segregated South and you saw how important it was to have federal judges who had some backbone and were willing to stand up against popular opinion.... That's the kind of courage and strength we need in a United States Supreme Court justice.
Did Edwards just admit abortion support is not predominant American opinion?
And Obama's chatter that "the role of the court is... to protect people who may be vulnerable... those who don't have a lot of clout" makes me want to become uncivil.
Here is a sampling of the liberal blog complaints:
From National Journal's On Call:
Why can't the frontrunners say pro-choice?What qualities would you look for in choosing a Supreme Court nominee?
Respect for country's privacy laws, Clinton said.
Obama: "Part of the role of the court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process ..."
Edwards, too, with the privacy talk and discussion of protection for a judge who desegregated schools.
Where are Kate Michelman and Kim Gandy and the Emily's Listers on this issue? Why aren't they demanding more of their Democratic candidates on the choice issue? Especially with the SUPCO in flux ...
From RH Reality Check:
At the end of an often tedious debate filled with canned responses tweaked, parsed and refined from the previous tedious debates, the Democratic candidates for President were asked how they would choose a Supreme Court Justice. The question came from an undecided Nevada Democrat, and CNN's Suzanne Malveaux added her own addendum, "would you insist nominees support abortion rights?"Each candidate affirmed in some way they would pick justices that would be fair, understand the experience of the everyday American, protect the marginalized and support the right to privacy enshrined in the United States Constitution.
At that point, right before the all important "diamonds or pearls" question, I threw a pillow at the TV screaming, "WHEN ARE YOU ROBOTS GOING TO WAKE UP?"
I'm thrilled that each candidate can offer a canned response reassuring voters what they already know, but I'm wondering when the candidates might move beyond the stump speech and help Americans understand what is really at stake with respect to the U.S. Supreme Court.
One thing is certain, those opposed to rights Americans currently enjoy understand what's at stake and they rally their base and campaign on it every where they go: "one, two, three more justices" is the Social-Con mantra.
But the Democrats can't seem to break out of their programmed responses long enough to fire up their base, or educate independent voters on what really is at stake. Instead, like a quarter in a juke box they hear Supreme Court in the question and think "R-73 ... play pro-choice privacy response."
[A]ll seemed to avoid addressing the issue of abortion directly and instead couched their answers in terms of "privacy" and Roe v. Wade as "settled precedent."Unlike some scholars who think equality is (re)emerging as a sounder foundation on which to base the right to abortion, the Democratic presidential candidates certainly don't appear ready to stray from Roe's doctrinal underpinnings.
[Photo credits: top, Los Angeles Times; bottom, Associated Press]
Read entire transcript here.
DODD: Obviously, as someone who's pro-choice and have been their entire public life and career, I feel very strongly about Roe v. Wade. I would not want a justice to be appointed who would even think about overturning that....
But I'd want to be careful about making sure that I'd know the person... when they make the statement that they will uphold precedent and they raise their right hand before the Judiciary Committee and make that committee, and then violate that commitment. That I find highly offensive....
BLITZER: All right, let's go through the whole panel. I want everybody to weigh in; this is an important question that was raised with Senator Biden.
Would you insist that any nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court supported abortion rights for women?
BIDEN: ... We have enough ideologues. We have enough professors on the bench.
I want someone who ran for dog catcher. I want someone - literally, not a joke.... We wanted to get someone who, in fact, knew what it was to live life. Knew what it was - not as some intellectual feat....
And by the way, the next person that is appointed in a Biden administration is going to be a woman....
Number two... I would not appoint anyone who did not understand that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment provided a right to privacy. That is the question I would ask. If that is answered correctly, that that is the case, then it answers the question, which means they would support Roe v. Wade....
RICHARDSON: I would have diversity as a prime criteria, but I would also ask my nominee, this is what I would ask. Number one, do you believe Roe v. Wade is settled law? Number two, do you support the right to privacy?...
If the answer is no to those questions, that basically say, is it settled law or not - you want to call it a litmus test, fine - those would be the judges that I would appoint to the Supreme Court....
KUCINICH: A Kucinich appointment to the Supreme Court would have a litmus test on abortion. It's a question of a woman's right to choose and a right to privacy. But a president has to do more than that. A president has to be a healer. And this has been one of the great divides in our country. And so I want to let the American people know that I'll stand for prenatal care, postnatal care, child care, a living wage, universal health care, sex education, birth control... We can make abortions less necessary if we have a healer in the White House. And we can also protect a woman's right to choose. We can do both....
CLINTON: Well, they'd have to share my view about privacy, and I think that goes hand-in-hand. Privacy, in my opinion, is embedded in our Constitution. What does it mean to have a right to free speech or the right to worship as you choose if you also don't have the right to be left alone, to have that privacy that goes with being an American. So it would be absolutely critical. And I, like Senator Biden...
BLITZER: So the answer is yes.
CLINTON: Yes, the answer is yes....
BLITZER: Senator Obama, you used to be a professor of law.
OBAMA: I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy. But you're right, Wolf. I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it's not just the particular issue and how they ruled. But it's their conception of the court.
And part of the role of the court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don't have a lot of clout. And part of what I want to find in a Supreme Court justice - and Joe's exactly right. Sometimes we're only looking at academics or people who've been in the courts.
If we can find people who have life experience, and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court....
EDWARDS: I would insist that they recognize the right to privacy and recognize Roe v. Wade as settled law.
But I want to go beyond what some others have said here, because it is so crucial, if you grew up like I did in the segregated South and you saw how important it was to have federal judges who had some backbone and were willing to stand up against popular opinion.... That's the kind of courage and strength we need in a United States Supreme Court justice.
Comments:
Why can't the frontrunners say pro-choice?
I'm sure they can, but do they really feel it's a big deal? There are many more important issues for this election, and besides - they may be jockeying for position within the ranks of those who are already acknowledged to be pro-choice.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 16, 2007 8:16 AMThese guys aren't passionately "pro-choice" and will not fight for it to remain legal. They just aren't passionate enough about this very crucial issue. They will not see it as a "crucial" issue.
Talking about Social Security ,the Iraq war are the utmost issues for them and the failures of this administration. Social justice prevails.
But, you can't have a solid SS system if you 've aborted 50 million payers into the system. We surely wouldn't have a crisis of SS if we had those 50 million lives to contribute to society.
It's time for their supporters to acknowledge that they have been abandoned. And at the very least - come to terms that these folks aren't going to fight the battle with the passion that the pro-aborts desperately need to succeed to keep Roe & Bolton from being overturned.
Let's sit back and savor the moment for a bit, shall we..
"But, you can't have a solid SS system if you 've aborted 50 million payers into the system. We surely wouldn't have a crisis of SS if we had those 50 million lives to contribute to society."
surely you dont believe that politics is sufficiently nuanced to entertain such questions.
Posted by: roger at November 16, 2007 8:58 AMYvonne, that Roe is in real "danger" is at the least very much up for argument.
Social Security would not be much changed had there been no legal abortion. Not all the "extra people" would have contributed, and some would have been drawing on the system all along.
It is reasonable to think that unwanted kids will on balance be more disadvantaged and won't contribute as much as wanted kids, as well. If more people are wanted as contributors, then by far the best option is highly-educated, highly-motivated foreign immigrants who will be working right away and paying a lot in taxes.
Additionally, a pyramid scheme, such as SS has become, sadly, isn't going to be "rescued" by such a relatively small net benefit, if even a net gain it would be.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 16, 2007 8:58 AMthese clowns want to get elected and once in office they want to avoid stumbling and failing to retain power. the game has never been about what is beneficial for the republic.
Posted by: roger at November 16, 2007 9:05 AMMost people don't think Hillary or Obama even have a snowballs chance in hell. I don't think so either.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 10:03 AMAt that point, right before the all important "diamonds or pearls" question, I threw a pillow at the TV screaming, "WHEN ARE YOU ROBOTS GOING TO WAKE UP?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Funny, what did you yell when NONE of the top-tier Republican candidates even bothered to show up for the World Net Daily "Values Debate?"
Posted by: Laura at November 16, 2007 10:30 AMJoseph Biden: I want someone who ran for dog catcher. I want someone - literally, not a joke.... We wanted to get someone who, in fact, knew what it was to live life. Knew what it was - not as some intellectual feat....
And by the way, the next person that is appointed in a Biden administration is going to be a woman....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh my GOD!
Joseph Biden is going to appoint me SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!
These guys aren't passionately "pro-choice" and will not fight for it to remain legal. They just aren't passionate enough about this very crucial issue. They will not see it as a "crucial" issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It isn't a crucial issue.
It doesn't even make the top 10 list of issues Americans care about in this election.
Doug,
I am not introducing anything new.. The Connection between SS and abortion has been documented quite well. While it is NOT the sole problem it is a contributing factor. And it makes absolute sense.
I was an "unwanted" child- being that I am an adult adoptee.. I surely have and am contributing to society, as I believe that many of us "unwanteds" do.
If you take a look at the first link, you can see it for yourself. And this doesnt make sense? Come on Doug, you know better..
http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2267/pub_detail.asp
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jan/05011703.html
http://www.defendingtruth.org/content.asp?content_id=146
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Zell_Miller_Abortion_has_shrunk_our_0309.html
Posted by: yvonne at November 16, 2007 10:38 AMPosted by: Laura at November 16, 2007 10:34 AM
Laura, LOL!
Posted by: AB Laura at November 16, 2007 10:44 AMGosh, I hope Clinton comes to Oregon for a debate/rally. I've got a question for her. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at November 16, 2007 10:56 AMYeah.. you can PALNT a question on Social Security.. I can Hear the Hillary now... ROFL
Laura..
Wasn't health care the top issue?
The pro-aborts would say that Abortion IS health care..
Laura,
LOL. I laughed when I heard Biden's answer. I said, "as opposed to living death?"
Posted by: prettyinpink at November 16, 2007 11:21 AMwhat a lousy, lousy group of politicians on the Democrat side..... not one expressed any interest in protecting the unborn. they suck.
Posted by: jasper at November 16, 2007 11:31 AMMost people don't think Hillary or Obama even have a snowballs chance in hell. I don't think so either.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 10:03 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where did you read that?
Posted by: Laura at November 16, 2007 11:43 AMTalking to people. Do you ever do that once in a while, or do you just talk to animals?
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 11:45 AMLaura, do you really think that people want Hillary to win? I know you like her. Why don't you give us some GOOD reasons as to why she should win.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 11:47 AMI'd love to post some of the responses that I have gotten about Hillary becoming president. Obama too, but they are WAY tooo X-rated. Mostly guys I've talked to. Let's just say that they had me LMAO!!!
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 11:54 AMNathan, 10:56
Whatever you do don't "gang up on her" like that nasty Tim Russert and other Democrat candidates did. You're not supposed to pick on a girl!
Posted by: Mary at November 16, 2007 12:02 PMLaura, do you really think that people want Hillary to win? I know you like her. Why don't you give us some GOOD reasons as to why she should win.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 11:47 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK,
Her lifelong committment to healthcare issues - particularly healthcare issues.
Her call for a rational end to the war in Iraq.
I like her immigration policy which allows people currently working here to become citizens.
I commend her zeal to ditch "No Child Left Behind."
I love her position on stem cell research.
I agree with her call for the end of corporate subsidies and asking Americans making over $97,000 a year to pay their fair share.
I share her concern for the environment and the war on global warming.
I love her policy on alternative energy research, ethanol, solar, wind and even nuclear power, and her intention of freeing us from dependence on the a-holes in the Middle East.
I like her 'do.
I admire her child.
I love her charming, slutty husband.
Is that enough?
You like her ugly husband?
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 12:07 PMI'd love to post some of the responses that I have gotten about Hillary becoming president. Obama too, but they are WAY tooo X-rated. Mostly guys I've talked to. Let's just say that they had me LMAO!!!
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 11:54 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, but apparently all of your friends are low-end trailer trash.
My friends actually vote.
I couldn't help myself. Just couldn't. All of those poor women got their panties in a bunch over that baggy eyed dorkus!! And a hill-jack to boot!! LOL! LMAO!
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 12:09 PMLaura, LOL!
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 12:10 PMLaura, you are such a class act. How is your 2 bit loser b/f doing?
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 12:12 PMYeah, but apparently all of your friends are low-end trailer trash.
My friends actually vote.
Posted by: Laura at November 16, 2007 12:09 PM *********** Animals vote?
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 12:15 PMLaura, you are such a class act. How is your 2 bit loser b/f doing?
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 12:12 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My boyfriend is a loser?
Posted by: Laura at November 16, 2007 12:20 PMI'm judgemental, just like you!! REMEMBER?????
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 12:23 PM"I agree with her call for the end of corporate subsidies and asking Americans making over $97,000 a year to pay their fair share."
in the first place $97,000 does buy what it used to. as for fair share if i read this right this income population would pay between 25% and 28% of their income in taxes. how much are you expecting these folks to pay.
That's why we call her Hill-Billy.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 12:31 PMOops, I must have clicked the wrong button to comment. I thought I was walking into a debate, but it looks more like a daycare...
Nice maturity level guys. Real nice.
OK,
Her lifelong committment to healthcare issues - particularly healthcare issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's supposed to read, "particularly children's healthcare issues."
Abortion is not a healthcare issue.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 12:50 PM1.3 million abortions annually is NOT acceptable.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 12:53 PMOf course abortion is NOT health care but Planned PArenthood thinks it is..Thats why a National health care system will end up FUNDING ALL Abortions... Dont these pro-abort folks have a clue?? SHEESH
"Planned Parenthood Federation of America is the nation's leading sexual and reproductive HEALTH CARE ADVOCATE AND PROVIDER."
"Planned Parenthood affiliates operate more than 860 HEALTH CENTERS nationwide, providing medical services and sexuality education for millions of women, men, and teenagers each year. We also work with allies worldwide to ensure that all women and men have the right and the means to meet their sexual and reproductive HEALTH CARE needs. "
Taken from: www.plannedparenthood.org
Of course abortion is NOT health care but Planned PArenthood thinks it is..Thats why a National health care system will end up FUNDING ALL Abortions... Dont these pro-abort folks have a clue?? SHEESH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Great! I'm not happy about paying when somebody cranks out a baby they can't afford. I'd be much happier to pay for an abortion.
I don't mind subsidizing responsible behavior.
Abortion is not responsible.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 2:16 PMWhy are a lot of abortions repeats?
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 2:18 PM"Talking to people. Do you ever do that once in a while, or do you just talk to animals?"
That's not a good way to predict an election. I haven't ever talked to someone who voted for Bush and he almost won.
Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2007 2:19 PM*oops* I meant to ask, why are some abortion patients back to the abortion clinic over and over again?
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 2:19 PMHal, he did win.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 2:22 PMHal, here's a good question for you. Now, your wife had 2 abortions. Laura stated on another thread that any woman who has a repeat abortion either: 1) Enjoyed the experience, or 2) Is dumber than a sack of hammers. Which best describes your wife?
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 2:26 PMHeather, thanks for the kind inquiry. Although I enjoy Laura's posts very much, I'm not sure I can completely agree. Two abortions, over 5 years apart, do not necessarily make someone as dumb as a sack of hammers.
Posted by: Hal at November 16, 2007 2:31 PMHal, sorry, but this is how she talks. Maybe you should stop indulging her. Stop laughing with her.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 2:37 PMLaura..
your statement is quite idiotic..
There is no HUGE difference between raising 1 child vs 7 children.. Financially its NOT impossible.. I am living proof..It can and has been done with NO outside help from any organization private or publicly funded. I havent worked, even part time outside my home for over 7 years.
And yes, they ALL have the same Father and we have been happily married for 18 years. And we are pregnant with number 8.
Ive refuted the argument for many years.. "We can't afford it..." That is absolute nonsense. EVERYONE can LIVE within their means ,they just CHOOSE NOT to or dont know how to....
You'd actually be amazed at how many of us with LARGE families can afford to raise our children on much less than $100k a year. And you dont have to live payday to payday.
So come back with something a bit more creative before you slap us with your rhetoric..
Posted by: yvonne at November 16, 2007 2:56 PMYvonne: I am not introducing anything new.. The Connection between SS and abortion has been documented quite well. While it is NOT the sole problem it is a contributing factor. And it makes absolute sense.
To some extent it could sense, but again that is assuming that the extra people resulting from no legal abortion would be a net positive for the system. (And in the context of the abortion debate - even if some net benefit was there, is that any reason to take away the freedom that women have in the matter?)
Also, as before, if more contributors are what is wanted, then don't bother with the most-doubtful group but rather let in emigrants with doctor's degrees, etc., people highly-educated and highly-motivated, who would contribute much more on average and who would be paying in immediately.
Our gov't's heinous fiscal shenanigans are the reason SS is in trouble. It was not intended to be a cover-all "retirement" pay nor was the SS trust fund supposed to be raided by faithless legislators.
......
I was an "unwanted" child- being that I am an adult adoptee.. I surely have and am contributing to society, as I believe that many of us "unwanteds" do.
I have no doubt of that, and I'm sorry if it sounded critical. Yet what I said is true - "It is reasonable to think that unwanted kids will on balance be more disadvantaged and won't contribute as much". Wanting "more bodies" is one thing but if we want more payers and higher per-capita payers then emigration is the way to go.
......
From your links:
If the other factors projected by the Social Security actuaries remained constant, the choosing of life over abortion by the boomers would have kept the Social Security system in balance indefinitely--with a large cumulative surplus--without either raising payroll tax rates from current levels or cutting promised benefits.
Yeah, heh heh - "if the other factors remained constant.." Well HELLO they haven't and in fact have changed so much, along with the gov't's robbing the trust fund that any point there is rendered largely moot.
......
the "pay-as-you-go" system where roughly each generation of workers pays the retirement benefits for their parent's generation.
Well yeah - our gov't is bankrupt so many times over that we're in a world of hurt for the long run, especially those of us who don't prepare for it. Had gov't invested the money as was originally intended, things would be much better, but oh no they had to take it - for temporary political gain as with most such maneuvers - leaving the "pay-as-you-go" deal, which understandably will have some gripes about it.
......
Social Security itself is likely a major cause because of the raw deal it creates for parents and the enormous subsidies it provides to non-parents
Now this was a wacky one. In no way does SS "penalize" parents. In fact, among taxes parents do get several breaks with larger standard deductions, child credits, etc. People without kids don't get "extra money" or "subsidies" from SS. Stuff like this was written for people predisposed to swallow baloney and/or too gullible to know any better.
......
3. There is less Social Security money because there are less workers and there are less workers because 45 million people have been aborted since 1973.
Oh for Pete's sake - there are more and more workers all the time. There is more and more SS money all the time. It's that the gov't raided the trust fund plus people's perception that it's supposed to be "retirement" rather than a supplement that is the problem.
......
4. "Zell Miller"? :: laughing ::
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 16, 2007 2:57 PMLaura, you are such a class act. How is your 2 bit loser b/f doing?
Heather, such irony we rarely see, and though it may be lost upon you, rest assured that most of the rest of us are tuned in.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 16, 2007 2:59 PMHal, here's a good question for you. Now, your wife had 2 abortions. Laura stated on another thread that any woman who has a repeat abortion either: 1) Enjoyed the experience, or 2) Is dumber than a sack of hammers. Which best describes your wife?
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 2:26 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gee Heather, I never said that.
The woman involved said that the abortion she had was nonstop shrieking agony that lasted for days, and left her an emotional cripple. Then she chose to have another abortion within a few months of the first, and stated that it was every bit as bad.
I suggested that SHE was dumber than a sack of hammers, and I stand by that.
Do you ever do anything right?
Get anything right?
Laura, Don't try to weasel out of it now.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 3:21 PMLaura, I thought you also said that "Terri Schiavo was kept alive like a breathing pot roast." Now, I KNOW that was YOU. Yesterday, you were siding with Jacque. Now, I am going to put that aside, but not until I say this. Did you know that Jacque is a personal friend of the Schiavo family? Lost Laura, you will go which ever way the wind blows.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 3:27 PMBTW, I think I've just gotten it right!
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 3:28 PMWell, good evening everyone.
Posted by: heather at November 16, 2007 3:29 PM
I love her policy on alternative energy research, ethanol, solar, wind and even nuclear power, and her intention of freeing us from dependence on the a-holes in the Middle East.
Posted by: Laura at November 16, 2007 12:06 PM
You do know that we are far more dependent on Canada, Venezuela and Mexico for our oil.
Doug,
I don't get the SS penalizes parents. If anything the ones getting the short end of the stick are some working women. The best thing that ever happened to SS was when women entered the workforce in droves. The taxable workforce increased without a corresponding growth in poulation. Many of these women are married and make less than their spouses. It is entirely possible, given the survivors benefits rules, for a married woman to work her entire life yet receive no more in retirement benefits than a similar married woman who never worked. I don't call that penalizing a parent.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 16, 2007 3:54 PMThose anons were me.
Posted by: hippie at November 16, 2007 3:56 PM"You do know that we are far more dependent on Canada, Venezuela and Mexico for our oil."
But we are being manipulated in the Middle East for our oil. That's why its a big deal. We shouldn't have to play nice to dictators to get energy for the country.
Posted by: prettyinpink at November 16, 2007 4:50 PMHippie, the "penalizing" deal was the silly pretense that SS should compensate people for having kids. Good grief - among all the untrue things that people think about Social Security, that was a new one on me.
Posted by: Doug at November 16, 2007 4:55 PMBut we are being manipulated in the Middle East for our oil. That's why its a big deal. We shouldn't have to play nice to dictators to get energy for the country.
PIP, really, what manipulation do you see? OPEC could cut production a little and run the price of oil 50% or more higher really fast. It's theirs until they sell it, and the market price is what the market will bear.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 16, 2007 4:58 PMDoug.. something we agree on is that SS was NOT meant as a retirement fund.
Being that my parents are immigrants from Europe, I was always drilled to NEVER depend on Social Security. Depend on Self was the theme in my childhood home.
I surely as a 40-year old honestly dont care if I get the money or not. And most likely I wont because I am short 4 credits at this point..lol
So, what is your alternative for the current system?
Posted by: yvonne at November 16, 2007 5:44 PMDoug..
Here are two more articles which may perhaps explain what that writer meant about it penalizing parents...
http://www.mises.org/story/2451
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57876-2005Jan7.html
"You do know that we are far more dependent on Canada, Venezuela and Mexico for our oil."
But we are being manipulated in the Middle East for our oil. That's why its a big deal. We shouldn't have to play nice to dictators to get energy for the country.
Posted by: prettyinpink at November 16, 2007 4:50 PM
What about Hugo Chavez? He's not in the Middle East but he certainly does his own share of manipulation for his oil. He's got Hollywood stars running down there telling everyone what a great guy he is. Please!
Posted by: Kristen at November 16, 2007 7:10 PMYvonne, I'm 48 and even at this "late" date I'd settle for not getting any SS benefits, just don't take any more SS taxes from me. But that feeling is lessening as I get older and I'm getting more into the mode of just wait and hope I get something. Meanwhile, I'm counting on zilch, saving 25% of what I make, and thinking hard about my wife's and my retirement.
So, what is your alternative for the current system?
There is no good alternative for trying to keep things pretty much the same. Taxes would have to be raised - it's been a long time since the last increase - and benefits cut.
The alternative for the individual is to realize that the gov't cannot be counted upon to do what is best for the individual in this regard, and that's no matter which party is in power. In fact, the gov't can probably be counted on to do what is worst for the most people.
The unfunded gov't liabilities are so massive that there's no going back, no matter what, and no chance of them being meaningfully paid. It's really up to us to protect ourselves.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 16, 2007 8:43 PMKristen: What about Hugo Chavez? He's not in the Middle East but he certainly does his own share of manipulation for his oil. He's got Hollywood stars running down there telling everyone what a great guy he is. Please!
Yeah, he's a wingnut who likes to grandstand for his own people and/or for what he preceives as his own political gain. You're gonna have that with some leaders.
Still, what "manipulation" of oil do you see? It's a basic supply and demand deal. Everybody could say the heck with Chavez and refuse to buy any oil from him. The rest of the world's oil would increase in price and it would put a huge hurting on Venezuela and Chavez.
It wouldn't last, though - if they would sell cheaper than the rest of the world they'd find buyers, and they'd do so. That "cheaper" price might be higher than what we're paying now.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 16, 2007 8:48 PMDoug,
I think your sentiments are those of a majority of Americans- no matter what side- you are right.
Power to the people.. Heck we can't even create a Coup in this nation as our Founding Fathers specified we could do..
Posted by: yvonne at November 16, 2007 9:20 PMDoug, I agree it's not really manipulation. I don't think people even know where their oil is coming from; they just assume it's the Middle East. I got an email awhile ago saying "Don't buy BP's gas it supports the terrorists! Buy CITGO instead!" Hello? Like Hugo Chavez is any better?
If you don't want to support some crazed leader don't buy gas! (I know some comes from Canada, etc.) but for gosh sakes give it up! If it bothers you that much buy a hybrid or better yet, ride your bike.
I don't think for a SECOND that if America held the majority of the world's oil we wouldn't be doing the same thing. I remember back in 1996 - 97 when gas was 99 cents a gallon for awhile! So everyone bought their huge SUVs and then guess what happened? If I believed in conspiracy theories I'd say it was Saddam!
Kuwait takes GREAT care of their citizens because of their oil. They can charge what they want and I don't blame them at all!
I got an email awhile ago saying "Don't buy BP's gas it supports the terrorists! Buy CITGO instead!" Hello? Like Hugo Chavez is any better?
I agree, Kristen. Also, often it's not like a certain brand of gasoline will come from that company's refinery. Example - in Canton, Ohio there is an Ashland oil refinery, and it supplies many of the gas stations in the area, regardless of brand.
I do believe that some are actually "that type" of gas but for many it doesn't make sense to truck the gasoline hundreds or thousands of miles versus getting it locally.
Doug
Kristen,
Whenever I get those e-mails I ALWAYS check with Snopes.com. Its save me a lot of embarassment, that is after embarassing myself a few times!
Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 1:48 PMI don't know, Mary, maybe if we all just boycott the gas stations for one day the price will drop by 50 cents a gallon, and then I can use the money I save to send to a guy in Nigeria - there's a couple million Dollars that I can get part of if I just send a little dough to free it up heh heh heh.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 17, 2007 5:27 PMDoug,
You wrote,
"Taxes would have to be raised - it's been a long time since the last increase - and benefits cut."
Yes 10 out of 10 economists agree taxes will need to increase 70% effective immediately and permanently. (Gokhale)
"The alternative for the individual is to realize that the gov't cannot be counted upon to do what is best for the individual...
The unfunded gov't liabilities are so massive ... It's really up to us to protect ourselves."
Great point. The problem is we could be cashing in investments as the economy is shrinking. Which means the value of our investments will decrease while we have increasing taxes and inflation. Medicare premiums are simply taxes. Much of your tax differed investments will be taxed at high rates. The gov't wasn't stupid when they told us all to save now and pay later.
The worst part is that many of the 55 million baby boomers will be indigent and ill. Even if we cut SS benefits, they will still qualify for SSI and Medicaid.
The countries we count on to invest here such as Europe and Japan are aging faster than we are, so their economies may well shrink first. This is why these countries have specific policies to encourage population growth. Some economists note that Japan has already started deflation.
Even a good job of planning for yourself may not be good enough.
On the lighter side I have already told my son I will baby sit his kids for free and I will buy him and his wife a house with a bedroom for me. Now, I just have to pick out the curtains for my new room. He likes the idea cuz he hates diapers.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2007 10:17 PMThat anon was me
Posted by: hippie at November 17, 2007 10:19 PMThe problem is we could be cashing in investments as the economy is shrinking. Which means the value of our investments will decrease while we have increasing taxes and inflation. Medicare premiums are simply taxes. Much of your tax differed investments will be taxed at high rates. The gov't wasn't stupid when they told us all to save now and pay later.
Hippie, yeah - and I think most Americans will have a declining standard of living over the next couple decades or so, or certainly at least the rate of gain will be slower than in the past. We've had things "too good" for the last 25 or 26 years, IMO, due to a generally-decreasing trend in interest rates and an excessively easy-money policy from the gov't. If it's time to pay the piper then it only makes sense to me - and if we have things "worse" it'll be entirely normal.
Inflation does drive up tax rates, but there's still the idea of income during retirement being lower than while working, which mean less tax paid.
The potential for deflation is strong, but as far as I can see the gov't isn't going to accept it. They will "run the printing presses" in the last eventuality, regardless of the destruction of the Dollar's value. The policies and market action of the last couple years shows this pretty clearly.
Not that the gov't can entirely overcome market forces, but for now it's still working. If we do have inflation then gold, commodities, and other things of "real" value (versus paper assets like bonds, treasure bills, certificates of deposit, many stocks, etc.) are the place to be. Normally, real estate would be in there, but for many places in the US there's a bubble that's been in force but now is bursting, so care is warranted there. In inflationary times debt is okay if it's used to buy things that increase in value faster than the interest acrues on our debt. Not to say that debt is "good" in a vacuum or that unsound levels of it should be take on, but we repay our debts with cheaper Dollars under the scenario.
In the end, after the inflation, I believe we will have some serious deflation, a depression and possible the rest of the world as well. I am not saying this is in the next couple years. Can't be sure but much of the rest of the world is still growing strongly enough that I think we'll have a decent amount of warning. The gov't cannot hold it off forever, IMO again.
For deflation, we want to own safe debt instruments - bonds, notes, bills, etc., issued by entities which will not default on them, or simply hold case. If anything we want to be lenders then not borrowers, as we will get repaid with Dollars that are increasing in value.
......
The worst part is that many of the 55 million baby boomers will be indigent and ill. Even if we cut SS benefits, they will still qualify for SSI and Medicaid.
I don't know about indigent, but the unfunded liability of the US gov't is like 50 trillion Dollars or more already, and going up fast. Yeah - the potential for some really "bad times" are there. Has the future been mortgaged? Yes, like a big dog. Without legal abortion the equation might be some different, but I don't think it would be in a meaningful way, and the reality of what we are headed for is vastly more important to me than arguing about what would have happened if....
......
The countries we count on to invest here such as Europe and Japan are aging faster than we are, so their economies may well shrink first. This is why these countries have specific policies to encourage population growth. Some economists note that Japan has already started deflation.
Japan had a massive deflation from 1990 to 2003, then rebounded much as US markets did after the plunge from 2000. May be rolling over to the downside again. Agreed that it's a big deal for the US, as they own so much of our debt and hold so many Dollars. US markets are still somewhat the "markets of last resort" for the world but that is likely changing as our gov't finances spiral even more out of control and our currency loses value.
China and India are the main engines of world economic growth now, along with smaller countries in the "Pacific Rim" and some other places. China too holds a lot of our debt and many Dollars. It's in their interest, as with Japan and Saudi Arabia, to prop up the Dollar as it helps us buy their products, and they want to sell to us. As long as that remains the case, the status quo has attractiveness to both sides even though we sink farther and farther into debt. In the long run it can't go on forever and then things get exciting.
......
Even a good job of planning for yourself may not be good enough.
I hear that, yet within economic bad times often come great opportunities. Not saying we are like 1929, exactly, but the relative few with foresight - Baruch, Joe Kennedy, etc., laid the foundations for great future fortunes by protecting their wealth then buying when things looked the worst (that's usually the bottom), i.e. the early 1930s.
Interesting times....
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 17, 2007 11:58 PMDoug, HUH???
Posted by: heather at November 19, 2007 12:03 AMMaybe you need to read it over a couple times, Heather.
Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 7:27 AMDoug,
I hear that, yet within economic bad times often come great opportunities. Not saying we are like 1929, exactly, but the relative few with foresight - Baruch, Joe Kennedy, etc., laid the foundations for great future fortunes by protecting their wealth then buying when things looked the worst (that's usually the bottom), i.e. the early 1930s.
Posted by: Doug at November 17, 2007 11:58 PM
Yes, some do well. Sometimes it is partly luck, networking etc. One of my great great grandmas bought another farm during the depression because it was a good deal. When she died her daughter and son in law sold both farms and moved to another state and bought an even better farm. They were among the small percentage that were better off.
However, in harsh economic times, when most people are in financial trouble, by definition, most people won't be among the winners. Many of us are looking for an angle that will keep us out of trouble, but we know, not all can win just through shrewd planning. Also, by lowering your standard of living, you consume less and contribute to the shrinking of the economy.
We can now see policies in some countries similar to those in Britain in the early 1700's that brought on a 105 year bear market. I think it is safe to say that "most" are not winners in a bear market. Buying at the bottom is a great strategy if you have many years to hold stock and wait for growth. It is not so hot if you are 70 and need to sell, so you can live on the $.
Shifting here slightly. One economic strategy for gov't is nationalize health care and then ration it for the expensive elderly, and then expand it for children and the young. Britain saves a lot of money this way. There is no return on the investment in health care for the elderly, but there is for children.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/15/1549?query=TOC
Hippie, no question that economic contractions hurt the average person. The majority, no matter how well they can forecast the future, don't have the ability to completely shield themselves.
Buying at the bottom is a great strategy if you have many years to hold stock and wait for growth. It is not so hot if you are 70 and need to sell, so you can live on the $.
In general it's not advisable for 70 year olds to be buying stock. The return over the shorter life expectancy at that point isn't guaranteed enough. If a person is a shorter-term oriented trader and is buying things that are going up, then fine, but even there one would want to be holding cash and looking for buys. Or, if needing the money to live on, then holding cash during deflation results in it becoming more valuable over time, not a bad thing there.
Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 12:45 PMDoug,
You wrote,
"no question that economic contractions hurt the average person. The majority, no matter how well they can forecast the future, don't have the ability to completely shield themselves."
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Which brings us back to the problem we started with in the first place. A shrinking workforce will yield a shrinking economy which will generally hurt most everyone.
Since we exercise little control over immigration, we generally are importing folks who multiply faster than we do which has kept us growing for the past 30 years. There has been no increase in population among native born Americans in the past 30 years. All of our increase has come from immigration.
Posted by: hippie at November 19, 2007 3:29 PMA shrinking workforce will yield a shrinking economy which will generally hurt most everyone.
Hippie, not necessarily. The real factor is wealth production, and that can occur with fewer workers, as has almost always been the case with industrialization, etc. The raw number of workers won't be tied to it.
However, even if we go with the idea of less workers being bad, is it bad enough that we'd deny women legal abortions?
......
Since we exercise little control over immigration, we generally are importing folks who multiply faster than we do which has kept us growing for the past 30 years. There has been no increase in population among native born Americans in the past 30 years. All of our increase has come from immigration.
From the standpoint of taxes, I think we should exercise more control.
Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 4:22 PMDoug,
I don't think you will find any economists will agree that having fewer workers won't hurt the economy especially as the number of retirees is not only growing as a proportion but also living longer. Generally your point about worker productivity is accurate.
Intentionally ending a human life is wrong and should not be allowed because it is wrong regardless of its impact on wealth. Additionally, I don't think you can calculate a net benefit to society from abortion.
Let's not be confused, it is possible to lower the birth rate to a level lower than we currently have without abortion or contraception, which is what we saw during the great depression.
It is also possible to have legal abortion and yet have population growth (not counting immigration).
So abortion and birth rate are not intimately linked.
I think the birth rate is more linked to social pressure. Women are pressured to have fewer kids. Plenty of folks feel entitled to pressure women to have fewer kids and have them later. Likewise legal abortion makes it easier for others to pressure women into abortion.
Anyway, I didn't understand the following comment:
"From the standpoint of taxes, I think we should exercise more control."
Hippie: I don't think you will find any economists will agree that having fewer workers won't hurt the economy especially as the number of retirees is not only growing as a proportion but also living longer. Generally your point about worker productivity is accurate.
Good discussion, H. I pretty much agree there. There have to be enough jobs for the workers, and that is one factor, as well as that lower-paying jobs don't impact the economy as much as high-paying ones. Yet if we're generalizing then I agree that more workers means a bigger economy, and - with respect to supporting retirees - certainly would overall be likely to be better.
......
Intentionally ending a human life is wrong and should not be allowed because it is wrong regardless of its impact on wealth.
Your saying that does not make it so.
......
Additionally, I don't think you can calculate a net benefit to society from abortion.
No argument there. To me, the good in letting women be free as they are now is much more important than any such attempted calculations. Likewise, the consequences of the US gov't's unfunded liability dwarf arguments over "Roe or not" with respect to Social Security.
I don't mean to belittle the abortion debate - I know how hugely important the issue is to many people. Really just a forecast here - that the economy and people's declining standard of living will assert itself more and more as a political issue.
......
Let's not be confused, it is possible to lower the birth rate to a level lower than we currently have without abortion or contraception, which is what we saw during the great depression.
Agreed again. I envision the birth rate declining further in a severe economic downturn, this time including more abortions due to the differences between now and the 1930s.
......
It is also possible to have legal abortion and yet have population growth (not counting immigration). So abortion and birth rate are not intimately linked.
You're bein' too doggone logical heh heh heh. Yeah - the average person could have two abortions and five kids. Yep, "person," not "woman." Ain't statistics great?
......
I think the birth rate is more linked to social pressure. Women are pressured to have fewer kids. Plenty of folks feel entitled to pressure women to have fewer kids and have them later. Likewise legal abortion makes it easier for others to pressure women into abortion.
Just who are the ones pressuring the women? Their husbands/mates? Their peers? I concur that culture - now much different from, say, a couple hundred years ago, can make a big difference, but I really don't think there is "pressure" on women to have less kids than what they want....?
......
Anyway, I didn't understand the following comment: "From the standpoint of taxes, I think we should exercise more control."
If we're aiming for more tax receipts, as for Social Security, then I say our immgration policy should be to let in people with Doctor's or Master's degrees only, people who are highly-educated and motivated, people who will immediately begin workiing and paying high taxes. This stuff about "Roe has doomed SS" pales by comparison.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 9:05 AM