Sunday, May 01, 2005

Dems Opposed to Private Accounts. Because?

A few months ago (it was Feb. 3, to be exact) Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and four other liberal Senators (including Schumer) gathered around the ignominious FDR wheelchair-statue to blast President Bush’s private-accounts plan, which would, according to them, “gut” the program (and disgrace the memory of FDR too, no doubt).

These Senators’ choice of venue was unfortunate, considering that the man they were all gathered around (and who Reid was patting affectionately on the shoulder) was in favor of making private accounts a part of the original social security system. He wrote to Congress in 1935, saying that Social Security should include “voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.” FDR added that the government should only pay for “one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”

The Democrats don’t mention this, of course. Perhaps they simply forgot that FDR supported private accounts. It’s not impossible. After all, they don’t even remember that just a few years ago they supported private accounts too.

As PBS NewsHour reported in 1998, Democratic Senators Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerrey introduced “‘The Social Security Solvency Act of 1998,’ which would cut the Social Security payroll tax by 2 percent and allows workers to invest the tax cut in personal savings accounts.” President Clinton, in his 1999 State of the Union address proposed that we “establish universal savings accounts” continuing: “With these new accounts, Americans can invest as they choose, and receive funds to match a portion of their savings, with extra help for those least able to save.” Senator Reid himself (the man with his hand on the statue) said in 1999 that “most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector.”

Dems are certainly not eager to quote themselves on this issue (and in addition they are no longer quoting Federal Reserve Chairmen Alan Greenspan -- he came out in support of private accounts too).

So how can all these people now be opposed, on ‘principle,’ to discussing any plan that contains private accounts? Especially when polls show increasing public support for private accounts: an April 25-26 poll showed that 79% of Americans think that private investment should be an option, and that 77% of Americans trust themselves over the government concerning investment retirement decisions. (It is further interesting to note another poll found that support for private accounts drops 6% when the plan is mentioned as having been proposed by President Bush, as opposed to “Some people.”)

How can House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) say that Democrats will do no negotiating whatsoever until private accounts are taken off the table?

What are the Democrats really opposed to?

These moves couldn’t be of a petty, partisan, political nature, could they? Are they merely opposed to the plan because now it comes from President Bush as opposed to President Clinton?
On the other hand, maybe the Democrats really are opposed on principle, to letting us have private accounts. (Though this would seem somewhat hypocritical, considering that they themselves already private investment accounts, known as the “Thrift Savings Plan”). Maybe they are opposed to the principle that it is never a good idea to let you do what the government can do for you. What we are really talking about is just 4% of your entire income, the maximum that you would be allowed to invest (the actual decision to invest, and the amount up to the 4% will be up to you -- you don’t have to invest at all if you don’t want to).

The Democrats seem genuinely concerned that you will take this money -- your money -- and do what you want with it. They emphasize the danger (Reid calls it “gambling” now) to try to scare Americans away from this system. They try to create the impression that adding private accounts would destroy Social Security completely (who hasn’t seen that AARP ad that suggests that Republicans are about to “tear down the whole house” because the kitchen sink is clogged). We should not be allowed to take risks -- and the Democrats cannot, in good conscience, allow us to. And since when have we been able to figure out what to do with our own money any way?
There is a third possibility -- maybe the Democrats are simply opposed to change. Are they reactionary liberals, stuck in the 1930s, clinging to a system that was designed to have 42 workers supporting a retiree as, opposed to two or three? Is this why they have failed to come out with any plans of their own to counter the President’s?

The Democrats are opposed to something, but they have not been too clear about what it is, exactly. There are so many possibilities as to why they don’t want private accounts, but whether they think that we’re too dumb to handle our own money, or whether they can’t stand any alterations at all, or whether they know that supporting the President in anything will not help them back to majority status in congress, the crucial thing that the Democrats are missing is a good reason.

And I for one want to be in charge of my money.

57 Comments:

At 5:13 PM, Blogger Gary Aminoff said...

Dan,

It's the old Democratic Party philosophy of "we know better than you, and you can't be trusted with your money."

 
At 9:03 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

HAHAHAHAHA, Gary, that was hilarious!

Now with that taken care of, first of all Dan your poll numbers are just flat out wrong. Go to http://pollingreport.com/social.htm and you will get a much more accurate feeling of the public's opinions.

Second, you claim that FDR would have wanted something someway. Now, again arguements like this bother me, alot. Who cares what FDR wanted in 1935. Should we give 1935 a call and see what it thinks about the issues of social security solvency? God no, mostly because the world, the economy, and the country have changed drastically. Make a god damned arguement, don't invoke a sketchy opinion from 80 years ago.

Third, who gives a shit if some democrats supported reform. If some republicans came out against social security reform would that mean that we should utterly disregard Bush's proposal? No. Not to mention that those are TWO democrats, not the DEMOCRATIC PARTY or even a large number of democrats. But I would also like to quote John Maynard Keynes in response to your claim that democrats are all hypocrits. Keynes when pressed on how his opinion had changed on a matter said, "When I discover I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?" Which roughly translates into, shut the fuck up, I don't care if I have changed my mind, I am right now, argue about that, not how an arguement may or may not inherently be wrong because I changed my mind.

Then you ramble for awhile about how people can be hypocritical and they all deserve to die. I don't care.

Now, why the Democrats are acting this way and why I wasted a couple minutes of my life reading your post today.

First, Social Security reform is something that has become an issue very fast. George Bush did not campaign on Social Security reform, this was not like his tax cuts during his first term, which were one of the central tenents of his campaign. Instead Bush kept plans for Social Security on the down-low until he was elected, then BAM, we are going to morph this whole system which has up until now has been very successful. I think objections to that are perfectly reasonable. Especially because you only get to change a program like Social Security about once or twice a century, and screwing it up would have terrible repurcussions. The Democrats being wary is a perfectly reasonable response.

Second, the way George Bush sold private accounts was as a way to shore up the solvency of a program that was doomed in a couple of years. Bush's projections assumed a annual GDP growth of 2% per year, which would basically mean that we are Afghanistan in 2040, Social Security or not, but regardless, if Bush's goal is to make Social Security solvent, maybe the best way was not to scare us with fallacious statistics and logic that just did not make sense. Like, we should pay the trillions in transaction cost up front for the sake of solvency.

Are there arguements to be made for Bush's proposal? Absolutely, but saying Democrats are kinda hypocritical does not make Bush's proposal a good one. And repeating Bush's talking points does not add anything to the level of discourse on this blog or in this country.

So, Dan, answer this for me. Why do YOU, support Bush's plan word for word, and what do you think of other plans that would potentially make Social Security solvent for the future, such as adaptations to the payroll tax or annuity systems?

-Mr. Alec

 
At 11:44 PM, Blogger Mihai said...

Well Mr. Alec, I've stood by and watched for a while, but this comment deserves a response. I'll take it piece by piece (the parts I have issues with).

First off, yeah, you're right that it's stupid to make an argument based on claiming that FDR would have wanted this or that, but it's worth noting that that's an argument the democrats have been
making that Dan only responded to. He still answered a bad argument with a similarly bad argument, but you have to admit the one he was answering was as bad as his own. Some might call that an accomplishment.

But putting all that nonsense aside, what I really care about here is how you treat the facts on this issue.

"George Bush did not campaign on Social Security reform." Actually, he did it--twice. You'll probably say it was far from the focus of either of his campaigns, but it definitely made the top three proposals he was selling in each election. You can disagree with that, but the problem with saying he brought up reform out of the blue after winning reelection is that that didn't actually happen. "BAM"? Bull.

"And repeating Bush's talking points does not add anything to the level of discourse...."

True, and speaking of talking points, here's a couple that have a dysfunctional realationship with the level of discourse:

"system which has up until now has been very successful" Wow. You're usually above this. I've heard this before. So we have a system that says we take some money from one person and give it to another, and so far the first guy has always had enough money. Impressive. Let's all give ourselves a huge pat on the back, that was HARD! But apart from being a silly statement, it's not a valid argument about the system's future, especially since it only worked because the payroll tax is four times what it was at the beginning. Gee, we were running out of money, and, creative problem solvers that we are, we took more. Another pat on the back is in order, I believe.

"Bush's projections assumed a annual GDP growth of 2% per year"
Ok, I've heard this a million times before, and so far as I know
it's true. The idea is that GDP will grow faster, and the solvency
problem is being exaggerated. This is always used as a talking
point, but that dosen't make it wrong. What does is the fact that
social security is wage-indexed, so when the economy grows faster,
so do benefits owed. If we want a high level of discourse, we
ought to keep our arguments in context.

Now this I agree with: "you only get to change a program like
Social Security about once or twice a century, and screwing it up would have terrible repurcussions. The Democrats being wary is a perfectly reasonable response."

The problem with the democrats' response is that they refuse to
recognize the need for some kind of reform. The argument about
whether there's a crisis is stupid, if having a massive shortfall as big as our whole current deficit in one program alone can be called a crisis. If you want good reform, participate in the debate over how the reform should be done, don't just try to
delay. Yeah, we only get one chance to reform social security, and this is it.

I'd say a lot more, but this is disgustingly long as it is. Yuck.

-Mihai

 
At 12:59 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

Alright, I should step away from some of my statements and rest my arguement on a central issue. Dan seems to be attacking Democrats for taking the majority opinion on an issue and for being wary of reform. It is certainly true that some Democrats would never in a hundred years accept reform of Social Security by Bush. This may not be an honorable thing, but put it this way, Nixon was the only man who could open up relations with China, just because he had the credibility to do it. Had Lyndon Johnson done the same, Republicans would have murdered him, even though it was the correct thing to do.

I don't think that Republicans would be dirty bastards in that situation, they would just be using their advantage on an issue to attack the president, something that they have a job to do.

Now let me apply this example more to this perdicament of Social Security. Bush had little to no credibility on Social Security, people do not trust him when he says it is a doomed program and they do not trust that his proposals are the best thing for the country. I think that Democrats have played on this fear, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, especially considering that many people are unsure of what Social Security ought to look like in the future.

Bush HAS come out all of a sudden and announced that he was going to reform this decades old system. The main issue of both campaigns had to do explicitly with taxes and terrorism and implicit issues of healthcare, gays, and supreme court justices. Sure Bush may have mentioned Social Security reform a couple of times but he never laid out a plan, and it was by no means one of the top 3 things on his list of issues, maybe top 10.

Now, have Democrats reacted rather strongly and harshly to Bush's proposal, absolutely. But Republicans have acted just as harshly in return, many now claiming that they do not need Democratic support on this issue and that they will accomplish it on their own. I could post an entire blog entry on how this means Republicans are swine, but I would not really be attacking the Republicans, I would be attacking our two-party system, and how politics works in this country.

Do both sides come out swinging off the bat? Sure, and then they talk about it, and then they debate it, and then a resolution is typically made. I think the main reason for much of the Republican fear on this issue is that they are afraid that Democrats will not compromise and they will pull a Hillary-care and sink the ship before it even begins to float.

That may happen, but it certainly was not the Democratic party that set the precedent for such action (thats a little shot at all these Republicans decrying the fact that Democrats have broken the precedent of allowing votes on judicial nominees).

But getting back to my arguement, I guess then my conclusion is that Dan can attack Democrats for doing their job all he wants, but he is not attacking Democrats, nor is he helping Bush. All he is doing is saying, "Man our two party system has flaws." Which inevitably it does. But don't blame Democrats for that, I certainly do not blame Republicans for using similar measures just a couple of years ago.

So ought we to have a debate here on Social Security reform? Absolutely. So Dan, please, if you could lay out why you think Social Security needs to be changed and why Bush's plan is the best course of action (and spare me the ownership society and choice bullshit), I would love to hear it.

-Mr. Alec

 
At 3:14 PM, Blogger Republican Dan said...

I do find it somewhat amusing, Mr. Alec, that you claim my numbers are "flat out wrong" and then refer me to a polling page which lists all of the numbers I used(the April 25-26 one has just been added, and is now at the very top). The other poll I refer to, also on that page, asks half their sample about private accounts saying that this was proposed by President Bush, and the other half about private accounts saying that they were proposed by “Some People.” There is a six-point difference.

I don’t see why you say that only two Democrats are against Social Security reform. I can only think that you have been taxing your concentrational efforts too much while reading, and this has resulted in your seeming inability to comprehend simple sentences, such as “Harry Reid (D-NV), and four other liberal Senators…” This does not mean, of course, that there are only four Senators. You may additionally recognize that the minority leader, by virtue of being the minority leader represents his fellow Dems.

I further cannot see how you can claim that Bush didn’t campaign on Social Security reform – he certainly did. This was his top priority on the domestic agenda for his second term, as he repeatedly made clear.

The transaction costs of course are not in the trillions, but the cost will be trillions if we do nothing.

I support personal accounts for a number of reasons. For one reason (which you and your vulgarisms are quick to discount) is that they encourage an ownership society, they encourage people to save. This reason may seem like bs to you, but this is why Greenspan is in favor. I also support the accounts because I want this money to be mine. If you work all your life under the current system, you will pay into it all your life and once you retire you will receive payments until you die. This does not mean that you will be reimbursed what you put into the system. If you own a private account, the money is really yours, and you can pass the account to a family member.

You seem to be under the impression that it is a politician’s job to fight the opposition. No, it is a politician’s job to support his country. (You know the term “loyal opposition” which applies to the party out of power in England, underlining the point that a politician’s first concern is for his country).

By the way, opening relations with China was, of course, wrong.

I’ll take care of the rest when I have a few minutes to waste on your replies

Oh, and please see if you can't make an argument using only clean words (there are quite a few of them, you know).

 
At 7:52 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 8:01 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

Hoo ha, now this is getting fun.

Now, first of all Dan, nice job trying to mock me, but you will not out-mock me. Sorry.

Alright, this polling issue. Now, I am proud of you for picking through the polling data. Of course you can find a poll that asks the question in the manner that proves your point (for an example look at the second question on the FOXNews poll, it is terrible and proves nothing). I provided that source to show that an overwhelming number of polls show that people do not support this (For example look at the second question for the ABC News poll, that is a well worded question that proves my point).

First, you attempt to say that I misread your number of Democrats. I am sorry, but you really prove your point by doubling your numbers from an astounding 2 to 4! Then you claim, well Reid represents every Democrat. No he represents a couple dozen Democrats in the Senate. I am a Democrat, he does not represent me. This is the point I was making, not that he is not a leader of his party in some way (even though at that point he was not a leader, but I think the pointlessness of this arguement highlights how petty your response is to my petty response, to your initial petty claim was).

Then you enlight us with a point by fiat. That of, "Bush definately campaigned on Social Security! Trusts me, it was like #1 or #2 on his domestic agenda." No Dan, it was not. It was mentioned once in the presidential debates. The third presidential debate, and Bush's response is basically, people you will get your Social Security checks, trust me and we should think about the idea of investment accounts.

Now that is not a central tenant of a campaign if it did not get out until the 3rd debate, especially because the Republican party controlled which topic was discussed at each debate. Secondly, Bush provides no proposal for how he is going to do this. He just says that he likes the idea. When Bush ran in 2000 his tax cut was a central tenant. He had an explicit plan and made it known to everyone. He did not do this with Social Security. He did not make it an explicit issue to vote for him. All of these prove my point. Cram it.

Regardless, we can all agree that this was not the reason Bush was elected, no one thought, oh Social Security reform, I'll vote for Bush. He has no mandate in terms of the public demanding change and more importantly he provided no proposal during campaigning on how to fix it. All he had was an idea. So the day he gets elected, promising he was going to do something that he had previously said was an idea he liked during the campaign would come as a surprise. End of story.

Next you attempt to justify accounts. The only good point you make is to invoke Greenspan. An ownership is not an inherently good thing, you can say it all you want, but it doesn't make it good.

Now Greenspan. Greenspan, and lots of economists feel there is a need to reform Social Security. Greenspan has come out in support for Bush's reform, mostly because of the savings issue that you bring up. Of course he has also publically encouraged a national sales tax which would also boost savings. I completely agree that we need to encourage savings in our country, we also need to reform Social Security in someway. But Bush's plan is not the only way to do that. In fact I will provide a simple alternative. Put Social Security benefits on an inflation index and start a national sales tax. There you go. Savings and Social Security reform. This would make Greenspan and other economists much happier than Bush's accounts.

Now I am going to inform you of how things work. You want to change the status quo. You do not like the status quo. You can not justify a change in the status quo by merely saying, I like the idea and I can have control of 4% of my annual income. No objectively minded person would justify such a radical change to the status quo with a rationale like that.

Now, the issue I made about the two party system. First, thank you for your lesson on British parliamentary procedure, or terminology, or whatever. Second, you claim that it is a politician's job to serve their country. Of course it is and is that job best served by not forcing debate on an issue that is of such incredible importance and where we really only have one shot at changing it? No. Many ideas exist on reforming Social Security, wanting to discuss those is not doing a disservice to your country.

Then we get the most unsubstantiated arguement ever. That we should not have opened up relations with China. Really? Has the United States suffered by doing this? Hmm, who has been hurt by this? Certainly not the United States, certainly not the Chinese, who thanks to United States encouraged market reforms are doing light-years better than they were just 5 years ago. I have a question for you Dan, are you an isolationist, because that was proved rather utterly destructive 70 years ago?!

Lastly, Dan, I went to Amity, I know what Senior year is like. You have shit-loads of time. I made plenty of perfectly legitimate arguements that you utterly dropped. For example, how Democrat opposition to Social Security reform is something inherent in our two-party system? I didn't really get a response to this. I think this was the main thrust of my arguement to Mihai. I gave examples of Republicans and Democrats doing this. So does that make Republicans just as terrible as Democrats for having done the same thing (ie not serving their country)? I know you would not be willing to admit that, so either you acknowledge that by dropping it, or perhaps you would like to enlighten us all with your hidden charisma and arguement ability. We're waiting.

Lastly, you attempt to discount me for my "potty mouth" as you seem to put it. Turns out people can so those words on the internet now. If I offended you, I'm sorry, but live with it and respond to my arguements, not my wording. This is not FOXNews.

-Mr. Alec

 
At 7:02 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

By the way, that China thing you said, that was hilarious. I have spent the whole day trying to think of a bad aspect of that. I am still working on it.

-Mr. Alec

 
At 8:10 PM, Blogger Mihai said...

Ok... looks like I'm staying in this discussion. It seems that there's an argument being made here about how the democrats' complete scorched earth strategy on Social Security is just an unfortunate part of our two party system. Yeah, sort of. But I don't see why it should be excused when it happens, now or in the future. I don't plan on defending the republicans the next time the democrats propose something I like (or a plan worth discussion to solve an important problem) and the republicans stonewall it for pure political reasons. So if that's the democrats' game here (and when they go around claiming there's no crisis it definitely is) they don't deserve to be defended. But Mr. Alec has a point: arguing about the purity of people's motivations is, at least in this case, the idiotically roundabout version of arguing about who's right.

So did Bush campaign on Social Security? Yup. I'm not going to
substatiate that because I think that people who read this thing would remember if he did and can decide for themselves. But as to whether "it was mentioned once in the presidential debates" he "just says that he likes the idea." Nope. Not true. Not even worth my effort to sustantiate my claim, except to say that Mr. Alec should take a look at Bush's convention speech and maybe do a lexis-nexis search. Oh, and speaking of flaws in our two party system, proposing a controversial plan in full detail in an election just isn't done. Dosen't happen. If we expect that of Bush, we have to expect the democrats to work "only for the good of the country" in the Social Security debate.

Now we get to why I'm still here writing:

"You can not justify a change in the status quo by merely saying, I like the idea and I can have control of 4% of my annual income."

That's absurd. People have a right to the product of their effort, so wanting control of 4% of your income is always a valid and strong argument. Whenever society takes part of someone's property, there needs to be a damn good reason. Even if returning control of 4% of their income to people is a change in the status quo, the burden of proof is on you to show there is a strong justification for preserving it, and you have yet to do that. Taking people's money is sometimes necessary, but shouldn't be taken lightly. No one can be asked to prove they should
control their own money. It's your job to prove otherwise.

Now on the question of increasing savings and achieving solvency, the accounts "plan" (there really isn't a clear plan yet) provides both of those benefits. So does the idea of changing the indexing and adding the national sales tax. I like those ideas too, but that dosen't necessarily mean we should choose them over this or not do both. In the case of the index change, we would do both. The accounts plan was originally paired with an index change (and still should be) for a good reason: if we only change the index, benefits will fall behind standard of living. The accounts are meant to at least partly counter that. As for the sales tax, that's a whole different debate. It's enough to say that that option isn't a reason not to have accounts.

One last thing that's going on here amazed me when I saw it:

"By the way, opening relations with China was, of course, wrong."

Now Mr. Alec has already responded to this, but I'd like to add to that, because I think it was extremely arrogant to just say "of course it was wrong" and not even say why. Not that I'm complaining about arrogance, but it's kind of funny when someone is arrogant while making such a ridiculous claim. There were no good reasons at all not to have opened relations with China. Mr. Alec mentions the fact that China has instituted sweeping market reforms since then. While you might say we could never have known that would happen, the fact is that it did, and at least in retrospect the decision was right.

But the main reason we opened relations with China was to balance against the USSR. I'm kind of surprised that you would be against that, Dan. If you know your Cold War history, you probably know that the Soviets were in the middle of a grotesquely huge arms buildup at the time, and really needed a good balancing. Now, there's only one reason I could imagine you would be against that. You'd probably tell us that opening up china was wrong because we should never do business with the likes of those dirty commies no matter what. Certainly sounds like a strong argument the first time you

...

I forget where I was but for some reason I just randomly remembered an argument I once had about the Iraq War where the other guy said the US was full of shit because Reagan had done business with Saddam in the '80s. I told him we were only preventing Iran from taking over the gulf and it didn't reflect on our current motives. He told me to stop making excuses.

I can't figure out why that conversation randomly sprang to mind just now. Maybe I should get some sleep.

-Mihai

 
At 8:56 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

That is why I like Libertarians.

Suffice it to say, we will not settle the issue of Social Security on this forum. None of us are qualified. I think change is neccesary. I think concerns of Bush's plan are justified, this is a huge change and I would not justify it in the piece-meal approach that we have seen Dan do and Bush too.

For the most part, I object to the manner that Dan vilified Democrats.

That is all.

By the way. Hahahahahha, we shouldn't have opened relations with China...hahahahahhahaa.

-Mr. Alec

 
At 9:02 PM, Blogger Alec Brandon said...

Oh, and to pick up where Mihai left us midsentence. Dan your objection could only possibly be we should not do business with communists or an oppressive state like China, granted that is ideologically sound, it is just stupid. If we had ideology running our foreign policy we would be nowhere. The world does not operate on ideology, GDP does not grow because of ideology, big fucking aircraft carriers...yeah ideology did not make those. REAL power is not ideological purity, for examples look at every American use of power EVER. In the end those have turned out pretty well, sure they do not look great, but we are better off for them, and I think at this time, the world is too. Though the whole killing 2 million Vietnamese for no real reason and supressing democracies in the middle east for decades thing does not look good, it is how shit works.

For someone who is so nationalistic in his support of American troops you certainly do not realize the real reason for use of those troops nor that economic decisions are made for the same reasons.

In fact under your frequent logic Dan, we ought to fully support every American trade pact that is signed, though we can debate it after, mostly because it will upset importers if we speak out against it.

That was tangential.

-Mr. Alec

 
At 2:16 PM, Blogger Theorigamist said...

Alec and Mihai are having a good time arguing points worth arguing, so I'm just going to focus on two particularly bullshit statements Repbulican Dan made.

1) "I support personal accounts for a number of reasons. For one reason (which you and your vulgarisms are quick to discount) is that they encourage an ownership society, they encourage people to save. This reason may seem like bs to you, but this is why Greenspan is in favor. I also support the accounts because I want this money to be mine. If you work all your life under the current system, you will pay into it all your life and once you retire you will receive payments until you die. This does not mean that you will be reimbursed what you put into the system. If you own a private account, the money is really yours, and you can pass the account to a family member."

The point you seem to be missing here and elsewhere is that you can't just argue that private accounts are good because they lead to (insert random implication of private accounts). You also need to show that they are the best way of achieving that implication. In other words, just because it achieves something doesn't mean that it achieves it as well as some other means that perhaps we haven't thought of. That's also why this needs to be discussed thoroughly. And that's why democratic opposition is not only perfectly reasonable but will also help to find the best plan. (Tangentially, it is clear that you didn't read Mill like Alec and I told you to do. Slacker.)


2) "You seem to be under the impression that it is a politician’s job to fight the opposition. No, it is a politician’s job to support his country."

Before I waste any of my time exploding into social contract theory and political philosophy, perhaps you could just clarify what you mean by "support" so it doesn't sound like such bullshit. "Support" is a very vague term. Do you think it is a politician's job to accept everything his country does as good/love his country/try to improve his country/something else? Please be more specific.

 
At 5:00 PM, Blogger Commander Mike said...

Sometimes I'm amazed how ignorant some of the people are on this blog. I talk about PE, give detailed explanations as to what I do and other techniques people use, provide URL's to the best no-bullshit web sites with a vibrant and active PE community involving people of all walks of life INCLUDING DOCTORS, and instead of going to these sites and reviewing them and the information or even trying out PE if you don't believe it is real, YOU CALL ME A LIAR AND SAY PE IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE IF IT WAS POSSIBLE THEN EVERYONE WOULD BE DOING IT.

One main reason most people don't do PE is because they are so ignorant of the human anatomy that they don't even understand how simple the concept is. Another reason, is the incredible amount of scams and bullshit out there on the internet as to quick and easy ways to enlarge your penis with no effort involved that creates so much noise that legitimate techniques for penis enlargement get drowned out in all the bullshit. And the final reason, is that PE takes time and effort and dedication, just like weightlifting or following a healthy lifestyle in a world of fast food and massive amounts of drugs on demand that Americans especially believe will cure them instantly. With this "miracle drug" mentality in America and in Europe to a lesser extent, it is no wonder people believe the only way to ever change something about your body is with a pill of some sort.

The fact is many Americans (as well as Europeans) are lazy and unmotivated in life and are too scared of their own shadow to do take any calculated risks which involve making intelligent decisions on their own. Many people, including many people on this forum, just want a solution to all of life's little problems handed to them on a silver platter by some technocratic expert on any given subject they put their faith in as if they were a god. Forget secular humanism, the new gods of America are doctors, celebrities, and fitness gurus pushing overpriced excercise equipment and bogus supplements that are either useless or else if useful can be bought much cheaper with better quality, and finally the worst gods of all, their peer networks of ignoramuses spreading more ignorance amongst each other.

I don't expect anyone here to take my advice on PE, excercise, diet, or anything I post here without doing your own INDEPENDENT research yourself. In fact, when I hear a suggestion from a friend or family member on solving a particular problem I have in life, I CHECK OUT WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. I don't ignore them because of who they are, and I don't take their word for something just because they are likely more knowledgeable about the subject. I check out the information myself and make my own informed decision. With PE and much of the other stuff I post here which is not done in jest, I sometimes post stuff here which is unconventional and unorthodox, yet many of you automatically assume what I say is wrong because you are too fat and lazy to check out whether or not what I have to say has any merit. In other words, you are complacent with being ignorant and stupid about anything which is out of your immediate sphere of expertise because you are too afraid to learn new things.

I on the other hand, always have my mind focused on something fresh and new in so many given subjects over the course of my relatively short life that it would take me forever just to list them all. Not that it should be expected that everyone should be as curious as myself, but for crying out loud some of you just want to smoke weed all day and then ignorantly proclaim that weed is not damaging to your neurological health, and even boldly claim that weed is good for you.

And those are just the true ignoramuses. Some of you who I actually have a decent amount of intellectual respect for, fall into the same trap of judging an argument by the name of the poster, rather than judging the argument itself. To this end, you chart your own unique path of ignorance where you live up in your ivory towers of absolute arcane knowledge about a specific subject, without ever actually venturing out in the world to find out if what you believe to be true, might actually be in error. In other words, some of you might be smart by conventional wisdom's definition of being intelligent, yet you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to do anything in life other than reinvent the wheel. And ironically, some of the people here deemed some of the less intelligent posters here, indeed are the ones with the most critical thinking skills. They all know who the real douche bags of thought are on this forum, and being one of these people "in the know", I am not going to name names, but I suspect some of these douche bags of thought know deep down exactly who they are.

Anyways, if you don't believe me about PE after all this time even though I can stare down at my dick and see it is indeed larger than before I started PE, and just to make sure it is not an illusion I measure it with a ruler and measuring tape and see my penis is indeed more than 3 inches longer and over an inch more in circumference than 16 months ago, then go do your own reading yourself and try a PE routine for three months if for any reason you feel insecure about your penis size. If you are happy with what god gave you, then more power to you, though the truth is MOST MEN have some insecurities about their size and MOST MEN would prefer to have a larger tool if there was a dick fairy that would give you any size you wanted. Well, there is no dick fairy but with hard work, determination, and patience you can have the dick you always wanted and then some.

For the last time here are the two websites I feel are useful areas of PE knowledge and support:

http://www.thundersplace.org
http://www.mattersofsize.com/forum

There are some good archived threads at

http://www.peforum.net

but no real useful discussion anymore as the operator of the site pushes his own paysite enlargement program, much to the chagrin of the rest of the PE community.

And intentionally, I did not make those links into hyperlinks, so if you are too lazy to copy/paste them into your browser, then you are too damned lazy to stick with the kind of solid PE routine you need to stick to in order to get good results. If you have a problem with that, just remember you don't get buff by working out at the gym a couple of times in January and then proceeding to sit on your lazy fat ass for the rest of the year.

 
At 2:29 PM, Blogger Enlargement said...

Hey, I was searching blogs, and came onto yours, and I like it. I kinda landed here on accident while searching for something esle, but nice blog.. I got you bookmarked.

If you got time , go visit my site, it´s about penis enlargement pic. It pretty much covers penis enlargement pic and other similar topics available.

 
At 4:23 AM, Blogger Smallman said...

I skim a lot of blogs, and so far yours is in the Top 3 of my list of favorites. I'm going to dive in and try my hand at it, so wish me luck.

It'll be in a totally different area than yours (mine is about penis growth) I know, it sounds strange, but it's like anything, once you learn more about it, it's pretty cool. It's mostly about penis growth related articles and subjects.

 
At 4:03 PM, Blogger Scott said...

Alot of interesting comments on this blog, I was searching for some doctor related info and some how came across this site. I found it pretty cool, so I bookmarked. I'll really liked the second post on the front page, that got my attention.

My site is in a bit different area, but just as useful. I have a penis growth related site focusing on penis growth and mens health related topics.

 
At 5:42 PM, Blogger Enlargement said...

Alot of interesting comments on this blog, I was searching for some doctor related info and some how came across this site. I found it pretty cool, so I bookmarked. I'll really liked the second post on the front page, that got my attention.

My site is in a bit different area, but just as useful. I have a penis growth related site focusing on penis growth and mens health related topics.

 
At 8:39 PM, Blogger musica said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT penis enlargement pill TO FIND penis enlargement pill

 
At 9:08 PM, Blogger musica said...

I've enjoyed reading alot of the text here. I got you bookmarked for the future, I'll be back. My site is a bit different, I have a penis growth Most of the articles are on penis growth

 
At 9:57 PM, Blogger musica said...

I've enjoyed reading alot of the text here. I got you bookmarked for the future, I'll be back. My site is a bit different, I have a penis growth Most of the articles are on penis growth

 
At 11:00 PM, Blogger musica said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT penis enlargement pill TO FIND penis enlargement pill

 
At 7:43 AM, Blogger musica said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT penis enlargement TO FIND penis enlargement

 
At 11:01 AM, Blogger musica said...

I've enjoyed reading alot of the text here. I got you bookmarked for the future, I'll be back. My site is a bit different, I have a penis growth Most of the articles are on penis growth

 
At 10:27 PM, Blogger musica said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT penis enlargement product TO FIND penis enlargement product

 
At 6:11 AM, Blogger Enlargement said...

Interesting blog you have here, I landed here on accident. I was searching for something else and came across your site. I found it pretty interesting and entertaining. I got you book marked.

I will pop back in from time to time to see what you have new here.

My site is a bit different than yours, but just as entertaining and educational, I run a penis growth related site pertaining to penis growth related articles.

 
At 7:29 AM, Blogger LoseThatWeight said...

I have a enlarge penis site. It pretty much covers enlarge penis related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

 
At 8:46 AM, Blogger musica said...

I've enjoyed reading alot of the text here. I got you bookmarked for the future, I'll be back. My site is a bit different, I have a penis growth Most of the articles are on penis growth

 
At 2:26 PM, Blogger musica said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT natural penis enlargement TO FIND natural penis enlargement

 
At 8:50 PM, Blogger musica said...

I've enjoyed reading alot of the text here. I got you bookmarked for the future, I'll be back. My site is a bit different, I have a penis growth Most of the articles are on penis growth

 
At 6:52 AM, Blogger musica said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT penis enlargement pill TO FIND penis enlargement pill

 
At 7:02 AM, Blogger musica said...

I've enjoyed reading alot of the text here. I got you bookmarked for the future, I'll be back. My site is a bit different, I have a penis growth Most of the articles are on penis growth

 
At 9:38 AM, Blogger ThermaZan said...

Nice blog you have here! If you get a chance you may want to visit this techniques to enlarge the penis site, it's a very nice site.

 
At 3:48 PM, Blogger musica said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT penis enlargement pill TO FIND penis enlargement pill

 
At 7:41 PM, Blogger LoseThatWeight said...

I have a enlarge penis site. It pretty much covers enlarge penis related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

 
At 6:57 AM, Blogger usersanonimos said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT penis enlargement pill TO FIND penis enlargement pill

 
At 2:49 PM, Blogger Cash Advance Man said...

Bloggs are such a wonderful way to plublish ones thoughts. Thanks for letting me visit and leave a comment. how to enlarge your penis

 
At 3:47 PM, Blogger Smallman said...

What a great site you have here, I bookmarked it!

I have a enlarge penis size related info site. It covers enlarge penis size related information.

Check it out when you can. ;)

 
At 6:11 PM, Blogger Smallman said...

Not what I was searching for, but none the less and interesting blog here. Thanks for putting it up. I've enjoyed reading alot of the text here. I got you bookmarked for the future, I'll be back.

My site is a bit different, some think it's odd. I guess it's a matter how you look at it. I have a penis enlarge related site. Most of the articles are on penis enlarge.

 
At 6:17 PM, Blogger 122272 said...

This blog is awesome! If you get a chance you may want to visit this average penis size small site, it's pretty awesome too!

 
At 8:23 PM, Blogger badgirlzz said...

Alot of interesting comments on this blog, I was searching for some doctor related info and some how cam across this site. I found it pretty cool, so I bookmarked. I'll really liked the second post on the front page, that got my attention.

My site is in a bit different area, but just as useful. I have a enlargment penile surgery related site focusing on enlargment penile surgery and mens health related topics.

 
At 12:33 AM, Blogger LoseThatWeight said...

I have a enlarge penis site. It pretty much covers enlarge penis related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-)

 
At 8:18 AM, Blogger musica said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT sexual enhancement TO FIND sexual enhancement

 
At 8:18 AM, Blogger usersanonimos said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT sexual enhancement TO FIND sexual enhancement

 
At 9:46 AM, Blogger Cash Advance Man said...

Hey, I was searching blogs, and came onto yours, and I like it. I kinda landed here on accident while searching for something esle, but nice blog.. I got you bookmarked.

If you got time , go visit my site, it´s about penis size. It pretty much covers penis size and other similar topics available.

 
At 2:58 PM, Blogger Smallman said...

Bloggs are such a wonderful way to plublish ones thoughts. Thanks for letting me visit and leave a comment.

 
At 4:30 PM, Blogger Tom Naka said...

Your blog is excellent - keep it up! Don't miss visiting this site about health insurance program texas
. It pretty much covers health insurance program texas
related stuff.

 
At 6:06 AM, Blogger usersanonimos said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT penis enlargement product TO FIND penis enlargement product

 
At 2:50 PM, Blogger musica said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT penis enlargement product TO FIND penis enlargement product

 
At 8:03 PM, Blogger usersanonimos said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT penis enlargement product TO FIND penis enlargement product

 
At 1:09 AM, Blogger doer said...

Hello, just visited your blog, it's informative. I also have a better sex life related website, hope that it is useful to you

 
At 1:33 AM, Blogger sillygalz said...

I skim a lot of blogs, and so far yours is in the Top 3 of my list of favorites. I'm going to dive in and try my hand at it, so wish me luck.

It'll be in a totally different area than yours (mine is about natural penis enlargement) I know, it sounds strange, but it's like anything, once you learn more about it, it's pretty cool. It's mostly about natural penis enlargement related articles and subjects.

 
At 9:10 AM, Blogger usersanonimos said...

YOUR BLOG IS GOOD, IT IS REALLY NICE. HERE YOU CAN LEARM MORE ABOUT sexual enhancement TO FIND sexual enhancement

 
At 2:46 AM, Blogger girl1872 said...

Not what I was searching for, but none the less and interesting blog here. Thanks for putting it up. I've enjoyed reading alot of the text here. I got you bookmarked for the future, I'll be back.

My site is a bit different, some think it's odd. I guess it's a matter how you look at it. I have a correcting premature ejaculation related site. Most of the articles are on correcting premature ejaculation.

 
At 8:59 PM, Blogger musica said...

I've enjoyed reading alot of the text here. I got you bookmarked for the future, I'll be back. My site is a bit different, I have a penis growth Most of the articles are on penis growth

 
At 7:18 AM, Blogger TheWeightFallsOff said...

This blog is awesome! If you get a chance you may want to visit this enlarge penis site, it's pretty awesome too!

 
At 11:13 PM, Blogger Wheel Chair Center said...

Hi, Thanks for your interesting blog. Keep up the great work! I also have a site & blog about wheelchair supplies
, please feel free to visit.

 
At 8:54 PM, Blogger blaze said...

I enjoyed your site very much it was a great help looking for info on health insurance denver.
I also have a site with information on health insurance denver and would appreciate it very much if you would take a look and give a critique.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home