GOP debate recap

This is actually what I tuned in to see, but it was a bit more restrained.  Pity.  ;)

For those of you who are vaguely interested in politics, but not enough so to actually watch 2 hours of their regularly televised sit-com, I offer this debate recap:  Mark O. Rubio seemed cool and above the fray, Dr. Ben Carson, always the polite gentleman, showed....umm....good posture, The Donald seemed to have ratcheted down his mouth a couple of notches, Chris Christie was once again the 8-to-5 working guy's guy, Mike Huckleberry showed he was still the best orator, Ted Cruz had a memorable line, John Kasich seemed to be desperately struggling to keep his head above water, Carly Fiorina was chomping at the bit for a cat fight with Hillary C,  and Jeb Bush and Rand Paul rode off into the sunset (they just don't know it yet).

And the CNBC moderators were assholes.  What the hell was wrong with those folks?  Every question they asked was little more than "have you stopped beating your wife?"

For the life of me I can't understand why Dr. Carson is now the front-runner. Is he smart?  Yes, he's brilliant.  Does he act like an adult when the opportunity is there for a sleazy attack?  Yes, he's a class guy.  But IMHO his demeanor is more that of a statistical actuary than a leader.

I expect my leaders to be able to inspire, to work a crowd up into a force for action.  Such as....

"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall NEVER surrender."  Winston Churchill

or "Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR...DOWN...THIS...WALL!"  Ronald Reagan

or "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."  FDR

Dr. Carson has a soft-spoken demeanor that is [to me] reminiscent of Jimmah Carter, and we all know how THAT turned out!  (He was absolutely run over by the scum-bag Washington professional politicians.)

Several of the candidates (Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie) seemed almost like they were "Democrat Lite" when they spoke of entitlements.  "Workers have BOUGHT their 'entitlements', they were not just given to them."  Gov. Christie even slapped us with the truth:  The money we put into our Social Security Trust Fund is GONE.  Over the past 50 years our "leaders" have STOLEN it.   We're not EVER going to see it again.   Fact!  

And Christie wants to jail the crooked bankers who almost imploded the world back in '08.  YES!

There was almost unanimity over how unhealthy our income inequality is.  This from Republicans?  Whoa!

Poor Jeb.  If you're a Jeb Bush fan, I'm sorry, but it's over for him.  The Bush dynasty has obviously ended with Dubyah.  Give Jeb a nice dinner and a gold watch and retire him.  Now.

Even Ted Cruz got a well-deserved round of applause from the audience when he called out the moderators for being unfair beyond belief.

And Donald Trump.  *sigh*  I think he'll lumber along for a while longer as a legitimate contender, but voters seem to be getting a little lot more serious about the issues, and The Donald hasn't really told us much yet about how he's going to do what he's promised.  I'm not sure if he can.  

My chuckle moment was when Trump skewered PAC's as the scourge of politics.  Ha!   So true!  But as he was the only one there not accepting PAC money, he was a lonely voice of one.  Touche Donald!

I think Mark O. will get a bounce from this debate.  Something about him, though, troubles me.  I'm just not sure exactly what.  I'm sure if there's anything there it will surface in time.

There you have it....my opinion, which ranks right up there with a big bowl of cold oatmeal.  ;)

S

"Hi....I'm from the government and I'm here to help", or "Bend over and feel the love"

Imagine for a minute you decided you wanted a new computer, but you didn't want to go into debt for it.  Then you heard of a merchant who would sell you one on an old-fashioned layaway plan....you paid monthly, and when you'd paid in full, you could go and pick up your purchase.  It was sale priced, so you jumped at it.

This was the prize you were promised.

After working hard day after day, looking at the picture of your new computer stuck to your refrigerator door with a little magnet, waiting for the day when you could get your hands on it, you go to the store to claim your hard earned prize, and this is what they handed you....

Then they tell you they miscalculated....they couldn't deliver on that new computer after all.  Their projections were way off, they were operating in the red, costs were up, revenues were down, times were tough.  Never mind what they promised, but this was all you were going to get.  Sorry.

This is essentially what is threatening to happen with Social Security.  Most Republicans and more than a few Democrats have decided that "entitlements" must be cut if we're ever to have a balanced budget, or even a manageable deficit.  It seems the politicians have over-promised.  *shock!*

Only one little problem....people PAID into Social Security all their working lives in order to have that little pot of money waiting for them when they retired.  It's THEIR money!  Anything they could put aside over and above Social Security was great, but at the very least they had their Social Security waiting for them.   Now the gubment is considering taking at least some of it away.

"Entitlement" means they've already paid for it and they are entitled to receive it.  IMO, at this point it's a right, not a privilege.

This might be a bit more palatable if they had scrapped the entire tax code and put in a new one that treated everyone equally, but they didn't.  There are still subsidies and loopholes sprinkled throughout the old code, robbing the gubment of revenues it needs to keep above water.  And now they want to change the Social Security rules in the middle of the game to make up for their wild promises elsewhere.

Loopholes and subsidies are not paid for in advance.  They are pure and simple freebies to the recipients.  They are not entitled to them.

So people who are "entitled" to something are (maybe) not going to get it, while people who are NOT entitled to something can still count on getting theirs.

I could not in my wildest dream imagine a more dishonorable idea.  Considering it's coming from Congress I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Oh....and Happy Tax Day.  :)

S

From 1992 to 2009 I served on the Civil Service Commission in my city.  We set the rules for police and fire department employment, promotion, discipline, and removal.  One rule that had been in effect for many years (prior to my service) said that unused sick/personal leave could accumulate.  This meant that after 20 or more years of service an employee could have many months worth of sick/personal leave built up that he/she could use to in effect accelerate retirement (not show up for work) and still get paid.

The city realized this was costing them lots of money to pay overtime for police/fire fighters to cover for employees coasting into retirement early and they asked us to change the rule effective immediately.  The city would "buy" some of the accumulated leave time from each officer/fire fighter, but not all his accumulated time.

Problem was, this was an enticement when it came to recruiting new employees and was part of their original terms of employment.  In my mind, to disavow that promise later would be wrong (and maybe illegal).  We voted to change the rule for any NEW hires, but to honor our word to our existing officers/fire fighters.

Isn't this essentially what is happening now with our Medicare and Social Security systems?  We were told (not asked) that we would pay in X% from our pay and we would have Y benefits at the time of our retirement.  Now the government realizes it's costing them big bucks to do this and they want to back peddle.

How is this right?  A deal is a deal.  No?

The government has already postponed retirement for most of us by a year or two, and now they're talking about amending things further.  They win, we lose.  If they want to have a two-tier system from this day forward, fine, but to change the rules in the middle of the game....

Is congress going to cut back THEIR (extremely liberal) retirement package?  Are they going to unilaterally cut back the retirement terms of current and former government employees (one of their most favored constituencies)?  

You put something on layaway at a department store, pay on it for months, then when paid in full go to pick up your purchase and are told they're changing the terms....they're only going to deliver to you the basic model, not the super deluxe model you were promised.  Would you say anything or would you push back?

They call Medicare and Social Security "entitlements", which in popular modern vernacular implies "I didn't do anything to deserve it, but I'm entitled to it anyway."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I paid for mine, and I have the receipts to prove it.

IMO, we taxpayers have held up our end of the deal, now it's time for the government to hold up their end.  As it is, they're holding up their end all right, and saying, "Kiss it!"

Counterpoint anyone?

S