Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s a special Friday the 13th edition of the Ricochet Podcast! This week, Rob Long on why it’s a bad week to be an uncle in North Korea, Ricochet member Franco determines exactly who is more conservative, and NY Post film critic Kyle Smith on the best of 2013 and his favorite Christmas movies.
Music from this week’s episode:
Christmas Is All Around Us by Billy Mack (Love, Actually Soundtrack)
The Ricochet Podcast opening theme was composed and produced by James Lileks.
TGIF, EJHill
Help Ricochet by supporting our advertisers!
FoodyDirect.com is a curated, regional, gourmet, and artisan food market place featuring America’s most iconic foods – think the best BBQ from Texas and Memphis, New England Seafood, Maine Lobster, Philly Cheesesteaks, the best Buffalo Wings, and award-winning baked goods like New York City cheesecakes, Michigan berry pies, Southern layer cakes, and gourmet Ho-Hos from L.A. At FoodyDirect.com, you can Discover, Taste, and Share awesome food from across America. For 20% off your first order, use the coupon code RICOCHET at checkout.
For the best of what’s out there, go to FoodyDirect.com
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Thank you for not using the poster from the crappy remake.
aaaaaaaaaaaaarggg!!! fLOATIGN HEADS OF DOOM.
Since you mentioned it, Detroit style pizza is possibly the best pizza there is although its little known outside Michigan. New Haven style, also great, is probably the closest alternative.
I think I’m going for the Montgomery Inn ribs however…
There are only two ways to fix our economy. One is to have a GOP majority with mostly libertarians in the power positions as opposed to the bribed GOP. Dramatic reform in all areas of our economy needs to happen and libertarian solutions would work. The odds of this scenario is quite small as Rand Paul won’t make it past the GOP machine although it is possible he could win the presidency given the libertarian bend of our youth and independents. Nonetheless it won’t happen as our entrenched political class runs on bribes and corruption. I’ll discuss the second and actually possible method of preventing our fiscal collapse next.
First off, the majority of the country is mildly aware we have a debt problem. They are not aware that fiscal collapse and a dramatic lessening of our standard of living( at best) is on its way. Education might help but let’s assume that somehow most voters, left and right now realize we as a country need to do something to get our house in order. Every area of spending needs to be cut. Defense, education, infrastructure, welfare, you name it. But the biggies are medicine and SS. Social Security should be bumped a couple years and means tested. Medicine is much much harder and requires a global change in nearly every aspect of it. This one issue, unresolved will break the country by itself. Rationing is essential for anyone on government insurance and free markets for those not on it. Taxes will need to be increased in some areas and loopholes closed. Energy independence, achievable only by ending the EPA is needed. The size of government should be dramatically reduced. The majority of the population must support this measure. Bribed politicians and influence peddlers will not allow this logical solution to ever happen.
Now to reality. We are a nation of selfish idiotic wimps with no stomach to handle anything anymore. Lobbyists and special interests run the show, with a corrupt political class who should mostly be lined up and shot. Our populace will vote themselves bread and circuse until we fail. Our broken medical system will continue to drain us, eventually winding up as single payer but that will drain us way beyond our means too. We will continue printing and spending far beyond our means until the world’s currencies and ours falter. This global crisis will have profound national effects. The country will have moved to ever more and more control of our daily lives and the solution will be statist with few really able to stand up to statist enforcers. Food, water, and things we take for granted will all be rationed. Black markets will flourish for a time but the statist enforcers will be everywhere over time and the individualists will all die or be killed off. We will no longer be free by the end of this century. I am certain we are done as a nation within 100 years but possibly much sooner.
So I have written a road map for an aggressive libertarian answer, a bipartisan moderate answer, neither of which have a chance. I’ve also outlined what will actually be the case regarding our fiscal tsunami. The entrenched political class is the enemy of our country and few speak out against them including our editors here. I do not say all this to be on your podcast nor would I if asked. . Quite frankly, I like all the members here more than the editors because I am more conservative than Ricochet and there’s a bunch of nice people I can bond with as we all go under.
Franco, way to hold your own and discuss the idiocy of amnesty quite well.
A very rare thing for me to do, but I admit Franco and Ann Coulter have changed my mind – at least my enthusiasm – about Chris Christie. I concede immigration is the whale issue facing us as a party and as a nation. I agree Christie has tried to prove his non-Tea Party bona fides by not getting into the fight on this issue. If Scott “Joementum” Walker can make any headway as a potential candidate I will definitely give him another look.
But I still hope against hope that Christie has looked at the demagoguery that will be unloaded on any candidate that does no toe the MSM party line on this issue and has decided that tactically it’s not worth raising at this point. I don’t know if Christie has boxed himself in on anything that requires him to not start enforcing the law once in office, that requires him to adopt any position or compromise that Mark Krikorian would not grudgingly accept as part of an end deal. Please respond if I’m wrong.
Franco, you’ve utterly convinced me that the precise thing we need to do is start by proposing means-testing of Social Security.
Why? First off, Social Security is a MASSIVE intergenerational transfer of wealth from the young to the old. The problem with this is that if you look at any sort of distribution of wealth by age, you’ll see that all of the wealth is owned by the old to begin with.
So, we have to start somewhere.
My preference would be that we phase it out entirely at some point in the future and treat the current recipients and people who have made their life plans upon this promise in the immediate future as what it is: Bad Debt.
I was puzzled with the objective of the interview with Franco. His original post seemed to deal with what is the definition of center-right, along with some criticism of Rob, Peter, and James on several Ricochet podcasts. On this podcast he brought up the issues of Chris Christie, amnesty, and Social Security. The Ricochet community has differing views on these issues. Was the objective simply to show that Rob, Peter, and James care about the members and their views?
The Ricochet podcast and the communities’ comments in the posts demonstrate a diversity of views which I enjoy. It forces me to continually test my assumptions. It seems to me that as you move through the process of principles to policy recommendations to governing, you need to do that. If you don’t do that you end up with an Obama administration that has few principles, incoherent policy choices, and chaotic governance.
One example on the podcast is going from the principle of self-sufficiency to the policy that means testing Social Security is Socialism. That argument didn’t convince me. It leads to the reality of never being elected to govern.
If this poster had the real credits remaining on it, you’d see the name of Harry Lillis Crosby III. Familiar name….
So we have 15 to 20 million illegals in our country living under the radar getting paid under the table, stealing other peoples identity and creating a massive burden on our social services. How is this not a problem? The answer is to do nothing? I don’t get it.
Rob knows the Norks because Kim Jong-un is the model for Steve Byrnes mom on Sullivan & Son.
I wish you would have expanded on George Bush’s Social Security goals, because I felt that James 3 part choice left out the very real alternatives out there for Social Security. Now, the truth is that none of it will be easy. Liberals will be howling about anything conservatives do with Social Security. I prefer the Newt Gingrich plan of private savings accounts, but I’m sure there are others and we can’t fall into the trap of a false choice.
Re: Rob’s Conservatism.
Meet Rob Long From the LAist (May 14, 2009)
It seems your politics are right-leaning. Do you label yourself a “conservative?”
I totally don’t, unfortunately for all my friends. A “Hollywood skeptic,” I would call myself.
What say you, Peter Robinson?
My gosh, please get over the Christie thing …he has never been a conservative on immigration, the second amendment even the health care law . I do not understand the Lileks love of his personality, his warmth …oh yeah, Christie is not our brother and my God he is heavy!
The Ricochet podcast and the communities’ comments in the posts demonstrate a diversity of views which I enjoy. It forces me to continually test my assumptions. It seems to me that as you move through the process of principles to policy recommendations to governing, you need to do that. If you don’t do that you end up with an Obama administration that has few principles, incoherent policy choices, and chaotic governance.
One example on the podcast is going from the principle of self-sufficiency to the policy that means testing Social Security is Socialism. That argument didn’t convince me. It leads to the reality of never being elected to govern. ·3 hours ago
Excellent.
Why? First off, Social Security is a MASSIVE intergenerational transfer of wealth from the young to the old. The problem with this is that if you look at any sort of distribution of wealth by age, you’ll see that all of the wealth is owned by the old to begin with.
So, we have to start somewhere.
My preference would be that we phase it out entirely at some point in the future and treat the current recipients and people who have made their life plans upon this promise in the immediate future as what it is: Bad Debt.
Problem, same old “hamburger today” issue: we make SS means tested with the claimed goal of phasing it out… and then it gets extended, and boosted, and you just entrenced explicit socialism right into the pockets of those who didn’t have either sense or success in life.
You want to start somewhere, how about checking for fraud on the disability side of SS? That would buy time.
Did Kyle Smith really name Bad Santa as one of his favorite Christmas movies? If so, I’ll have to start reading his reviews.
I figured the point was to *voiceover, a la an Allstate commercial* Join the conversation.
Generally, the “do nothing” folks think that the problem’s not that bad. Not their identity being stolen, so of course not….
Oh, and they claim that the illegals pay more in to social services than they take out. That’s totally why my local St. Vincent de Paul foodbank now has to ask for two forms of ID and still sometimes gets defrauded.
Lakey: it’s not that I love his personality, I just A) think it’s useful for a presidential candidate to have one, for a change, and B) it could reach groups previously disinclined to vote GOP. He’s a little too touchy-feely for me with all the hugging stuff, but I grew up a North Dakota Lutheran. Even our modems have trouble shaking hands.
The problem with means testing is defining what “means” is. Does it mean that if you have $40,000 in outside income from the savings that you were responsible enough to sacrifice for, you don’t “need” or deserve social security? $40,000 is roughly the amount of outside income that forces one to declare 85% of social security proceeds as taxable income, even though we paid taxes on the initial deduction. Is the means test $100,000? $200,000?Many of you talk as if means testing will not impact you, but the only way to truly make a difference in social security is to make that number cut way down into the lower middle class.
Introduction of means testing is the first step to allowing the government by law to decide “how much” you need to live. Start here and you are going down that slippery slope. Next step, nationalize all pre-tax savings accounts and integrate it into social security.
Meet Rob Long From the LAist (May 14, 2009)
It seems your politics are right-leaning. Do you label yourself a “conservative?”
I totally don’t, unfortunately for all my friends. A “Hollywood skeptic,” I would call myself.
What say you, Peter Robinson? ·16 hours ago
As Rob himself says, it’s unfortunate for his many friends. (Just to be mischievous, I’ve introduced Rob a couple of times as “the most articulate conservative in Hollywood.” He looked a little flustered, but he didn’t correct me.)
I figured the point was to *voiceover, a la an Allstate commercial* Join the conversation. ·1 hour ago
Honestly, we didn’t think it through in any particularly rigorous or analytical way. We knew Franco was a fascinating, articulate guy and we thought having him on would be fun.
How is a conservative wishing to means-test social security “giving in” or “caving”?
By this logic conservatives should be supporting Obama’s inching of Medicaid and food stamps into the middle class, since, well, making those deficit-funded entitlements universal is less redistributionist and therefore desirable.
Nonsense. The more universal the dependence, the more socialist the state. If ever we get a bipartisan reform of entitlements to include means-testing, it will be the Democrats caving to us.
Honestly, we didn’t think it through in any particularly rigorous or analytical way. We knew Franco was a fascinating, articulate guy and we thought having him on would be fun. ·2 hours ago
Might be a good idea for folks for whom “means test social security and medicare” comes rolling off the tongue as if of course that it the sensible way out.
Medicare first. There is no upper limit on income subject to medicare tax, which the combined employee/employer portion is currently 2.9%. So, make a million dollars, pay $29,000 in medicare tax. Even today that buys plenty of medical insurance.
To a lesser extent Social Security, the more you make, the more you pay, up to a certain point, and a person who consistently paid into the system over 40+ working years can have been taxed several hundred thousand dollars (taking into account the employer portion).
Also take into consideration that
Some other way, like privatizing Social Security (hey, I’m 62, and I’d take it in a heartbeat), has to be found.
Means testing simply means that very quickly anybody who has any assets at all is means tested out of any return on the taxes exacted from them for decades.
Heck, just give me back what I put in, keep the employer portion, cut me loose, and we’ll call it square.
And, with apologies to Mr. Quast, the editorial cartoonist who did all the heavy lifting on the following:
The last panel originally read “A ‘temporary’ Illinois tax increase.”