when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security

I would rephrase this, but only slightly. I wouldn't say "Republicans", because there's plenty of the GOP that are just fine with Social Security as long as they're in charge of it. I would instead say that "fiscal conservatives" wish to liquidate SS. If you phrase it that way, then it would be more accurate.

I'm one of them. The SS program, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, are New Deal boondoggles, and if I was "King For A Day" I would instantly abolish both of them and just let the chips fall where they may. They were terrible ideas when they first started, and they are only even more terrible today. All the arguments made against these programs when they were being debated have all come true with almost perfect accuracy, and if they are allowed to continue they will bankrupt the nation. It is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. Staunching the bleeding with temporary measures is not going to solve the problem, but only postpones the day. Just eliminate them now. We got by just fine without them before, and we can do it again. Give the money back to the people in wages and lower taxes, and let people save up for thier own retirement and medical expenses. Let the states cook up their own solutions for those that are truly in need, and let's stop making disastrous Federal "One Size" programs that inevitably crash and burn. We aren't doing anyone any favors with these awful systems.

If you actually believe (Obama) is setting laws based on his belief in Jesus, based on that link, you're an imbecile... What Santorum said was on a whole other level of idiocy.

Ding! This proved my whole point. Of course the liberal, leftist, progressives don't have a problem when when Obama uses religion to make a point. But when a conservative mentions religion to make a point, well it's "a whole other level of idiocy". It is a study of hypocrisy in at its purest, most basic level - and also a fine example of just how people allow political partisanship to annihilate thier own intellectual credibility.

Liberals love to try to have thier rhetorical cake and eat it too. I do nothing but point out the naked, blatant obviousness of it. Obama directly uses religion for purely political reasons, but the neolibs have dutifully taken thier so-called "indignation" about the wall of seperation and tucked it away.

Either you believe in the wall of seperation absolutely, or you don't. Me - I have no problem with political figures who have religious faith. Obama can say Jesus is driving his tax policy, tell churches to vote for him, and bow on his knees in front of crazy fundie kook preachers, and I'm OK with it. Progressives don't have a problem with Obama's blatant use of religion either. I'm just pointing out (rather smugly) the hypocrisy of liberal outrage when Santorum does nothing but mention he disagrees with the progressive re-interpretation of Jefferson's statement. Denying such clear-cut hypocrisy fools no one except those who are already "lost" in the mental sense.

And that's what I think has happend to leftists, really. After a certain point, some people become so invested in a particular position that they will agree with any snake-oil liar who says the sky is pink and the moon is cheese as long as that person parrots the right lines at them. Such is the case with the neolib Videosift progressives who see no problem when Obama uses religion to push his agendas, but then shrivel up like a vampire next to garlic when any conservative even mentions the word 'faith'.

Such linguistic gesticulation fools no one. Liberals should at least be honest and admit that they're just trying to have it both ways here. That would at least give them some degree of honesty, even if they aren't fair.

Snarky responses miss the point. One of the next bubbles on the horizon is the education bubble. Obama's takeover of the student loan racket has in essence created an environment of government subsidized college. That's bad. It is artificially inflating the cost of higher education to the point where even community colleges are overpriced.

Couple that with the widespread fact that colleges at all levels are underperforming and highly questionable in value. The ROI of a college education is plummeting to the point where an Associate's degree is worthless. A Bachelor's is rapidly reaching a point where its value is dubious at best - especially in the Arts & Humanities. The only Bachelor's really worth anything is a BS.

So why tell thousands of kids to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a year or two in college when it is overpriced and gives them no return? Just to say they did? A lot of them would be happier and get a better 'education' just by getting a job, or going to a technical school, interning, or some other option than just droning up and marching through college like a good little worker bee.

All the Prog-Lib-Dytes out there are such hypocrites on this subject. Santorum says a few things about religion, and the neolib goons all start freaking out about how he's "violating the wall of seperation".

Meanwhile, Obama - your beloved dictator - has directly and clearly stated that he is setting government policies based on his belief in Jesus...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news/economy/obama_tax_rich_jesus/index.htm

And he has also called on churches to start telling thier congregations to vote for him...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BdjoHA5ocwU

So - to put it bluntly - you people who are pretending you are so offended by guys like Santorum are nothing but partisan hacks. You completely ignore when social progressives directly use religion to push political agendas that you agree with. You get all upset when conservatives even hint that they have a religious faith. It gives you zero credibility, and makes you a bunch of blinkered, pig-ignorant hypocrites.

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows what Santorum and other conservatives mean when they talk about religion. They support the 1st Amendment in its true sense - religious freedom FROM GOVERNMENT. That's all the 1st Amendment ever meant; not the selectively applied "Oooo - you aren't allowed to even THINK about religion in a public place" that you Prog-Lib-Dytes use as a rhetorical club to beat down any ideas that you dislike.

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck. And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants. Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

The 100% serious straight faced republican answer is "because he's a better* person than you".

No - the answer is that you guys are comparing grapes and basketballs and then bellyaching about how it "isn't fair" that the grape doesn't bounce as high as a basketball. It accomplishes nothing except to prove how woefully ignorant you are, and how horribly succeptible you are to leftist bull$#!t.

I'll try to put this in a way that even a ProgLibDyte could understand... There's two reasons Romney only paid 13.9% taxes....

1. Most of his income was from capital gains investments - which are taxed at much lower rates than income taxes in nations all over the planet. This is because capital gains investments are (A) risky and (B) directly benefit the business sector. So capital gains investments are a behavior that should be rewarded - and even the government knows this. That's why CGI rates are only 15% even for guys like Buffett because government wants them dumping money into business capital to stimulate growth - and they aren't going to penalize that highly beneficial behavior with punitive tax rates just because you are stupid and feel butthurt about it.

2. Mitt Romney donated 15% of his income to charity - which is tax deductible. It is another thing that is never going to change, because giving money to a private charity is a bilion times more efficient than giving it to government, and that kind of behavior should be rewarded.

So we have a Videosift guy who is whining about having to pay 35% on his wages but Mitt only had to pay 13.9% on his capital gains. Mitt's lower rate has nothing to do with him being 'better' or anything of the sort. It is entirely because Mitt's wealth is earned in an entirely different way.

That's reality guys. I know it is not convenient to the liberal worldview, but even your left-wing radical pals like Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, and all the rest do the exact same things as Romney once they have earned enough money. And yet you don't seem to care about that. Curious. Very curious indeed, this thing you call 'selective outrage'... Facts are facts, and for true INCOME (not CGI) Mitt, Buffett, Gates, and everyone else pay higher taxes than you (or the same if you happen to hit the highest tax tier). The only way you leftists can ever conjure up your fakey, bologna arguments is to cook the books and crosstalk about completely different things. It is bullcrap, but you guys wolf it down like chocolate cake. Just proves how dumb you are when it comes to economics.

100% astroturf. Unions have faked, bought, and lied their way to this total using national organizations. It is not a 'Wisconsin' result. This is the unions doing everything they can to try and save thier own butts because they know if Walker's policies work they are screwed - maybe for generations.

Color me unimpressed that the unholy union of SEIU, WEAC, the Democrat party and all the standard roster of leftists have managed to conjure up some signatures. Yawn. Their problem really is in an entirely different arena.

Their problem is that Walker's policies are WORKING...

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_scott-walker.html

"71 percent of Wisconsinites believe that the state’s public schools have either stayed the same or improved over the previous half-year. More than three-quarters of Wisconsinites expect the state’s economy either to get better or to stay the same in the next year, up from 60 percent during the height of the union tumult in March."

There's only so much that union bought astroturf can accomplished in the light of facts and reality.

Bill Gates - and all the ProgLibDytes on the forum - entirely miss the point.

You could take every single member of the top 5% of the United States and immediately confiscate 100% of all their wealth, income, assets, property, and leave them penniless paupers in the gutter. It would not so much as balance the Federal Government's budget for one QUARTER, let alone a whole fiscal year. The problem is not that taxes on the rich are too 'low' (they certainly aren't). The problem is that government spends too much money on crap that government has no business spending so much as one thin dime on (IE all the social programs). Government has over-promised on too many things to too many groups for far too long. They foot a bill too long for their purse and can't pay it - no matter how much it taxes the rich, corporations, or anyone else.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Warren Buffett's secretary (also rich), Hollywood, and all the other rich idiots with their crocodile tears about not being taxed enough... Every single one of these hypocrites has the address of the National Treasury, and can write out checks giving every penny they earn to the government. They can fire thier accountants tomorrow and not use all the exemptions they fight so hard to maximize. They don't need thier taxes raised. They could pay higher taxes this very instant under current law.

So why don't they? Simple. They know government is a terrible place to put money.

Gates is dumping money into private philanthropical efforts - which shows that he hasn't completely lost his wits (even though he's talking like a total moron in this clip). No one believes that giving the government more money is a good idea. The US government is one of the most wasteful, and least efficient organizations on the planet. Bill Gates knows this. So it isn't hard for him to figure out that "the nation" would be better served dumping his money in an incinerator rather than pay the Feds more tax money.

So what's with these hypocritical screeds that rich sleazeballs like Buffett? The answer is also quite simple. They are doing nothing more than mouthing platitudes specifically to assuage all you ProgLibDyte peons with your class warfare pitchforks.

It is quite amusintg, really, just how easily and thoroughly people on the left like the Sift are duped. All Gates has to do is go on a show here, or a show there, and say a few of the correct leftist catchphrases. Then suddenly all the lemmings are literally knocking each other over to be the first in line to start french kissing Gates or Buffett's duodenum.

See - that's what's so funny. You ProgLibDytes don't care that Gates is laughing his way to the bank, and that he will NEVER pay a cent more in taxes than he has to. Oh no. That doesn't matter. All that matters to all you agenda slaves is that he blathers the right sound bite at you. Then your ideological addictions get thier nice little junkie fix, and you're putty in his hands, laughing at you because he knoew (A) he isn't going to pay more taxes and (B) all he has to do is keep shunting a few bucks at the right leftist radicals and he will have political protection payola shielding him for life. And all he needs too keep the racket going is a bunch of you simpletons brainlessly following your left-wing marching orders so he has a permanent audience to sing to. How's it feel knowing you're the intellectual equivalent of Bill Gates' used condom?

I've had to deal with this guy's type. His family should be off limits... They have punishment enough by having thier wagons hitched to this specimen. But the guy himself is clearly one of those arrogant, self-deluded types who would club baby seals without a second thought, and then blame the witnesses and the cops when he gets arrested. The sad thing is, far 'bigger' entities than this one PR flack do this kind of bologna all the time and get away with it. I don't generally cotton to OWS types, but they do have it right when it comes to wanting to hold large organizations accountable for thier bologna.

Just because one clip focuses on it doesn't mean that the entire movement is fixated on one stat.

All I ever see from the liberal left's ProgLibDytes are clips that focus on the 'wealth disparity' between the rich and poor. I've never seen the ProgLibDyte clip that focuses on something like median income. That's because focusing on median income tells a completely opposing story. The point is that ProgLibDytes and and left as a whole focus only on a narrow band of stats that drives thier agenda-based narrative. They ignore huge vistas of other facts, studies, research, thought, and evidence because it cuts the legs out from under thier world view and makes them look like idiots.

Barak Obama himself is a CLASSIC example of this narrow-minded kind of agenda-driven cherry-picking of reality. Every time that specimen opens his mouth it is to say, "The experts I have spoken to agree with me..." And what about the bazillions of experts he DIDN'T speak to which all disagree with him, or contradict him? Of course is his empty noggin such people don't exist - or don't matter. The same issue plagues neolib leftists across whole spectrums. Global Warming, Abortion, Economics - you name it - the left picks a tiny slice of carefully selected grain of sand to tell a story, and ignores whole beaches of sand that says the opposite.

Not that the right doesn't suffer from the same problem. It is not an issue limited to only the left. However, the left is more aggressively self-important, pious, and arrogant about their narrative - and far more inclined to try to base bad legislation on it.

How is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points "communist" or even "socialist" on an objective scale?

The US tax rate (both corporate and private) is already one of the highest in the world. I counter your question with another. "What good is raising the marginal tax rate on the super rich a few percentage points going to do?" You could confiscate every penny the top 10% of America has and it would not get America's government out of the red even for one year - let alone for the 15 trillion we have in debts - and the SIXTY-FOUR TRILLION we have in 'unfunded liabilities' such as Social Security. There isn't enough money in the entire economy to pay for all the spending the government is doing and/or proposing with its leftist big-government agendas. The economic problem is one of spending - not taxation.

But you're pretending that the income gap between super rich and poor is static, which misses the entire point. It's not static. It fluctuates.

Irrelevant. The gap between the top 1% and the bottom 5% means nothing. It is immaterial statisitically speaking. If I earn a million a year compared to a guy that earns 30K then he makes 3% of what I do. A year later I am earning 1,050,000 a year and he is earning 28K for a new adjusted difference of 2.66% of what I earn. Head for the hills, Ma Barker! Since when is this -0.34% shift of any value. Or let's go the other way and now I'm only earning 950,000 and he's earning 32,000 for a 3.25% How is that helping either the rich guy OR the poor guy? Or let's take the real world situation that Barak Obama brought us and BOTH of them go down while the government's income skyrockets. Wow - that's really benefiting society isn't it?

The wealth gap is utterly irrelevant - static or dynamic. And for the record - I never assume ANY economic stat is static except for one. Government growth. Government baseline budgeting has created an untenable economic drag on the nation because it continues to grow at 8% to 10% Year over Year no matter what the economy is doing. That's the only static economic stat out there - and it is not a good one.

(BTW, what a good person you are to say whose jobs are of value and whose aren't!)

Right back at you Clyde. Who are you to decide what an inside-trader's job should or shouldn't be worth? The IT generates real profit for his company, and they compensate him to keep him doing it. Who are you - or Cunk - or any other ProgLibDyte to come along with the cheek to say they don't deserve it?

I'm advocating the gov't make it moderately more equal by raising the rich's taxes, and ease up on the poor and middle class.

The mistake you and the left make is that for some reason you think that 'taxes' make things 'more equal'. They don't except in one way... Taxes make everyone equally miserable. Money goes into government and dissappears. Taxing the rich doesn't make things better for the poor or the middle class. It only gives government more power - which is the last thing our bloated federal system needs right now. The poor pay virtually no income taxes - so it is quite impossible to 'ease up' on them except at the state & sales tax level. The middle class? Hey - anything helps but in the average budget we're talking a few hundred bucks a year. I don't have a problem with the rich paying thier 'fair share' (as leftists so vaguely love to put it). But the rich already ARE paying thier fair share and then some. If they jacked 'the rich' tax rate up to 90% it wouldn't do jack-squat for 'the poor' or the middle class.

Tax capital gains like it's income, subject to the same brackets, etc.

America's captial gains taxes are already the #2 highest in the world. Gapital gains are treated differently for a reason. This is another thing that most leftists prove themselves woefully ignorant about whenever they talk about it. And again - even if we did that how exactly is that going to 'help' anyone? All that does is provide you lefties with an ephemeral, meaningless sense of shadenfruede which you can suckle on as you trudge back to your government-mandated hovels - properly pacified with the meaningless knowledge that a rich guy is getting taxed some more. That is until you realize he's still rich, you're still poor, and only the government got something out of the deal. How leftists can be so stupid on the subject of economics I will never know, but I can only tip my hat to the depths of human gullibility.

Keep packin' them pennies--you will probably need them someday

Oh - I am. No debts, and socking away money to make me a millionaire when I retire with slow, steady, reasonable investing. Hope you are too, because the way Obama and all the other bozos in Washington are running things we're all going to need to pack away as many pennies as we can.

Or is that a typo for "ProgLibDytes"

As with "neolibs" it is a word of my own creation which I used to describe the crazed, hardcore, insane left-wing liberal denizens of the world. Neolib was my default for a long time, but lately the vitriol of the left has gotten so prone to hate, anger, and insanity that I have moved to defaulting with "ProgLibDyte" to describe them. It is perfect because it is so close to "Troglidyte" (cave dweller) and covers "Progressives" and "Liberals" together. ProgLibDytes. Cave dwelling political liberals and progressives. Brevity is the soul of wit.

Which one should we obsess over?

How about not picking just one, and looking at all of them - or at least a LOT of them? Regardless, examining only the gap between the ultra-rich and the poor is about one of the stupidest metrics one could examine when it comes to economics. It means absolutely nothing in terms of either real income, economic trending, or any other meaningful metric. Such a myopic stat serves only one purpose, and that is to angry up the blood of the lower class.

There are always going to be really rich people who have so much money that they could eat gold bricks and crap diamonds. These guys are always going to exist in the same nation as people so poor they scrape the very bottom of the economic barrel. The difference between the top 0.1% and the bottom 5% is utterly meaningless. It is pure nonsense to get mad about the difference between Bill Gates and the guy who pumps gas. It tells nothing about anything.

I personally donate my time to help the poor. I've helped the poorest of the poor in US cities and I thought I knew what 'poor' was. Then I volunteered to help little towns in Mexico. When kids and widows weep in your arms just because you came to them with a few bags of cement to put a small concrete slab in thier one room dirt-shanty then you know you've hit the real thing.

In the US, even those who live in so-called 'poverty' have cars, TVs, homes, cable, internet, clothes, and money to spend at McDonalds on a lark. So I have very little patience when I hear college-age son's-of-yuppies whining about the fact that they only earn $30K a year (with benefits) for thier liberal-art's major compared to Wall-Street guys (who are actually performing a real job) earning 300K plus cash bonuses. Boo-freaking-hoo.

Sigh.

ProgLibDytes really need to get over thier obsession with the GINI index, which was created by a fascist as a trick to gin up the sheeple masses. The whole "Income Gap" is just a new label to a decades old fascist propoganda tool. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together sees such naked hate-mongering exactly for what it is. Obsessing over a single economic statistic is like using one pixel in a 24,000,000 pixel image to describe a whole thing.

People like Cunk and all the TrogLibDyte acolytes that slurp down all his verbal diarrhea love to talk about nothing but the income gap because it is one of the rare few economic stats (out of thousands) that strikes a chord with the masses who are ignorant of real economics. Same motive as the reason the fascists created the GINI index. Get people mad at a small target and they are easy to manipulate. Hows it feel, ProgLibDytes, knowing that you are so easily suckered in by the same tricks used by the Nazis? Obama's mentor - Saul Alinsky - would be proud as he literally wrote the book on methods for flim-flamming the slow and the stupid. Change one word in his rant, and you can't tell the difference betwen Cunk and Gobbels.

So much potential - for both excellence and suckage. We shall see which it ends up being...

Tolkein to me is the Stanley Kubrik of fiction books - to fans he's untouchable; to the few of us who aren't into it, he's long-winded and self-indulgent. People are going to throw things at me for saying this, but he could have written a much better story in two books than three

No one is going to throw things at you. Reading is a very individual experience. Not everyone is going to or has to like the same stuff any more than they have to like the same clothes or food. Your tastes in literature are just different. Nothing wrong with that.

I personally felt that every Harry Potter book (after Azkaban) could be cut in half and it would have made a far better reading experience. But to some people that would be blasphemy. I got sick of JK "The Exposition" Rowling pulling the Scooby-Doo revelation of the "Old Man Jenkins du jour" mystery at the end of every book. She took chapters and chapters to do it - sometimes hundreds of pages - and she's so addicted to exposition that she invented entire plot devices just so she could do more of them (Pensieve, I'm lookin' at you). But to some readers that was good stuff. Me - I skimmed right past it. If Tolkien's descriptions of terrain, histories, and such bog you down then just skim 'em.

Sometimes I feel bad that some folks don't get the same soul-rush I get from LOTR's language though. But there it is. You either appreciate that aspect of a text or you don't. To some people JRR's perfect craftsmanship, literary power, and brightness of theme/setting have no value - just as Rowling's redundant expositions mean nothing to me.

When I walked out of my first showing of the Fellowship of the Ring movie, I was pretty jazzed. I felt the movie (while having flaws) still managed to capture the essence of the story which was loyalty, honor, and sacrifice in the face of temptation and darkness. I heard some gal talking to her friend walking out of the movie saying how boring it was, how stupid parts were, and how the whole thing dragged out way longer than it should. Two different people with totally different opinions about the same thing. One person saw value, depth, and goodness. The other was just bored. Same logic applies to the book.

dry, boring, and flat-out hard to read (e.g. three names for every individual, all sounding so similar as to be virtually impossible to differentiate)

Reading is all in the eye of the beholder, so I won't say you're WRONG but I will say you are looking at them with an incorrect expectation (were then, and still are).

DRY & BORING: Tolkien wrote the book with a 'high' style. He makes no apologies for it. He did not write the novel in such a way as to please the varying sensibilities of people. Some people today want 'grit', others want speed, or breathless action, or any one a hundred different tastes. If you read the books and want those other things, then your experience will be lacking.

HARD TO READ: Tolkien was a professor of philology, and wrote accordingly. Like Wells, Lewis, and others of his stripe - he did not pull his linguistic punches (much). As far as the names are concerned, you just have to deal with that because he was using the same time-honored literary device as was used in Beowulf where the recitation of a person's many names/titles is done with a reverence akin to reciting one's lineage and history. He doesn't do it to be redundant or repetitive. He does it for a reason - to tell you the person's story.

I've had this conversation with many. Not everyone likes Tolkien, and that's fine. But I dispute the statement that his work was boring, hard to read, or dry. JRR was a craftsman of the language the like of which simply does not exist today. That isn't idle brag. He had a skillset that has been lost to us. No one exists that can do what he did. Many try to ape his style, but they come off as pale shadows. And not only was he a master of the language in a technical sense, but he was also highly skilled at writing as well. You only get that combination once in a thousand years.

When you read - you have to look at the beauty of the language, the power of the words, and the light and depth of the setting & themes. There are passages and words in LOTR that never fail to send chills through me from top to bottom. I have not found any modern writer who comes close to that. Yes, I've read many who told excellent stories, or could write great characters, or who could generate good atmosphere, or good settings, et al. But none have used language so powerfully or with such light in such a way as to move the soul. LOTR is a work in which there is a true 'aura' beyond the typical book trance from other works. Again, if you go in looking for something else then, brother, you're just looking at it the wrong way.