Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Bruce Bartlett
Date:	3/2/2016 10:33:06 PM

Reagan's Domestic Policy Advisor and GHW Bush'd Asst Treasury Secretary today said he voted in VA yesterday for Trump and hopes he gets the nomination.  Not because he is a Trump fan, but because he believes the only way the Republican party can be rescued from the "cranks, racists, religious extremists and T party nuts" that now run it is for the party to go down in flames in the next election and he strongly believes that Trump at the top of the ticket will assure that end!

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Bruce Bartlett
Date:	3/2/2016 10:57:43 PM

I will say the same to you as I say to the Obama haters.  You'd better hope that if Trump  is elected, he is successful.  Because the success of our country is more important than what happens within any political party.  I think that ever since Obama was elected, everyone tends to forget this. The GOP has surely forgotten this. 

I read a news article today that said that Obama met with Mitch McConnell yesterday to discuss the Supreme Court nomination. Obama turned the tables on McConnell and asked him for a name of someone they would like to see nominated.  McConnell just sucked air. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Bruce Bartlett
Date:	3/3/2016 8:04:12 AM

You act like a president being successful is always good for our country, nothing of which could be further from the truth.  I would say that hoping the president is successful depends on what he or she defines as success.  In Obama's case I knew that what he wanted to do would do great harm to the country so I did not want him to succeed.  Unfortunately because of the evil Democrats and the feckless Republicans he has gotten most of what he wanted.  I suspect very few liberals wanted GW Bush to succeed because they didn't agree with what he wanted to do, and they did everything they could to undermine him.

If Trump wins I hope he builds the wall and gets the Mexican government to pay for it.  I hope he works with Congress to reform our immigration laws so we promote immigration in a sensible way while elminating the ability of those here illegally from getting work so they will go home and return legally.  I hope does restore our military.  I hope he nominates an originalist to the Supreme Court.  I hope he does a lot of things that I want and if he does I want him to succeed.  If he ends up being a trojan horse and no better than Hillary or Obama I hope he doesn't succeed.

As for Bruce Bartlett, who gives a flip what he thinks?  Who made him the arbiter of truth or good sense?  Archie only quotes him because of what he said which objectively speaking is nonsense.  But hey, criticize a fellow Repuplican and you can get your 15 minutes of govt media and left wing nut adoration.....

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Bruce Bartlett
Date:	3/3/2016 11:21:34 AM

Sorry MM, I don't agree with you.  You may not like his agenda, you may not like his politics, but on the whole, it does not serve this country's interests for our President to be unsucessful.  Our country is far weaker today as a result of this shut down between the President and the Congress.  Congress is supposed to represent the will of the people, and the will of the people was Obama as President.  If Donald Trump is the will of the people and Congress doesn't like him, will they continue to shut down everything he proposes.  Playing the devil's advocate, who says that the GOP establishment is right?  What are they protecting?  And why does Donald Trump scare them so much? 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Bruce Bartlett
Date:	3/3/2016 11:27:26 AM (updated 3/3/2016 11:34:06 AM)

OK, this is completely wrong on so many levels.  You claim the will of the people was to have Obama as President and I will agree.  But they also have overwhelmingly voted for Republicans at all levels of Federal and state government that specifically ran on a platform of opposing Obama's agenda.  Don't forget we have the legislative branch and they were elected to oppose Obama's agenda.  That is as important as the election of the president.

As for what scares the establishment, whatever that is, it is probably a number of things.  Some may think like me that he is not a real conservative.  Others fear him because he can't be controlled.  Others I think are country club snobs that don't like Trump....because they are snobs.  

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Bruce Bartlett
Date:	3/3/2016 11:49:16 AM

I, for one, cannot understand why, given the lack of accomplishment by our Congress, our country continues to re-elect the incumbents.  I sometimes wonder if people think that by having a President of one party and a majority Congress of another will create balance.  However, in this time, it has just created a deadlock.  I guess we get the government we deserve. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Bruce Bartlett
Date:	3/3/2016 11:54:37 AM

In general it seems to me that Americans generally like divided government.  And if you think about it, look at what happens when one party controls the WH, Senate and House.  We got Obamacare which was widely opposed when it was passed and it is even more opposed today as it is being implemented.  I can't think of anything similarly significant on the GOP side but having them control all those branches likewise doesn't seem to last long.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Bruce Bartlett
Date:	3/3/2016 12:21:20 PM

I think people in our age group especially like a divided govenrment.  We came up in the days when elected officials could be opposed to something, yet find a way to work out a compromise. I think the majority of us know the fringes are out there, but that an agreement could be worked out by the majority.  They could vehemently oppose an idea on the job but still have cocktails together after the business day.   But now it just results in name calling and deadlock.  Not all compromise is a bad thing.  And why did the majority of Congress pass Obamacare without really plowing into it and thinking long term?  On the very surface, it isn't a bad idea letting people buy health insurance from a slate of affordable plans.  But it got hosed up in the implementation when they made it "mandatory" and the plans were either not affordable or had deductibles that are sky high.  I don't even think Small business would have found it so distasteful if it was truly affordable and not mandatory.  I don't think anyone finds having health insurance distasteful - it is all in the way it is implemented. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Bruce Bartlett
Date:	3/3/2016 1:13:15 PM

And that is exactly my point, government control of health care has never worked out well and as we are seeing with Obamacare, we are not unique.  Anything the govt does is less efficient, costs more than it should and provides a potential for buying votes to hold onto power.  Of course there are areas that only govt can do such as infrastructure, national defense, law enforcement, etc.  That is fine.  But the expansion into all these other areas does nothing to help Americans and usually is detrimental.  We lost that fight starting with Lincoln going to war over the concept of Federalism which led to FDR, LBJ, etc.

And I agree that you can compromise everything but your principles.  Unfortunately for some reason the definition of compromise has morphed into Democrats getting everything they want.  No better example of this than the GOP always being blamed for govt shutdowns even when it happens because Democrats refuse to compromise.  The latest budget that was passed is a great example of how badly compromise works out for those of us that believe in limited federal govt and the need to reduce our deficits through reduction of costs.  We currently have record revenues to the federal govt and yet we still have a huge deficit.  The problem is with spending and in particular entitlement programs.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Bruce Bartlett
Date:	3/3/2016 2:37:37 PM

But if not the government, who could organize the insurance industry to offer affordable plans?  They certainly wouldn't do it without some leadership or the pressure of the legislative body or the WH.  But between Nancy Pelosi saying "who knows what is in it?" and the launch fiasco, it got off to a very bad start and then it didn't get better. 

Yes, we do have to cut spending, but I don't know you and I would agree much on what spending should be cut.  For example, government agencies.  Most of them were created as a reaction to something that was really screwed up.  Much legislation is the same.  So much of the legislation is a knee jerk reaction to something that may or may not be hosed up.  I would not mind a shake up in the government if it were thoughtful and reasoned and not just a knee jerk reaction to only make the government smaller.  I believe there are probably areas of the government that have outlived their useful purpose or need to be reorganized.  I don't believe the government should abandon social security, although I would like to see something done about SSDI and welfare.  But where we would differ - I would like to see the government invest in infrastructure in this country.  I would like us to end the wars in the Middle East.  I have come to beleive that we are being fed more of the "domino theory" than is really realistic. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	P.S.
Date:	3/3/2016 2:41:48 PM

I don't agree that only the Democrats want everything their way.  I think the Republicans aren't any more open to compromise than Democrats.  It seems to me that neither side is open to compromise anymore.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	P.S.
Date:	3/3/2016 3:44:20 PM

On your PS, even Obama said he got everything he wanted and the GOP got almost nothing.  That is their definition of compromise, the rest of us call it capitulation and the reason so many people as so angry.

As for the comments about government, they don't control auto insurance, homeowners insurance, renter's insurance, etc. and all seem to be working just fine.  I actually believe that the govt is not the solution to our problems, they are the problem.  And history is on my side. Tell me one area that the govt controls that has worked out well.  Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Welfare? Obamacare? Fannie or Freddie? The Fed?  If you think any of those are a success by any reasonable standards then you have a warped sense of what defines success, which to me is a good product at a fair price.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Infrastructure.
Date:	3/3/2016 3:53:03 PM

First, I have no clue who Bruce Bartlett might be.  I guess I am among the 10% who didn't get the word.

But I do have to say this.  The bridges in the DC area are in critical need of corrosion control.  Most probably know that tour buses can't use Memorial bridge because there is a real risk that they might become Potomac River fish habitat.  But as I drive dear overpasses and take the walk/bike trail under I395 close to my apartment, the level of corrosion (rust) on the support beams is frightening.  And corrosion abatement and control is a labor intensive task, so correcting that situation would definitely be a place to start.

and if you EVER complain about potholes where you drive, I invite you to drive in Panama.  More than once did we think we might have left parts of the rental car suspension laying in the highway....not to mention bruised kidneys and the like.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Who made you the arbiter MM?
Date:	3/3/2016 4:20:22 PM (updated 3/3/2016 4:34:58 PM)

Because you certainly think you are!!

As for the people voting for anti-Obama folks in off year elections....The 54% of the senate who are Republicans are from states with only 41% of the population.  In the house the 2104 total votes for Dems and Reps was about the same yet the GOP ran hurd because of gerrymandered districts...ex: FL, a state that went for Obama in 2008 and 2012, sent 19 Republicans and 8 Democrats to the house in 2014.  GA has just 4 Dem and 10 Reps even though Obama received 48% and 47% of the vote in 2008 and 2012.  Look at Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, NorthCarolina to see other examples.  Its called "packing" and is made possible by the age of computer.  The politicians now choose their voters rather than the voters choosing them.  When across the country you see Democrats being elected with 80 to 85% of the votes in their districts while Republicans are winning with only 58 to 60% you should smell a rat!!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Keep dreaming Archie
Date:	3/3/2016 4:59:05 PM

You once again are reacting with emotion while I am using facts, logic and reason.  I want you to look at the change in seats held by the GOP in the House, Senate and states, including Governors since Obama was elected and tell me what the American people want.  I know, they voted overwhelmingly for Republicans because they like what dear leader is doing.  And he is under water in the polls for years on end because they like what he is doing. And they hate Obamacare more today than when it was passed because they like it.  Using your logic, W was the most liked president in all of history.  It's really hard to take you seriously when you respond with such insipid nonsense.....oh, wait a second, I meant non-sense.......

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Social Security
Date:	3/3/2016 8:20:07 PM

was working just fine until the governemnt took the money people paid in.   It's SSDI that is the problem.  The issue I have with the programs you cited is that they suddenly became defined as "entitlements".  Don't know about you, but they deducted money from my paycheck all the time I was working for Medicare.  But if the government decides to reappropriate the money, and the money is gone, then the program becomes an "entitlement", not a benefit that was paid for. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Now MM
Date:	3/3/2016 8:29:40 PM

I think you are going a bit overboard to say that W was one of the most liked Presidents ever.  If you recall, at the end of his term, his numbers were dismal and he probably couldn't have been elected dog catcher.  And that is the reason Obama was elected the first time - because people didn't more of the same  - they voted for hope and change.  Now Obama's numbers are down.  Bill Clinton's numbers were dismal at the end of his Presidency, and poor Bush 41.  If the election had been held a year earlier, he would have had a 2nd term.  But the economy turned, people forgot about the first Gulf War and he was voted out of office.    Just about anyone who becomes President ends on a down note.  Things happen or don't happen and they let us down. 

I think more people admire "W" for his behavior out of office than they ever admired him in office (except right after 9/11)

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Keep dreaming Archie
Date:	3/3/2016 10:16:25 PM

You can always count on MM and his crowd to label truth and facts as non-sense. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	No, you misunderstand
Date:	3/4/2016 7:21:21 AM

Archie was trying to explain away the overwhelming change in control of all branches of govt during Obama's term as if it was the opposite.  So using his logic, W, who was very unpopular at the end of his term, was actually popular.  I was making fun of Archie's reverse logic.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	How about these truths
Date:	3/4/2016 7:27:07 AM

They gained control of the House, Senate, a majority of governorships, a significant overwhelming increase in state and local offices.  Look it up Archie and tell me who is spouting nonsense about gerrymandering.  Besides, that argument goes both ways.  Maybe you lose some GOP seats but you also would lose gerrymandered Democrat seats as well.  Fact is if not for gerrymandering Democrats would only control large cities, and we see how that is working out with those long controlled by Democrats.  

If you don't think the gains by the GOP were significant under Obama you are the one whistling by the graveyard, to use your favorite phrase.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	How about these truths
Date:	3/4/2016 1:42:50 PM

I think you can safely say that last election that returned the Congressinal majority to the Republicans was either a mistaken attempt to bring more balance to government or it was an outright repudiation of Obama's performance. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Social Security
Date:	3/4/2016 3:53:19 PM

If you ran a retirement fund the way SS is run you would be in prison.  To show how poorly it was run all you have to do is look at the county in Texas that opted out of FICA when it came into being (a loophole that was quickly closed).  Just one example, a secretary that had the same amount taken out as FICA and the employer contribution were invested in mutual funds and she retired on $86,000 per year.  SS would have paid her around $11,000.  SS was never meant to be permanent or a retirement fund.  It was supposed to be a security net.  Additionally, because of the increased life expectancy many retirees take out much more than they contributed.  That would work if the funds had been invested and they get the principal and interest/income.  Nothing of the sort happened.  SS is a classic ponzi scheme.

And that doesn't even address the fact that there is no such thing as a Social Security Trust Fund, a lie regularly told by Democrats.  The money goes into the general fund and is spent faster than it is collected.  What needs to happen to save it for those who really need it is as follows:  1) the retirement age needs to be raised over a number of years; 2) there needs to be means testing; and 3) younger people should be allowed to take a portion of their FICA and invest it, maybe through TSP or another vehicle.  But its the fourth rail and every time Republicans talk about saving SS they are accused of wanting to push grandma off a cliff.  Hence my comment about govt programs becoming vote buying tools.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	How about these truths
Date:	3/4/2016 3:55:52 PM

Possibly both....but according to Archie's warped understanding or reality it was a repudiation of Republicans and an endorsement of Obama and his policies.  You can't fix that kind of thinking.....it is invincibly ignorant.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Social Security
Date:	3/4/2016 4:32:52 PM

I agree with you for the most part.  I never paid into SS, so therefore will never collect benefits.  But I was required to pay into Medicare. However, in the late 80's the government changed its retirement plan to include a small pension from the government, TSP (matched if the people put their money in, but the government still pays some amount in) and SS.  So I wonder what they were thinking when they did that? 

Yes, it was never intended to be a retirement fund, but if you look at the numbers of people that have retirement savings, and no retirement benfit outside of SS.  Scary.  And if SS isn't there anymore, what will they do?  of course, under your proposal, they would likely meet the means test.  I actually blame employers for not telling young employees that SS is not a retirement fund and that they better save some money on their own.... but people being people, they likely would say they can't afford to save now and they'll worry about it later.

Regarding the rise in retirement age. I have pondered this quite a bit.  It's easy to say, but I wonder how many workers are fit to work until 70?  I'm thinking across the broad spectrum of people from laborers, moving men, things that require some level of manual labor.  Will these people still be able to do the job at age 70?  I don't know. And if they can't do the job and have to wait for benefits what will they live on?  And if you retain all these older people, what will become of the young people that should be taking their place?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Social Security
Date:	3/4/2016 9:38:23 PM

I can tell you from my company's experience that we spend a lot of time educating our younger employees about putting money away for retirement and it doesn't seem to sink in. We would all be better off if instead of the ponzi scheme called SS that those funds went into an account like TSP where it gets invested. Democrats will never let it happen. They can buy vote by scaring seniors about taking away SS. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Social Security
Date:	3/5/2016 10:32:54 AM

I am really glad to hear that you are doing that.  I don't know where else they would get that kind of information. They don't learn it at school, and if they don't get it from their parents, who else is going to talk to them?  They have been given so much in their lives, they seem to think the money will just flow forever, and if they get in trouble, someone will bail them out.  Have to say that until I met my husband, I was very much like them. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Social Security...One more time
Date:	3/5/2016 6:14:51 PM (updated 3/5/2016 6:27:29 PM)

"If a retirement fund was run the way Social Security is blah, blah, blah".  Social Security is not, never has been and, hopefully, never will be a "retirement" fund in the sense of an investment account with an individual name on it.  I am amazed at how many supposedly smart people think it is.  It is an "Insurance" fund set up to help "insure" old people have at least some income.  FICA stands for "Federal Insurance Contribution Act".  Keep in mind, the first elderly people to receive SS benefits in the 1930's had not put one nickle in the system.  The system was financed by contributions from currently working people to pay the benefits to the retired.  I pay into SS every year to help pay for the survivors even older than me and I also get SS every month from monthly deductions from my daughter and son-in-law and their generation.  My grand daughter will be paying in at some point to pay benefits to her parents.  The system is still taking in more than it pays out but that will change with more and more baby boomers retiring and existing retirees living longer.  Eventually the FICA tax will have to go up whether the Republicans like it or not and the retirement age will have to be raised whether the Democrats like it or not.  Invest and/or gamble all personal funds you can afford into a personal retirement account, but do not gamble away somebody elses retirement income betting on Wall Street!

BTW:  The Social Security taxes have been used as part of the general fund for many years...I think since WWII.  But that income was not counted in the general revenue until much more recently.  Can you guess who was the first president to include the SS "Trust Fund" income as part of the general revenue so the deficit appeared less than it actually was?  That great fiscal conservative, the sainted Ronald Reagan.  I guess that is where "W" learned a similar the trick of putting his war funding as an emergency appropriation so it didn't appear as part of the general budget...yet another way of making the deficit, if not the debt, appear smaller.  Can you guess who stopped this practice?  The reviled profligate Barack Obama!