Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Thanks again to my friends in California...

  1. #1
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964

    Thanks again to my friends in California...

    Warning: The following is a conservative rant posted solely to take a weight off my chest. You probably shouldn't even waste time reading it- it exists solely as a therapeutic device for the author...

    I recognize and freely admit that I am a bit of a "political junkie." I confess that I've actually taped sessions of CSPAN so I could catch a proceeding in the House or Senate. To the laboratory technicians that worked for me in York, PA during the Clarence Thomas hearings, I apologize for forcing you to listen to NPR's complete coverage of those proceedings...

    All this is to explain why I probably have stronger emotional reactions to certain members of Congress than is normal (or perhaps even healthy for one's mental state). Through the years, I've developed a list of favorites (which have come from both sides of the aisle). Among them have been Sen. Moynihan, Rep. Barbara Jordan, Sen. Biden, Sen. Hatch, and- my all time most esteemed- Sen. Alan Simpson.

    I've naturally also developed a list of "least favorite" (which also includes members of both parties). Through years of watching our Congress in action, however, no Senator or Representative has been as consistent a source of personal angst as the current junior Senator from California- Sen. Barbara Boxer. While I can handle the fact that her politics are pretty much diametric to my own, it is ardous for me to understand the bile, ignorance, and sophistry with which she inevitably expresses herself. Beyond all others, she seems to have a singular talent for finding the most malapropos moment, issue, and method of expression. I can only suppose that she has some over-riding anger at the world in general which clouds her ability to reason and communicate in a logical or civil manner.

    Which brings me to the fount of this particular (and now waxing lengthy) rant. While I understand that confirmation hearings are supposed to be somewhat acrimonious, most senators follow the general rules of political Jeopardy by making at least a pretense of railing at nominees in the form of an actual question. With the inauguration of a Republican president at hand, I also expect a bit more bile than normal in confirmation hearings. That allowed, the demeanor of Sen. Boxer during the confirmation hearing for our future Secretary of State (Dr. Condoleezza Rice) is simply inexcusable.

    I personally cannot recall a more inappropriate and ill-timed attack during a confirmation hearing (including some of the Judicial Committee hearings for nominees to the Supreme Court- which often get quite personal). Perhaps the Senator simply wanted to examine how the future Secretary will handle the potentially obnoxious behaviour of foreign diplomats- if this was her scheme, forgive my misinterpretation. Given previous discourses by this particularly inept and impotent member of the Senate, however, I somehow doubt this was her intention.

    In a state with so many people, I cannot believe there isn't someone better capable of representing the Golden State than this irritating shrew. Yes, the majority of Californians (in the cities, anyway) are liberal. Fine, send another gentleman or lady like your Senior Senator Feinstein. She is certainly as liberal as they come- but at least she conducts herself with a certain level of decorum in the process of promoting the liberal agenda.

    Republicans have also sent some socially inept individuals to Congress (actually, I think one of the worst specimens was a Republican Rep from CA as well- but I forget his name... he was voted out about 6-8 years ago), but Sen. Boxer beats anything I've ever seen. Personally, I'll be glad to see her retire someday (either willingly or by vote).

    PS- I see Kerry has decided to reappear. I guess his concillatory words after the election were as founded as most of his other statements during the campaign. It looks like we have a Senate that is determined to be at war for the next 2 years.

    PPS- Congratulations to Dr. Rice on what should be an eventual confirmation. Being a big girl, I'm sure she sees these attacks for what they are- the snipings of a defeated party.
    Last edited by Pete Hanlin; 01-19-2005 at 09:51 AM.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  2. #2
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
    PS- I see Kerry has decided to reappear. I guess his concillatory words after the election were as founded as most of his other statements during the campaign. It looks like we have a Senate that is determined to be at war for the next 2 years.

    PPS- Congratulations to Dr. Rice on what should be an eventual confirmation. Being a big girl, I'm sure she sees these attacks for what they are- the snipings of a defeated party.
    You make comments like these and expect your adversary (Boxer) to be civil?


    Republicans are soooooooo magnanimous!:finger: :hammer:Gracious, even!
    ...Just ask me...

  3. #3
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    Of course, you are correct in that my remarks could be described as being spiteful and/or meanspirited. However, the ramblings of a lowly optician on a small audience forum does not carry the same importance nor implication as the divisive and pointless public spectacle that the Senator from California chose to create in a confirmation hearing!

    If Senator Boxer wants to express her disgust at the administration and her contempt for the President, do it on Hardball or some other forum (like this one). My question remains- What benefit is there to be gained by using a confirmation hearing to tee off on Dr. Rice and the administration? Even if you desire to use the confirmation hearing as a pulpit to make observations, there are ways to do so which are not so deliberately divisive.

    Senator Kerry's statements after the election indicated a desire to work together during the next four years (which is the usual post-election speech). If that is his true desire, his actions of yesterday were not a promising beginning. I'm not being coy here- I recognize that politics are politics. I just think using a confirmation hearing (especially one where the confirmation is more or less a given) to snipe away at an admin that is setting up for four more years shows a lapse of judgement. The first we hear of the Mass Senator after his defeat is not the proposal of a bill- or the proposal of an agenda- but cutting comments during a confirmation hearing as the administration tries to get rolling on its second term.

    Perhaps you feel that the actions of Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer yesterday are examples of good leadership for your party. Good luck if that's the direction the Democrats wish to take for the next session of Congress. As a comparison, Senator Biden was by no means "soft" on Dr. Rice- but he managed to ask his questions in a reasonable and logical manner.

    In short (too late for that), I'm not suggesting that the members of Congress have a big love-fest with each other. By all means the parties should hammer out a direction for the country based on compromise and consensus. There will be disharmony along the way- naturally. I just fail to see how members like Sen. Boxer contribute to progress on issues that require cooperation. She is perhaps the most divisive element in the Senate at this time.

    I want to see some results from this session- especially on Social Security (which is inarguably broken and untenable in its current form). Furthermore, I want some budget cuts- now!

    PS- Democrats are sooooooo- well, we need not go into it.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  4. #4
    Just An Optician jediron1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA, New York
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,727
    Pete said:Perhaps you feel that the actions of Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer yesterday are examples of good leadership for your party. Good luck if that's the direction the Democrats wish to take for the next session of Congress. As a comparison, Senator Biden was by no means "soft" on Dr. Rice- but he managed to ask his questions in a reasonable and logical manner.

    Democrats always do this. It's there way to show the people how important they are to there state and also to keep there entitlement mentality intact. With out the entitlement mentality the Kennedy's and Kerry's would have nothing to banter about. They would be off on some philanthropic trip to open a museum or to cut a ribbon for a bridge in some no where place. Now they go to congress and spout all there leftist agenda. Leftist are alright as long as they are on the RIGHTIST side. But most leftists are so left they are Marx and Nitschke like.
    Sorry for philosophical ramblings!

  5. #5
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    Democrats always do this. It's there way to show the people how important they are to there state and also to keep there entitlement mentality intact.

    There is a time when I would have completely agreed with this statement, but my exposure to friends and relatives who are Democrat and/or liberal has changed my view over the years. In other words, at one point in time I believed that liberals said the things they did out of blatant ignorance or some sort of rebellion against traditionalism (that's sad, but that was my thinking in my college days).

    Today, I have no doubt that liberals sincerely believe the best way to stop poverty is to provide financial aid. Additionally, I agree that the truly needy in America probably do not get enough support. Furthermore, I think I understand those who hold that we should have stayed away from Iraq- I disagree, but I can see that point of view.

    What I have yet to understand is the acrimony displayed by both parties in recent decades. Maybe things are simply exactly the way they have always been- its just that this is occurring in my lifetime. In the days of Democratic rule (the 60s-90s), the Republicans railed against the majority party and all of us GOP'ers threw ourselves a big pity party and criticized the people in charge. Today, the Republicans are in charge and the shoe is on the other foot- so fine, the Democrats are going to do some complaining.

    When you look at the likes of Sen. Boxer, however, the complaining goes beyond some sort of threshold. It rises to a level of what I call an "absolute confrontation." An absolute confrontation is one in which there can be no compromise. For example, the Muslims want Israel destroyed- Israel wants the Muslims to give up claims to their land. There is no compromise here- one group or the other gets what they want. Abortion is a similar arrangement- there is no real compromise available due to the nature of the dispute.

    I encourage people to compare the statements of Sen. Biden and Sen. Boxer. Then ask yourself two questions: 1.) is there any real question regarding how each of them feels about this administration; and 2.) which one of these people is most likely to at least work with their opposing side to form a compromise that leads to progress?

    We are in a pivotal time in our country's history. We need to stop spending so much money (both Reps and Dems). We need to fix the largest social program in our budget (Social Security), because it is going bankrupt at an alarming pace. We need to re-evaluate and in some casees re-establish relationships around the world (which have been strained by both OUR actions and THEIR actions). Finally, we need to make this country secure against the new threats of a new era. These are no longer "optional" items- they must be accomplished.

    Personally, I feel more comfortable when a Republican approach is taken to most of these issues. Realistically, I realize there must be a compromise in the approach if these issues are going to be successfully addressed. All I'm suggesting is that we had better figure out how to quit sniping at each other long enough to get something accomplished- which includes learning to play nicely when we don't get exactly what we want. Perhaps Senator Boxer can go back in time to whatever sandbox incident ruined her life and learn that simple fact of life (and there are doubtless Republicans who need the same introspection- but Sen. Boxer stands head and shoulders above all others as an individual who needs some attitude adjustment).

    Like I said, I watch congress too often for my own mental health. Trust me, you watch this lady in action and she is always creating division and strife. I can't think of a positive thing I've seen her do as a member of the Senate.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  6. #6
    Just An Optician jediron1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA, New York
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,727
    Yo Pete if you reread my post I never said or implied they did not believe or completely adhere to there policy. My point is that the Democrats seem to need

    people that are seeking some form of entitlement (ie.Medicaid). Now don't get all bent out of shape and say, well this is a well meaning program it is. But like a lot of things it has it's abuses and the democrats seem driven to reach people on entitlement programs. Look at N. Y. state where entitlement is almost a right of passage. The whole state voted for Kerry because part of his plan was to increase entitlements. So your thinking may have changed with your age but if I were you I would look a little harder at the Kennedy's and kerry's of this world and see why they are so bent on there entitlement arrangement. I think you maybe a little surprised on what you find. Isn't it the Kennedy's who are always saying the rich should pay there fair share? How much in taxes has Mr. Kennedy and the whole Kennedy clan paid in the last ten years you maybe very surprised. Share the wealth they always but are they are willing are share there wealth? NO! They want to share the governments not there own. Just my two cents!

  7. #7
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    I do not disagree with you on the eventual outcome of liberal thinking- personally, I think entitlements lead to more poverty and less opportunity for those in need. However, I don't believe Democrats view entitlements mainly as a way to "stay in power." I think (for some of them anyway) they honestly believe the only way to help someone is to give them a hand up.

    This morning, I watched an interview with Nancy Pelosi (House Minority Leader from California). While she made some statements with which I completely disagree, her disposition was such that I felt encouraged that perhaps we may see some progress in the upcoming few years. I'm hoping the President can give an inspirational inaugural speech that extends an olive branch to the Democrats- but also gives notice that we will be getting an agenda through Congress this year.

    Part of that agenda must include Social Security reform. This morning, Rep. Pelosi said the Democrats now agree something needs to be done with SS- but they don't view it as a program "in crisis." I fail to understand what other term could be used for the condition of this program, but as a 36 year old who has already paid tens of thousands into this system, I'd like it if someone started working on a system whereby I could perhaps recoup half of my investment someday (I've given up on thinking I'll ever break even on this deal).

    Anyway, Sec. Rice passed her hearing 16-2, and- other than the fact that some Democrats want the opportunity to snipe in full session for an hour or two- she'll soon be the Secretary of State. Hopefully, the Democrats are not resigned to simply "obstructing, obstructing, obstructing." That strategy worked for Newt Gingrich for a number of years- until President Clinton hung him out to dry with it by trianulating himself between a conservative minority and a liberal majority. Perhaps they'll learn from the mistakes of the GOP when they were a minority.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  8. #8
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Make up your own minds with regard to Boxer:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../RICEBOXER.DTL

    With regard to Social Security:

    Main Entry: cri·sis
    Pronunciation: 'krI-s&s
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural cri·ses /'krI-"sEz/
    Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, from Greek krisis, literally, decision, from krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
    1 a : the turning point for better or worse in an acute disease or fever b : a paroxysmal attack of pain, distress, or disordered function c : an emotionally significant event or radical change of status in a person's life <a midlife crisis>
    2 : the decisive moment (as in a literary plot)
    3 a : an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending; especially : one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome <a financial crisis> b : a situation that has reached a critical phase <the environmental crisis>

    The present "condition of the program" is debatable, depending on whether one thinks the U.S. government can owe itself money. However, in 2003, the payroll tax took in $141 billion more than was paid out (in total) by the SSA. It will continue to do so until around 2018, when it will have to start cashing in those Treasury bills, which the government gives itself when it "borrows" the surplus in payroll tax revenues over benefits and costs paid. At that point, the government will either raise taxes or increase borrowing to redeem the notes.

    Of course, between now and then, the payroll tax surplus will diminish, which will have the effect of better representing the actual fiscal performance of the government, which is presently misrepresented (in the amount of the payroll tax surplus, that is, to be reported accurately the deficit should include the surplus from the payroll tax; as that diminishes, our national accounting will become more honest).

    So there may be a "crisis" in 2018. To recognize that there is likely to be a serious problem in the future (in this case, at least 13 years in the future) might reasonably be called a "looming crisis" or an "impending crisis", though the latter strikes me as implying an excessive imminence.

    If you actually believe that there is any sense in which you are investing in your retirement when you pay your payroll taxes, you are mistaken. You are simply a) paying for current benefits (which are defined by statute and may be changed at any time) and b) paying for the general expenses of the government. Recognition of that fact may, I suppose, constitute a personal "crisis" of sorts. And were everyone who suffers that misunderstanding to simultaneously recognize the truth - that might be a national "crisis" of sorts. But not a fiscal one.

  9. #9
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    Thanks for the link, Robert- and yes, I invite anyone who wishes to know the particulars to read the discourse of Sen. Boxer and decide for yourself if her questions were given in the spirit of probing a nominee to the cabinet- or more or less soley for the purpose of being contentious. (As a point of note, one may notice she spends the first minute or so trying to imply that Sec. Rice feels the recent tsunami was a good thing...)

    If you actually believe that there is any sense in which you are investing in your retirement when you pay your payroll taxes, you are mistaken. You are simply a) paying for current benefits (which are defined by statute and may be changed at any time) and b) paying for the general expenses of the government.
    Regarding payroll taxes- www.ssa.gov describes FICA payroll taxes:
    The payroll taxes collected for Social Security are of course taxes, but they can also be described as contributions to the social insurance system that is Social Security. Hence the name "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."
    Of course contributions to SS are not investments in one's retirement program... they are investments made for other people's retirement. My contributions insure that today's retirees have at least some influx of money- regardless of whether or not they have personally provided towards their retirement through private investment. The way the system has been historically handled, nearly everyone who has put into the system in the past has been able to get money back out.

    The crisis is this- even with my money and the money of future workers, there will eventually be no way to maintain the benefits currently promised by the system (which are meager at best). Whether this occurs in 18 years or 18 months, I think this surely rises to the crisis level. Stating that its a "future" crisis is like telling passengers on the Titanic "The ship is sinking and you can't get off- but its not going to go completely under until a few days from now- so let's not worry too much for now." Excuse me for having a sense of urgency, but perhaps we should try patching the ship- or finding another means of conveyance across the icy waters!

    SS originated in what was the perhaps the most severe economic event of our country's short history (The Great Depression). In my opinion, it should have been a temporary program (much like CCC and other worker programs). Unfortunately, it not only stuck around- but was expanded incrementally until 1972 when amendments finally began to implement some moderations to benefits/eligibility. One would have thought by 1983 the eventual insolvency of this program would have been recognized (when amendments were instituted which made it impossible for states and individuals to opt out of the program- an undefendable action in my opinion).

    Naturally, the fact that I have a personal problem with dumping money into meager retirement assistance for other people makes me one more inconsiderate conservative. I would suggest, however, that- if we don't "fix" this program (and my own "fix" is to PHASE IT OUT)- the millions of post babyboomers who are waking up to the realities of this failed/failing program will express our personal problems at the voting booth...
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  10. #10
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

    Regarding payroll taxes- www.ssa.gov describes FICA payroll taxes:
    The payroll taxes collected for Social Security are of course taxes, but they can also be described as contributions to the social insurance system that is Social Security. Hence the name "Federal Insurance Contributions Act."
    Of course contributions to SS are not investments in one's retirement program... they are investments made for other people's retirement.
    I'd say that there is no sense in which they're "investments" at all. (Which means, I think the SSA's claim is misleading).

    Maybe you regard this as picking nits (or an obsession with semantics), but I believe that it's important to describe problems accurately; failure to do so will preclude development of appropriate solutions, and will prevent the application of an appropriate sense of urgency.

    Which is to say, I think there is a substantial difference - a difference in kind - between a problem that is 18 months away, and one that is 18 years away.

    That said, let me add that I am all for a radical restructuring of the government's retirement scheme - so long as it's a rational one. I have little faith that this government will come up with a rational one, but then, I'm a man of little faith.

  11. #11
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    I can't fathom the possibility that the SSA would be deliberately misleading- the implications are just too much to bear!

    In other words, then- we basically agree in theory. I think the crisis comes from the fact that- with each tick of the clock- the ultimate solution becomes all that more painful (of course, that could be said of a lot of problems- including the budget deficit, but not- interestingly- the national debt).

    Back to Sen. Boxer, my main complaint (gripe, railing- what have you) concerns my fear that her party may choose to adopt this kind of, as you put it, "nitpicking" attitude (which others might call obstructionism). I'll openly admit that the GOP did their share during the Dark Ages (which I use to refer to the days when the Dem party controlled both sides of Congress)- but regardless of which party is doing it, it only impedes progress.

    When the Senate Minority Leader explains that the confirmation vote will be held over "so some of the Democrat Senators who aren't on the committee can air their greivences in full session" (my own paraphrase), I just get annoyed. Look, she's obviously going to be confirmed (which was Sen Boxer's opening remark the other day). Insisting on spending a few hours to complain about the administration isn't getting us anywhere. Its called "picking your battles."

    Furthermore, I find Sen. Kerry's contribution to this episode troubling as well. Look, a couple hundred million voters declared with their ballot that they would have liked the Senator to be the one filling a cabinet right now. Unfortunately for the Senator, a few million more decided to re-elect the President. So, let's all play nice and let him install his cabinet without all the tantrums!

    God, if there were a real and credible reason to dispute Dr. Rice's nomination, that'd be one thing- but this kind of shanagin bodes ill for days to come I fear!
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  12. #12
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

    In other words, then- we basically agree in theory. I think the crisis comes from the fact that- with each tick of the clock- the ultimate solution becomes all that more painful (of course, that could be said of a lot of problems- including the budget deficit, but not- interestingly- the national debt).
    I'm not convinced that "with each tick of the clock - the ultimate solution becomes all that more painful". In part, that depends on the choices made in developing a solution. My argument against the use of the word "crisis" is twofold: one, it's an abuse of the term, and two, it's way more important to do something rational that to do something at this point - which is not necessarily true when one faces a bona fide crisis.

    What do you mean "not... the national debt" (seeing as how the national debt runs to the heart of the retirement issue)?

  13. #13
    sub specie aeternitatis Pete Hanlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Hickory Creek, TX
    Occupation
    Lens Manufacturer
    Posts
    4,964
    What do you mean "not... the national debt" (seeing as how the national debt runs to the heart of the retirement issue)?

    Glad you asked. In my opinion, the budget deficit is perhaps the single most important issue facing us at this moment (perhaps rivaled with wrapping up Iraq). The reason is, an increasing chunk of our budget goes towards paying the growing interest on our debt- and yearly deficits simply add to the debt.

    The national debt, however, is somewhat different. Assuming we could bring spending under control- meaning there would be no budget deficits- we could just let inflation shrink the overall debt over time. Let's say we're $5 trillion in the red right now. Fine, freeze deficit spending and in 50 years naturally occuring inflation will make $5 trillion a relatively smaller number (it'll still be $5 trillion but it will represent less of the GNP and thus be easier to pay down at that point in time). Its like paying an interest only mortgage- you're letting inflation build equity (or in this case, minimize debt).

    Of course, the last balanced budget occured during the post-GOP Congress/Clinton term (which was also prior to a stock market adjustment and 9/11). Let's get the economy going, secure the country, and figure out a way to limit government spending to its intake. Problem is, there are two current approaches to this that are made to sound good- but don't pan out in real life. The first (Democrat) is to increase taxes to bring intake up to spending. Problem is, with the increased taxes come increased spending. The second (Republican) is to cut tax rates and government spending simultaneously. Problem is, the areas Republicans are willing to cut aren't large enough to overcome the deficit- especially during the initial period where the lower rates result in less income to the government.

    I suppose we'll continue to disagree on the application of the term "crisis." To me, if you know the ship is going down- you have a crisis. The SS Bucket is undeniably sinking. I believe there are some rather rational ways to get people off the Bucket and onto a more seaworthy vessel. What vessel and how we move the people is what needs to be rationally debated in Congress.
    Pete Hanlin, ABOM
    Vice President Professional Services
    Essilor of America

    http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74

  14. #14
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

    The national debt, however, is somewhat different. Assuming we could bring spending under control- meaning there would be no budget deficits- we could just let inflation shrink the overall debt over time. Let's say we're $5 trillion in the red right now. Fine, freeze deficit spending and in 50 years naturally occuring inflation will make $5 trillion a relatively smaller number (it'll still be $5 trillion but it will represent less of the GNP and thus be easier to pay down at that point in time). Its like paying an interest only mortgage- you're letting inflation build equity (or in this case, minimize debt).
    There's no free lunch; the presence of (even a constant) debt will, all other things being equal, increase interest rates over what they would be without it. While the principal you return is worth less over time, the cost paid (in the form of interest) during the term of the debt makes up the difference.

    In periods of rapidly increasing inflation (which I've lived through, and which you will probably live to see), there can be some short-term effects of inflation repudiating principal in fixed obligations. But you really won't like what happens when inflation fuels a buyer's market in U.S. debt instruments.

    Besides, while a lot of our national debt is held by Godless furriners (oh, sorry, I meant our esteemed creditors), a lot is held by God-fearing folk right here at home. A lot of them are widows, Pete. Your gain will be their loss; probably wipe out their retirement savings. How could you? <sob>.

    Anyway, I know you're not really so irresponsible as to believe that debt doesn't matter - especially when one anticipates a situation in which one may need to borrow money (such as, I dunno, maybe paying retirement benefits to a demographic bulge in the population stream). You know that were it your personal problem, you would start saving - which means, if you're currently in debt, you would reduce it.


    The second (Republican) is to cut tax rates and government spending simultaneously. Problem is, the areas Republicans are willing to cut aren't large enough to overcome the deficit- especially during the initial period where the lower rates result in less income to the government.


    There is no evidence that a Republican government is capable of actually cutting federal expenditures. It has not happened in your lifetime, and recently, precisely the opposite has happened, yet you're still convinced that this is what the GOP stands for. I'm really quite mystified about that.


    The SS Bucket is undeniably sinking.


    Arguably true, if you replace the words "is undeniably" with "may be".

    However, "sinking" in this context means that at some point in the future, benefits may have to be paid partly out of income tax proceeds, instead of general expenses being paid out of payroll tax proceeds as at present.

    Some of us are sensitive to the unwarranted use of such hyperbole, given the continuing unpleasantness in Babylon which, you may recall, arose largely out of the same panicked language.

    Back then, I asked, "what's the rush?"

    How 'bout, this time, let's take our time and do some actual, y'know, thinking about the problem. And maybe talk about it with a smidgen of intellectual honesty.

  15. #15
    Master OptiBoarder karen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rancho Cucamonga, Ca
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,325
    Well, I am not going to get as involved or even as intellectual as the rest of you but I will say this- I think Boxer is a dried up old biddy. As the token GOP'er out of California I will give my 2 cents about her. It goes without saying that I disagree with most of what she stands for. You all missed her playing the "reproductive right" card with some recent commercials before the election. You know "I'm Barbara Boxer and I will make sure your right to reproduce will never be taken away" Excuse me? It's not the right to reproduce we are fighting over, it's what you do once you've exercised that right...anyway, I think she is being what we ladies like to call a poor sport. I do think Condi is handling her brilliantly. It's kind of like watching a bunch of fourth graders on the playground.
    Pete- Nancy Pelosi may have been behaving when you saw her but that is not her usual behavior. My folks are moving to Texas now( my baby bro went a little over a year ago), wonder if I should load up the gun rack and head out too. :hammer:
    Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.

    If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail

  16. #16
    Just An Optician jediron1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA, New York
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,727
    Pete said:Furthermore, I find Sen. Kerry's contribution to this episode troubling as well. Look, a couple hundred million voters declared with their ballot that they would have liked the Senator to be the one filling a cabinet right now. Unfortunately for the Senator, a few million more decided to re-elect the President. So, let's all play nice and let him install his cabinet without all the tantrums!

    God, if there were a real and credible reason to dispute Dr. Rice's nomination, that'd be one thing- but this kind of shanagin bodes ill for days to come I fear!

    What did you expect Kerry to do after he lost the election? Here he has a chance to de-rail the Presidents cabinet elect for a time by doing what every good democrat does and that is name calling and bantering over nothing! You bring up what was said by Kerry and Boxer but what of statements made by Mr.Biden? I believe his statements were just as inflamatory as Kerry's and Boxer's! This is a witch hunt with no witches to hunt. These democrates are out to keep themselfs in front of the camera as much as they can and on the front page for as long as possible. It's there time until Dr. Rice is fully nominated and they are using it for there so called avantage. Againjust my two cents!

  17. #17
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976

    Is there an echo in here?

    You have to register, but it's free, and worth every penny:


    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/21/op...rugman.html?th

  18. #18
    Just An Optician jediron1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA, New York
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,727
    Shanbaum said:Is there an echo in here?

    No I don't think so, but I could wrong! Maybe you have not read my posts or Pete's. I notice that a lot people on this board seem to read only what they want and then miss the wrest. I m guilty of that at times with a busy life and all I find that just skimming the posts sometimes is useful but a lot of times I don't get the full impact of what was said. So if I missed your point sorry but I did hear or read and echo!

  19. #19
    Just An Optician jediron1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA, New York
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,727
    Karen quoted:
    Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.

    You might want to let Boxer and Kerry see that quote and throw in Biden too!

  20. #20
    Master OptiBoarder karen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rancho Cucamonga, Ca
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,325
    Shanbaum-it's nice to see you, was wondering where you had gone to!
    Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.

    If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail

  21. #21
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by jediron1
    Shanbaum said:Is there an echo in here?

    No I don't think so, but I could wrong! Maybe you have not read my posts or Pete's. I notice that a lot people on this board seem to read only what they want and then miss the wrest. I m guilty of that at times with a busy life and all I find that just skimming the posts sometimes is useful but a lot of times I don't get the full impact of what was said. So if I missed your point sorry but I did hear or read and echo!
    There were really two discussions going on in this one thread - apparently, the one in which I was interested (re social security), and the one in which you were (re Rice's confirmation). I wasn't missing the discussion about Rice's confirmation, I was simply ignoring it. Frankly, I find most Congressional hearings unworthy of the name. Whether this or that individual was being particularly obnoxious at one of them doesn't move me much.

    In my post #17, I was referring to the parallelism between my post #14 in this thread from yesterday, and Paul Krugman's op-ed in this morning's New York Times.

  22. #22
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976

    Thanks fer noticin' me.

    Quote Originally Posted by karen
    Shanbaum-it's nice to see you, was wondering where you had gone to!
    I've just been really busy lately - it doesn't leave much time to solve the world's problems here on OB.

    Shouldn't you be sleeping?

  23. #23
    Just An Optician jediron1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA, New York
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,727
    Shanbaum said:

    Frankly, I find most Congressional hearings unworthy of the name. Whether this or that individual was being particularly obnoxious at one of them doesn't move me much.

    Now Shanbaum don't fall off your chair but I totally agree. The Congressional hearings are as you say "unworthy of the name". But to hear some of the rantings of Boxer and kerry and then Biden with that closing remark like he was giving Ms. Rice some condensing advise on the State Department was ridiculous!
    But what else do these people have to do? What life do they have except the life they give themselves. Anotherwords what do they really do? You mean to tell me that comedy routine they call a Congressional hearing is what they do. I for one was very upset at the antics of Boxer and especially Biden. I've already given them too much ink. I m out!

  24. #24
    Master OptiBoarder karen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rancho Cucamonga, Ca
    Occupation
    Optical Wholesale Lab (other positions)
    Posts
    1,325
    Quote Originally Posted by shanbaum
    Shouldn't you be sleeping?
    Are you kidding? We don't sleep here. The humidifier in the baby's room set off the smoke alarm at 3 am(not that he was sleeping well anyway, he has a nasty cold)
    Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.

    If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail

  25. #25
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin
    I just think using a confirmation hearing (especially one where the confirmation is more or less a given) to snipe away at an admin that is setting up for four more years shows a lapse of judgement.
    Pete,
    Be a little even handed here. The Republicans treated the Clinton administration similarly. Everyone and their mother knew that the impeachment vote would be right along party lines, and yet the republicans virtually shut down government "business as usual" by continuing the witch hunt. Lapses of judgement occur on both sides of the aisle - having their side win is much more important to these partisan nit-wits than having good government. It has become the Sharks and Jets.

    I can remember the Ford Whitehouse celebrating when they vetoed a bill that passed through the democratic control house and senate.
    ...Just ask me...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. New grad OD seeking opportunity in California
    By aspherix in forum The Job Board
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-22-2004, 12:10 AM
  2. Southern California Job Market
    By skirk1975 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-17-2004, 07:35 PM
  3. California licensed?
    By skirk1975 in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-17-2004, 12:50 PM
  4. Free eyecare vouchers - Southern California wildfire
    By trevbigg in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-07-2003, 10:25 AM
  5. Poll for Republicans Only...
    By Pete Hanlin in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 06-14-2001, 12:37 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •