A glimpse of tonight’s speech by Obama:
President Barack Obama will call tomorrow for a combination of reductions in entitlement spending and tax increases on higher-income Americans to address long-term fiscal debt while drawing a sharp contrast with the Republican alternative proposed by Representative Paul Ryan, according to a person familiar with the plan.
This speech is just more evidence of the Marxist nature of our President. He will bandy about words such as “shared sacrifice” and “fairness” but in Obama’s world shared sacrifice means you turn over more and more of YOUR labor and wealth to the government so it can decide who is more worthy of YOUR labor and wealth…other then you, of course. If someone is miserable it’s only “fair” that everyone is miserable you see.
Robert Samuelson wrote a wonderful, and scary, article on the state of this Republic and ends it with:
If deficits were temporary — they were certainly justified to temper the recession — or small, they would be less worrisome. That was true for many years. No more. An aging population and uncontrolled health costs now create an ongoing and massive mismatch between spending and revenue, even at “full employment.” The great threat is a future debt crisis, with investors balking at buying all the Treasury bonds the government requires to operate. So President Obama and Congress face a dilemma: The more they seek to defuse the economic problem of too much debt, the greater the political risks they assume by cutting spending or raising taxes.
The package to prevent a shutdown barely touches the prevailing stalemate. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s proposed 2012 budget forthrightly addresses health spending but doesn’t make any cuts in Social Security. Ryan’s plan would ultimately gut defense and some valuable domestic programs; it wouldn’t reach balance until about 2040. Compared with Democrats, however, Ryan is a model of intellectual rigor and political courage. Obama would run huge deficits from now to eternity; the Congressional Budget Office has projected about $12 trillion of added debt from 2010 to 2021 under his policies. Obama urges an “adult” conversation and acts like a child, denying the unappealing choices.
Government is suicidal because it breeds expectations that cannot be met. All the partisan skirmishing over who gets credit for averting a shutdown misses the larger issue: whether we can restore government as an instrument of progress or whether it remains — as it is now — a threat.
“Instrument of progress”
Key words.
This government will never be an instrument of progress if we continue to raise taxes on those who fuel this government with jobs and innovation.
The top 50% of wage earners in this country already pay more than 97% of ALL taxes in this country for god’s sake.
According to the IRS, the “income split point” for somebody to be included in the top 1% of all taxpayers (by income) was $380,354 in 2008 (the last year where data is available).
So, if you reported Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $380,354 or over, then you were in the top 1% of all taxpayers in the United States in 2008.
According to the IRS, this group of taxpayers (1,399,606 total) paid 38.02% of all federal individual income tax collected in 2008.
The top 5% of all taxpayers (income split on this group was at $159,619 in 2008) paid 58.72% of all federal individual income taxes in 2008.
Let’s continue to break this down:
Top 10% (Income Split Point $113,799) Paid 69.94% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 25% (Income Split Point $67,280) Paid 86.34% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Top 50% (Income Split Point $33,048) Paid 97.30% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
Bottom 50% (Anyone Making Less Than $33,048) Paid 2.7% of Federal Individual Income Taxes
So let’s tax them some more?
Amazing.
What would happen if we took ALL the money from those evil rich?
This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It’s not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there’s a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
How about corporate profits to fill the gap? Fortune 500 companies earn nearly $400 billion in profits. Since leftists think profits are little less than theft and greed, Congress might confiscate these ill-gotten gains so that they can be returned to their rightful owners. Taking corporate profits would keep the government running for another 40 days, but that along with confiscating all income above $250,000 would only get us to the end of June. Congress must search elsewhere.
According to Forbes 400, America has 400 billionaires with a combined net worth of $1.3 trillion. Congress could confiscate their stocks and bonds, and force them to sell their businesses, yachts, airplanes, mansions and jewelry. The problem is that after fleecing the rich of their income and net worth, and the Fortune 500 corporations of their profits, it would only get us to mid-August. The fact of the matter is there are not enough rich people to come anywhere close to satisfying Congress’ voracious spending appetite. They’re going to have to go after the non-rich.
But this isn’t about solving anything. This isn’t about reducing our debt. This is about Obama and getting re-elected. This speech is the start of Obama’s campaign.
How much can they get us to resent the rich?
Problem is they can’t stop at the rich…since it won’t solve the problem. They will have to come after your paycheck too.
See author page
@Skookum: #49
Skook, just in case you didn’t have time to catch it, here is a very insightful article on the “liberal condition” . . . Liberalism, Black America’s Greatest Enemy By Lloyd Marcus
Marcus describes himself as a Proud Unhyphenated American, and he takes a head-on run at liberal entitlement & welfare exploitative policies, and the new version of racism which has spoiled the landscape.
@Greg
That is such a profound, and stupid, statement. Profound, because it shows what you believe is actual knowledge on the subject. Stupid, because it shows the lack of knowledge you actually possess.
You wish for the man tightening the bolts attaching the engine to the lawnmower, to be paid the same as the man who designed the mower, and put his blood, sweat and tears into building the company up big enough to hire the man tightening the bolts. The owner, to you, if he doesn’t do the physical labor anymore, isn’t entitled to the profits he makes. You equate actual, physical labor to work, and overlook the labor of the mind, which produces the ideas that make products and build businesses.
You, and your kind, have finally gotten to the point where not only do you believe all resources from the earth belong to everyone, but to the point that a man’s mind, his intellect, is a resource to be shared by everyone as well. What’s gonna happen to that guy tightening bolts, when the business owner closes up shop because your kind have finally driven him away?
You may think this is all a little dramatic, but trust me, for us conservatives, it isn’t. We aren’t talking about taxation percentages, spending cut numbers, or any numbers in general. We are discussing philosophies, here, both your kind’s, and ours. You believe that all wealth, as all resources, belong to everyone. We believe in the rights of property, both material and within the mind of man, and that no one, save for our own allowance, has a right to either. You believe in socialism, or statism, or collectivism, or whatever the new flavor of master/servant is called today. We believe in freedom, both physical and intellectual, and that we have a right to trade on those, willingly, with other willing participants. You wish to chain man down in servitude, for the greater good. We wish to let freedom of thought, and economy, lift everyone up, and that good for all will be served thusly.
I know this philosophy is hard for you to understand. As I said in an above post, you look at it from the standpoint of an equality of result, while conservatives, and those who believe in the Constitution, look at it from the standpoint of equality of opportunity. For an equality of result, a control must be placed upon those who excel, in order for a more general “fairness” to come to fruition. For an equality of opportunity, one merely needs to be free to pursue it, something our Constitution is supposed to guarantee.
These days chances are good that the person who designed the mower is an employee also–possibly a mechanical design engineer. With a masters degree, he or she might be making up to $80,000 a year–a respectable middle class salary. He or she probably hopes Social Security and Medicare will be there at retirement.
The mower he or she designs is probably being assembled in Mexico or China.
@Greg
Exactly the response expected from you, Greg. This is why you don’t understand, and, in fact, I believe you are incapable of understanding why your kind’s way of thinking leads to destruction, and not to prosperity.
How can you call it prosperity, when you tear people down, in order to control the equality of the result?
I think Greg’s philosophy is the same one currently used in public schools:
-“Every child is entitled to good grades, therefore those lacking should get a grade equal to those whom exert effort, literacy be damned!” And then the establishment expects the population to pay for its success, because more students are graduating then ever. Make the strong look week to make the week look strong.
Where I’m from call that stupid and that’s at the best of times.
From 1922 to 2007, the time the top 1% had it best was in 1929 when they controlled 44.2% of the private wealth. The Great Depression then changed the ratio till they started to own less of the percentage down to 1949 when they owned 27.1% of the private wealth. Then it started to rise and drop again. In 1972 it was 29.1%. In 1976 it was at its lowest level at 19.9% and didn’t get back to the 30% till 1983. After that the top 1% has controlled about 30% to 34% of the private wealth. Looking at the unemployment figures, I can’t find a pattern. For instance, in 1976 unemployment was high for its time, but unemployment didn’t affect the big swings. In the 1970s there was a major swing following the capital gains tax which rose to 40%, but it has been that high before. If one sees a shift in how wealth is created (creating something verse financing something) it could make sense that capital gaines tax would shift the ratio. It went back down,because like I said 1976 saw a high unemployment for its time. The capital gaines tax hit 40%, but it wasn’t a record number.
Now there is low capital gains and high unemployment. The magic is gone for lowering taxes to create wealth. The idea behind lower taxes is it allows people to buy more stuff which creates jobs. That only works well if the product is made in the homeland. Right now jobs are being created, but in places that stuff is actually made such as in China. Also the rich like to invest in property. Right now the ratio from price of a house compared to wages is around 7 to 1 as opposed to 5 to 1 in the 1960sw where housing was cheaper.
So OK, let’s say the capital gaines tax is brought back up to 40%. From what I can find is that the capital gaines rate is 15% and another site says keeping the Bush Jr. tax cuts will lose $68 billion, on average, over the next 10 years. So Bush Jr. cut the capital gaines tax 5%. Sloppy math says that will bring in $340 billion, on average, more a year over the next 10 years.
Lawrence O’Donnell sums up our differences in his analysis of Obama’s 04/13/11 speech. The fundamental philosophical disagreement O’Donnell is talking about will define the battle lines for the 2012 elections.
Aqua, hi, It took me so long to get my turn, I almost forgot my comment here,
I beleive that you are absolutly right on leaving CHARITY to the PEOPLE;
because they will always do their own watch on where their own money goes and
the more WEALTHY included, they even spend money to make sure their money is for CHARITY;
there is not that much screening by the GOVERNMENT, there is even more corruption,
we see many CHARITABLE organisation sprouting to evade taxes, not to help the poor,
and the GOVERNMENT are supporting thoses because the lobbys are strong, and because they
know to receive assured votes from those illegal CHARITY ORGANISATION.
@Greg:
Well, as noted by one of the posters on that link: Lawrence is a hack now, he was a hack before and a hack he will always be. He has never found a democrat program that was misguided, too expensive or unnecessary. He supports anything Democrat and opposes anything Republican. There is no level of taxes that would be too high for him (as long as it was instituted to punish some rich CEO’s), nor any war that was necessary unless of course it was started by a democrat, because after all those wars are good wars! He like Obama thinks that the government can and should fix everything and that the everyday American is too stupid to act rationally on their own. A government program is a GOOD PROGRAM! He demonizes tea party patriots as racists who don’t like Obama because he is Black, his disingenuous self righteousness is a testament to this. He is the Antithesis of Rush Limbaugh. If the Democrat party and all of their ideas are so popular and good, then why would Obama need to plan on spending 1/2 a billion dollars to get reelected? shouldn’t we just accept him and trust him ? I mean After all Lawrence thinks hes great, and he’s just above “Entertainment Tonight” in the ratings!
Look, try to get it into you mind that the US is BORROWING $4 billion a DAY, after ALL the GNP is assessed and tax monies considered, which gets us to a ”progressive’ deficit of 1.4 trillion each succeeding year. Who gives a rat’s ass about what the ‘battle’ over next years budget is? I’m talking NOW, right now. Printing money to throw into the mix does not alleviate the deficit, it simply ‘progresses’ costs upward. There is NO free lunch, get that?
The fact of the matter is nothing any politician says or does at this point is going to slow this runaway train, the US2011 express, headed into oblivion. It’s just not going to happen. The world, especially China and Europe, is clamoring for a change in the international currency, away from the dollar, and the US is doing nothing to alleviate that desire with deficits that were once billions, now regularly into the trillions. It actually is to our benefit that the dollar is the currency traded. If the currency were changed to say, the Euro, the US would immediately implode.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/BRICS-demand-global-monetary-rb-217782600.html?x=0&.v=3
Again, we are living in a fools paradise. We got a taste of how quickly matters could hit a ‘melt-down’ status with the recent banking implosion.
Sir, you don’t have a clue as to what constitutes a ‘trillion’…thus how can you even imagine to presume getting your mind around14?
Barry’s only desire at this point is to be reelected, and everything that comes out of his mouth from this point on will be to that end: the south end of a horse traveling north.
We don’t need any talking head’s analysis as to what Barry said, what he said is obvious: He is in full campaign mode.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
As Mark Averett noted on the link above: Okay, $4 Trillion (reduction of deficit) over twelve years, thats a $333 billion reduction in the deficit each year, so we are down from $1.65 Trillion to an average annual deficit of $1,317 Trillion, X 12 years = $15.804 Trillion of new debt, plus existing debt of $14 Trillion brings the projected national debt to $29.8 Trillion in 12 years. That of course is twice current GDP, but think about this: The U.S. now owes $14 Trillion; tax revenues are roughly $2 Trillion, which means the debt is 7 times revenues. Who among us could pay back a debt 7 times our gross annual receipts? Especially when we are spending almost twice what we are taking in today? The economy can’t grow enough to create an annual surplus, much less reduce the debt at its current level, how will it grow enough to generate a surplus when the debt is twice as much? In other words, this is unsustainable.
@Greg:
Da comrade! DA!!!!!!!
Thanks for showing us your marxist way of thinking greg. Just proves a theory I had about you.
The fact that you think larry o’donnel, that ranting and raving lunatic, says ANYTHING worth listening to, speaks volumes about you.
@ Esdraelon
Greg, you should read this line in Esdraelon’s post very carefully. When this happens, and I believe there is a very good chance it will, we’re done. Once the US has to use another currency for our imports, the prices for everything will almost double. We are the only country that does not pay for imports in a different currency, because the US dollar is the standard. You like social security? It will be gone. Like Medicare? Gone. Everything that you like, will be gone, we will not have the money to pay for it, and no other country is going to lend us money to do so. Our GDP / Debt will exeed 100%. Know what that means? It means the US could tax every working American at a rate of 100% and still not be able to maintain the status quo.
I have said before and I’ll say it again, I’m not totally opposed to raising taxes, but that is not the answer. We have to cut spending drastically. Taking a few thousand more dollars from me, (and I’m not rich I fall under $250,000 Obama definition) is only going to make me cut back. I will take “stay-cations” instead of going somewhere and helping the economy. And I’m sure to you this will sound elitist, but I will lay off the people that do my yard, lay off the guy that cleans my pool, and will not hire anyone to do repairs around my house. Is that going to hurt me financially? No, but I won’t be the only person doing that. The people that do yard work, clean pools, and repair houses will be hurt though. The very people you want to protect will be hurt worse.
Esdraelon, good comment very informative, AGAIN I come back to before with Aqua, ‘s not
my money, how many time we have heard that from many sources, IF you question
an event or for any reason a gathering or an bought item, and more of what do you hear
for a response? don’t worry, IT’s not my money, same as what the AGENDA OF GOVERNMENT,
IT’S NOT MY MONEY, and so I can spend it the way I want. WELL IT IS A TREND THEY LEARNED
AND SHOW A LOT ON HIM, HE WAS LIVING ON SOMEBODY ELSE MONEY,
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO HAVE WHEN YOU ELECT A GUY LIKE THAT?
of course he will go on spending your money, until there is no more,
why? because he was trained mentaly to disregard the giver of that money disrespectfully,
and the money has not the value which a hard worker earn, or find a MILITARY that would say that and feel the same way as OBAMA, NO YOU WOULD NOT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SEEN THEIR BUDDY DIED, AND OTHER PAINFULLY BEEN HURT, SO THEY VALUE THEIR SALARY FOR BEING THE WAR HEROS,
BUT NEVER INSIDE A GOVERNMENT LIVING FROM HAND OUT FROM THE PEOPLE,
don\T EXPECT NEVER IT TO HAPPEN, UNLESS THOSE HARD EARNER ARE ELECTED.
As a rich white dood in Northern New England, I cannot wait for ODumbo to punish me some more. By all means, suck another million per year from me. I mean, I only grew up in a small house, had few clothes for school, went massively in debt to pay for college, went even more in debt to start a couple of businesses, and now that I get to enjoy my rewards, I have to pay for some f#@$ing bailout caused by *gasp*, total asswipes who run this country but could never run my companies.
Dump another 6000 Somali refugees on my hometown, with free Section 8 housing vouchers, free EBT cards, free schooling at the expense of the local taxpayers.
Make me pay for your wag the dog bombing run in Libya (hint: when Qaddafi was making his 3 hour long speech, you should have dropped 5000 pounds of cruise missiles on his nuts).
Make me pay for health care for fat little bastards who eat cake and chips for breakfast. Make me pay for cancer treatments for someone who smoked for 40 years (duh, I wonder what inhaling smoke would do to my body?).
Make me pay for the ever increasing salaries for people in Washington. I mean, god forbid, anyone making over $100,000 take a 10% pay cut?
I can fix this country, but man, people are going to be pissed when I start shooting gang bangers, people in prison, little cracker white boys who pretend to be black, illegals, drug dealers, child molesters, and Barney Fag.
we have seen the WICONSIN’s unionises teachers acting to keep a standerd that could no more be acceptable by the STATE BUDGET, well they are out to loose even more when the CRASH appear, and
nobody can get paid, when a massif lay off is a must do, for there is no more BREAD,
SO they all think they are protected by the UNIONS, well just check a massive exodus of COMPANIES OUT, NO MORE, AND THE STATE BROKE, THERE THE BREAD GONE,
THEY HAVE ABUSE FOR SO LONG WITH ALL KINDS OF WAY USING VIOLENCE ,
BUT THIS IS WHERE THE BUCK STOP, and the essential work will be done on a lower salary unnegociable, and the UNIONS wont be able to do anything to protect their members,
they will just say, geez I think we went to heavy on the boss,
CML in Maine, hi, yes you are frustrated with good reason,
but your end game wont work, so you better stay out of that thinking,
unless it doesn’t materialyze, but it’s armfull anyway to keep in your mind,
it will affect your achievement of your hard work,
the best thing for a person like you is to get in the roots by getting elected,
you are one of those urgently needed out there so what are you waiting for? get in line now.
@ilovebeeswarzone:
Yeah, bee, too heavy on the ‘boss’, but that’s the whole objective isn’t it? Always wanting more, which in and of itself is the American way, but their mentality is if they cannot earn it, take it. The left perpetuates the myth, as Barry did last night that taking is the ‘American Way’, though , naturally, they define ‘taking’ as something entirely different than you or I.
Esdraelon, yes, I wonder what tax they pay, how much does the GOVERNMENT GIVE IN IT,
THEY SHOULD BE THE FIRST TO CUT PERSONALY, SERVICES ANY THING THEY CAN CUT AND PUT IN THE POT, THEN COME TO ASK, AND IF IT SUITS THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN THE CUTS ENOUGH, compare to their own budget, THEN THE AMERICANS WILL COOPERATE BUT NOT BEFORE,
LET THEM BRING IT ON TO THE NATION
The cognitive dissonance is stunning. On the one hand Greg complains about deficits, but blames them on tax cuts and the GOP instead of massive overspending primarily done by dems. Liberalism really IS a mental illness.
@Esdraelon:
I add my prayers to Zac’s.
Hubby mentioned in passing that, since Obama, he has had to pay creditors from our private funds because our customers don’t all pay everything they owe.
He reckons we have done this for a bit over $100,000 in the last two years.
We never had to do it at all before.
Used to be we could drop a customer if he left a balance on the books too long.
Send his balance to a collection agency and be done with him.
Not anymore.
I doubt we will recover our principle until Obama is gone and so many of his damaging policies are undone.
I wonder about the number of people who have no problem with not paying their own mortgages, credit card payments, loans and bills.
That number of people seems to be skyrocketing under Obama.
@Hard Right:
That’s exactly Right!
Trying to explain to them is like having a Close Encounter………
@Nan G:
Thank you, Nan, and I really appreciate that.
Trust me, I understand your predicament entirely., and I can say it gets bad in the construction sector as banks will not loan, and where they Have loaned, they are calling in those loans at the drop of a feather….thus the people doing a construction project pull the plug and leave those doing the subcontracts with their pants down and nothing to pay for their work not materials…it filters all the way down the ladder. I have never seen so many abandoned, half-finished, but nicely designed strip centers and new, but empty office buildings everywhere. It’s not only home foreclosures, though they are up again about 16% for March.
My college roommate is an engineer and surveyor for one of the largest engineering firms in Georgia, down in Macon, I called him up about 4 weeks ago to see if he had wind of any jobs to bid. I found that he was on the fifth week of a two month furlough……
The projects are there but going to the big boys…Marietta, Ga where I live, got 2.3 million of the ‘stimulus’ funds…decided to do landscaping and new traffic lights throughout the city……one company got the entire contract..one with American project managers, one Spanish speaking American foreman, and all Mexican labor…likely illegals…that’s where the ‘stimulus’ went….
Yes, everything is ‘skyrocketing’ under Obama, and the only ones who see anything good about this are those whom Barry is giving a ‘free’ lunch. Trust me, there are a LOT of those, but they ain’t ‘free’, the ticket has simply been foisted upon others.
Thanks JR, I will check it out tonight. Great commentary guys!
@Greg:
As I said above, exactly the response I expected. Of course, you probably know nothing of the industry itself, as there are numerous companies, that design, manufacture, and sell their stuff entirely within the U.S. economy. Companies such as BadBoy Mowers, Dixie-Chopper, and Grasshopper. But that isn’t even the point I was making anyways.
Like I said, you do not, and most likely cannot, understand my point. Esd and others have used numbers to prove points to you, as I have in the past, but the numbers are immaterial. It’s the philosophy at the core of the discussion that matters.
A reminder to some, and new info to others, the movie Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 starts this Friday.
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-trailer
I’m not sure how well the movie will do justice to the book itself, but from the trailers and other video shots I have seen, it looks pretty good.
i WAS TYPING BEFORE AND GOT TAKEN AWAY, for what ever reason.
any way I was saying that the burden of the COMPANYS should be made available to those receiving their checks on a clock time regular, feeling secure of getting their money, while the GOVERNMENT IS ADVOCATING TO THEM THAT THE RICHS SHOULD SHARE MORE OF THEIR WEALTH TO THEM,
who dont have a darn about what the richs are burden with,; INCITING THE POOR IS MAKING A MALFEASANCE AND AGAIN AS THEY DO THE SAME FOR THE RACE CARD THEY HAVE BEEN PLAYING, NOW THEIR THING IS DIVIDING THE COMMUNITYS BY THEIR
WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION AGENDA SETTING THE POOR ON A HATE SLOPE AGAINST THE RICHS.
so if the one on the receiving end of the tax paid by the RICHS would be not as secure to get their checks
on time would reflect more before damming the companys who are having a difficult time
du to this GOVERNMENT FAULTY DECISIONS THAT IS SPENDING TO MUCH RUINING EVERYONE RICHS AND POORS THAT IS ESCALATING TO THE POINT OF THE END OF THE WELFARE CHECKS
THEY ARE USE TO GET AS SURE AS IT IS NOW without a worry in the world.
OK, America. Here’s what we’re headed with all this:
Medicare as we’ve known it for nearly 50 years will be phased out and replaced with a “premium support” system. (That sounds less threatening than the word “voucher”, doesn’t it?) You’ll get a fixed number of dollars to apply toward the private, for-profit insurance plan of your choice. Free market competition will assure that your insurance both will be affordable and will meet your needs–in spite of the fact that you’ll be part of an identifiable group of buyers statistically guaranteed to require increasingly expensive services with far greater frequency than the general population. (Ask some republican enconomic genius to explain in detail just how that works. You’ll get the momentary look of a deer caught in the headlights, a break in eye contact, and some evasive mumbling followed by a quick shift to boiler-plate talking points. If you get a clear and logical explanation, kindly share it with me. I might convert on the spot.)
Medicaid funding will also be drastically cut, with the disposition of remaining funds placed in the hands of the states. Lots of luck if you or a relative ever requires nursing home care. If you’re smart you’ll buy private insurance. Again, the free market will somehow bring insurance costs down, in spite of the fact that extending such insurance to any of us is a very risky financial bet. Your best option is to be rich or to have rich children. (Failing that, you presumably own a gun.)
Social Security retirement insurance? It’s a scam. It’s been a scam for 80 years. Everyone can prepare for their own future. Consider the stock market. EVERYONE would be a guaranteed WINNER! Particularly if we can roll back the meddlesome government regulators.
Unemployment benefits? Get a job.
Food stamps? Get a job. If you still can’t feed the family, get a better job. Maybe you shouldn’t have had kids to begin with. Which brings us to family planning:
Figure it out for yourself. No public money should be spent for reproductive counseling, birth control, or for womens’ health services. Abortion simply shouldn’t be available, regardless of who pays for it. Hey, it isn’t as if accurate information about contraceptives and their increased availability decreases the overall number of abortions or anything.
Similarly, nutritional support programs for disadvantaged pregnant women, infants, and children is a waste of public money. There’s no need to worry about the increased health care costs and social problems that follow, because we’re going to cut back on the public funding there too.
Public education? Too expensive. Cut the damn budget. Public schools are just filling kids’ heads up with liberal misinformation anyway. College isn’t for everybody. It isn’t for most people. It’s only for people who can afford it.
Public transportation? High-speed rail? If any of it were of importance, private industry would provide it.
Alternative energy technology? If it can’t be developed and begin showing immediate profits there’s obviously no point in it. Profitability is the measure of all things. Fuel efficiency standards? More government meddling into free-market affairs. There’s plenty of oil to go around and there always will be. Don’t worry about limited reserve estimates. That’s an issue for the distant future. (Distant, as in maybe 10 or 15 years.)
Environmental protection? Food, drug, and product safety? The free market system will always look out for the public’s best interests. Everybody knows that.
You say the infrastructure is crumbling? Thousands of unsafe bridges? An increasingly unreliable and inefficient electrical grid? Sorry, we didn’t quite catch any of that. Get back to us later.
What we obviously need are even more tax cuts for the wealthiest. That’ll get our house back in order. Just look at what tax cuts have accomplished over the past 30-some years!
And a bigger defense budget, of course, to protect this third world nation that we’re in the process of creating.
Comrade Greg, where did you get that pile of straw from? As usual you launch attack after attack with little to no substance to back them up. Feel free to cry and spread your lies elsewhere.
@Hard Right, #77:
I found it hidden underneath the republican manure heap.
GREG that’s where the DEMOCRAT put their manure, in election mode,
same thing they did to BUSH
Greg….Greg…
You are welcome to whatever baseless opinion you prefer to wrap yourself in, but to come on with talking points and with absolutely nothing to support them belittles your already thin credibility.
I believe you have been given plenty of supporting and downright elementary backup for the arguments made to the contrary of yours on this thread.
Many think you just don’t have a clue….I on the other hand think you DO….and that makes your reasoning all the worse….
@ Greg
Bhahahaha! That’s the most awesome example of Post FAIL I’ve ever seen. You sound like a kid on the playground.
So what will you do if medicare completely collapses? Say sorry, we tried to be kind. We had a way to fix it that would have required a little more planning on your part, but we decided the appearance of kindness was much more important. Plus we don’t trust you to do any planning on your own, that’s why we have a nanny state. You know, like Planned Parenthood. We figure your parents never discussed the “birds and bees” with you, so we’re going to explain it all. Most of all, it’s important to know it’s not your fault. Even if you have sex kowing a kid may be the product, you should take no personal responsibility for anything. You’re entitled to cable TV and High Speed Internet, and by God we’re going to make sure the government pays for any mistakes you make so you can make your cable payment.
Incredible! And how do you know tax cuts don’t work? Everytime increased revenues make it to the treasury, the idiots inside the beltway spend it. You are a piece of work.
@Aqua:
But that’s the gist of it: appearance. Appearance can fool the voters, and suave talking can extend the degree to which they are fooled.
Liberals cannot sell their vision to the electorate without deception and when that deception fails and they fail to get it through at the polls, they fall back upon unelected judges to give them what they want.
Problem is, there are already approximately 40% out there who will vote like Greg, come hell or high water, courtesy of Democrat vote buying. For anyone with a R after their name, that’s a huge obstacle to overcome even before the first vote is cast.
@ Esdraelon
I don’t get it. I work 60 to 80 hours a week. On top of that, I’m working on my Master’s because I aspire to be better. I see people out there building software that has totally changed our lives, and in the process they have become wealthy. I work in telecom know as a network design engineer and I’d like to do more in the way of software engineering. So you have to do what you have to do.
BTW, I live in Conyers. What field are you in? That way if I hear anything, I’ll pass it along. Networking is the key my friend.
@Greg:
You have officially gone off the deep end. Your little ‘rant’ doesn’t even come close to telling the truth of the situation.
Your kind would rather continue leeching off the backs of the folks in this country who produce everything, giving ever increasing handouts to those your kind deem ‘worthy’ of the help, who then, because they feel no compulsion to better themselves, and instead, believe the tripe about the ‘unfairness’ of life your kind feeds them, take no personal responsibility for themselves. They are the moochers of society, and your kind, the looters. Eventually, there is nothing more to loot from the producers, and both your kind and the moochers will destroy yourselves, along with a country most of us here feel great love towards.
We don’t want to see that happen, which is why we fight your ignorance and stupidity. There was once a great document written for our country, detailing the limitations upon our government, so as to prevent the kind of tyranny we see today. Your kind have bastardized it, ignored it, and even stomped on it, to further your will to see the destruction of America. Sure, you probably don’t think that is what you are doing, and sure, you might even feel that you have good intentions, but make no mistake about it, your actions are those of destruction. A slow, painful death for such a great country.
How can you call it prosperity, when your actions tear down people, to ensure the equality of the result?
@Aqua, #81:
Why do you suppose a republican president and a republican Congress created Medicare Part D, but gave no thought to providing funding for it? That has got to be one of the worst budget-busting bills of all time. Why do you suppose they made the situation even worse by specifically forbidding the Secretary of DHHS from bargaining for the lowest possible Medicare drug prices?
That, as I recall, was their response to calls for healthcare reform, and to concerns about an already underfunded Medicare program. The entire debate took place against a backdrop of sweeping tax cuts, when we were already seeing federal deficits rapidly climbing again after the gains made during the years of the Clinton administration.
Add to that two off-budget wars that have ultimately cost over a trillion dollars.
That’s been the “fiscally conservative” republican way of “fixing things”. Now we’ve come to “fixing things” by wrecking them permanently or eliminating them entirely–things that most Americans at some point in their lives depend upon, and have friends and relatives who already do. And, of course, there’s the inevitable demand for even more high-end tax cuts, which are apparently necessary because democratic spending during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression has broken the budget.
It amazes me that republican politicians have continued to run the same line of b.s. successfully year after year, election after election, with half of mainstream America believing them despite all evidence to the contrary. The point that they’ve finally come to now, though, may be one step too far. They’re finally openly proposing things that are going to do real harm to average Americans, while shamelessly handing out more tax cuts to those who are already doing remarkably well and obviously need them the least.
That’s an astonishingly clueless move to be making one year before a presidential election, when they haven’t got potential candidate they can even agree on among themselves.
@Aqua:
Ah, you live in Conyers, Ga. Cool! Every person who attains what they manage to attain in America should be entitled to keep it. I have no problem with social programs, not the taxes necessary to run a government, but this spending got out of control long ago, and neither party has had to balls to fix it. Now, it cannot be fixed. Sorry, it simply cannot. It’s all nonsense and people will have to have it come crashing down before they will open their eyes. The ‘too big to fail’ syndrome was applied to the big lenders/insurers in this country, but the myth was exploded in a day. Better believe that we are not ‘too big to fail’. The further problem is that even for people like you and I, we cannot look at things around us and envision how they could simply implode, it is too devastating a thought, so we think of saner things.
I am in the Architectural, Engineering and Construction field. I design homes, do interior design, and provide construction. I am of the old school and did not get into CAD until a couple of years ago. I only take on as much work as I can supervise myself. Right now there isn’t any though I have been in business for 26 years. I certainly would like to know how networking could help, and get into that, as my main hindrance just now is knowing where the work is and having an opportunity to bid, etc. I believe we are the low bidder on a small job ($100,000) right up my alley which will be a godsend, as I have had no cash flow this year. I will find out any time now. If I get it, I will at least be able to get my head slightly above water and take a few gasps. Thanks!
@Greg:
Greg, tell me about Billy Tauzin…who was he?
Perhaps the biggest complaint Democrats, who voted against the Medicare bill, had about Medicare Part D was the influence then Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin had in writing the bill. He worked with the drug lobby (PhRMA) to make sure the bill existed primarily as a massive giveaway the drug industry by keeping out drug re-importation and Medicare direct drug price negotiations. The lack of these two provisions until recently were the two big complaints Democrats had about Medicare part D, and a big part of why almost every Democrat said they voted against the bill at the time. The promise to fix these two problems featured prominently in Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. Tauzin resigned in 200r to guess what, become head of the PhRMA.
Guess what? Billy Tauzin, this time in his role as head lobbyist for PhRMA, had a huge role in writing the Obama Senate health care bill. He again assured the bill would be a massive giveaway to drug companies by cutting a secret, backroom deal with Obama to keep out drug re-importation and direct Medicare price negotiation. In addition, this time, Tauzin also won another big giveaway to the brand name drug makers by securing an extremely long exclusivity period for biologic drugs over generic.
And WHO is Billy Tauzin? He is a TURNCOAT Democrat who removed the D and placed a R after his name. And his method on securing and provisioning the current Obama Plan is almost identical to Medicare Part D, only the current Obama plan is even more corrupt.
Two months before resigning as chair of the committee which oversees the drug industry, Tauzin had played a key role in shepherding through Congress the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, a bill which had been criticized by opponents for being too generous to the pharmaceutical industry. The switch from regulator to lobbyist was widely noted.[6]
This link was explored at great length in an April 1, 2007 interview by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes. The report, Under the Influence, pitted Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-N.C.) and Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) against Tauzin and accused him of using unethical tactics to push a bill that “the pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote”. Along with Tauzin, many of the other individuals who worked on the bill are now lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry. Michael Moore’s 2007 film Sicko levied similar criticism.[7]
As head of PhRMA, Tauzin was a key player in 2009 health care reform negotiations that produced pharmaceutical industry support for White House and Senate efforts.[8] Reportedly, proposals for Medicare Part D cost reductions and permitting drug importation from Canada were dropped in favor of $80 billion in other savings.
Tauzin now is on the Board of Directors at Louisiana Healthcare Group. (from Wikipedia)
I don’t let the Republicans off the hook. Sometimes one has to vote for the lesser of the evils, and even though the Republicans have their faults, they still are a whole damn sight better than those in Barry’s corner…..
@ Greg
Greg, Bush was a horrible domestic president. I opposed his medicare prescription plan. I did like his tactics though; he took a democrat program and turned it against them. I still think it was wrong, and I know a lot of people in the conservative blogs an radio that crucified him over it. The republicans at the time lost their way, big time. And they paid for it. Conservatives stayed home in 2006 and they lost the house. You should not compare anything Bush or that congress did as conservative. Now the tax cuts did spur growth, whether you want to admit it or not. But the bottom line Greg is “it’s not YOUR money.” You have never answered the question that just about everyone has posed to you; how much of our money do you want. Set a rate, and tell me what my fair share it. Don’t tell me the rich should pay more, I want a percentage. You’ve cited Clinton, under him, the top tax rate was 39.6%. Is that enough? If it’s raised to 39.6% will you still want itemized deductions done away with?
@ Esdraelon
The best one for professionals is LinkedIn. Believe it or not, Flopping Aces is in my LinkedIn contacts. http://www.linkedin.com
You can find people in your field, stay in touch, see what’s coming up. Plus, if I hear of anything, I’ll pass it along. It’s not my field, but I’ll keep my ear to the ground.
@Aqua:
Thanks, in fact, I am positive I am in there myself. I will check. If I am nothing has come out of it.
Anyway, thank you very much, I appreciate that!
Again Comrade greg spews propaganda. The deficit we have isn’t because of insane dem overspending. It’s because of wars fought to protect America. The deficit is because of Medicare part D and not all the entitlement programs supported by dems years before Part D ever came into existence.
Earlier greg tried to say it was because of tax cuts. Then he has the nerve to whine about us letting the GOP off the hook all while he deliberately ignores that the dems share the largest amount of blame
Really, what IS clear is that you are a marxist, greg. You come here to vomit out far left talking points. Always on the attack you rarely show any proof behind your claims. That’s probably because when you have tried it’s been eviscerated and exposed for the shallow, envious, control freak based thinking your kind exhibits.
I remember Mata asking greg the same question about stealing money from “the rich”. He refused to answer how much was enough back then too. That’s because we all know enough is whatever they say it is and it’s subject to change.
@ Esdraelon
I have a lot of vendors that do work in my field connect to my LinkedIn. They seek me out and I’m grateful for the diversity. I get to see what they’re up to, such as new products, what they’re working on, etc. If you use LinkedIn to seek out others in your field and those you want to work for, it might surprise you.
@Aqua:
Thanks, I will check in this AM and see how it may help. Appreciate it!
@Hard Right, #91:
I’ve stated previously that I believe high-end tax rate should return at least to where it stood at the end of the Clinton administration. That rate was 39.6 percent.
I’ll also make this controversial statement, knowing full well that it won’t be liked: The money a person earns isn’t really their own personal free-and-clear wealth until the applicable taxes have been paid. This unpleasant bit of information is what is commonly known as a fact of life. You’ll find no example of an organized society anywhere in recorded history where this hasn’t been the case. You’ll also find that those who earn more and have more have generally been obliged to pay more. The dues have always gotten higher as you move toward the top of the pyramid. That’s just the way things work. Recognition of that fact that the dues become higher the higher up you go doesn’t keep people from aspiring to occupy the top of the pyramid, nor does it keep anyone from attaining that elevated status. Most who reach it have generally had the intelligence to understand that their dues are necessary to maintain their status. It costs money to maintain the stability of the entire structure their own good fortunes rest upon. That includes giving some thought to the well-being of all of the people below them. If that point is disregarded and if the people below are disdained out of some sense of inherent superiority or entitlement, sooner or later there will be hell to pay.
Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc are all part of the social maintenance system. Budgetary realities relating to demographic changes obviously necessitate rational adjustments to those systems to keep them operating effectively. Replacing the health care access guarantees of the current Medicare system with a voucher and instructions to find your own private insurance isn’t a rational adjustment. What clear-thinking free market capitalist would conclude that a reasonable profit could be made from selling affordable health insurance to an elderly population that’s guaranteed to require high-cost services with the predictably highest frequency? The only possible way that could possibly provide an adequate level of services would be if the level of premium support was very high, or if very strick price controls were imposed upon service providers. Which of those two choices would free-market capitalists approve of? So, what we’ve got with the Ryan approach comes down to one thing: Defunding senior health care. Simply put, the average elderly American will no longer have access to adequate health care services. Let’s be blunt: Of course this will save a lot of money. The elderly cost less when they die sooner.
Do you feel uncomfortable with that degree of bluntness? How does it feel when you couple Ryan’s proposed Medicare solution with another enormous high-end tax cut?
I would be delighted if somebody would explain to me how the proposed dismantling of Medicare in favor of “premium support” will result in both cost reductions and adequate access to essential health care for the average elderly American. Show me the logic of how the free market system makes that work. I’d be only too happy to see billions of taxpayer dollars saved.
In the absence of a logical explanation, what I see in the Ryan proposal is a scam. Just another example of putting more money in the pockets of the wealthiest at the expense of the somebody else–in this case, the nation’s elderly–under the cover of a scheme to restore fiscal responsibility. It’s not just a scam. It’s downright immoral.
Have you got any response to that other than another personal attack?
GREG , the problem is not from RYAN which is very smart and has a high class profile, he can sure calculate the right numbers, the problem is OBAMA letting the borders open for all kinds of peoples more than trustworthy, BY DOING SO HE HAS PUT THE ELDERLY NEEDS BEHIND THOSE NON AMERICANS THAT ARE FEEDING ON THE PEOPLE’S TAX DOLLARS,
And you know what? well the elderly know it for sure and will not vote for any DEMOCRATS
IN 2012, specialy because they have been used by the DEMOCRATS TO DISCREDIT THE REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES AS WELL AS THE TEAPARTYER!!!
THE ELDERLY HAVE BEEN UNDERESTIMATED BY THE DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA, TREATING THEM LIKE THEY DON’T HAVE A VOICE, BUT THAT WILL BE THEIR DOWNFALL.
WHEN YOU SEE THE LINEUP OF GRAY HAIR PEOPLE WAITING TO CAST THEIR VOTES,
Re: #94
No one has a logical explanation as to how the Ryan budget cuts Medicare costs without drastically reducing seniors’ access to necessary health care services?
This is the third time that question has gone unanswered. Medicare spending cuts are central to Ryan’s plan. Since the House majority passed the proposal today over the unanimous objection of House minority members, there must be some logical explanation.
If not, what have we got? Cost cutting by nothing more than curtailment of the senior population’s access to essential medical care, coupled with deep tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers.
@Greg:
Actually, Greg, it is. However, we elect people to Congress whom we assume will have our best interests at heart, and we realize a certain amount of payment is due to the government for the services the government provides. When we feel that the amount we are paying to the government is too high, we attempt to elect someone else, or, and this is typically a more local issue, if the amount is low, and the local services are insufficient, we might elect someone who while taking more from us in, will provide adequate services to their constituents. All money that one earns, is theirs. I can choose to have nothing withheld throughout the year, depending on my job, and come tax time, pay what I owe. Until then, the money is mine to do with however I wish.
Now, the one caveat to that is FICA and Medicare taxes.
Please explain to us where exactly in the Constitution it allows Congress to spend money on anyone’s health insurance.
Let me explain why this question is of import. We are a nation of laws, correct? And the supreme law of the land is the United States Constitution, correct? And any legislation that runs in opposition to the Constitution’s limitations on the federal government is unconstitutional, and therefore, against the supreme law of the land, correct? Now, the question of whether or not such legislation should, or should not exist, doesn’t matter, as long as the Constitution doesn’t allow it. Once the Constitution is changed, through amendment, then such questions as to whether or not things like medicare should exist can be answered. If we allow ourselves, as a country, to disregard the supreme law of the land, and enact legislation running contrary to the Constitution, then we become not a nation ruled by law, but a nation ruled by men. Man’s rule is malleable, changing on whims, and never in complete equality. A monarchy is rule by men. Tyranny is rule by men. Until we get back to a Constitutionally limited government, we cannot hope to attain the ideal our founding fathers set forth for us as a nation ruled by law.
Whether or not you feel certain government programs are good or not, and regardless of your intentions(which I assume are good), it should not matter until the question has been answered as to whether or not the Constitution allows such legislation to exist, lawfully, in our country.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand” – Matthew 12:25 and/or Abraham Lincoln should you prefer.
Unfortunately it appears that some in government feel it is in their own best interest to divide us.
God Bless America… anyway.
At last the poor will at least have something to eat