On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 13:35:09 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 12:32:35 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>> >On 9 Feb 2023 20:05:50 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
>> >
>> >I'm trying to think of a European country which has big chunks of
>> >rural territory ... nothing comes to mind.
>> Sweden, Norway and Finland come to mind instantly.
>
>Indeed. They actually are much less densely populated than the US.

But are the /areas/ as large as ours? Or Australia's? Or Canada's?

And these are Nordic Countries, not quite what I not thinking of.

And I see nothing about telemedicine and air taxis.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 12:44:28 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 2/10/2023 8:53 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> It turns out that using whatever "“" and "â€" are when they are at
>> home is no more acceptable to Eternal September than fancy quote marks
>> are.
>>
>> C'mon, guys, how hard is it to use ASCII?
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 19:36:11 -0000 (UTC), rkshullat@rosettacondot.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <k4j090Fr9i3U1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8 Feb 2023 at 19:11:20 GMT, "rkshullat@rosettacondot.com"
>>>>> <rkshullat@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8 Feb 2023 at 01:37:53 GMT, "Hamish Laws" <hamish.laws@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 11:23:32 AM UTC+11, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republicans
>>>>>>>>> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I
>>>>>>>>> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <Snip of Federal Budget breakdown>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, instituting a proper national health service would roughly halve
>>>>>>> that 15% health + 12% medicare, and probably takes a chunk out of that
>>>>>>> 4% veterans' services too. Lets say that frees up 13% by eliminating the
>>>>>>> whole health insurance industry, bringing the US wasted overspend on
>>>>>>> health down to the same ballpark as other democratic countries and quite
>>>>>>> possibly getting you away from being bottom of the league for survival
>>>>>>> rates across most demographics too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that it would do more to improve average life expectancy than it
>>>>>> would to save money. There's currently a huge life expectancy gap between
>>>>>> the lowest 1% income (72.7 years for men) and the highest 1% (87.3 years).
>>>>>> Even with single-payer you still have to deal with much higher salaries,
>>>>>> higher infrastructure costs, higher liability costs (and the resulting
>>>>>> defensive testing) and limited access (especially in rural areas).
>>>>>> Studies vary, but the expected savings on administrative overhead is closer
>>>>>> to 10% than 50%.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell that to countries managing to get better outcomes on half the
>>>>> money.
>>>>>
>>>>> You apparently have no idea how pernicious and enormous the "health
>>>>> insurance" industry is.
>>>>
>>>> So how big is it? How many total employees do the various health
>>>> insurance companies have? If they are half the medical cost, there would
>>>> be roughly about 14 million of them.
>>>
>>> Roughly 600,000, apparently at an average salary of over $3 million (if they
>>> account for half of healthcare expenditures). I went into the wrong field.
>>> Realistically you could get much of the benefit of a national(ized) health
>>> care system by looking at the German system. There were a lot of compromises
>>> and lawsuits surrounding the ACA, but that appears to have been its starting
>>> point. Losing the statutory coverage requirement was a major blow...it
>>> eliminated the large pool of healthy people that are needed to keep it
>>> affordable.
>>
>> That's because of how we think about health insurance: we /want/ to
>> use it.
>>
>I think that may be more of a "we know we will _have_ to use it".
>Health insurance is also a dual use kind of deal. It can keep you from
>being bankrupted by massive medical bills for events you usually can't
>control or avoid, like the other kinds of insurance, and it can keep the
>costs of the routine medical checkups and treatments down to something
>you can afford so you don't need that first usage of it.

Considering how much my FEHBP BC/BS plan saved me over the course of
two lens replacements for cataracts, I certainly agree that health
insurance can be well worth the money. Even if you don't use it just
because you can.

But then, when we had a house fire in 83, our Homeowners saved my mom
(and me) a fair amount of money too!

My point is that the way health insurance is understood to work is not
the same as it is with other forms of insurance. This is why
"eliminat[ing] the large pool of healthy people that are needed to
keep it affordable" from the ACA was a bad idea.

Although an approach like Medicare's [1] might be better: rather than
pay an annual penalty, you have to pay 1% more per year missed after
you turned 26 for your coverage. Those who comply and help pay the
normal premium for the plan they sign up for; those who ignore it for
30 years pay the normal premium + 30% for whatever plan they sign up
for when they decide that they need it.

[1] I am not sure to which part of Medicare this applies. Part D,
perhaps?

>> Nobody /wants/ to use their auto or home or renter's insurance; they
>> would rather not suffer the damage required.
>>
>> And pretty much everybody hopes that their /life/ insurance never has
>> to pay out.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 13:35:09 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 12:32:35 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:=20
>>> >On 9 Feb 2023 20:05:50 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh=20
>>> >
>>> >I'm trying to think of a European country which has big chunks of=20
>>> >rural territory ... nothing comes to mind.
>>> Sweden, Norway and Finland come to mind instantly.
>>
>>Indeed. They actually are much less densely populated than the US.
>
>But are the /areas/ as large as ours? Or Australia's? Or Canada's?
>
>And these are Nordic Countries, not quite what I not thinking of.

They have large areas of lightly populated territory. And
they all have far, far better public health systems than
the USA system.

Europe as a whole has about the same area as the US,
and while it doesn't have deserts like the US West,
it does have the Alps and Pyrenees and plenty of
rural, lightly populated regions that need healthcare,
particulary in the former soviet territories.

My neighbor spends half the year in the Italian Med;
the healthcare support they've gotten has been instant,
paperwork-free and excellent quality, even as seasonal
residents.

>
>And I see nothing about telemedicine and air taxis.

Have you done any research or are you expecting someone
to spoonfeed you?

On 2/11/2023 9:23 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>
> My point is that the way health insurance is understood to work is not
> the same as it is with other forms of insurance. This is why
> "eliminat[ing] the large pool of healthy people that are needed to
> keep it affordable" from the ACA was a bad idea.
>
Very much agree with this. It was a critical part of the program.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 11 Feb 2023 at 17:26:49 GMT, "Scott Lurndal" <Scott Lurndal> wrote:

> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>
>> And I see nothing about telemedicine and air taxis.
>
> Have you done any research or are you expecting someone
> to spoonfeed you?

He's already diverted all attention to the extremely small edge case
while ignoring the elephant in the room, so probably spoonfed yeah.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
[Chlorine trifluoride] is also hypergolic with such things as
cloth, wood, and test engineers, not to mention asbestos,
sand, and water -- with which it reacts explosively.
- "Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants", J D Clarke

On 2/11/2023 7:09 AM, rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>> On 9 Feb 2023 at 14:03:15 GMT, "rkshullat@rosettacondot.com"
>> <rkshullat@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The US population is generally less healthy. We spend a significantly higher
>>> percentage on treating chronic conditions...conditions of poverty and
>>> lifestyle. We tend to spend more on expensive treatment than inexpensive
>>> prevention.
>>
>> And why would that be? Because it costs too much to go to a primary care
>> doctor and prevent something.
>
> Some of it is expense, some is because we're lazy as hell, eat too much lousy
> food, drink too much, take too many drugs and beat, stab and shoot each other
> for any or no reason. For the 90% of the population that does have coverage
> screenings and vaccinations are supposed to be free, although you do have
> to actually do them, which involves a visit (telehealth has its limits).
>
>>> Liability concerns push doctors toward defensive medicine...ordering tests
>>> not because they think they're needed but because not doing them could be
>>> used against them in future lawsuits.
>>
>> And because they get paid for doing them. Plus a public health service
>> could mandate govt insurance for the medics.
>
> We've now moved away from "getting rid of the insurance companies will
> eliminate half the cost", which was my original disagreement, to what appears
> to be "doctors, labs and hospitals being paid for their work". So, from
> single-payer to single-provider, which is fine, but not your original claim.
>
>>> Drug costs are higher, even for private insurance where the companies can
>>> negotiate pricing or refuse to reimburse entirely.
>>
>> And why would *that* be? Because it's a cosy "we all win megabucks!"
>> profiteering cycle between the pharma companies and the insurance
>> companies and the for-profit hospitals.
>>
>> So yes, all your "reasons" are all the same single reason - you have
>> private insurance running the health business.
>
> No. Private insurance is not private doctors is not private hospitals (which
> may or may not be for-profit) is not private drug companies. These are all
> different entities and the neither the hospitals and insurance companies
> nor the insurance companies and the drug companies have a cozy relationship.
> They squeeze each other for every penny possible.
>
>> Except this:
>>> There are big chunks of the rural US where anything beyond
>>> basic care is hours away
>>
>> which is common American exceptionalism, unaware that these issues are
>> as solved as they physically can be in other countries. Free at point of
>> service includes videocalls and air ambulance.
>
> I'm not saying it hasn't been solved, I'm saying that providing care where
> it's not currently being provided is going to cost money. You can't wave
> the sparkly magic wand of single-payerdom and have the resulting wave of fairy
> dust cause hospitals to spring up out of the ground complete with equipment and
> staff. When the closest hospital is 25 miles away and has six beds and
> no lab and you have to travel over 100 for any sort of testing that's a
> gap that a universal system in the US would have to meet, legally and morally.
> (Videocalls? Now I'm envisioning telecolonoscopies and remote-manipulator
> prostate exams.)
>
> Robert

Single Payer will become Single Provider fairly quickly. Look at the
VA, that is the healthcare future of the USA. Very good at fixing
immediate problems, not so good at fixing long term problems without
constant action on your part.

Lynn

Lynn

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 13:35:09 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 12:32:35 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>> >On 9 Feb 2023 20:05:50 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
>>> >
>>> >I'm trying to think of a European country which has big chunks of
>>> >rural territory ... nothing comes to mind.
>>> Sweden, Norway and Finland come to mind instantly.
>>
>>Indeed. They actually are much less densely populated than the US.
>
>But are the /areas/ as large as ours? Or Australia's? Or Canada's?

Obviously NOT. Europe as a whole is barely larger than the US, much
less Canada.

Still, I will point out that Sweden has more land area than all but
two US states (Alaska and Texas) and that Norway and Finland are each
larger than all but 4 US states (add California and Montana).

And all of three countries has the common pattern of "most people live
in small areas" (aka cities). Specifically most people live in the
south (or middle+south for Sweden that extends further south) and/or
near the coast (less cold, easier transport, fishing).

IE, taking Sweden as example, not only does it start with a lower
population density than the US, the top 60% land area only have 12% of
the population despite including the coastal areas with much higher
population densities than the inland areas.

The inland north (so double-whammy) region of Lapland (Sweden) consist
of 24.4% of the land area but has less than 1% of Sweden's population
- leading to a lower population density than all but one US state, and
all but three Canadian provinces/territories (Alaska and the three
Northern Territories respectively).

And before you dismiss it as beeing too small I will point out that
this region is larger than 17 of the 48 contiguous US states and 30 of
the 47 countries in Europe (based on one list, it's a question of
definitions but it only adds or removes one or two "countries").

Finland and Norway starts with a bit lower average population density
and similar pattern for where most people live.

>And these are Nordic Countries, not quite what I not thinking of.

<Sound of goal-posts moving>

On 11 Feb 2023 17:56:05 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
<jaimie@usually.sessile.org> wrote:

>On 11 Feb 2023 at 17:26:49 GMT, "Scott Lurndal" <Scott Lurndal> wrote:
>
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> And I see nothing about telemedicine and air taxis.
>>
>> Have you done any research or are you expecting someone
>> to spoonfeed you?
>
>He's already diverted all attention to the extremely small edge case
>while ignoring the elephant in the room, so probably spoonfed yeah.

Actually, I am pointing out that all I am seeing in hand-waving with
no actual information pertinent to the topic-at-hand.

Not even a comparison of the sparsely-populated areas' acreage in,
say, Finland, and that of even, say, Texas or Alaska, never mind
Australia or Canada. There's health service in /smaller/
thinly-populated areas and then there's health service in /much much
larger/ thinly-populated areas.

This is like the old joke about a Texan traveling by train in England:

Texan: In Texas, you can travel by train for days and still be in
Texas.
English lady: Yes, we have slow trains here also.

This is a joke because the Texan isn't talking about slow trains. He's
talking about a lot of space.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 05:25:34 -0000 (UTC), Torbjorn Lindgren
<tl@none.invalid> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 13:35:09 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 12:32:35 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>> >On 9 Feb 2023 20:05:50 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
>>>> >
>>>> >I'm trying to think of a European country which has big chunks of
>>>> >rural territory ... nothing comes to mind.
>>>> Sweden, Norway and Finland come to mind instantly.
>>>
>>>Indeed. They actually are much less densely populated than the US.
>>
>>But are the /areas/ as large as ours? Or Australia's? Or Canada's?
>
>Obviously NOT. Europe as a whole is barely larger than the US, much
>less Canada.
>
>Still, I will point out that Sweden has more land area than all but
>two US states (Alaska and Texas) and that Norway and Finland are each
>larger than all but 4 US states (add California and Montana).
>
>And all of three countries has the common pattern of "most people live
>in small areas" (aka cities). Specifically most people live in the
>south (or middle+south for Sweden that extends further south) and/or
>near the coast (less cold, easier transport, fishing).
>
>IE, taking Sweden as example, not only does it start with a lower
>population density than the US, the top 60% land area only have 12% of
>the population despite including the coastal areas with much higher
>population densities than the inland areas.
>
>The inland north (so double-whammy) region of Lapland (Sweden) consist
>of 24.4% of the land area but has less than 1% of Sweden's population
>- leading to a lower population density than all but one US state, and
>all but three Canadian provinces/territories (Alaska and the three
>Northern Territories respectively).
>
>And before you dismiss it as beeing too small I will point out that
>this region is larger than 17 of the 48 contiguous US states and 30 of
>the 47 countries in Europe (based on one list, it's a question of
>definitions but it only adds or removes one or two "countries").
>
>Finland and Norway starts with a bit lower average population density
>and similar pattern for where most people live.
>
Thanks for providing this information.

Am I to take it, then, that their health-care systems provide
telemedicine and air-ambulance service to even the most remote of
these areas?
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 09:43:41 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 2/11/2023 9:23 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>> My point is that the way health insurance is understood to work is not
>> the same as it is with other forms of insurance. This is why
>> "eliminat[ing] the large pool of healthy people that are needed to
>> keep it affordable" from the ACA was a bad idea.
>>
>Very much agree with this. It was a critical part of the program.

And yet, IIRC, it was /Republican State governors/ who argued for the
program /itself/ to continue, as they found it very helpful to those
participating in it. Which may be one reason the Republican Congress
turned out to do nothing but reduce the penalty rate to 0. After 6
years of telling everybody how they were going to kill it, gut it,and
roast it on a stick.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 05:25:34 -0000 (UTC), Torbjorn Lindgren
><tl@none.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 13:35:09 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
>>><wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 12:32:35 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal =
>wrote:
>>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:=20
>>>>> >On 9 Feb 2023 20:05:50 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh=20
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I'm trying to think of a European country which has big chunks of=20
>>>>> >rural territory ... nothing comes to mind.
>>>>> Sweden, Norway and Finland come to mind instantly.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed. They actually are much less densely populated than the US.
>>>
>>>But are the /areas/ as large as ours? Or Australia's? Or Canada's?
>>
>>Obviously NOT. Europe as a whole is barely larger than the US, much
>>less Canada.
>>
>>Still, I will point out that Sweden has more land area than all but
>>two US states (Alaska and Texas) and that Norway and Finland are each
>>larger than all but 4 US states (add California and Montana).
>>
>>And all of three countries has the common pattern of "most people live
>>in small areas" (aka cities). Specifically most people live in the
>>south (or middle+south for Sweden that extends further south) and/or
>>near the coast (less cold, easier transport, fishing).
>>
>>IE, taking Sweden as example, not only does it start with a lower
>>population density than the US, the top 60% land area only have 12% of
>>the population despite including the coastal areas with much higher
>>population densities than the inland areas.
>>
>>The inland north (so double-whammy) region of Lapland (Sweden) consist
>>of 24.4% of the land area but has less than 1% of Sweden's population
>>- leading to a lower population density than all but one US state, and
>>all but three Canadian provinces/territories (Alaska and the three
>>Northern Territories respectively).
>>
>>And before you dismiss it as beeing too small I will point out that
>>this region is larger than 17 of the 48 contiguous US states and 30 of
>>the 47 countries in Europe (based on one list, it's a question of
>>definitions but it only adds or removes one or two "countries").
>>
>>Finland and Norway starts with a bit lower average population density
>>and similar pattern for where most people live.
>>
>Thanks for providing this information.
>
>Am I to take it, then, that their health-care systems provide
>telemedicine and air-ambulance service to even the most remote of
>these areas?

I take it you are incapable researching the topic yourself?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Air_Ambulance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Norway

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 12:25:39 AM UTC-5, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 13:35:09 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
> ><wthyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 12:32:35 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
> >>> >On 9 Feb 2023 20:05:50 GMT, Jaimie Vandenbergh
> >>> >
> >>> >I'm trying to think of a European country which has big chunks of
> >>> >rural territory ... nothing comes to mind.
> >>> Sweden, Norway and Finland come to mind instantly.
> >>
> >>Indeed. They actually are much less densely populated than the US.
> >
> >But are the /areas/ as large as ours? Or Australia's? Or Canada's?
> Obviously NOT. Europe as a whole is barely larger than the US, much
> less Canada.
>
> Still, I will point out that Sweden has more land area than all but
> two US states (Alaska and Texas) and that Norway and Finland are each
> larger than all but 4 US states (add California and Montana).
>
> And all of three countries has the common pattern of "most people live
> in small areas" (aka cities). Specifically most people live in the
> south (or middle+south for Sweden that extends further south) and/or
> near the coast (less cold, easier transport, fishing).
>
> IE, taking Sweden as example, not only does it start with a lower
> population density than the US, the top 60% land area only have 12% of
> the population despite including the coastal areas with much higher
> population densities than the inland areas.

When reading Henning Mankell's "The Return of the Dancing Master"
I was struck by the similarities between its mid-Swedish setting
and lightly populated areas a few hundred miles north of Toronto.
And you can go a lot farther north and still be in Sweden.

A recommend, if dark, book.

William Hyde

On Thursday, February 9, 2023 at 8:51:25 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On 2/8/2023 1:11 PM, rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> >> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> >>> On 8 Feb 2023 at 01:37:53 GMT, "Hamish Laws" <hamis...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >Don't forget Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Pournelle's_laws
> They're not laws, but rather aphorisms. And should be considered as such.

The iron law of bureaucracy is darned close to a law. It really does describe the general behavior of large organizations (be they governmental, business, a 'non-profit', a union, whatever). It's a selection effect.

On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 10:09:07 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Johnny1A <johnny1...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:06:49 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrot=
> >e:
> >> On 2/7/2023 12:24 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:=20
> >> > On 2/7/2023 12:07 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:=20
> >> >> On 2/6/2023 4:23 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:=20
> >> >>> In article <f7622c93-6a19-4dd5...@googlegroups.com>,=20
> >> >>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:=20
> >> >>>> ... surely=20
> >> >>>> we must ask why there even _is_ a national debt. During peacetime,=
> >=20
> >> >>>> it is=20
> >> >>>> expected that a country would pay off all of its debts, and get back=
> >=20
> >> >>>> to an=20
> >> >>>> even keel!=20
> >> >>>=20
> >> >>> During the Gingrich Speakership with a GOP majority in both Houses,=
> >=20
> >> >>> we at least had balanced budgets, though the debt remained high.=20
> >> >>>=20
> >> >>>> Of course, though, the way to get the country out of debt isn't by=
> >=20
> >> >>>> cutting=20
> >> >>>> Social Security! Not when taxes on the higher income brackets are so=
> >=20
> >> >>>> much lower than they were back in the prosperous early 1960s. And,=
> >=20
> >> >>>> indeed, the only reason Social Security has problems funding itself =
> >was=20
> >> >>>> because money was basically stolen from it by earlier Congresses.=20
> >> >>>>=20
> >> >>>> They just want to force cuts to Social Security because they figure=
> >=20
> >> >>>> they=20
> >> >>>> can get the voters to blame the Democrats for it instead of them.=20
> >> >>>=20
> >> >>> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republican=
> >s=20
> >> >>> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I=
> >=20
> >> >>> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.=20
> >> >>>=20
> >> >> Column: Mike Pence, would-be president, has a plan to kill Social=20
> >> >> Security. It will cost you.=20
> >> >>=20
> >> >> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/column-mike-pence-would-be-presid=
> >ent-has-a-plan-to-kill-social-security-it-will-cost-you/ar-AA17bgN7?ocid=3D=
> >winpstoreapp&cvid=3D66271562145d45d9b4cc65f536e7f90a=20
> >> >>=20
> >> >> Republicans have been trying for decades to "privatize" Social=20
> >> >> Security, "balance" MediCare and otherwise defund and eliminate=20
> >> >> various social safety nets that taxpayers pay for. The current tactic=
> >=20
> >> >> of refusing to raise the debt limit until budget cuts are agreed to is=
> >=20
> >> >> the _same_ thing the Republicans have done several times before and=20
> >> >> the only budget cuts they are ever willing to accept are to the=20
> >> >> so-called "Entitlement" programs, especially Social Security. Which=
> >=20
> >> >> aren't actually entitlements as we get taxed _specifically_ for them=
> >=20
> >> >> separate from the general income tax.=20
> >
> >And that money, 100% of it, is spent the same year it comes in, replaced by=
> > IOUs. Congress uses accounting methods that would get you or me prosecute> >d to hide the scale of the problem (and that's both parties).
> >
> >> >=20
> >> > Never gonna happen.
> >> Yet the Republican party keeps trying over and over again.
> >
> >Not lately.
> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
> not? That's about as lately as it gets...

Pence is not currently an official.

I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.

On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:25:38 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
<johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 10:09:07 AM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Johnny1A <johnny1...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 4:06:49 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrot=
>> >e:
>> >> On 2/7/2023 12:24 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:=20
>> >> > On 2/7/2023 12:07 AM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:=20
>> >> >> On 2/6/2023 4:23 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:=20
>> >> >>> In article <f7622c93-6a19-4dd5...@googlegroups.com>,=20
>> >> >>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:=20
>> >> >>>> ... surely=20
>> >> >>>> we must ask why there even _is_ a national debt. During peacetime,=
>> >=20
>> >> >>>> it is=20
>> >> >>>> expected that a country would pay off all of its debts, and get back=
>> >=20
>> >> >>>> to an=20
>> >> >>>> even keel!=20
>> >> >>>=20
>> >> >>> During the Gingrich Speakership with a GOP majority in both Houses,=
>> >=20
>> >> >>> we at least had balanced budgets, though the debt remained high.=20
>> >> >>>=20
>> >> >>>> Of course, though, the way to get the country out of debt isn't by=
>> >=20
>> >> >>>> cutting=20
>> >> >>>> Social Security! Not when taxes on the higher income brackets are so=
>> >=20
>> >> >>>> much lower than they were back in the prosperous early 1960s. And,=
>> >=20
>> >> >>>> indeed, the only reason Social Security has problems funding itself =
>> >was=20
>> >> >>>> because money was basically stolen from it by earlier Congresses.=20
>> >> >>>>=20
>> >> >>>> They just want to force cuts to Social Security because they figure=
>> >=20
>> >> >>>> they=20
>> >> >>>> can get the voters to blame the Democrats for it instead of them.=20
>> >> >>>=20
>> >> >>> Who is this "they"? The Democrats keep asserting that the Republican=
>> >s=20
>> >> >>> are going to cut or do away with Social Security and Medicare, but I=
>> >=20
>> >> >>> just don't see it. It's the same old same old scare tactics.=20
>> >> >>>=20
>> >> >> Column: Mike Pence, would-be president, has a plan to kill Social=20
>> >> >> Security. It will cost you.=20
>> >> >>=20
>> >> >> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/column-mike-pence-would-be-presid=
>> >ent-has-a-plan-to-kill-social-security-it-will-cost-you/ar-AA17bgN7?ocid=3D=
>> >winpstoreapp&cvid=3D66271562145d45d9b4cc65f536e7f90a=20
>> >> >>=20
>> >> >> Republicans have been trying for decades to "privatize" Social=20
>> >> >> Security, "balance" MediCare and otherwise defund and eliminate=20
>> >> >> various social safety nets that taxpayers pay for. The current tactic=
>> >=20
>> >> >> of refusing to raise the debt limit until budget cuts are agreed to is=
>> >=20
>> >> >> the _same_ thing the Republicans have done several times before and=20
>> >> >> the only budget cuts they are ever willing to accept are to the=20
>> >> >> so-called "Entitlement" programs, especially Social Security. Which=
>> >=20
>> >> >> aren't actually entitlements as we get taxed _specifically_ for them=
>> >=20
>> >> >> separate from the general income tax.=20
>> >
>> >And that money, 100% of it, is spent the same year it comes in, replaced by=
>> > IOUs. Congress uses accounting methods that would get you or me prosecute>> >d to hide the scale of the problem (and that's both parties).
>> >
>> >> >=20
>> >> > Never gonna happen.
>> >> Yet the Republican party keeps trying over and over again.
>> >
>> >Not lately.
>> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
>> not? That's about as lately as it gets...
>
>Pence is not currently an official.
>
>I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.

Not on that, maybe, but they are nonetheless pursuing stupidity with
great enthusiasm. And not just in Congress.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 2/18/2023 11:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:25:38 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
....
>>> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
>>> not? That's about as lately as it gets...
>>
>> Pence is not currently an official.
>>
>> I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.
>
> Not on that, maybe, but they are nonetheless pursuing stupidity with
> great enthusiasm. And not just in Congress.

We, the USA, are headed towards a financial apocalypse in a 100 alarm
fire and some various elected officials are using 10 lb fire
extinguishers trying to control it. The dems just threw a little more
gasoline on the fire over the last two years (more borrowed spending).
But, I don't think the fire is fightable without severe hurt to many
people in the USA.

One thing that you have to remember is that the dems and the reps are
the two sides of the war party. When things get tough, they join
together and go to war. War is coming !

Lynn

On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 14:51:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/18/2023 11:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:25:38 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
>...
>>>> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
>>>> not? That's about as lately as it gets...
>>>
>>> Pence is not currently an official.
>>>
>>> I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.
>>
>> Not on that, maybe, but they are nonetheless pursuing stupidity with
>> great enthusiasm. And not just in Congress.
>
>We, the USA, are headed towards a financial apocalypse in a 100 alarm
>fire and some various elected officials are using 10 lb fire
>extinguishers trying to control it. The dems just threw a little more
>gasoline on the fire over the last two years (more borrowed spending).
>But, I don't think the fire is fightable without severe hurt to many
>people in the USA.

Anthing like the $1T thrown on by the Republicans in their last tax
break for 1%ers?

>One thing that you have to remember is that the dems and the reps are
>the two sides of the war party. When things get tough, they join
>together and go to war. War is coming !

War is always coming. No news here.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 11:57:04 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 14:51:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2/18/2023 11:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:25:38 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
> >...
> >>>> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
> >>>> not? That's about as lately as it gets...
> >>>
> >>> Pence is not currently an official.
> >>>
> >>> I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.
> >>
> >> Not on that, maybe, but they are nonetheless pursuing stupidity with
> >> great enthusiasm. And not just in Congress.
> >
> >We, the USA, are headed towards a financial apocalypse in a 100 alarm
> >fire and some various elected officials are using 10 lb fire
> >extinguishers trying to control it. The dems just threw a little more
> >gasoline on the fire over the last two years (more borrowed spending).
> >But, I don't think the fire is fightable without severe hurt to many
> >people in the USA.
> Anthing like the $1T thrown on by the Republicans in their last tax
> break for 1%ers?

Under Trump the USG vastly increased the National Debt to keep people
fed and housed, and businesses from going under, during the Covid lockdowns..
A depressing amount of the money went astray, but the primary goal was achieved.

It sucked for the national debt. But the alternative was worse; a 1930s style
Depression. Desperate times sometimes require desperate responses.

Pt

On 2023-02-19 17:16, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 11:57:04 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 14:51:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/18/2023 11:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:25:38 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
>>> ...
>>>>>> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
>>>>>> not? That's about as lately as it gets...
>>>>>
>>>>> Pence is not currently an official.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.
>>>>
>>>> Not on that, maybe, but they are nonetheless pursuing stupidity with
>>>> great enthusiasm. And not just in Congress.
>>>
>>> We, the USA, are headed towards a financial apocalypse in a 100 alarm
>>> fire and some various elected officials are using 10 lb fire
>>> extinguishers trying to control it. The dems just threw a little more
>>> gasoline on the fire over the last two years (more borrowed spending).
>>> But, I don't think the fire is fightable without severe hurt to many
>>> people in the USA.
>> Anthing like the $1T thrown on by the Republicans in their last tax
>> break for 1%ers?
>
> Under Trump the USG vastly increased the National Debt to keep people
> fed and housed, and businesses from going under, during the Covid lockdowns.
> A depressing amount of the money went astray, but the primary goal was achieved.
>
> It sucked for the national debt. But the alternative was worse; a 1930s style
> Depression. Desperate times sometimes require desperate responses.

While giving the richest a HUGE tax break.

On 2023-02-19, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
> Anthing like the $1T thrown on by the Republicans in their last tax
> break for 1%ers?

As you well know, the rich paid a greater share of taxes after the tax
break. The income tax burden on everybody else decreased more
percentage-wise. There was over 1% of the population that changed to no
income tax at all and that was expected to increase though it's tough
to tell the effect. It actually increased from near 43% to over 60%
in recent years, but that is due to all the pandemic breaks.

Chris

On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 17:16:06 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 11:57:04 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 14:51:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2/18/2023 11:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:25:38 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
>> >...
>> >>>> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
>> >>>> not? That's about as lately as it gets...
>> >>>
>> >>> Pence is not currently an official.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.
>> >>
>> >> Not on that, maybe, but they are nonetheless pursuing stupidity with
>> >> great enthusiasm. And not just in Congress.
>> >
>> >We, the USA, are headed towards a financial apocalypse in a 100 alarm
>> >fire and some various elected officials are using 10 lb fire
>> >extinguishers trying to control it. The dems just threw a little more
>> >gasoline on the fire over the last two years (more borrowed spending).
>> >But, I don't think the fire is fightable without severe hurt to many
>> >people in the USA.
>> Anthing like the $1T thrown on by the Republicans in their last tax
>> break for 1%ers?
>
>Under Trump the USG vastly increased the National Debt to keep people
>fed and housed, and businesses from going under, during the Covid lockdowns.
>A depressing amount of the money went astray, but the primary goal was achieved.
>
>It sucked for the national debt. But the alternative was worse; a 1930s style
>Depression. Desperate times sometimes require desperate responses.

Which is why I focused on their tax break for the rich, 100% charged
onto the National Credit Card, aka the National Debt.

Two solutions:

1. Stop pretending the debt can be controlled. Abolish the ceiling.

2. Have the budget on 9/30 become the new budget on 10/1 with all
changes passed by Congress incorporated in it. No more Continuing
Resolutions.

Do /that/ and eveyone will see exactly how little Republicans actually
do when they are in charge. And how much or little the Dems do as
well, of course.

But it has been the Republicans the last two decades or so that have
been interested in /holding/ power but not in /using/ it.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 2/20/2023 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 17:16:06 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 11:57:04 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 14:51:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/18/2023 11:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:25:38 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
>>>>>>> not? That's about as lately as it gets...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pence is not currently an official.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not on that, maybe, but they are nonetheless pursuing stupidity with
>>>>> great enthusiasm. And not just in Congress.
>>>>
>>>> We, the USA, are headed towards a financial apocalypse in a 100 alarm
>>>> fire and some various elected officials are using 10 lb fire
>>>> extinguishers trying to control it. The dems just threw a little more
>>>> gasoline on the fire over the last two years (more borrowed spending).
>>>> But, I don't think the fire is fightable without severe hurt to many
>>>> people in the USA.
>>> Anthing like the $1T thrown on by the Republicans in their last tax
>>> break for 1%ers?
>>
>> Under Trump the USG vastly increased the National Debt to keep people
>> fed and housed, and businesses from going under, during the Covid lockdowns.
>> A depressing amount of the money went astray, but the primary goal was achieved.
>>
>> It sucked for the national debt. But the alternative was worse; a 1930s style
>> Depression. Desperate times sometimes require desperate responses.
>
> Which is why I focused on their tax break for the rich, 100% charged
> onto the National Credit Card, aka the National Debt.
>
> Two solutions:
>
> 1. Stop pretending the debt can be controlled. Abolish the ceiling.
>
> 2. Have the budget on 9/30 become the new budget on 10/1 with all
> changes passed by Congress incorporated in it. No more Continuing
> Resolutions.
>
> Do /that/ and eveyone will see exactly how little Republicans actually
> do when they are in charge. And how much or little the Dems do as
> well, of course.
>
> But it has been the Republicans the last two decades or so that have
> been interested in /holding/ power but not in /using/ it.

Based on what Republicans in power at the state level are doing I have
to disagree with the statement that Republicans are not interested in
using power.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 2:51:31 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 2/18/2023 11:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:25:38 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
> ...
> >>> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
> >>> not? That's about as lately as it gets...
> >>
> >> Pence is not currently an official.
> >>
> >> I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.
> >
> > Not on that, maybe, but they are nonetheless pursuing stupidity with
> > great enthusiasm. And not just in Congress.
> We, the USA, are headed towards a financial apocalypse in a 100 alarm
> fire and some various elected officials are using 10 lb fire
> extinguishers trying to control it. The dems just threw a little more
> gasoline on the fire over the last two years (more borrowed spending).
> But, I don't think the fire is fightable without severe hurt to many
> people in the USA.

It's not fightable _at all_ in the short term, because the politics of the matter are inexorable and inescapable. No matter how dire the threat, it's political _suicide_ to touch SoSec or Medicare. Period. The GOP, in thrall to their business wing and theoretical-libertarian wing, kept tripping over that year after year after year, but it's starting to look like they might finally be getting a clue.

It's a good question about what Pence thinks he's doing. He's always _talked_ a good game as a social conservative, but if you look at his voting record in Congress and actions as Governor or Indiana, when the Chamber of Commerce says 'jump' Pence generally asks 'how high, sir?'

So his currently banging on about Social Security and Medicare is odd. He's out of power right now, so it has no direct effect on anything. If he plans to run for President in 2024, it's sheer undiluted _lunacy_. If he doesn't plan on running in 2024, the only net practical effect of what he's saying is to help the Dems. So why is he doing it?

It's entirely plausible, though of course it can't be proven, that he's doing it intentionally to stick it to Trump. There's a lot of the GOP business wing that would cheerfully cede power in 2024 to the Dems if it broke the back of the GOP conservative base. They mistakenly imagine that they would then step back in and restore the GOP to a pure-business party: i.e. 'economic conservative'/social liberal. Pence might be doing their bidding. Or he might just not get it. Could be either one.

>
> One thing that you have to remember is that the dems and the reps are
> the two sides of the war party. When things get tough, they join
> together and go to war. War is coming !
>
> Lynn

War is always coming. It's the nature of things.

To a first approximation, it's meaningless to be 'anti-war'. Almost everyone is anti-war in a general, abstract sense. It's only meaningful to talk about being pro- or anti- a _particular_ war, and even then it depends on the situation.

For ex, I see way too many right-wing commentators who should know better mindlessly urging that we force Ukraine to negotiate peace. Of course in practice, right now, doing so forces Ukraine to surrender a huge swath of territory to their enemy. You can almost always achieve peace through surrender. (Sometimes, of course, the enemy will still decide to kill you anyway, the Mongols sometimes did that, among others. But surrender will usually give you peace of a sort...if you're prepared to live with the price.)

Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons. So do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him. So it wouldn't necessarily be permanent, and such action on the part of the West would lead to more outbreaks elsewhere, and encourage China.

I say they should know better because one of the core tenets of conservatism is, or should be, realism about human nature. Yet these people are suddenly echoing the same falsehoods and nonsense that the anti-American left used to attack the effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.

OTOH, we see idiocy like calls for a NATO enforced no-fly zone over Ukraine, or backing the Ukrainians in trying to counter-invade Russia. That's insanity, and I hear it coming from both left and right. It's in _no one's_ interest for nuclear powers to be engaging each other directly in Ukraine, including the Ukrainians. Even short of full-scale catastrophe, that could leave Ukraine in ruins from edge to edge even if they technically 'won'.

But it's not war vs. peace. For the foreseeable future, it's war vs. war.

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 11:41:47 AM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 2/20/2023 9:14 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Feb 2023 17:16:06 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> > <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 11:57:04 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 14:51:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> >>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/18/2023 11:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:25:38 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
> >>>> ...
> >>>>>>> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
> >>>>>>> not? That's about as lately as it gets...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pence is not currently an official.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not on that, maybe, but they are nonetheless pursuing stupidity with
> >>>>> great enthusiasm. And not just in Congress.
> >>>>
> >>>> We, the USA, are headed towards a financial apocalypse in a 100 alarm
> >>>> fire and some various elected officials are using 10 lb fire
> >>>> extinguishers trying to control it. The dems just threw a little more
> >>>> gasoline on the fire over the last two years (more borrowed spending).
> >>>> But, I don't think the fire is fightable without severe hurt to many
> >>>> people in the USA.
> >>> Anthing like the $1T thrown on by the Republicans in their last tax
> >>> break for 1%ers?
> >>
> >> Under Trump the USG vastly increased the National Debt to keep people
> >> fed and housed, and businesses from going under, during the Covid lockdowns.
> >> A depressing amount of the money went astray, but the primary goal was achieved.
> >>
> >> It sucked for the national debt. But the alternative was worse; a 1930s style
> >> Depression. Desperate times sometimes require desperate responses.
> >
> > Which is why I focused on their tax break for the rich, 100% charged
> > onto the National Credit Card, aka the National Debt.
> >
> > Two solutions:
> >
> > 1. Stop pretending the debt can be controlled. Abolish the ceiling.
> >
> > 2. Have the budget on 9/30 become the new budget on 10/1 with all
> > changes passed by Congress incorporated in it. No more Continuing
> > Resolutions.
> >
> > Do /that/ and eveyone will see exactly how little Republicans actually
> > do when they are in charge. And how much or little the Dems do as
> > well, of course.
> >
> > But it has been the Republicans the last two decades or so that have
> > been interested in /holding/ power but not in /using/ it.
> Based on what Republicans in power at the state level are doing I have
> to disagree with the statement that Republicans are not interested in
> using power.

It's changing. For years, the GOP ran on social conservatism and national sovereignty, but governed as the voice of corporate America. They would use power, but not in the ways their base voters wanted to see, and often in ways they hated. They counted on the aversion to the Dems to hold their voters on board.

That worked for a while, but it's been breaking down since the start of the '10s. "We're the lesser evil' stops working when your voters conclude that you're actually in partnership with the greater evil.

Which has been forcing the GOP to actually start doing some of the stuff they used to just want to talk about, esp. at the State level and with regard to the judiciary.

People wonder why nothing Trump does alienates his GOP support. It's no great mystery: the alternative to Trump (or deSantis or someone along those lines) is the traditional post-Cold War GOP leadership, the Paul Ryans, the Mitch McConnells, the Bush family, the Romney/McCain/Boehner/Sununu/Cantor/etc wing.

The rebellion predates Trump. Remember Eric Cantor. Majority leader of the GOP which then controlled the House of Representatives. Relatively young (early 50s at the time IIRC), seen at the time as a potential Presidential candidate down the road. But in 2013 and 2014 he backed the so-called 'gang of eight' immigration amnesty being pushed by:

Sen. Michael Bennet, D-CO
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-IL
Sen. Jeff Flake, R-AZ
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC
Sen. John McCain, R-AZ
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-NJ
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY

It _infuriated_ the GOP base. The result was that in the 2014 primaries, the _GOP_ voters in his State bounced Eric Cantor in favor of Dave Brat. It was the first time a majority leader had been turned out by his own voters in a century. Of course the banking industry made a point of visibly giving him a high income job afterward, they wanted to send the message that they would take care of anyone who lost their seat backing Wall Street priorities. But he was still gone.

Trump came out of nowhere and ousted the Inevitable Jeb in the primaries because of the rebellion. When Jeb flamed out the business wing tried Rubio, only to discover that he had not been forgiven for the Go8 bill either. Trump was willing to refuse to play the Dems' and the media (mostly the same thing) word games, either. He called illegals illegals. That might seem trivial, but it was not.

The GOP base actually _got results_ with Trump. Not everything he promised, no. But quite a bit of it got done, that simply would not have under a 'normal' Republican (i.e. Jeb, Rubio, Paul Ryan, etc.), and he visibly attempted to do more than he accomplished. The GOP voters could certainly _see_ the Congressional GOP's failings on the matter.

Illegal immigration was sharply curtained, _Roe_ was stricken, two huge 'free trade' bills went into the trash bin, Trump refused to mouth the standard political pieties at the UN, he forced NATO to at least start reforming some of their failings, as I said, Trump commands loyalty from his voters because his voters _got some results_ with Trump. People might disagree with those things, or hate that he did them, but they were things his voters wanted and had been trying to get from the 'old GOP' without result since days of Bush the Elder.

In article <c9a1cba1-efe9-46ec-a01a-c00f2cb3b278n@googlegroups.com>,
Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>You can almost always achieve peace through surrender. (Sometimes, of course, the
>enemy will still decide to kill you anyway, the Mongols sometimes did that, among others. But surrender will
>usually give you peace of a sort...if you're prepared to live with the price.)

"Once you have paid the Danegeld
You will never be rid of the Dane."

>Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a
>variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons.

Misquoting Mel Brooks:

"A little piece of Ukraine
A little piece of Estonia
A little piece of Kazakhstan..."

(Dang, can't make that scan with names of countries liberated
from the Evil Empire(TM) three decades ago.)
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston