Rank the Republican contenders by order of craziness.

[Bonam]

Ah yes, but we are talking about taking opportunities from young people. Younger people potentially living a lesser life. Perhaps younger people having a more difficult time accessing healthcare.

No one is gonna make me live a "lesser life". One's life is what one makes of it.

[Shady]

Chretien and Martin were Tea Party before Tea Party even existed. They cut government spending by almost 20% in the mid to late 90s, when our debt to GDP was approaching the same level the American ratio is approaching. Not even the Tea Party is asking for cuts that large. So according to some of our more clueless forum members, who admit to not paying much attention to the goings on in American politics. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin would be considered radical and crazy, and not wanting to "help people.". Whatever that childish and completely subjective term even means. According to some here, bankrupting your country under the guise of good intentions is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it's compassionate. Thank God there are grown ups in charge to keep such sophistry in check.

[blueblood]

Chretien and Martin were Tea Party before Tea Party even existed. They cut government spending by almost 20% in the mid to late 90s, when our debt to GDP was approaching the same level the American ratio is approaching. Not even the Tea Party is asking for cuts that large. So according to some of our more clueless forum members, who admit to not paying much attention to the goings on in American politics. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin would be considered radical and crazy, and not wanting to "help people.". Whatever that childish and completely subjective term even means. According to some here, bankrupting your country under the guise of good intentions is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it's compassionate. Thank God there are grown ups in charge to keep such sophistry in check.

Wrong, that would be Preston manning et. Al who were the Canadian version of the tea party. Martin would cut something and manning would say "that's it?" it was a political cosmic alignment to cut gov't spending, and it very rarely happens when the party in gov't and an opposition party have the same priority.

[Argus]

Complete nonsense. The government already spends trillions of dollars on the old, and the poor, and children.

And the Tea Party wants that to stop. Let them all die!

But if you wanna talk about craziness, crazy is proposing more spending, with a a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, a 14 trillion dollar debt, and 55 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilites for your so-called help. .

No, craziness is promising big tax cuts despite all the above. In fact, craziness is going to the wall to defend tax cuts on wealthy Americans, and to forbid any new taxes on anything, no matter how much offsetting spending cuts are offered.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Argus

[Argus]

Funny, in this instance it probably would have been a good strategy. We'll let God (the market) readjust itself and liquidate all of those bad assets. Home prices would crash, people would scoop them up for pennies on the dollar, people would save money, labour costs would go down, jobs would return, gov't spending would become more realistic. Hmm, that actually sounds pretty good. Praise Jesus, it's a miracle!!!!

Oddly, to me, the above sounds like another Great Depression. You think people would scoop up cheap houses when they have no jobs and are waiting in soup lines?

[Argus]

When your broke sacrifices have to be made...

What you mean is, when you're broke, other people have to make sacrifices.

We surely aren't about to ask rich people to make sacrifices, now are we!? Oh, no! Instead we offer them more tax cuts!

[Argus]

How are a lot of them the very fabric of society. America got along just fine before social programs ever existed. Hell it prospered.

It prospered in Hollywood movies. It prospered in the way that you can look at a movie of people cavorting on a beautiful south pacific island and never see a sign of a bug, let alone the clouds of bugs that are everywhere.

People died young. People lived in misery. People worked 18 hour days to avoid starving. People lived in shacks that hardly had any heating - or had no heating. Children starved and died. No one made movies about the wonderful lives of people living in tarpaper shacks in the twenties and thirties. Instead the movies were always about the fashionable set living in big houses.

That doesn't mean most people lived that way.

[Argus]

Wow, Cain tells the truth and is correct. Outstanding, hell he went on Piers Morgan and defended his claims. If he makes a mistake he owns up to it right away. Seems pretty reasonable to me. Tax base needs to grow and more people down there need to pay taxes instead of soaking those who already contribute enough.

This is a guy who says if you're not rich it's your own fault. Talk about out of touch with reality! In a year when people are finally starting to realize how far the gap between the rich and everyone else has gotten over the past couple of decades along comes Cain to propose widening it further. Increase taxes on people barely able to clothe themselves, and decrease taxes (drastically) on the rich! Great idea!

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Increase taxes on people barely able to clothe themselves, and decrease taxes (drastically) on the rich! Great idea!

Sounds good to me...the poor use a lot more social safety net services!

[blueblood]

Oddly, to me, the above sounds like another Great Depression. You think people would scoop up cheap houses when they have no jobs and are waiting in soup lines?

It worked in 1920-21 when there was double digit unemployment. Actually it was hoover and fdr spending like drunken sailors and making all sorts of intervention to prop up prices is what made the depression so bad. They wouldn't let the market work and voila

[blueblood]

This is a guy who says if you're not rich it's your own fault. Talk about out of touch with reality! In a year when people are finally starting to realize how far the gap between the rich and everyone else has gotten over the past couple of decades along comes Cain to propose widening it further. Increase taxes on people barely able to clothe themselves, and decrease taxes (drastically) on the rich! Great idea!

Except he's right, if you want to be rich bad enough you can become rich. That's the beauty of north america.

[blueblood]

What you mean is, when you're broke, other people have to make sacrifices.

We surely aren't about to ask rich people to make sacrifices, now are we!? Oh, no! Instead we offer them more tax cuts!

Except rich people spend more, hire people, save in banks, and invest all which boost the economy. Can the poor do that? They can pay their bill too. The poor's free ride is over.

[blueblood]

It prospered in Hollywood movies. It prospered in the way that you can look at a movie of people cavorting on a beautiful south pacific island and never see a sign of a bug, let alone the clouds of bugs that are everywhere.

People died young. People lived in misery. People worked 18 hour days to avoid starving. People lived in shacks that hardly had any heating - or had no heating. Children starved and died. No one made movies about the wonderful lives of people living in tarpaper shacks in the twenties and thirties. Instead the movies were always about the fashionable set living in big houses.

That doesn't mean most people lived that way.

Holy smoke people worked and made the world better off and richer than before, what a novel idea. If farmers today can work 18 hours a day at sseding, spraying, and harvest you city boys can work 18 hours too.

[Bob]

Than I guess one of the great intellectuals of our time is also shameful. I'll go with mr. Zakaria on this one. The western world has an entitlement problem and one way or another it's going to eventually be fixed. The question is do we create enough wealth for a significant portion of the population to be takers and not makers?

I literally spit out some of my Diet 7-UP when I read this. So now Fareed Zakaria is one of the "great intellectuals of our time", eh? I know I've address some of the monumentally stupid things Fareed Zakaria has said (and hasn't said) on his CNN Sunday show, if you spend some more time in here I will definitely make future posts as there is no shortage of fodder that comes from Zakaria on regular basis.

You must be pretty young and ignorant to not realize the obvious, which is what bush_cheney2004 already said: many people over 65 continue working. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, either, as you're not specific at all. Either way, for Americans that paid into Social Security, they deserve their money.

[blueblood]

I literally spit out some of my Diet 7-UP when I read this. So now Fareed Zakaria is one of the "great intellectuals of our time", eh? I know I've address some of the monumentally stupid things Fareed Zakaria has said (and hasn't said) on his CNN Sunday show, if you spend some more time in here I will definitely make future posts as there is no shortage of fodder that comes from Zakaria on regular basis.

You must be pretty young and ignorant to not realize the obvious, which is what bush_cheney2004 already said: many people over 65 continue working. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, either, as you're not specific at all. Either way, for Americans that paid into Social Security, they deserve their money.

The gov't spends 4x as much on the elderly as they do on young people and you don't see that as a problem? Thats as much a drain as anything on an economy and is one of the biggest drains. Its an unsustainable and unaffordable program. Is paying for big money for somebody because they are entitled to it worth hindering the economy? I say not.

[Bob]

The gov't spends 4x as much on the elderly as they do on young people and you don't see that as a problem? Thats as much a drain as anything on an economy and is one of the biggest drains. Its an unsustainable and unaffordable program. Is paying for big money for somebody because they are entitled to it worth hindering the economy? I say not.

Why should young people have more money spent on them by a government to which they've not yet significantly contributed than older people who have?

[blueblood]

Why should young people have more money spent on them by a government to which they've not yet significantly contributed than older people who have?

Because if we're going to be spending gov't money, it should be based on investment in future production, not consumption as it presently is.

[Smallc]

Is paying for big money for somebody because they are entitled to it worth hindering the economy? I say not.

So what do you propose? I can't think of any solutions to this problem (if it really is that big of a problem) that aren't morally repugnant.

[blueblood]

So what do you propose? I can't think of any solutions to this problem (if it really is that big of a problem) that aren't morally repugnant.

the entitlement programs have to be cut and deep. The Irish took an axe to their govt spending and there isn't much being said about them in the news recently. People have got along without entitlement programs before. People might have to start saving their money. I think its just as morally repugnant running the economy into the ground and impacting the lives of everyone so that a few can enjoy their entitlements. It's the lesser of two evils.

[bush_cheney2004]

the entitlement programs have to be cut and deep....

There really is no other choice...can't tax enough to solve the problem.

We can do it the hard way, or do it the really hard way.

The entitlement party is over!

[Smallc]

the entitlement programs have to be cut and deep.

So these people, that spent their entire lives paying into social security and medicare, should get nothing? And when we have seniors starving in the streets? What then? What good is a society if we aren't willing to share the burden, and look after those who are too old to contribute anymore?

[blueblood]

So these people, that spent their entire lives paying into social security and medicare, should get nothing? And when we have seniors starving in the streets? What then? What good is a society if we aren't willing to share the burden, and look after those who are too old to contribute anymore?

We are at the point where that may be the case. There quite simply is not enough wealth created for those programs to work like they were designed. People should start saving now. Seniors have managed before massive gov't spending and will manage after. What good is a society that spends all of its resources on those who can't contribute that it could quite possibly collapse on itself. This experiment has been tried over and over again and keeps failing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Seniors /boomers (50+) are the richest demographic in Canada and the USA. They have taken a hit recently, but still have sizable wealth and disposable income compared to the young. They are about to get a haircut.

Edited October 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[blueblood]

Seniors /boomers (50+) are the richest demographic in Canada and the USA. They have taken a hit recently, but still have sizable wealth and disposable income compared to the young. They are about to get a haircut.

Yes, it's horrible, its unfortunate, but for the good of society its also necessary.

It's like that scene in master and commander when russell crowe has to cut the rope sending the one sailor to his death while saving his ship.

[Smallc]

Except that we aren't to the point that you imagine yet. We won't get there if we manage things properly. The US and Europe need to fix themselves, but places like Canada, Norway, and Australia prove that it can be done. The thought of letting other human beings die just because they don't contribute as much anymore, and now they need help, well, there's a reason that economics doesn't drive everything in society. Such a society would be cruel beyond belief. Welcome to England during the industrial revolution.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Smallc