digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cnn.com

Glenn Beck: The $53 trillion asteroid

cnn.com — Let's say a giant asteroid was headed toward Earth right now and experts say it has a good chance of ending civilization as we know it. Let's also say that we've known about this asteroid for years but even as it gets closer and closer our leaders do nothing.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Technec, on 03/29/2008, -35/+20Thank you President Bush and Congress!!!!!
    • homerj1965, on 03/29/2008, -3/+62You can pretty much blame all presidents and Congress' for the last 40 years for this mess. Possibly even longer.
      • Technec, on 03/29/2008, -20/+23I can blame Bush for funding a war that in my opinion was pointless. That money could have helped matters, maybe not solve it completely but helped.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/29/2008, -12/+18It was Democrat-controlled Senate that authorized it.
          • jmpeagle, on 03/29/2008, -17/+12but most of the votes came from the GOP
          • chicofaraby, on 03/30/2008, -4/+1WTF? The majority of Congressional Democrats voted AGAINST the ***** illegal invasion. It's a simple fact. If the Democrats had controlled Congress in 2002, George Bush's war crimes wouldn't have a Congressional stamp of approval.

            Why do you right wing liars constantly "forget" that the House of Representatives is part of the Congress when you are trying to evade responsibility for the crimes of the Bush administration?
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3I believe I said Senate. *Checks again* Yup, I said Senate. Simple fact is, Dems had the majority in the Senate, and they let it pass. The legally declared war was authorized by both the Republican controlled house, and the Democrat controlled Senate. Epic Fail. Now go rewrite history somewhere else.
          • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3Also, more Democrat Senators voted for the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (29) then against (21).
        • jezsik, on 03/29/2008, -13/+11It was Democrat-controlled Senate that was duped into authorizing it.
          There, fixed that for ya.
          • sv650touring, on 03/29/2008, -5/+13"They're not bad guys. They're just easily duped." For some reason that thought isn't any more comforting.
        • philipl411, on 03/29/2008, -7/+7So a Trillion dollars(give or take a few hundred billions) really would have made a difference for paying off 533 trillion? You Bush haters need to get a life. Yes the war has been wasteful, but its costing 144 billion a year and our government is spending 500 billion more than they have stolen from us.
          • Kerrigore, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3It's 53 trillion, not 533 trillion. Usually I wouldn't bother with such a correction for fear of pedantry, but a factor of 10 (roughly) is rather important when dealing with trillions.
          • philipl411, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2yes, my mistake
      • jsmith39, on 03/29/2008, -1/+7I just read and agreed with something Glen Beck wrote. Being the final sign of the apocalypses we no longer need to worry about keeping out social programs solvent.
      • pintomp3, on 03/29/2008, -9/+8debt seems to go higher under republican presidents though:
        http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart_ ...

        i wonder if glenn beck is aware of this.
    • Latimer, on 03/29/2008, -20/+36Yeah, President Bush and his administration created Social Security and Medicare. D-bag.
    • prisoner24601, on 03/29/2008, -6/+33You can bury Technec if you want to, but he's correctly pointing out that BOTH sides (Republican and Democrat, President and Congress, Liberal and Conservative, current politicians and past) are responsible for this in equal part.

      The tragedy is that probably 75% of America has NO CLUE how severe the problem is, and then the 25% of us who do will usually fall right into the hands of our party's leaders who want us to think "the other side" is responsible for this and our side is the reasonable and responsible one. I'm a Republican, so I need to be the first to say: "shame on president Bush" in this. If you are a Democrat, call Nancy Pelosi.

      All our politicians are like bratty little kids blaming each other. If your company had a policy of requiring two signatures on every check, and then the two people who handled purchasing bought something the company couldn't afford, how stupid would it be to blame ONE of them instead of BOTH of them? Congress could have refused to pass an unbalanced budget. The President could have actually vetoed any unbalanced budget. EITHER side has ALWAYS had the ability to stop making this problem worse and start making it better.

      Us falling into the "us vs. them" squabbling only guarantees it will get worse. They have ALL done a reprehensible job managing our finances.
      • Witchboy, on 03/29/2008, -5/+1Um, no. We ended the last president's run with a surplus.

        You can bury Technec if you want to, but he's correctly pointing out that BOTH sides (Republican and Democrat, President and Congress, Liberal and Conservative, current politicians and past) are responsible for this in equal part.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 03/29/2008, -11/+29Yeah right - the problem started in 2001
      There is no excuse for this stupidity
      This problem has been brewing for 40 years or more - hell, blame the one that really started it all: Roosevelt(D)
      Blame all the presidents in recent history and pretty much every elected federal Democrat and Republican
    • MrSlumberjack, on 03/29/2008, -12/+15Technec is right in a sense that Bush and congress pushed things over the tipping point. Better leaders would have at least made an attempt to calm the waters.
      • Oracle95, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1The first time I read about this argument was back during the Carter administration, but we had hostages in Iran and no one wanted to hurt the Senior Citizens...and every administration since (and possibly before). Shoot, the loudest screams were during the Clinton administration when they tried to "fix it" by taxing the benefits.

        As long as we want to criticize the attempts, nothing will be done.
    • Terr01, on 03/29/2008, -7/+11Huh. I already cam eacross a response to this earlier today. While a significant problem, the math isn't quite as apocalyptic as it's made out to be.
      http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/03/social-secur ...
      • bjornski, on 03/29/2008, -4/+9NOTHING is ever as apocalyptic as Glenn Beck makes it sound.
    • delmar14, on 03/29/2008, -10/+16Lets get specific. FDR created this mess and every other leader since has piled on.
    • Iconoclast25, on 03/29/2008, -4/+3Emperor Franklin Delano imposed Soc Sec and the idea of deficit funding came at the inception. Medicare - look no further than ol' "guns & butter" lbj. Shrub II didn't rein in this mindless entitlement system, but in that he has the company of virtually every Federal politician going back to the 1930s and most of the dimocrap voters who like all these government boondoggles.
    • bradbaxter, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2Of Democrats and Republicans, only one party has had the guts to at least approach this issue with solutions (Republicans). Newt Gingrich hammered on this issue in the 90's and the media just made him (and the entire Republican Congress) look "mean-spirited". Admittedly, Republicans as of late have been cowardly on the issue by not bringing it back up, out of fear of being painted as uncaring, etc. But don't for one second believe that both parties are equally to blame for this asteroid. Democrats believe in these programs as as fundamental right. Republicans do not. Belief is where actions originate. Dems are mostly to blame... and of course us, the American people, for not paying better attention and holding politicians accountable.
  • TemtNosce, on 03/29/2008, -12/+29Awesome. I'm moving to Europe. No, seriously.
    • homerj1965, on 03/29/2008, -4/+29Doesn't matter where you go this will affect the world economy.
      • Technec, on 03/29/2008, -5/+3Very true, look how about two weeks ago when our market was down the rest of the world felt the pain. That's why some countries are looking more at the Euro.
      • karolisonline, on 03/29/2008, -1/+9actually it is not so easy. for example country like china is very dependent because it runs on export. an EU is pretty independent to run on its own. so economical crisis of course will hit EU, but it will be able to cope with that because of very different economical/social type. and maybe because of bigger average people education
        • GawtMilk, on 03/29/2008, -4/+8Bigger average people education?

          Sounds like you're someone on youtube keyword stuffing.

          "So, economical crisis of course will hit the European Union, but it will be able to cope with it because of the different economical / social type they have; and maybe because of the higher level of public education"
    • TemtNosce, on 03/29/2008, -7/+17I understand that the world economies are all tided together in some way, but I can't help but think that moving to europe and getting paid in euros( or pounds if I move to England) wouldn't afford me a better life. Plus a 27 country economy with strict politicians who actually do what is better for the PEOPLE will be much more resilient to a US crash than the US will be.

      http://tinyurl.com/ytkbsu

      Plus, free health care, far less crime, a guaranteed 4 week paid-vacation every year, generally healthier food can't be all bad.

      To Flamers: I'm not US bashing, I'm just worried as to what the future holds for the US (and more for it's people) because of the past 8 years of whoring by our Dictator Cheney and his puppet Bush.
      • michael4lsu, on 03/29/2008, -9/+10You think the EU is better for the PEOPLE? The EU was created specifically for the elite, to centralize their power and make their control over their slave populations more effecient and effective. The PEOPLE rejected the EU Constitution with their votes, but the elite still forced it on them anyway. The EU is just further along than we are toward the agenda of globalized socialism. America is following close behind.
        • karolisonline, on 03/29/2008, -3/+10if You don't live in EU, don't tell how bad it is. elite is everywhere, every countries government works for elite. difference is that in EU everyone (I mean 100% everyone) has social rights, well except UK. in EU you won't be left alone to sleep under the bridge, social system works in the way, that everyone would be protected.
          • philipl411, on 03/29/2008, -2/+3I spent several days in Amsterdam. I saw several bums, in fact one tried to enter into the hotel I was staying at and the manager ran her off. Sorry, In the EU there are people who, while may not be sleeping under bridges, are sleeping outside somewhere.
    • TemtNosce, on 03/29/2008, -6/+1*tied

      I hate typos.
    • 4d669, on 03/29/2008, -6/+11The North American Union is basically the European Union 2.0. What's happening right now in the US is what already happened in Europe. They are killing the dollar and the economy on purpose, then they'll use NAFTA to open borders to improve 'trade', then they'll replace the dollar with the Amero and then when everything is in the crapper, people will beg for the union to survive. Already happened in Europe, history repeats itself.
      But yeah, socialized medicine and education is great and you won't have to go through all this crap.
      • DjViral, on 03/29/2008, -4/+9finally leading to a one world government/currency.
        • Justice101, on 03/30/2008, -1/+21984, I always wondered what the American counterpart to Oceania was like, because he never talked about it, but seriously who named it the Amero?
    • doyoulikeworms, on 03/29/2008, -4/+6Woah woah woah... you DO understand that Europe has this problem, but WORSE right? The US is in this mess because our population is rapidly growing older, with not enough workers to support pensioners. The US has one of the highest birth rates in all of the industrialized world, and an amazing immigration rate, and we're still in this mess. There are many countries in Europe with zero or negative population growth (Germany, for one)!

      To top it off, they have even larger social programs and even higher taxes than we do as it is.

      Tell me how moving to Europe will help you?
      • karolisonline, on 03/29/2008, -2/+12actually there is no difference how big taxes are. You have small taxes, but no normal health care, education and so on. and in country like Denmark half of Your profit goes for taxes, but government offers so many things for free and for everyone that all in all it is the same but much better, because everyone gets same good education or health care.

        and population size isn't big problem, imigration helps, and for example Japan has 10% of its production made by robots.
        • doyoulikeworms, on 03/30/2008, -3/+2You guys have higher income tax AND sales tax. And despite the propaganda you read, the health care in the US is actually good. The US has a higher cancer survival rate than most of Europe: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessio ...

          Anyway, it doesn't "just balance out," and the quality of US higher education is unmatched, except perhaps by the UK.
      • rrbest, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Foreign chicks.
    • mattmedwards, on 03/29/2008, -1/+0Europe's demographic problem is far worse. Try China
  • JeremyKitching, on 03/29/2008, -16/+10B-A-N-A-N-A-S!!
  • Jauladeoro, on 08/27/2008, -9/+25I was watching this on TV last night and for a few seconds I thought he was serious about the asteroid. It was a little scary, but not as scary as what he said about the catastrophe we barely avoided with Bear Stearns. THAT is scary.
    • lunk, on 03/29/2008, -2/+4You really don't get it do you? This is not about Bear Stearns and some rich guys losing a bit of money. This is about the future of your entire country.

      The author clearly makes this point. You clearly don't get it.
      • Jauladeoro, on 08/27/2008, -1/+3Um, I do get it. That's why I said it's scary. Glenn Beck explained clearly how this affects all of us. I don't claim to be a financial genius but I thought it was all pretty well spelled out. Believe me, we are starting to focus on saving money and spending a lot less than we used to. We want to have money to survive on and money for retirement. We obviously can't trust the government to take care of us.
  • tamerrashdan, on 03/29/2008, -9/+50First time I actually agree with this guy
    • jezsik, on 03/29/2008, -5/+17Except that Beck is so good at being a dick it's hard to take him seriously on this.
    • stillasleep00, on 03/29/2008, -0/+10Beck is the only person who can offend me with stuff I agree with him on.
      • unclecaveman, on 03/29/2008, -0/+7I completely agree. Glenn Beck is the biggest ***** douche. Here is his time-tested strategy-
        1. Say something that nearly everyone agrees upon
        2. Spew hate, stupidity, and racism
        3. Use your agreement with #1 as a reason #2 is true
        4. Sign a huge contract and get undeserved airtime
    • bizchris, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Second time for me: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/14/beckfloridamichig ...
    • ZenMojo, on 03/29/2008, -5/+6One should think VERY, VERY hard before agreeing with Glenn Beck. This article proves why, as far as complete tools go, he's not the sharpest.

      1. Social Security and Medicare will only start getting tapped in 2019 if there is ZERO economic growth and taxes aren't raised. Fact is, the population grew about 100 million people over the last 20 years, that's a 33% increase in GDP if our economy remains comparatively stagnant and scales directly with spending. Smarter people have actually pushed that scary date back to 2041, that's an extra 22 years.
      2. You can increase Social Security's salience to 75 years from now by raising payroll taxes for Social Security by 10% (not 10% of your payroll, a 10% increase in SS taxes).
      3. So if the economy remains in the state that it's in right now but people keep ***** and making babies, Social Security will last until 2041 if we sit on our asses and do nothing. If we increase SS taxes 10%, Social Security will last until 2083. If the economy, you know, improves you can push it even farther back.
      4. By the way, if that 53 trillion dollar asteroid were providing you with a gazillion dollars in funds, I'd keep juggling the ***** asteroid.

      This guy doesn't believe in manmade global climate change, remember? What douche still denies manmade global climate change? -.o
      • haterofps3, on 03/29/2008, -3/+4The kind that read the report that the oceans temperature has not increased and has in fact plateaued since 2002.

        Douche
      • mattmedwards, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1OK ... so if your numbers are correct, what will happen to Social Security after 2041. All you did was push the date back. Its like delaying your credit card payment - it doesn't get rid of the problem just delays it.

        Social Security is peanuts compared to Medicare and Medicaid. The facts that you have quoted on Medicare are incorrect. I suggest doing some research on GAO.gov or reading "The Coming Generational Storm" by Kotlikoff.
      • CrunchyDeluxe, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Please. Not even the scientific community can agree on man made climate change. But if you want to go blindly believing what douches like Al Gore keep spewing, go ahead. Frankly though, the only thing we can know for sure is that climate change is kinda a natural thing. The notion that we can control earth's temperature like we're in a Mercedes is a bit pretentious on our part, really.
    • principle, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1The myth of the Social Security system insolvency has been created to allow the thieves to getaway with one of the biggest robberies of the American people. This swindle was started by the Republicans under Regan when they declared that the Social Security Tax is a “tax” and therefore Congress can use it as any other tax. Therefore, they gave the wealthy a big tax cut and promised the little people that they will get theirs through the magic of the trickledown economics (i.e., crumbs of the master’s table). Ever since then they have been diverting money from the Social Security system to the wealthy while insisting that it is a “pay as you go” system instead of insurance. Now if they can convince people that the system is insolvent, they will never have to repay the money they have misappropriated. Glenn Beck is a political hack who has been spreading misinformation. So when you see his lips moving, be aware that he is lying.

      The solution to Social Security “insolvency” is 1. prevent the government from taking the money out of the system, 2. raise taxes on the wealthy to pay back what has been misappropriated.
  • Jist, on 03/29/2008, -11/+32Anyone else seriously sick of this *****?
    • bobthebruce123, on 03/29/2008, -4/+8Yes.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/29/2008, -2/+6By sick of this ***** do you mean working Monday and part of Tuesday ever week for these programs? Then, yeah.
    • doyoulikeworms, on 03/29/2008, -3/+6Yeah, I'm sick of big government too.
    • MaceSoul, on 03/29/2008, -6/+13Don't look at me, that's why I was pulling for Ron Paul.
      • sv650touring, on 03/29/2008, -1/+5"pulling" or voting?
        • nycmac247, on 03/29/2008, -2/+3he means ....er... I better not say its private ???
    • R1ng00, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure what you mean by "This" but if you are talking about sick of being cheated by our government -- yes.
      Other wise I don't think you can hide from the facts -- in many ways this country is in deep *****.
  • Latimer, on 03/29/2008, -33/+35Social Security and Medicare must be stopped, there is no way we can fund these programs, regardless of who is President and who we are/aren't at war with.
    • chicofaraby, on 03/29/2008, -23/+26*****.

      Remove the cap, make the rich pay their fair share and both systems are solvent. It's not even hard to solve.
      • Apophis574, on 03/29/2008, -23/+10Ya so the people who worked for their money should pay for america's debt. That's completly "fair" as you say.
        • crichton101, on 03/29/2008, -4/+7So people who aren't rich don't work for their money? Considering all those rich people got rich because of all the other people I don't really see how its unfair for them to help pay our countries debt. The reason we are in debt is because those rich industry bastards sent all of our manufacturing jobs over seas, as well as plenty of other jobs too. Which means those rich bastards get rich, but the regular folk who lost their good paying job because it got sent over seas now has a crappy service job somewhere that if they're lucky puts food on their families table. The rich people who run companies like haliburton should absolutely help to pay down America's debt.
        • Acolyte357, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Just flat tax for all, including corporations.
          I'm sorry that you think the avg doctor needs to get ass raped in taxes because a manufacturing shmuck lost his job and can't get another job that pays $27+ an hr for him/her to tighten a ***** screw with out having an education higher than high school. I have no idea why there are any manufacturing job in the US at all. Whiny uneducated ***** think that ***** should be handed to them.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/29/2008, -18/+16Fair share = 100%, admit it. I love how you refer to the rich as if everyone who is rich stole a money tree from their disabled neighbor
      • jmpeagle, on 03/29/2008, -7/+6solvent for like 5 years.....
      • delmar14, on 03/29/2008, -13/+11Soak the rich some more and they'll all move to Australia...then what should we do?
        • bjornski, on 03/29/2008, -8/+12Let them ***** move then. Either pay the same percentages as everyone else or GET THE ***** OUT!
          • andcal, on 03/29/2008, -5/+8Um, the rich people would be HAPPY if everyone paid the same percentage. Currently, people on the lower end of the income scale pay the lowest percentage (starting at zero or less(some people get a refund even if they had no taxes withheld in the first place)), and the richest people pay the highest percentage. And I say this as a poor person (last year I was on food stamps. This year I got a good enough raise to not qualify, so it the raise almost cancels itself out).
          • mike1208, on 03/29/2008, -3/+4How about _you_ get the ***** out you piece of *****? Individualists were here long before you socialist sub-humans came along.

            Us wealthy people need to do as they did in Central America, and hire death squads to deal with "people" like you.
          • ZenMojo, on 03/29/2008, -5/+6The rich are a net drain on the economy. They spend the smallest percentage of their salaries PERIOD and the largest amount overseas while earning the most money or, if not salaried, getting the largest return on savings and investments, which they can do more fluidly because of their excess cash, meaning they do not have to pay taxes at all necessarily. They have slightly higher federal taxes than the middle class, though, if they actually get around to earning a salaried income instead of just managing poorly-taxed capital gains. :)
          • mattmedwards, on 03/29/2008, -2/+3Where does this myth come from - that the rich pay less taxes than the poor? I think it is one of those bromides that gets repeated by liberals so many times no one seems to question it. Anyway, even if you do not like the rich personally, I can tell you it would be a disaster if you taxed them to the point of leaving the country. Rich people have the capital to invest in all sorts of things, which creates jobs and grows the economy. And although money may not be a motivating factor for you because you are sooo above that, you can't deny that it is for most people, including myself. Take away that incentive and all the sudden people won't be so keen on doing the "hard" jobs in society, such as being a doctor or engineer.
          • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3If the rich don't pay taxes, then where is 3 trillion a year coming from? Cuz poor people don't pay ***** except cable, tobacco, lottery, and alcohol taxes.
          • SammyJr, on 03/30/2008, -1/+1@mike1208

            "Us wealthy people"? You remind me of my Republican coworkers who thought they were rich while making $35,000 per year.
        • kn3x, on 03/29/2008, -3/+2CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
      • smacksaw, on 03/29/2008, -9/+13Remove the cap, make the rich pay their UNfair share and both systems are solvent.

        There, I fixed that for you.

        Let's at least be honest. Progressive taxation isn't fair. It might be the right thing to do, but it's not fair.

        I don't think you've ever had a golf handicap, have you?
        • Tuto, on 03/29/2008, -3/+7Which do you think is worse doing something that is not fair or not doing the right thing? If tax money is spent for the right causes such as the disabled etc. then i cant see how somebody would choose the not fair option over doing the right thing. Then again if the tax money is spend on something completely useless like the war, i would go with the unfair part.
          • andcal, on 03/29/2008, -3/+5I have to agree with you. This is the reason that historically, republicans have stood for small government (because we categorically don't trust the government to do anything that can be done some other way). Apparently, the current environment is that anyone for small government isn't "connected" enough to get elected, coming from either party. Hopefully, this will change one day soon. I wish a libertarian could actually get elected in this country. I was excited about Ron Paul's run.
          • govsucks, on 03/29/2008, -3/+5How could something not "fair" be the right thing to do when we are supposed to treat everyone equal under the law. Leftists are so ***** stupid it is dangerous.
          • govsucks, on 03/29/2008, -3/+3So the ends justify the means huh? Sounds like a good reason to exterminate socialists in the name of freedom.
          • ZenMojo, on 03/29/2008, -5/+3You've obviously never met a Libertarian, have you, Tuto? Welcome to Digg, where it's more dangerous to raise taxes 2% than to torture possibly innocent people.
      • govsucks, on 03/29/2008, -11/+6Leftist fair = You pay 90% and they will pay 10%...sounds fair to them.
        • ZenMojo, on 03/29/2008, -3/+7First the Leftists are all milliionaire rich folks in Hollywood, then they're all poor welfare queens, can you neocons keep a cohesive thought in your head or what?
          • 15charmaxwtf, on 03/29/2008, -3/+5Or they're libertarians with no clue about economics.
      • mike1208, on 03/29/2008, -3/+3"Remove the cap, make the rich pay their fair share and both systems are solvent. It's not even hard to solve."

        You need to be killed.

        We should do as they did in Central America, and hire death squads to liquidate the "soak the rich!" crowd.
      • mattmedwards, on 03/29/2008, -2/+3The fact that you believe that increasing taxes on the rich will be a simple solution shows that you have no understanding of the magnitude of this. The compltroller of the GAO recently commented that you could tax the rich 100% (yes, take ALL their money) and this will only be a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, consider the ramifications of "soaking the rich." While this idea may give you some smug moral satisfaction, the practical results of this policy will be that the rich people will simply pick up and move to where they will be taxed less, causing a mass exodus of capital.

        The fact is that we have some entitlement programs that promise more than we can afford. We have to start cutting. We will have to feel the pain.
        • enri, on 03/29/2008, -1/+4Most rich people have "moved". They keep their capital in offshore tax shelters.
          Do I think we should "soak the rich"? No. If they weren't so good at hoarding wealth we wouldn't need to. In the 1970s the compensation for an average CEO was 30 times an average employee's wage. Today that ratio over 350. If companies are doing so well when reward everyone's effort, not just the executives.
    • FriarZero, on 03/29/2008, -9/+12That's right, let's just let private charity take over. After all we spend 500-500 Billion on Medicaid and Medicare and the total amount given to charity last year was 253 Billion (o http://tinyurl.com/2m397r). Of course only 10% of that went to medical care. If we eliminate the safety net we will have a homeless, diseased, unemployable underclass. Is this Dickensian dystopia really going to be better for America?
      • bjornski, on 03/29/2008, -5/+3"I got my free hover-round!"
        • mattmedwards, on 03/30/2008, -1/+3LOL! Exactly! That hover-round is NOT free. People paid for it - just not the people using it. This is case in point why medical expenses are skyrocketing... a bunch of old fat people can't push themselves in a wheelchair anymore, so they need to buy an expensive scooter and charge the government.
      • ZenMojo, on 03/29/2008, -3/+3Hell yeah that's what they want! It's time to party like it's 1929!
    • frogman54, on 03/29/2008, -4/+14So if someone were to get sick and could not work...what would happen to them?
      • bjornski, on 03/29/2008, -6/+14Apparently, with the prevailing attitudes in this country, we'd just let them die.
        • pintomp3, on 03/29/2008, -5/+6not the prevailing attitude in this country. on digg yes.
        • Hananda, on 03/29/2008, -3/+3And why not? If they have no savings or family to fall back on, what else should happen? Would you think it reasonable for the government to grant unlimited funding to prolong the lives of the terminally ill?
          • mattmedwards, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2There is a reasonable medium, here. What I've been trying to say is that the elderly have access to a bottemless pit of medical expenses, while the young get none of the government cheese. Its very skewed and its about to get much, much worse. We should all start saving soon because taxes are about to get very high and the benefits you expect to get will not be there when its your turn to retire.
      • unclebuck, on 03/29/2008, -1/+6Soylent Green
      • justinx0r, on 03/29/2008, -7/+7Why don't you do something and take them in? How about pay for their medical bills? No? Oh, you want other people to pay for it.
    • zeusthemoose, on 03/29/2008, -5/+4Ha good luck at that. Take away peoples social security and medicare and people start dying in the streets. That will never happen as you would have a repeat of the french revolution in America. You forget who the voters are, the dumb and uneducated. When the right wing starts taking away their lifeline, you sure as hell can bet a Democrat would reside in the white house for a very very long time.
  • Tdrum17, on 03/29/2008, -2/+16This is just so ridiculous and sickening
    • Zera, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2Yep, look at how good the government is at providing care for us. YES LETS PUT THEM IN CHARGE OF HEALTH CARE.
  • gabulldawg79, on 03/29/2008, -14/+102Glenn Beck is hit and miss with me but in the case he is right on. Ron Paul has been screaming this for years in the Congress. Of course they tried to marginilize him because if Dr. Paul had it his way, corporations and corrupt politicians would not be getting rich off the backs of American tax payers. Americans need to realize these people aren't just going to give up their illegally obtained power and wealth for our sake. Some how some way we are going to have to take it back.
    • mmd643, on 03/29/2008, -12/+11He's far more on than off these days. I'm a big fan of his radio show and while he has his moments where you just go..... uhhhh no... he's a really good source of information. He's been spot on in relation to financial matters for quite some time.
      • lickmylovepump, on 03/29/2008, -2/+3people are digging you down simply because glenn beck is 'conservative', and people who only think about political crap get very, very angry and indignant when another political party's supporter is mentioned. funny, for all the open-minded people in the world, we all think we know what is right. problem is, nobody is right for choosing a political side.
      • thetedster180, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2people who dugg him down wtf seriously
    • MoofTheStoof, on 03/29/2008, -13/+12Glenn Beck is always a "miss." His head is so far up his ass that he's completely blind to reality.
      • thetedster180, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3Really? you think so? lets see one little bit of information to back up your post, he actually addresses the problems we are facing and are going to face in the future, you clearly do not watch his show.
    • L1ghtning, on 03/29/2008, -2/+8I could see the Ron Paul coming a mile away.
    • maiku00, on 03/29/2008, -12/+7"if Dr. Paul had it his way, corporations and corrupt politicians would not be getting rich off the backs of American tax payers"
      yeah, right, through total deregulation, eliminating government programs, and making EVERYTHING a for-profit venture. you ron paul lemmings are so far out of the loop its unbelievable. why don't you read up a little on history, you only have to go back to the early 1900s to see the effects of this type of policy. go bow to your corporate masters, sheep.
      • hmunkey, on 03/29/2008, -4/+4It was called Laissez-Faire, and it was the old, read, old form of capitalism. Old in this case wasn't pretty.
      • roho76, on 03/29/2008, -4/+9Your so right. I would hate to have these same companies competing for my business instead of just getting my money through taxes which I have no control over. Man that's much better thanks for making me realize the rational of your idiocy.
        • thetedster180, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3its not like we live in a capitalist country or anything like that
        • kemp34, on 03/30/2008, -0/+3We don't it's Crony Casino Corporatism.
      • sphigel, on 03/29/2008, -2/+8Deregulation is a good thing for consumers. Regulation kills innovation and drives prices up. How exactly is that a good thing?
        • Lewie, on 03/29/2008, -6/+2Monopolies kill innovation. Regulation keeps people from getting hurt.
    • Vermillion88, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5Yeah, so basically Ron Paul isn't doing it for me anymore, so I've had to start masturbating to Obama speeches.
    • schneid4323, on 03/29/2008, -5/+3Socialism anyone?
  • blahblar, on 03/29/2008, -2/+8dammit...
  • kylesherman, on 03/29/2008, -7/+50Oh jolly, what a fantastic time to be entering adulthood.
    • fromonesource, on 03/29/2008, -3/+17Your icon indicates that you are more or less ok with the way things are going. Mr. Change isn't going to change this economic issue unless he starts talking about smaller government and revoking the powers of the federal reserve. Think about it.
    • andcal, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3Every generation has its challenges. From the 50's to the 90's, every generation has had to face the prospect of nuclear winter. I am glad that we made it to a point where something else can be our biggest worry instead of self-imposed genocide. In a way, things are looking up! :)
    • brad3378, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1What a wonderful time for young people to start subsidizing the health care of retirees.
      Free Health care for all!! - even those who no longer pay taxes.
  • Ell3, on 03/29/2008, -28/+66Don't worry, Obama will fix it by raising taxes. Problem is, those increased revenues from new taxes won't be used to pay down the USA's debt. They'll be used to expand the already bloated government bureaucracy.

    America needs:
    1) a healthy growing economy
    2) a drastically reduced federal bureaucracy (like about a 50%-75% reduction of ALL agencies)
    3) higher taxes, where the increased revenues go solely to pay down the existing debt and fund SS

    • MightyDog, on 03/29/2008, -19/+16I'm not a democrat, but Obama is impressive. He actually gives intelligent thought and analysis, and understands the issue pretty clearly. I am fed up with republicans who supposedly spend less money. It's utter nonsense. Every republican that's been in power since the 80s has increased goverment. I checked it myself. I'm starting to think Obama may actually be the answer we need.
      • EuphopiaB, on 03/29/2008, -5/+17He is articulate and persuasive but not realistic. He advocates CUTTING taxes for the middle class, enacting a new government program of universal health care AND a multi-billion dollar "stimulus" package for the economy. I would really like to know how he plans to do all that and still pay off the debt the government has. Obama and Hillary both have filled their campaign with empty promises of benefits to buy them votes, but they are not realistic. McCain is just as bad only he likes to screw ***** up the neocon way.
        • DjViral, on 03/29/2008, -4/+12aaaaahhh probably the smartest thing anyone has said about these 3 candidates. no matter how you look at it people, it's all gonna get ***** up. their killing the dollar in order to introduce the NAU and the Amero.
        • zeusthemoose, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2Well Clinton managed to do similar things after all. Wouldn't seem that unlikely when you actually raise taxes on the rich...
    • AgentVladimir, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Points one and three definitely. But you'll never get any government in the world ever to do number two. Hopefully with numbers one and three you'll probably be alright.
      • Izult, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2www.downsizedc.org maybe it is a pipe dream but I'd rather try and fail than not try at all. I'm tired of being told i can't do anything to change it. If nothing can be done to change the establishment then i guess those revolutionaries in 1776 were smokin the good crack.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Higher taxes and less bureaucracy? You are thinking in the realms of fantasy.

      I don't even think your answer is worth analysing in more depth and I was sure you were being sarcastic in the first sentence.

      How about cutting spending.

      That said, he sure seems better than Hillary and McCain.
    • Izult, on 03/29/2008, -1/+6Raising taxes? I make just a little over 27k a year, single, no kids, have ALMOST NO debt compared to most Americans out there and i'm still struggling to make ends meet because so much of my income goes to state and federal taxes. I claim one more exemption i end up owing taxes instead of getting a refund. Don't tax us more, cut spending. they're spending our money like it's candy to them and we sit by and let them do it. It's OUR money!! They need to start accounting for every penny and if they can't we should stop paying our taxes until they do.
  • Dhalsim007, on 03/29/2008, -14/+20Easy fix: End the Social Security ceiling on contributions (currently just over $100,000), end Social Security for those making more than $60,000 a year in income, and raise the retirement age into the 70s. That'll fix a lot of the problems.
    • chicofaraby, on 03/29/2008, -7/+6It's easy, it makes sense and it is WAY overdue.


    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/29/2008, -5/+10When you say end, does that mean people making over 60,000 can opt out all together, cuz that's sounds outstanding.
      • cquinnd, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3I'd say give them an opt out if they can show a sufficient effort has been made to invest in their own retirement plan.
    • mmd643, on 03/29/2008, -1/+8Social Security isn't 1/100th of the issue that medicaid has become.
    • theutopian, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Because it's THAT ***** easy. There are no easy solutions to problems like this. The solutions are so complicated that the average American can't understand it, so politicians have to pander to them by appearing to provide simple solutions.
      • mattmedwards, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Don't try to explain this to diggers. The age of the internet has ushered in an era of knowledge a mile wide and an inch deep. Isn't it funny that MIT economists that have been studying this their entire lives are still debating this issue, but some kid in his parent's basement found the answer from a Google search ;)
  • scififan9009, on 03/29/2008, -6/+36Hold up a minute. So there's really not an asteroid? Dammit! Buried as inaccurate. ;)
    • bjornski, on 03/29/2008, -5/+5Just like everything else out of Glenn Beck's mouth.
  • mddawso, on 03/29/2008, -4/+13Everybody panic!
  • yellowcakewalk, on 03/29/2008, -17/+36Confiscate the property of all the scum that got rich off Bush's wars. That would be a start.
    • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/29/2008, -12/+12okay, if we can confiscate all the property from laywers who got rich off of class action lawsuits.
      • delmar14, on 03/29/2008, -10/+4All that money combined is prolly less that 1% of what is needed. Remember, the entire economy is less that $15 trillion and ss and medicare are more than $60 trillion in the red. We'd still be *****.
        • mciampa1214, on 03/29/2008, -2/+10First, buried for using 'prolly' that is the dumbest ***** word ever.
          Second, the economy is $15 trillion a year and the $60 trillion debt extends at least 50 years. Something still needs to change, but it's not as if we owe that every year.
      • Iconoclast25, on 03/29/2008, -0/+9. . . and the money / property of the scum who make their living trying to destroy the very foundations of liberty - the kennedys. kerrys, soros, etc.
  • commernie, on 03/29/2008, -36/+36This is too funny. So now Glenn Beck is going to tell us about numbers? The ignorant ***** can't even add two single-digit numbers together.

    Also, how come he isn't criticizing the Iraq war? It costs about the same amount of money per year as Medicare, and nobody benefits from it (and millions of people's lives have been completely ruined because of it). Except of course, the same people who own CNN and Fox News.

    This the usual hypocrisy from reactionary assholes. Spending that benefits the super-rich is called investment and that which benefits ordinary working-class Americans is called waste.
    • Apophis574, on 03/29/2008, -17/+11I really have to wonder why anyone would listen to you (such a ***** moron). Why don't you just change the few letters in your name and put the sickle and hammer on that red flag. Socialist *****.
    • mmd643, on 03/29/2008, -3/+10"Also, how come he isn't criticizing the Iraq war? It costs about the same amount of money per year as Medicare"

      NOT EVEN CLOSE. I'm against both, but get your damn facts straight before you get to typing.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 03/29/2008, -2/+6Oh you know what? You really shouldn't call someone out on numbers and then proceed to demonstrate your own complete lack of comprehension of the same.

  • blorc, on 03/29/2008, -43/+69***** Glenn Beck.
    • Dylson, on 03/29/2008, -10/+10You are dugg.
    • clickx, on 03/29/2008, -20/+7***** your mother queer.
      • bjornski, on 03/29/2008, -3/+6You Glenn Beck listeners are such hateful douchebags. The only people with more hate shoved up their asses are those ***** who listen to The Savage Nation.
        • andcal, on 03/29/2008, -6/+1I was going to test your hypothesis, but you broke my hate-o-meter. (I've never listened to Glenn Beck, but I'm just sayin...)
    • kn3x, on 03/29/2008, -6/+1suck an intelligent statement.... you sound just like him.
  • davidwasman, on 03/29/2008, -24/+31Buried for Glenn 'Complete Douchebag Tool Moron" Beck
    • clickx, on 03/29/2008, -8/+3I'm so effing cheesed right now!
      • amoirae, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1As if anyone cares about your impotent rage.
    • mwmccullough, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2Don't you mean Glenn 'Complete Douche bag Tool MORMON" Beck?
  • holyskeleton, on 03/29/2008, -7/+1dugg for the mario sound.
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/29/2008, -14/+24Social security is a massive scam. The whole "employer's half" concept is excellent proof the government wants to keep citizens dumb. That should be a line item right next to the personal SSI deduction on every paycheck. Those who believe the employer is actually paying that, can continue to believe. But that would make it's total cost to each of us more transparent, and transparency is bad cover for robbery.

    I'd contribute to social security for the physcially and developmentally disabled, but after that I want the option, we shouldn't have to subsidize and encourage people to not manage their money well. I could beat the social security return over 30 years burrying my deductions in cash in the backyard. Anyone young has to financially plan for the future assuming social security income isn't going to amount to *****. There are no scare tactics about it, either taxes go up astronomically, or this program goes away.
    • Tuto, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2Not for the mentally disabled?
    • snowwrestler, on 03/29/2008, -4/+1The employer pays half, the employee pays half. That is the way it is. The idea that that money would otherwise go into the employee's paycheck is false. Since it is legally the employer's money, they could just as easily dedicated it to any other cost or investment--capital expenditures, raw materials, even a stock dividend.

      It is analogous to businesses who subsidize their employees' health care. I do not hear people up in arms about that the same way, claiming that the employees are actually paying 100% of all health care. That's because it is not true--there is a difference between a business providing a benefit or paying a tax, and an employee buying a benefit or paying a tax.

      Look at the wage difference between companies that offer health care to their employees and those that do not. Are the wages always higher at the businesses that don't? No, of course not. Even though they are "saving money" by not offering a health plan, they are not obligated (and generally don't) put all those savings into wages.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/30/2008, -0/+2Actually, in my profession (engineering) and my girlfriend's (nursing), yes, jobs without health care have higher wages almost universally.

      • MeanYogurt, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2As an employer, I see it completely different. The wage is the cost of an employee. It doesn't matter whether I pay it to them or the government, its the cost of employing that person. The employer matching the taxes paid by the employee is just a way to obfuscate how much in taxes you actually pay.
    • sphigel, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2The employee pays 100% of social security. Think of the 50% your employer supposedly pays as a forced deduction from your wages.
  • wtfunkymonkey, on 03/29/2008, -11/+3Now let's assume that this asteroid is real, let's assume we're all 18 months from a massive asteroid strike.
    Anybody have any idea of what the Christian Right would say? I fear that many would assume it would be the Book of Revelations incarnate.
    • bobcrotch, on 03/29/2008, -1/+8How about we assume its a metaphor and really just understand what the article is about?
    • flip2trip, on 03/29/2008, -3/+4Look, just because you're a religious bigot you don't have to drag Christians into every conversation--grow up.
      • wtfunkymonkey, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2There's a big difference between being a bigot and asking a question, douchebag.
  • HHP2K, on 03/29/2008, -8/+11Thanks for making me think we have a massive asteroid approaching us that world leaders have been keeping secret, ***** Glenn Beck
  • al11588, on 03/29/2008, -18/+4If it hits all the Mac Fanboys and the Ubuntu people then i am good.
    Microsoft-FTW
  • Angostura, on 03/29/2008, -3/+11And here was I thinking that thus article was going to be about climate change - a much more apt analogy. And more devistating economically than any recession.
    • doyoulikeworms, on 03/29/2008, -5/+4Except this crisis is actually going to happen.
      • Angostura, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Yes, well you're one of the politicians saying "there's still a 10% chance it won't hit, we need to do nothing".
  • chaos7, on 03/29/2008, -12/+18glenn beck sucks
  • toucha, on 03/29/2008, -13/+8Glenn Beck is very confusing...95% of the time i hate him and the other 5 is just contempt with his reporting. He is way too conservative for my taste and some of his stories are just too ridiculous to take seriously within the first 30 seconds of it. He has been raging on about the economy for quite sometime. But does anyone remember when he was talking about the end of the WORLD!??!

    Listen Glenn Beck is like any other conservative out there, he can appeal to you straight on if he strikes a nerve, however, to the rest of us he seems like a quack. And to those who think he is right, take an economics course, read, write. People who are pessimistic either are ignorant or uneducated. Sadly Glenn Beck is both
  • ritter99, on 03/29/2008, -11/+6bla bla bla
  • toytoyota, on 03/29/2008, -11/+18***** Glenn Beck. This guy thinks he's so pro-liberty that we should buy-out incandescent light bulbs from stores to show that we won't be forced to buying "Al Gore" bulbs. What a backwards guy.
    • triskele, on 03/29/2008, -4/+3Oddly enough there are incandescents currently being developed that are more efficient and don't contain and toxins. Sadly though we'll likely never seen them because they'll be banned by the time they reach the market.
      • cquinnd, on 03/29/2008, -2/+3Source? More effiecient than what? And every manufactured item contains toxins, it is just a measure of how much and how well managed they are in disposal.
    • CrunchyDeluxe, on 03/31/2008, -1/+2Backwards? PLEASE! Why the ***** should I be forced to buy compact fluorescents? They trigger migraines in me, they everything in the room a greenish blue glow, they make people look like corpses... I could go on and on...

      Where are the pro-choice folks when you need 'em?
  • Stormwern, on 03/29/2008, -4/+5I don't follow, is he talking about retirement money? In 2019 the government will owe 53T$ to whom exactly?
    • BuzzFriendly, on 03/29/2008, -1/+7To China, Saudi Arabia, Mexico (yes I said Mexico), Japan etc etc etc. To virtually any country it has already or will borrow money from.
      • Seldon2639, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Not quite. It'll be money the government owes to itself. Our outside national debt runs around $10 Trillion (a metric buttload, to be sure, but not the 53 Trillion). The issue is that for the past thirty-some-odd years, the entitlements side of the government (which is separate in both tax-collecting, and expenditures from everything else) has been buying up most of our federal deficit. The discretionary side of the budget will owe the entitlements side of the budget around $53 trillion (not in a lump sum, mind you). This squeezes out basically everything else in the budget. But, there was no other way to build up a social security nest egg. As it stands, though, we'll either need to raise taxes, decreases expenditures, or go deeper into debt.
        • Stormwern, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3That's insane. Only america could cut the government in half and apply free market. So if we nullified the debt, the self-owned, non-living entity that is the government expenditure will be very sad. If we don't, it's the end of the world as we know it..

          Let me guess, noone has the authority to do that, yippie!
        • reddikilowatt, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1There were other ways to build up the Social Security system, but since bonds seemed like a win-win in the 1960's, that's the way they went.

          The real problem with Social Security is that the first generation (my grandparents) collected much more than they should have, since they didn't start paying into the system until they had been working for a few years. And, of course, the government can't stop spending.
        • Seldon2639, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1@ Reddikillowatt:

          That's not quite true. Bonds weren't seen as a win-win, and the use of T-bonds as the savings mechanism for Social Security made the most sense. They couldn't really lock the money in a giant bank (well, they could, but it'd be the same issue). The other possibility would be investment in the stock-market, which would flood the market and create the most massive market failure we've ever seen.
  • DjViral, on 03/29/2008, -8/+91 world government FTL!
    • bjornski, on 03/29/2008, -3/+2People can't keep shipping jobs and labor overseas without expecting national sovereignty to follow.

      You guys wanted your "open globe". Well, you got it.
  • davidwasman, on 03/29/2008, -17/+14Where the f*ck did all these Glenn Beck supporting Douchebags that are burying people come from?
    • mmd643, on 03/29/2008, -10/+12You do understand he's spot on with everything in the article... right?
    • MoofTheStoof, on 03/29/2008, -11/+6Something weird happens to digg in the wee hours. All the right-wing nutjobs crawl out of the woodwork for a bit and sane digging takes a break.
      • govsucks, on 03/29/2008, -1/+8They finally got off work, you know, work?
        • amoirae, on 03/29/2008, -3/+1Blowing Mark Foley pays that well and takes that much time?
        • Acolyte357, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Wow, that was almost funny! Hey, you got something white on your dress there..bah don't worry I'm sure it will come off at the cleaners.
    • senkmajer, on 03/29/2008, -4/+8There are plenty of conservative out there in the world. Far more than most on the other side of the debate are willing to notice. Most of them very reasonable, thoughtful, very hard-working well-educated people. It's just that they usually keep their mouths shut because they don't have the patience to deal with being screamed, yelled at, demeaned, and being called vile, vulgar names. Just because they step out of the way and let others debase themselves doesn't mean that they don't exist or that they don't have an opinion. It usually means that they are reserving their thoughts for real conversation, not screaming matches.
      • Tuto, on 03/29/2008, -8/+3You do realize that most Conservatives are extremely religious and thus your characterization of them fails. See when somebody is dumb enough to not be able to form his own opinion on the world he lives in but instead has to rely on a 2000 year old book or on some nut job preacher to tell him what to think, you have come to the conclusion that the reason they don't participate in these conversation is because they don't know how to use the Internet.
        • flip2trip, on 03/29/2008, -3/+3Buried for being stupid and a religious bigot.
          • Tuto, on 03/29/2008, -5/+2Usually religious people are bigots. The truth is that my statement stands on most cases of extremely religious people who many are Conservatives. Their stances and opinions on gays, abortion etc. all come from the bible or their preacher instead of their own experiences, and that is stupid regardless if somebody finds it offensive.
        • senkmajer, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2That's odd, Tuto. I know a lot of conservatives and they are thoughtful, educated, polite people that see value in a moral and ethical code that has been followed in some fashion by every successful civilization for the last few thousand years. Your bigoted characterization of those pursuing inspiration, guidance and enlightenment in things larger than themselves is no more useful than characterizing people that share views such as yours as a group of egocentric, opportunistic secular sectarians. Of course it isn't true, is it?
          I attended many different services in many different places in my life. I have yet to run across bigotry created by religion. I have yet to run into a nut-job preacher/priest/pastor, and believe me, I have a very low threshold for use of the word "nut job." I have never sat in a service and felt I was being pressured to do anything but go out in the world and be a good man, husband, father, and neighbor.
          I'm sincerely stunned and I am regretful that you have apparently had the unimaginably unusual misfortune to sit through what must have dozens of racist and homophobic rants at many, many different service at many churches in order to develop this level of hatred towards religion.
          • Tuto, on 03/30/2008, -2/+0The thing is, they only see value in it because it was force fed to them at a very young age. Like you said this book is nearly 2000 years old and was written in a completely different society from ours which is reflected in its content. When people instead of forming their own opinions start looking solutions to modern problems from a this extremely old book it screws us all over. This can clearly be seen from the history of Christianity from when it first practically ruled Europe to the time it lost its grip and the quality of life started to improve to a bigger group of people than just the upper class who used it as a tool to maintain their position.
        • senkmajer, on 04/02/2008, -0/+1You're thinking too narrowly. You are focusing on Christianity, your contempt for which is clear. I was referring to the rules, traditions and guidelines of religions dating back almost 4000 years.
          We can learn a lot from Plato, clearly not a Christian or Jew. He has a lot to say about society that does, indeed, apply to contemporary culture. His "allegory of the caves" (2400 years old) is a stunning and enlightening contemplation on "point of view."
          We can learn a lot from the tenets of Buddhism, half a millennium older than Christianity. The "Four Noble Truths and "The Noble Eightfold Path" are meaningful, even today.
          Confucianism talks about the virtue of, well, virtue. It describes a "gentleman":
          Gentlemen were to: 1) cultivate themselves morally; 2) show filial piety and loyalty where these are due; 3) cultivate humanity, or benevolence.
          There are universal, timeless, shared truths in all of these religious and cultural traditions. They did work and continue to work not because they created rules, but because they acknowledged the benefits of a life well-lived.
          I don't think atheists are evil. I *do* believe that they are choosing to pass on something special and wonderful.
          I resent evil people claiming evil actions "for God." I draw a very clear distinction between God, His Law, and those fallible humans that commit evil acts and try to say that they have done it "in His name."
          Further, I do not assume bad things about all atheists or agnostics when I see that an atheist or agnostic does something bad.
          Lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride know no racial, political, geographical, educational or religious boundaries. I ask only the same consideration.
    • CrunchyDeluxe, on 03/31/2008, -0/+3WTF are you complaining about? Afraid of your liberal lovefest being interrupted for a few hours by people with some sense?
  • BuzzFriendly, on 03/29/2008, -8/+13While Beck is potentially correct about this I am unsure of why it would bother him. He supports the war, sending money to Israel spy program etc etc etc. You can't be worried about the money you owe if you are not worried about the money you spend.
    • pintomp3, on 03/29/2008, -4/+4like many conservatives, he is only upset about money being used to take care of sick and old people. he fully supports money being used to kill people in other countries. this ideology goes back to nixon and reagan. they both cut social programs while expanding the military and the debt.
      • BuzzFriendly, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3Agreed. Nothing like a conservative, pro-life war supporter. Oxymoron at its finest.
  • Farmer77, on 03/29/2008, -2/+12There's another asteroid that's even closer to hitting us than that one. United States will be going to war to defend Taiwan when China invades them a couple of years after the Beijing Olympics. Oh, they will invade them, China has said they will take back Taiwan, and if the leaders are anything like my 64 year old father, then they are going to keep their word. Old chinese men don't bluff.

    The inflation from that war will make today's prices look like the good ol' days.
    • Seldon2639, on 03/29/2008, -4/+0We have no legal responsibility to defend Taiwan. Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, we are required to provide Taiwan with the ability to defend itself, but are never compelled into direct military action against the PRC
  • enumerate, on 03/29/2008, -14/+5***** social security. I'm not paying for some old *****'s food just because he was too ***** dumb to learn how to save money.
    • Seldon2639, on 03/29/2008, -3/+8This is one of those times when knowledge of history would really rock. The reason we have Social Security is because the alternative was older people dying of starvation, and this was a way to both inject money into a hurting economy (the whole Great Depression thing), and also help the least among us. I'm betting that either you're a relatively well-off person, who then attributes everything good in your life to your own hard work (ignoring the fortunate circumstances that may happen), or a relatively poor-off person who views it as "I don't get anything, so why should they". Here's my question: they've already paid into the system, do you steal that money from them because you don't want to give it back?
      • MaceSoul, on 03/29/2008, -4/+3If they would have paid into a non-governmental system, they wouldn't be in a bad spot. The whole thing was setup because people refused to save for themselves. Well guess what, they actually could afford to save if you took it without asking. But the government stole it, spent it, and now wants to stick it to us. No thanks. I want out of the ponzi scheme entirely. Let me put MY money where I want.
        • Seldon2639, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1There have been studies which almost universally confirm that people are more likely to save for retirement when they have to opt-out, rather than having to opt-in. The issue, though, is what you do if people lose money in the stock-market, or in real estate. Do you tell them "sorry, sucks to be you", and let them starve?
        • Acolyte357, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1"Do you tell them "sorry, sucks to be you", and let them starve?" No more like, Sorry, sucks to be you get back to work
    • MoofTheStoof, on 03/29/2008, -1/+5... aaaaaand that old ***** would be you.
      • bjornski, on 03/29/2008, -0/+8Remember. Everyone in their 20's is "immortal". They know better.

        I felt that way at 20 too. 30 changed things a lot. And 40 is just ***** crazy. I'm still dealing with it.

        But let them continue on with "I could invest it better", and then when it all blows up on the generation that gets "Enron'd" out of their money, they can come crying to government because "I lost it all! Those bad men took it! Help me!".

        Government will always be left to bail out the people who make bad decisions on their money. Even if those people did nothing to help the system in the first place.

        Go ahead. Privatize it. But when you opt out, do it fully. You're not allowed to come back when you get screwed.
    • flip2trip, on 03/29/2008, -1/+4Retard.
  • smacksaw, on 03/29/2008, -6/+18A few things occur to me as this goes on. One, is that whether you like Ron Paul or not, politicians are going to have to begin to heed his warnings if they want this government to survive.

    Another is that if we bankrupt the US, what really changes? It means that as a resident of Washington, I stop sending money to DC because it no longer exists? Think about it. What if the US federal gov't simply stopped existing? We'd just start a new national gov't/country, but be smart enough to take care of our own backyard first and foremost. What happens when people declare bankruptcy? They start over. But with limitations.

    And again, it goes back to Ron Paul and his state's rights. We could have done it the easy way and elected him. Or we can do it the hard way and still get the same result. I guarantee you that if the US went bankrupt, the last thing YOU would think about in your city, county and state is DC. You would be worrying about your property rights, electricity, water. You wouldn't be worrying about the FBI, the IRS, the Air Force.

    You'd think - hey, we have the National Guard in our state. That's good enough. So on and so forth. And I doubt people would be anxious to give their freedom and money to a central gov't. We'd all stay together because we're family - we're Americans after all. But small government and state's rights are coming. Believe it. We will get McCain or Clinton and maybe they move on it. We get Obama, and he will move on it. But we can't afford what we're doing right now. Even Glenn Beck understands that. If he can get it, anyone can get it.

    As time goes on, I am less and less frightened by the adjustment our gov't will make, voluntarily or not.
    • Seldon2639, on 03/29/2008, -3/+6Oookay, we need to talk history for a second. The reason the federal government exists is because there are bunches of things it can do that the states can't. We tried the loose confederation of states, it was called "The Articles of Confederation", and it didn't work too well. Without a central government, there's no set value of currency, there's no ability to ensure that the trade policies of one state are the same as another. Also, how do the states pick up the kind of responsibilities we've come to expect from the federal government? Beyond that, without anything like substantive due process in the Supreme Court, there's no way to ensure that the same rights I have here in Colorado are the ones I'd have in Texas. Without a federal government, we wouldn't have had suffrage, or civil rights, or a lot of other really nice things.
      • smacksaw, on 03/29/2008, -6/+8Now we need to take your history lesson and review it and apply some common sense to it. The federal gov't exists because people thought it could do a better job than the states. But if you look at small countries, or even Swiss cantons, you see that they are doing just fine without giant federal bureaucracies. And I wouldn't say that that confederation didn't work well, either. If you're a federalist you think it was bad.

        As far as currency goes, there are plenty of valid currencies out there, and there are countries that use currencies that are not their own. Regardless, the point is lost on you here. If the country is bankrupt, the currency is worthless. Besides, why is the federal minimum wage relevant in Manhattan vs Mississippi? It isn't. You can feed a family of 4 in Biloxi for what it costs to get lunch in Manhattan. People need money and value relative to where they live. In much of the USA, a social security payment is too small to matter. In other places, it's enough to live comfortably. Think about it. It's called scale.

        As far as picking up responsibilities covered by...look. We can't be responsible for ourselves? We have everything decided by the federal courts? Are you saying states don't have state supreme courts and state constitutions? As far as rights go - look at the EU. They have standard rights throughout. And suffrage/civil rights is a bad example, since there are back-assward states who prevented that stuff from happening to begin with. When you have progressives and progress, you either keep pace or get left behind.
        • reddikilowatt, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4Actually, very little of the "life changing" laws over the past 10-15 years have even been tested by they courts, let alone acted on. USAPATRIOT, the whole TSA, the DHS, all have just come into being, without any test by the courts.

          And don't even get started with civil law... crazy contract law... usury... DMCA... the list goes on and on.
      • reddikilowatt, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2RP was an interesting case. I think that in a different time, when there was not as much influence by the general population in the political parties (ie: smoke filled room candidates), he would have been the republican front runner. As it now stands, the populist candidate will ALWAYS be nominee, and there is no easier way for a populist to get his (or her) way than to roll out the pork barrel and season with a whole lot of class envy and simplistic good/evil talk.
      • Izult, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4You're looking at us as one entity and not looking at the states as sovereign entities in their own right. Texas is a good example. They could have remained their own sovereign nation and not joined the union. Each state has it's own constitution, each state has it's own set of laws, each state operates it's own police force. Why should we EXPECT the federal government to do anything? As far as i'm concerned they should speak for us only for foreign policies, trade disputes, treaties, disputes between states and leave the states free to make their own decisions.
  • lopla, on 03/29/2008, -9/+6I've known for many years this is coming. Fortunately I was able to move myself and my loved ones out of the US before the imminent collapse. We are now citizens in an Australasian common wealth country. Life is great! We live on an incredible beach and the lifestyle improvement is immense. I do fear for friends stuck in the US and facing the collapse. They will soon be living in a 3rd world country, likely making 30cents a day producing product for Chinese consumers or even worse sitting on a dirt road emaciated and covered in flies. Get out now while you still can.
    • Technopundit, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1I'm gonna make those little cocktail umbrellas.
  • Berkana, on 03/29/2008, -6/+5Even though this is one of the few Glenn Beck spews I agree with, I must confess that every time I see that smug fat face of his, I want to whack it with a cricket bat.
  • graystar, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2Dont worry, if you think the promises will be kept you have your head int he sand. They will just redefine it and the debt will go away. Thats why I opt out of the pension part in the UK, there is no way I will see that money again.
    • govsucks, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3wow, you can opt out of the government pension plan in the UK, lucky you! In America, we are not FREE to do that.
  • davidjsmitty, on 03/29/2008, -5/+4I have a hard time caring about this any more. Americans decided they wanted a socialist country - they'll get it.
    • govsucks, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Thats why I say vote for Clinton or Obama...lets kick this socialist ***** down their throats!
  • Seldon2639, on 03/29/2008, -2/+11While I can certainly respect the point Beck makes, I do have to disagree with it in a pretty massive way. The asteroid is not the fault of our leaders, it's our own damned fault. We demand that prescription drugs be covered, and *conservative* President and Congress (Bush's years) does it. We demand that Medicare exist, and that Social Security benefits expand, and a Democrat does it (Truman). Both sides are guilty, but we the people are guiltier. We expect both lower taxes, and higher spending. We expect politicians to wave a magic wand and fix Social Security, but are unwilling to face the really hard truths: we have to either raise taxes, or cut benefits, or the system will collapse. Taxes are at a rate far lower than when Truman had his Great Society, and yet we expect to pay the same amounts.

    By the way, to anyone saying that the wealthy are already paying their "fair share", Warren Buffet pays around 15% of his income in taxes. His secretary, who makes $60,000 per year pays closer to 30%. When Warren Buffet wants the wealthy to pay more, I think it might be time.

    It's called the veil of ignorance. Pretend you have no idea what family you'll be born into, or how much money you'll make; now design a tax system. It's in everyone's best interest that people not die on the streets, that people get educations, and can eat food. It was a Conservative, Oliver Wendall Holmes who said "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society"

    We all want a smaller government, probably, but which part do we make smaller? Agriculture subsidies, veteran's benefits, the military, social safety-nets, what?
    • senkmajer, on 03/31/2008, -0/+2I agree with most of what you write. I would like to add, though, that tax revenues to the treasury actually go up when the rates are lowered (no, no, not to zero). It is not beneficial from a tax-revenue point-of-view to seize large fractions of an individual's income if the single goal is to redistribute it to others. Tax revenues climb when rates are lowered because the money is exchanging hands more often. Tax at a lower rate more often. It drives an economy forward. Even JFK knew this. I'm not saying that we shouldn't pay taxes, but confiscatory rates and policies end up reducing the treasury's receipts.
      Two more things: 1) There is nothing preventing Mr. Buffet from writing a large check to the government every year. He should not feel guilty if he is not going to do anything about it.
      2) His secretary needs a much better accountant. If she is married, that means before deductions and dependents she is in the 15% bracket (applied only to that income between 15,650 and 63,700). Assuming an income of $62,000 (again, before deductions) her effective rate would be around 13.7%. Even if she lives in California with a [ahem] "progressive" income tax reaching 9.3% for the "rich" people earning over $43000 a year, her rate would be 23% for state and federal taxes.
      Why is this important? Because something smells funny. We are supposed to feel badly for his secretary paying 30% when 1) I don't see how to make the numbers jive 2) he could pay as much as he wants and be considered a patriot and 3) by fudging the numbers, welll.. I get suspicious whenever I hear someone say that we aren't paying enough in taxes.
      Also keep in mind that raising taxes on the rich does little to help the treasury. Real [ahem] "progress" can only be made by levying taxes on the great fat center of the bell-curve.
    • pheenix11, on 04/05/2008, -0/+0Hey dumbass, Medicare and the Great Society were LBJ not Truman. Get a friggin clue.
  • foxtrot25m, on 03/29/2008, -8/+2Hey the way i look at it you Americans can keep putting yourself so far in debt eventually you will be a world joke and not a world super power, and then us Canadians will just have to cut you off and see how much better we really do without your lazy ignorant swarms of people that couldn't even show up to drag bush out by his head like in the old days when people ***** up the country so stupendously!!!!
    • flip2trip, on 03/29/2008, -1/+8You make me laugh because you aren't just a moron you're a Canadian moron, which is redundant. Look, pal, if the US economy goes bust don't be surprised if you wind up under a bridge somewhere sucking on a rock for nourishment. Buried.
      • foxtrot25m, on 04/12/2008, -0/+0ill be under a rock when your heads in the sand looking for worms, canada will dump you dumb american asses first
  • Morrison1002, on 03/29/2008, -2/+1I can totally see the government not doing anything to stop the astroid. they would be like we are doing something and stage a rocket launch and while every one watched that they would go into their bunkers
    • bjornski, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2That's because the current recipients at the trough aren't going to go anywhere until that sucker is empty.
  • senkmajer, on 03/29/2008, -3/+5There are plenty of conservative out there in the world. Far more than most on the other side of the debate are willing to notice. Most of them very reasonable, thoughtful, very hard-working well-educated people. It's just that they usually keep their mouths shut because they don't have the patience to deal with being screamed, yelled at, demeaned, and being called vile, vulgar names. Just because they step out of the way and let others debase themselves doesn't mean that they don't exist or that they don't have an opinion. It usually means that they are reserving their thoughts for real conversation, not screaming matches.
  • flip2trip, on 03/29/2008, -1/+6Honestly, I think the asteroid would be easier to deal with.
  • flip2trip, on 03/29/2008, -1/+7The government is not the problem, it's us--
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." --Alexander Tyler
    • govsucks, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2Leftists will understand this more if you write it on the tip of a bullet.
  • akatsuki, on 03/29/2008, -3/+1This is an idiotic article. Like benefits won't be slashed or otherwise cut. You can blame the AARP on this one.
    • mattmedwards, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1The AARP is the single biggest threat to the post-boomer generations - mark my words. But saying that is like drowning puppies.
  • pintomp3, on 03/29/2008, -2/+11why does glenn beck support the war then?
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 03/29/2008, -0/+5Because he's a patriot, duh :P
    • xerigen, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3I was going to post this comment, thanks for doing it. It's amazing that Beck can cry on his show every single day about the economy collapsing and then continue to support the war. I can't tell if he is brainwashed by the current administration or is part of their lies.
  • govsucks, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2The promise made by government to Socialist Security and Medicare are 3.8 times more than the entire economy of the US. Because the "people" have done such a great job of managing these things, we should allow them to now care for the health and the FINANCING of that care for the entire nation. This nation will be bankrupted by government and then capitalism will be blamed, mark my ***** words.
  • neighbor78, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2Glenn is a dick and so is CNN for having [a hard-on] him
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.