RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Delusional Government, Delusional Society

Are you tired of the bullshit surrounding the hysteria of the “fiscal cliff?” I am. America, by and large, is unwilling to grow up and face some hard facts.

First, where are we spending our Federal dollars:

In 2011, we spent 3.603 trillion. Almost 70% of that amount was spent on Pensions, Healthcare and Defense. If you add in the amount spent on “Welfare,” the number jumps to 82%.

The deficit for 2011 was 1.3 trillion (1.299.6 to be precise).

Spending is out of control and the biggest offenders are pensions, healthcare, defense and welfare. Defense and Welfare expenditures have increased the most over the last four years.

So, can we fix the problem simply by raising taxes?

No.

The best summary of the tax situation is at Business Insider.

They provide some pretty damning and informative charts.

Enough of the bullshit that, “the rich are not paying their fair share.”

We can keep taking money from the “rich,” but that won’t fix the spending problem.

And what happens if we go ahead and raise taxes on the rich? They will survive. But they will spend less money in the non-government part of the economy. That will dampen economic growth, not spur it.

Warren Buffett has been especially disingenuous touting the benefits of the wealthy paying more taxes. Daniel Shuchman in Forbes tears Buffett a new asshole using Buffet’s own words.

The so-called Oracle of Omaha begins by making the manifestly absurd assertion that tax rates do not influence investment behavior. Astonishingly, he claims that when he was a fund manager, “never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity….” “Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination,” Buffett derisively contends, do investors adjust their plans based on the prospects for taxation. Such statements defy economic logic. The amount and nature of taxation, whether of the income stream generated by a particular investment, or that levied on interim dividends or capital gains realized upon the disposition of an asset, must be among the many complex factors considered by any rational investor in assessing the relative merits of an investment opportunity. If this proposition is not self-evident to you, you can go straight to the authority himself.

Buffett has left extensive and contemporaneous documentation of his investment thinking going back five decades. And it is clear not only that he has always understood this fundamental economic axiom, but that tax considerations have been a critical animating factor throughout his business career. (Indeed, during the period when he was initially accumulating great wealth, Buffett was quite passionate about the desirability of low tax rates.) As early as 1963, he wrote a letter to the investors in his hedge fund, The Buffett Partnership, Ltd., in which he laid out some of the fundamental tenets of his investment philosophy as it relates to taxation. One was the following:

“I am an outspoken advocate of paying large amounts of income taxes – at low rates.”

What do we do? For starters, Republicans should propose cutting defense by 20%. All other Government programs should be held at 2008 levels. Federal Government employees should have their wages frozen. And Senior Executives (i.e., those who are Senior Executive Service and General Officers) should accept a 10% pay cut. That would be a start.

What do you think?

  • HARP2

    I like the idea of using the Simpson-Bowles plan. It would shut them up and paint them in a corner.

  • Fred82

    I mostly agree.

    I think the only concern for me is cutting Defense spending. It is probable that such cuts will primarily involve personnel. Given the current sad state of the job market, do we really want to add many more people to it.

    At the same time, I think that many of our politicians are out of touch with reality and will not scale back foreign interventions along with military cuts. This will equal more strain on a military that ends up doing more with less.

  • DM

    It won’t be the first time that the U.S. goes through a depression. It’s overdue. We need to understand, like those who lived through the Great Depression that borrowing beyond our ability to pay is foolhardy. The problem is not just the $16+ trillion deficit; it’s that Americans have been borrowing to make ends meet. Student loans are nearing $1 trillion, and the delinquency of that debt has skyrocketed. Our future workforce is starting out with a huge debt. The middle class doesn’t have the cushion for more taxation, and taxing the rich will not fix the problem. Any reduction in federal spending will initially hurt the economy. Government spending adds to the economy as much as 20% of total GDP, according to About.com I think the next 20 years are looking bleak. We can’t fix in a few years or without pain a debt that took decades to accumulate.

    • DianaLC

      You’ve brought up the reason so many still voted for this idiot as POTUS. When did Obama ever really “earn” a living on his own or earn his own way? Most people nowadays lives so far in debt that they know no other way of life. So far they’ve not had to face any consequences of that way of living.
      I’m always amazed at the enormous amounts of credit I am offered by the credit cards I have. Each month I get checks from those cards nearly begging me to get myself into deep debt by writing myself a check.
      My soon to be daughter-in-law is doing a very good job of planning her wedding to my son with my help, trying to make it a special day for her but also fighting hard the girlfriends and television shows that try to coerce her into spending more on stupid and unnecessary expenses that she would have to spend the next years paying for.
      Many nowadays don’t understand the principle of financial restraint.

      • Dave L.

        Obama still hasn’t “earned” a living. He has done nothing in 4 years. He never held a job before the idiots placed him in the white House. This is exactly what you get when morons are allowed to vote without having a frigging clue. Get used to it , its probably going to be the wave of the future. I have a 26 year old University of Arizona grad liviing across the street from me. He has a degree, works at Wal Mart, lives with his parents and is a strong Obama supporter. He is as happy as can be, hasn’t got a clue. What was it Dean Wormer said in Animal House, Son, going through life fat, and stupid is not the way ….. I had to laugh, before the election, his father came over and apologized to me for the Obama stickers on his son’s car. LOL.

        • arturo_ui

          “He never held a job before the idiots placed him in the white House.”

          Except for law professor, state senator, United States Senator, and oh yes, community organizer.

          • Hokma

            He was not a law professor – it was a part time lecturer and the department was pressured to hire him.

            He was a lazy State Senator that just voted “present.”

            And, yes, a community organizer – whatever that is.

            • DianaLC

              Yes, I know about those part-time adjunct positions, as I had several of those to earn extra money over and above my pay from my full-time jobs. In our neck of the wood, they pay so little for doing more of the actual teaching in the required classes that it’s almost criminal–no benefits either.

            • shelldoll2

              Additionally, as for the US Senator thing Obama didn’t even complete a full term. What I remember most about his short time in the Senate was his habit of showing up to press conferences and taking credit for bills others crafted and fought to get passed.

              Obama himself admitted he didn’t have the experience to become POTUS.

              The mess this country is in is a direct result of all of this.

            • TeakWoodKite

              When I met him, he was trying to crawl up Mayor Koch’s ass…he couldn’t get that done so he wentto crawl up Dinken’s butt. Percy Sutton and Dinkens were good friends….

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/ND2FCCGVV2IZTTAZQTXKJTCPNI Ruth

            he had a job in name only you clueless fool.

          • Dave L.

            Thats all bullshit, Havrard denies he was ever a Law professor. State Senator, Voted PRESENT, on everything. Community Organizer, another word for THUG, threaten local businesses to give breaks to minorities and other interests, with no hope of ever getting the money back, Real great track record.. I seriously doubt if this asshole can even change a tire !!!

            • DianaLC

              That would be worth paying money to watch: Obaby trying to change a tire.

            • TeakWoodKite

              He obviously “changed” somebody’s tire. Be cause that tire is round in the acedemic sense only.
              LOL

          • TeakWoodKite

            He never been a law professor. You ignorant ass.

      • DM

        Americans had one last chance to put their house in order by electing Romney. I don’t doubt that he would have taken the hard decisions to stop the deficit from expanding while creating a better economy. C’est la vie.

        • arturo_ui

          “Americans had one last chance to put their house in order by electing Romney. I don’t doubt that he would have taken the hard decisions to stop the deficit from expanding while creating a better economy. C’est la vie.”

          I guess it’s too late for you, then. Oh, what a shame. Better catch that bus to Canada while you can.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/ND2FCCGVV2IZTTAZQTXKJTCPNI Ruth

            arturuo you have a galloping case of stupid. please get some help.

            • KenoshaMarge

              There is no help for terminally stupid.

        • Hokma

          What Romney offered that other typical politicians would not would have been the ability to re-engineer the government and major programs so that they would be sustainable into the future.

      • arturo_ui

        I’m sure you’re as buried in debt as everyone else. But if nothing else, the internet is a terrific place to feel superior.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/ND2FCCGVV2IZTTAZQTXKJTCPNI Ruth

          yup you should know about that feeling superior while hiding out!

        • DianaLC

          Wow! What a thing to say to someone you do not know at all.
          At this point at least my kids will not have to cover any debts if I would die tomorrow, and would end up in a better financial state than they’re in now. And they both also are doing better in tems of finances than most their ages–each with one rental property they manage.
          How bad is the squalor in the WH basement anyway that you would get so nasty?

      • Hokma

        ” . . . but also fighting hard the girlfriends and television shows that try to coerce her into spending more on stupid and unnecessary expenses that she would have to spend the next years paying for.”

        Having planned lots of events I can without hesitation it is not how much you spend but what you do with it.

  • KenoshaMarge

    Any one who has ever worked for a living knows that Buffett’s statement is pure bullshit. I don’t need to be an investment banker or a hedge-fund manager to know that taxes make a huge difference in the money I have on hand and what decisions I will make about my own private finance. Claiming that “tax rates do not influence investment behavior” is pure bullshit. Tax rates affect all of us that pay taxes in one way or another.

    The paycheck we receive as our “take-home” pay is very different from our “gross” wages. We must make our budgets and our plans around “take-home” not “gross.” Any one that tries to tell average workers, ones with a brain anyway, that tax rates don’t matter is trying to deceive.

    Apply our puny example to the rich and it is readily apparent that taxes and tax rates are very important.

    Every movement needs a villain. The left has chosen the rich. But not rich folks like Buffett or the Hollywood millionaires or the John Kerry’s of the world, just rich folks like Mitt Romney.

    Bullshit mixed with hypocrisy is a potent, toxic and addictive cocktail. Brain-rotting and leading to chronic delusions. That’s what the left is feeding the public and the media is holding the spoon.

    • DianaLC

      Absolutely–it’s incredibly demoralizing to see the difference in the earnings and the take home pay. I spend my entire year trying to figure out whether or not I am going to make it through tax filing in April without having a huge bill to send the the idiots in D.C.

  • Dave L.

    I think that if we cut out the Secret Service protection for Obama & biden, the problem will resolve itself !

    • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

      That you only anonymously endorse violence against the President and Vice President doesn’t make your remarks any more appropriate.

      • Dave L.

        Go have some Granola and hug a tree.. You’ll fell better.

    • TeakWoodKite

      Dave, those Secret Service agents protect the OFFICE not the man or woman holding it. It doesn’t matter how much one dislikes the asshat at Motel 1600, there for the grace of god go I.

      • Dave L.

        The Secret Service is a federal law enforcement agency headquartered in
        Washington, D.C., with more than 150 offices throughout the United States and
        abroad. The Secret Service is mandated by Congress to carry out dual missions:
        protection and criminal investigations. The protective mission of the Secret
        Service encompasses protection of, among others, the President, the Vice
        President, former presidents, visiting heads of state, and major presidential
        and vice presidential candidates. The investigative mission of the Secret
        Service entails the investigation and enforcement of a variety of crimes, to
        include, but not limited to, counterfeiting, financial institution fraud,
        computer and telecommunications fraud, access device fraud, and money laundering
        violations
        So when I was assigned to protect Gerald Ford and his wife Betty in Detroit in the late 70′s I was actually protecting the office of the president ? I must have done a good job, no one stole his desk .. Where the hell did protecting the OFFICE not the man or woman defination come from.

        • TeakWoodKite

          Teak’s butt. LOL. So, a guy who claims to be a former SS agent would make the comment about removing the security for the Office of POTUS and that is a solution in your mind?
          What BS. Did you take an oath to the Constitution or the Person who occupies the office of POTUS???

          • Dave L.

            I was never a SS Agent, I worked for the US Customs Service. Apparently the SS needed some bodies to fill slots, local Law Enforcement Officers from other agencies were used, with ethe SS in charge. I did have the opportuunity to ask a Secret Service Agent if he would step in front of the President to take a bullet, HE JUST LAUGHED !!Nuff said.

  • DianaLC

    I think you’ve suggested a good start.
    I’m going to suggest another cut in expenses. Cut the entire federal education department. Eliminate it.
    I just spent four weeks scoring state tests in reading. What a joke and a monumental waste of money. The purpose of these enormously expensive tests is to spur the states to improve education. There is no way these tests do what they are supposed to be doing. The old-fashioned Iowa Test of Basic Skills did it much better and at a much lower cost, and did not require a federal Department of Education. In fact, universities across the country should get rid of their education departments, or at least cut them to the bare minimum.
    I sat in a room scoring tests with hundreds of other people. These were mostly people who are jumping from temporary jobs to temporary jobs, some working part-time jobs on top of them. And mind you, no one was hired to do this temp job without a college degree. I earned $11 an hour for those four weeks, and most of the people thought it was a good wage. It’s not, but think about the expense when hundreds upon hundreds of people were doing this both during the day shift and the night shift. I was appalled at the thought of the money that states and the federal govt. spent developing those tests, testing those tests, then requiring students to take those tests (wasting class time), then scoring those tests. As a person who has taught reading and writing (I also spent time last spring scoring writing test), I kept feeling like a hypocrite. It’s absolutely ludicrous that the time and money is being spent on something so darned ineffective and time wasting.
    I do it for extra money that I usually use to help my sons who must make a living in this horrid economy.
    The worst thing for me is that I’ve spent two weeks recovering from the sinus infection and throat and chest congestion I came away with–spending some of that money I earned on a doctor’s visit and antibiotics. It was an absolute sweat shop. We worked in a huge open room with fans blowing on us and the heating/system ducts above us also spewing whatever on us. I could hear people throughout the room coughing and hacking, and by the time I was finished, I did that at home, though I spent every break washing my hands and wiping my table computer area with clorox wipes.
    Let the academic departments find a way to improve education–force them to go back to basics, use the traditional approaches and make the teachers in the different disciplines accountable to earn their required continuing education credits in the fields they are teaching in, not in the stupid social engineering “education” courses that everyone now takes and earns easy A’s while being brain washed to think they’re actually learning something.
    There’s my suggestion for a deep cut.

    • mgm

      God, what a horrible story, Diana. I applaud the idea of eliminating University Education Depts. It was a standing joke at my undergraduate school that the C- students in subject courses would go on to teach after skating through education courses. Instead,of course, they should have been forced to prove their proficiency in the subject (s) they would be teaching.

      • DianaLC

        Well, I am a bit older and I did attend a nationally recognized teachers’ training college at the time. But when I taught, it was mostly women who went into teaching and they were often the best and the brightest. And when I first taught, it was a mark of honor NEVER to take another stupid ed course unless forced and to earn all our recertification credits in our subjects.
        Later when the unions took over there was a move to get more men into teaching, as they used that as a way to raise wages. (I had never gone into teaching for wealth. It was a calling and I loved it when I first taught. Students were, for the most part, on grade level in terms of skills and willing and active learniers of the subjects. I had so much fun in the class room and felt that we were really teaching the subject.
        Things have changed so much and it’s so much worse. We have an ad appearing on t.v. in our area all the time. It claims that the way to help educataion is to help teachers, and it uses the phrase “teachers with a deeper knowledge of their subjects” are the way to improve education. I know think people really understand what that means.
        As I was reading written response after written response, I was taken with what absolutely nice kids we’re raising, but also with the fact that nice and funny as they were, for the most part they had no idea what they were supposed to be doing to answer the question about the reading. And were mandated to look hard to find ways to give them points, even when much of what they wrote showed they had totally misinterpreted the reading and/or the question about it.
        And it was also the fault of the test questions themselves: kids were becomeing confused about whether they were being graded on creative writing for the answers and did not stick to simply answering the question thoroughly to proved they understood the reading.

        • http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/ opit

          You are dancing around the real question of why were these changes in education made – especially when they are known to be ‘dysfunctional’ according to the Mission Statement covering purported activities. Here’s a source to chase down further http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Ogb2zBWJw

          • DianaLC

            Thanks for posting this. It’s a long video, but well worth listening to and very frightening. I am absolutely convinced she is right about this.
            I knew that many of these changes started during Reagan’s administration, though he claimed to be truly concerned about improving education. The results of his “A Nation at Risk” however has come out to be the very stupid NCLB mandates–the reason I was doing that scoring recently.
            Very, very sad and very frightening.
            PUSH for charters. Push for private schools and their curriculula. Push for homeschooling, and yes indeed push for local control.

    • Heather Stein

      “Cut the entire federal education department. Eliminate it.”

      What a completely assinine idea. Cut investment in this country’s future by cutting investment in education. Completely moronic.

      DianaLC do you even know what is in the Education Department budget?

      http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget13/summary/13summary.pdf

      The annual Department of Education budget is $70 billion and it goes to Pell Grants, turning around schools, supporting teachers, Race-to-the-Top, supporting disabled children, training the unemployed, etc. More than 50% of the budget goes to Special Education and Pell Grants.

      So you think all these programs are a waste of time?

      Your entire argument for no Federal investment in Education is because you scored some tests and you had a cold? What a joke!

      • DianaLC

        Did I say to cut out schools? I loved being a student. I loved schools when they were schools instead of social engineering experimental laboratories. I can tell you’re a public school graduate. When I first started teaching there was NO federal education department. Our schools were far more successful at teaching. Our students competed far better in the world.
        There is clear evidence that the charter schools that are growing all over the country are doing a better job without the department of education and are doing it with less money—and even taking in the students (and teaching them) that organizations like the NEA say they don’t have to worry about; so poor them (public schools)–all their rationalizations are being shown to be just that.
        Home schoolers get recruited at an amazingly high rate by top universities. Would you like me to go on. Many of the programs you mention have been around before; they’ve been swallowed by the Dept. of Ed. and not managed as efficiently as before since now all the extra federal “administrative” expenses must be figured in.
        The cost of higher education was still manageable and hadn’t yet started it’s overeating, so to speak, and become bloated. And besides, the requirment to be a college graduate to get a good job was not so great, and employers could count on high school graduates to be able to read, write, and perform basic math without a device in their hands. And guess what most colleges and community colleges spend enormous sums of money doing: remedial education for the terrible education the students have received before. That used NOT to be the case.
        I witnessed “education professionals” destroying education over the years.
        Let the local communities control the schools the best way that fits their local needs for education.
        You are the one who was made into a JOKE by the department of education.
        You can’t reason, think logically, or do anything without going to a government website. Do you goose step well? Do you know what “sich Heil” means? (Probably not, but you’d do it and say it gladly for THE ONE, wouldn’t you?)

        • Hokma

          Diane I absolutely agree with you.

          The Dept of Education is the biggest waste of taxpayer money there is.

          All education is local. It is organized and managed at the local level and always has been.

          Whatever interference by the federal government has been unproductive.

          I can tell you that even when they took over managing student loans from the private banks they screwed it up and students began college that year without their student loans which in many cases did not arrive for several months after the term began.

          This useless idiot Heather/PPAA/Lola/Scottymac or whatever has no intelligent argument and just gives you the department’s web page. What a waste of space.

  • getfitnow

    Are we going to have a weekend open thread? o/t but the irony of this is shameful. wonder what the “Just Us” brothers and their growing band of merry race hustlers have to say about this.

    Boy, that Arab Spring was really something. /s

    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/new-islamist-constitution-brings-back-slavery-to-egypt/

  • Heather Stein

    usgovermentspending.com is a complete crock. That is a far-right wing funded piece of crap. Why don’t you use a source of information that is slightly more objective live the CBO.

    Where do they come up with their definition of “welfare” and where do they come up with their “wealfare” spending number? There numbers are complete nonsense.

    Larry Johnson your comment is garbage in garbage out. Read how governmentspending.com comes up with their information here:

    http://usgovernmentspending.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-we-got-data-for-usgovernmentspendin.html

    It is a joke.

    That website is run by Christopher Chantrill. He is a real right-wing nut. In fact, he is an extreme right-wing nut.

    Lets just look at some real numbers and a real definition of “welfare”.

    That moron Chantrill at usgovernmentspending.com seems to seems to throw all kinds of spending into a generic category he calls “welfare”. He likely included Medicaid (mostly going to disabled and retired), CHIP, Pell grants, etc. and who knows what else in his ridiculous definition.

    Lets deal with reality.

    Welfare” traditionally (as in pretty much always) refers specifically to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, the federal program that was created in 1996 to replace the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program — also known as “welfare” — that had existed since the New Deal. This is what people refer to when they say “welfare caseloads” and “welfare rolls,”. The federal government spends $16.5 billion a year on TANF and, combined, the states spend another $10 billion. That is a lot lower than your bullshit usgovernmentspneding.com claims. Traditionally “welfare” spending is about 1% of Federal spending.

    “They provide some pretty damning charts.”

    Yes, lets look at those charts you Larry Johnson provide. They are pretty damning. The first one shows spending in whole numbers pretty much growing at the same trajectory it has been growing at for years. Government spending is sure to grow given the aging population and the corresponding growth in social security (which is paid for) and medicare (representing healthcare inflation). Also, military/security spending has gone through the roof. However, what is more important in your first chart is the blue revenue line. Notice anything. It has fallen dramatically over the last few years. It has no longer kept pace with spending. In fact, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is below 15% or well below its 60 year average of about 19%. Your first chart shows it is entirely a tax revenue problem.

    Given the aging population it is unrealistic to believe that total government spending will remain the same, given the high proportion of medicare and social securitity spending in the budget. We have a higher and growing retired population so government spending is going to have to grow. Nothing wrong with that.

    Your next two charts show share of income paid by income group. Yes given that the top 1% have captures like 70% of income gains in the last 20 or 30 years it makes sense they will pay proportionally more taxes. It is simply because they are making all the money in the country. If you look at their effective tax rates like Romneys 13% rate, it has plummeted. So relatively to their income and wealth the top are paying far less taxes than they use to in the past.

    “And what happens if we go ahead and raise taxes on the rich? They will survive. But they will spend less money in the non-government part of the economy. That will dampen economic growth, not spur it.”

    There is absolutely no proof of that statement. In fact, most acadmentic studies say that the spending of the wealthy is the least effective way to spur the economy. You can only buy so many yachts and houses. An incremental money the wealthy has just goes into investment accounts and is not spent in the economy to spur growth.

    The simple reality is during the Clinton and Reagan eras the economy grew quite good and taxes for everyone, not only the wealthy, were higher. In the 1950s we had +70% tax rates on the wealthy and the economy grew.

    ” All other Government programs should be held at 2008 levels.”
    That is garbage. There is no way the U.S. government can keep spending at 2008 levels with a huge aging population. How about we just pay some more taxes? Total U.S. government spending, including state spending, is about 35% of GDP. Even after adjusting for different healthcare systems, that is very very low compared to the OECD average of closer to 45% government spending to GDP. The U.S. already has one of the smallest governments for a major industrialized nation on the planet. You want to shrink it even further with all these baby boomers retiring. Yeah right!

    Keep living in your bubble of quack far-right wing theories and “facts”. Keep defending the very low tax rates the wealthy and guys like Romney have. That will do your side good at the polls.

    • MG6

      So, you have resorted to calling people right wing nuts.

      Uhmmm,

      Making false associations. In this technique, the position of honest posters is characterized in derogatory terms. For example, a troll may call advocates of Federal Reserve reform or abolition “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics.” Or, by suggesting certain political arguments are “racist” or otherwise outside the accepted confines of serious political discourse, trolls attempt to dissuade readers from examining the evidence objectively.

      • KenoshaMarge

        I don’t know what the bag of wind calls anyone and I don’t care. I don’t waste my time reading anything written by a troll. Particularly a long-winded POS like that one.

    • Hokma

      If you are going to have a coherent comment then you should have a fundamental level of reading comprehension.

      “throw all kinds of spending into a generic category he calls “welfare”"

      So what would be in categories of healthccare or penson or education idiot?

    • http://www.missmalevolent.com/ Miss Malevolent

      “We have a growing retired population so government spending is going to have to grow. Nothing wrong with that.”

      There is a problem with that. We don’t have income coming in to support it. Everyone knows that many of these programs are pay as you go, and anyone who’s been paying attention knows that both of the parties raid SS and Medicare like they’re glorified piggy banks.

      When you have a populace that’s underemployed or unemployed, how do you reconcile us keeping these things afloat as more and more people retire?

      The answer is more service and government jobs? I’m sorry, people aren’t being very realistic, we need more than that to sustain this country? And just taxing the rich isn’t going to cut it. That is nothing more than a red herring. Truth be told if our President were honest, (and he’s not) he’d say that everyone’s taxes have to go up…rich and not so rich alike. But he wants to play the games of Bush…dole out money to the “middle class” with that rebate check, to curry favor with the populace, and borrow our britches off on the back end. And even with raising taxes on those that are working…it’s only a bandaid on a gushing wound. We are bleeding money. And folks like you think it’s consequence free.

  • MG6
    • jrterrier

      If that doesn’t tell you who the DEMS think their base is, nothing does.

  • elizabethrc

    It’s hard to believe how many in DC make so many patently wrong decisions about money, programs, projects. Now the US is considering getting the very successful ‘dome’ Israel has used to shoot down foreign missiles. Already developed in Israel, our brilliant leaders are talking about developing ‘our own’ shield, which will take multi-multi billons of dollars and years to perfect. This is just nonsense. What in the world is wrong with asking Israel to share their technology with us? Since it would, in the end, benefit them, why would they refuse?
    Even I, who am the least qualified to talk on things financial, can see the folly in this and the telltale sign in all of this that for government folk, it’s only money and they’re free to do with it what they will.
    If I overdraw my bank account, I am required to replenish it asap. There aren’t any options. Why should it be otherwise for this government?

  • Heather Stein

    It is also funny that you conveniently leave out a number of important charts from the article you quote from Business Insider. You in fact leave out the most important charts.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/who-pays-taxes-2012-8?op=1

    The very first chart in the Business Insider article you quote shows how the top 50% capture all of the income growth since 1980.

    The third chart in the article you quote comes with the heading:

    “As a percent of the economy, though, federal tax revenue is actually well below average–only 17% of GDP”

    Suggesting that we have a huge tax revenue problem. We are not collecting anywhere near as much in taxes as we have over the last 72 years.

    If you read all the charts in the article that Larry Johnson quots and not just the selective ones he wants you to read the two most astonding conclusions are:

    1) the wealthy in this country have done amazing well, they have managed to capture most of and an increasing part of the income and wealth in this country. They can afford to pay more in taxes. They can afford to pay what they paid under Clinton.

    2) the bottom income part of social actually pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes versus what the wealthy pays.

    3) although spending has increased, primarily because of more spending because of the aging population, the real problem is tax revenue. It has fallen off a cliff and has not been this low since 1950.

    It is clear. The poor are getting progressively less and the wealthy are getting progressively more. Welfare has nothing to do with the current fiscal situation.

  • getfitnow

    The entire fed system is driving
    towards some kind of cliff. Certainly adding even more taxes on anybody will
    not slow down the waste, the greed, the looting. Most of the federal
    departments must be shut down, all the useless offices slammed shut. All the
    stupid duplication of laundry services, food supply services, ridiculous
    government printing, double, triple quadruple dippers need to be exposed, you
    name it, and all shut down.

    Having said that, That One is not serious
    about making a deal with the repubs. Let’s check with Simpson and Bowles on
    that. BTW, at this point, I’d favor Simpson/Bowles.

    I read an article that started out
    saying: “I don’t think Obama wants t o go down as the worst president in
    history…”

    Too many people don’t get it. That
    One is a left wing extreme ideologue. This. Is. What. He. Wants. He would look
    at his legacy as having “transformed” this country—cut us down to size. That’s success
    in his socialist mind.

    • KenoshaMarge

      I don’t think you could ever convince Obama that he was the worst president in history. No matter what happens. Narcissism protects him from reality.

  • HELENK2

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/01/Feds-propose-fee-on-health-insurers-in-new-market

    propose fee on health insurers in new market

    the first dept to go should be the TSA. other than harassing travelers they have done nothing useful.

    agree on the the dept of so-called education should go they have helped dumb down at least two generations

    pay cuts for congress and staffers, they seem to have the best paid part time jobs in the country

    only two week vacations paid for by the taxpayer for president and vice president any more should be out of their own pocket. the hangers on should have to pay their own way.

    EPA needs to be drastically cut , they do more harm then good

    all backtrack’s czars should be gone

    every government agency should be audited and the waste should be eliminated the political hacks should be gone.

    i know this will never happen, the bureaucrats are too entrenched and the politicians think that your money is theirs to spend as they please.

    • Dave L.

      Hit the nail right on the head.

  • Popsmoke

    i would declare a national emergency cap and freeze all spending until everyone came to the table with a real deal….

  • jrterrier

    Sounds good to me.

  • HELENK2

    off topic

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/30/us-war-against-al-qaida

    war against al qaida police matter instead of military matter??????

  • HELENK2

    US State Department says North Korea ‘satellite’ launch would be ‘highly provocative act’, threat to security – @Reuters

  • Sanshiro123

    The problem with the budget isn’t entitlement spending, it’s the subpar GDP growth. Fix that and the other budget problems will mostly fix themselves

    • DianaLC

      Agree with you in general, but there is still a need to curb entitlement spending.

  • MG6

    I thought only the President and the Vice-President had Secret Service protection?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/valerie-jarrett-climate-activist-speech-grassroots-organizers_664311.html

    • HELENK2

      no valarie demanded it and whatever she wants she gets
      the unelected president. someone has to watch the store while backtrack goes golfing, campaigning and on vacations

  • HELENK2

    random thoughts

    the democrats seem to be happy to cede power to backtrack.
    examples
    power to raise debt limit without congress
    czars that do not have to be approved by congress
    go to war without congressional consent

    lets abolish congress, according to the democrats they are becoming unnecessary. look at the money we would save

  • TeakWoodKite

    If you cut defense by 20%, would that lead to compeating priorities with the Armed services for those dollars? What impact might that have on “readiness”?
    Not apposed to the cuts…what about abolishing the pensions for government employees?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX3en_Te7K8

    • KenoshaMarge

      Put them in Social Security with the rest of us peons. No more special perks for government workers. They have enough of an edge with their symbiotic relationship with the government.

      • Dave L.

        Marge, since 1984, the Govt employees have been in the Social Security system Reagan changed the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to (FERS), Federal Employees Retirement System.. FERS is a combination of Social Security, and the employees Thrift Savings Plan , or a 401K whatever you want to call it..The TSP is voluntary , if an employee does not join ar save his own money, they will only have Social Security and nothing else.

        • KenoshaMarge

          Didn’t know that. Thanks for the info.

          Why is it then that you read about so many being able to retire so young? Is that only for the ones in a public employee union?

          • Dave L.

            Some agencies have what is called a Law Enforcement Retirement, retirement is manditory at an early age. Most of these programs cannot hire someone after age 35, so that they can get 20 years in at 55. I personally don’t want 65 or 70 year olds working for border Patrol or another Law Enforcement agency.

            • KenoshaMarge

              Nor do I, although I think perhaps they could fill areas where youth, strength and endurance are not necessary.

              I also don’t think that someone should receive a full pension paid for by the taxpayers, when they have another 20 years when they could be working.

  • HELENK2

    off topic

    http://weaselzippers.us/2012/12/01/report-muslim-brotherhood-paying-gangs-to-rape-women-and-beat-men-protesting-against-morsi/

    muslim brotherhood ( backtrack’s BFF) paying gangs to rape women and beat men protesting against morsi.

    so how is that arab spring working out????

  • no_longer_a_democrat

    Good article. There will be a new reserve currency or a reserve basket of currencies. This is will not last, can’t have paper just printed up backed by nothing. Nixon took care of that.

    It is beyond now just slowing the growth of govt, govt will need to be cut… the fed reserve can keep rates artificially low, it will not last …so the difference between what is spent and how much is actually taken in is made up by just printing up new money, devaluing it, making it harder for working people to sustain a decent living.

    This is coming to a crash, not like the 2008 one, it is in the middle of a transition away from away from the dollar. and it will not be pretty. maybe if we had an expanding economy, this all could have been delayed, but unfortunately the dimocrats and Soetero want people to work hard, create new wealth so they can spread it around, yea, that’ll motivate people to work harder!

    spending going up, revenues going down, there is only way this has to go.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/ND2FCCGVV2IZTTAZQTXKJTCPNI Ruth

      changes are coming in 2013. get out of the stock market right now would be my recommendation. you can buy back in a little later for some good buys

  • MG6
    • getfitnow

      Marion Berry redux.

  • no_longer_a_democrat

    http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/the-working-class-and-the-government-class/

    Interesting article.

    The Working Class and the Government Class
    November 30, 2012 By
    Daniel Greenfield

    Forget all the talk about whether we will or won’t go over the fiscal
    cliff. We ourselves are the fiscal cliff and have been for some time now. The
    real fiscal cliff is not the point at which we run out of money, our credit
    rating sinks lower than Enron and everyone is fighting over jars of cat food at
    Wal-Mart. The real fiscal cliff is when even the dumbest person in the country
    is no longer able to deny what the packs of robbers and thieves he appointed to
    steal for him have perpetrated for their own benefit in his name. And that
    fiscal cliff may never come.

    Soviet leaders used to promise their people that one day they would live
    under true Communism. Under our hybrid system, many Americans already live under
    Communism. And the rest of the country pays for it. As the number of people
    living under Communism grows and the number of people subsidizing Communism
    shrinks, the fiscal cliffs begin coming in faster than Wile E. Coyote on
    jet-powered rocket skates.

    Our class warfare is not determined by paycheck size. The United States
    has only two classes. The working class and the government class.”

    ……………article continue on

    • Hokma

      Greenfield is mostly right.

      As I have said prior this country was founded and our Constitution is premised on a Federal Republic.

      But since the implementation of The New Deal we began to move toward a Socialist Democracy. That trajectory has not receded and Obama is just finishing the job.

      When people live in the moment it is hard for them to step back and view situations objectively.

      • KenoshaMarge

        Living in the moment is part of the problem. However when our schools started teaching kids “what” to think and not “how” to think we lost not only hearts but minds capable of understanding the world around them. The “me” now and the “gimmee” generations are not going to accept responsibility for their lives. They grab and blame.
        If you listen to interviews conducted on college campuses you come away appalled and disgusted. Bright young minds? Not many. And not vocal.

    • KenoshaMarge

      Daniel Greenfield is a national treasure. I read everything he writes.

  • HELENK2

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/the-money-of-others.php

    maybe the dems should read the federalist papers

    We took our bearings from the proposition of Publius in the Federalist that the “first object of government” is to protect “the different and unequal faculties of acquiring property[.]” Now there is a revolutionary thought! The liberals’ appetite for income redistribution and animus against income inequality proceed unabated, arguably stronger than ever. Publius to the contrary notwithstanding, we’re obviously moving in a different direction under the force of a contrary doctrine.

    • no_longer_a_democrat

      according to the dimocrats, we should all work hard to create new wealth so they a$$holes can spread it around.

      This isn’t even about a safety net anymore, this is about spreading wealth…. working people work more so that the nonworking people can get the fruits of that labor.

    • Hokma

      As I said prior, what the Federalist Papers talk about is a Federal Republic. We have become a growing Socialist Democracy for decades. So what the authors of the Federalist Papers wrote about is irrelevant to nearly all Democrats.

  • HELENK2

    way off topic

    my just because for today

    doubt you can read this without laughing

    http://rightlinksblog.com/2012/08/29/peta-crashes-biker-gathering-not-to-be-missed/

    • Hokma

      ROTFL!!!!

      I would have given anything to watch this unfold.

      Next thing you know some enviromental group will protest a biler gang because of their carbon footprint – which you will then find imprinted on their face.

      • getfitnow

        I’d love to see that. Sonny Barger, where are you when we need you.

    • HARP2

      NOW….That`s funny

  • HELENK2

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/since-2000-d-c-area-wealth-grew-at-twice-national-average/

    while the rest of the country has household wealth shrinking, the DC area becomes more wealthy.

    best sign I have seen in a while

    REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IS THEFT

    • Hokma

      No it’s communism :)

      • KenoshaMarge

        It’s both!

      • DianaLC

        And communism IS theft. Many of my ethnic group learned that under Stalin when their farms were taken from them.

  • HELENK2
  • MG6
  • TexMexSoup

    Welcome to the NWO. Collapse the US economy, impose martial law…… Take the mark of the beast….. Party is over.

  • Al in VA

    “Federal Government employees should have their wages frozen.”

    As a federal worker, I suppose having had my wages frozen for the past couple of years, with the White House talking of continued freezes, is just a figment of my imagination.

    While I can admit there are some inefficiencies in the federal government and its work force, being a regular political punching bag is getting really old.

    • HARP2

      Well you are in a far better position than those who have lost their jobs or at least reduced hours thanks to the Gimme-Dat party.
      Sorry….my “give a damn`s” busted.

    • Hokma

      Or you can work in the private sector and have lost your job – have either not worked for 4 years – or have worked in jobs at much lower wages.

      Just remember that government jobs are a service to taxpayers even though Obama has been making that sector the ONLY growth sector for jobs.

    • getfitnow

      ..a service to taxpayers that pay your salary. When the “boss” has to cut corners, nothing is off limits–that’s how it works in the private sector. That’s how it should work in government.

  • HELENK2
    • no_longer_a_democrat

      I guess pukeosi thinks if dims pull a stunt like this, its a-ok…. if Bush had even asked for something like this, all hell would be breaking loose. and the MSM, silent on all this!

      Damn idiots! the sycophant MSM and the dimocrats.

  • no_longer_a_democrat

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-01/why-americans-have-lost-drive-earn-more#comment-3027764

    This cannot go on for much longer…but since most of the DC politicians, especially dims, are dumber than a rock, it will continue until it is no longer able to, and that time is coming very soon…

    from the article, the whole thing is worth reading:
    “But perhaps the scariest chart in the entire presentation is the
    following summarizing the unsustainable welfare burden on current
    taxpayers:

    For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance

    For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, 1 person receives welfare assistance or works for the government.

    The punchline: 110 million privately employed workers; 88 million welfare recipients and government workers and rising rapidly.

    And since nothing has changed in the past two years, and in fact the
    situation has gotten progressively (pardon the pun) worse, here is our
    conclusion on this topic from two years ago:

    We have been writing for over a year, how the very top of America’s
    social order steals from the middle class each and every day. Now we
    finally know that the very bottom of the entitlement food chain also
    makes out like a bandit compared to that idiot American who actually
    works and pays their taxes. One can only also hope that in addition to
    seeing their disposable income be eaten away by a kleptocratic
    entitlement state, that the disappearing middle class is also selling
    off its weaponry. Because if it isn’t, and if it finally decides it has
    had enough, the outcome will not be surprising at all: it will be the
    same old that has occurred in virtually every revolution in the history
    of the world to date.

    But for now, just stick head in sand, and pretend all is
    good. Self-deception is now the only thing left for the entire insolvent
    entitlement-addicted world.

    • MG6

      Loved your comment and forward it to my family and obot friends.
      It funny to see their faces when reality is striking fast and furious (no pun intended). AND AGAIN, A big I told you so….! For the second time……aaarrrgghhhhh!!!

  • HELENK2

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/334551/disabled-system-michael-barone

    just look how much the SS disability has grown in the last couple of years.

    no jobs and you still have to feed your family and unemployment has run out, many feel this is the only choice they have.

  • HELENK2
    • Hokma

      This is why the ME is a mess and Israel is the most isolated it has ever been.

      Obama and his crew act like they support Israel when in fact that never did.

      While there is no legal foundation for what the clowns in the U.N. did. it will have long lasting political repercussions which will make negotiations for a two state solution impossible.

      Congress shouls defund the United Nations, give these hoodlums a deadline to get out, and sell the property to a real estate developer.

      The United Nations had long outlived any purpiose other than to be a clown cage for international outlaws and thugs.

  • HELENK2

    http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/01/if-you-dont-think-spending-is-at-the-roo

    good article on the spending problems now

    Democrats, who believe we have a “revenue” problem instead of a “spending” problem, must also think they have a bartender problem, not a drinking problem.

  • HELENK2
    • Hokma

      No, unfortunately she has returned to what she believes.

      She never embraced Israel until it was necessary when she needed Jewish votes for the U.S. Senate from New York and then for President.

      It is unfortunate but not that much of a surprise.

      • getfitnow

        I agree. I really don’t think there’s much daylight between she and That One. After all, she said she thought the SCOTUS made an “excellent decision” regarding healthcare.

        She’ll never get my vote.

        I look back, and I really wish we had women like Jeane Kirkpatrick and Barbara Jordan on the scene.

  • HELENK2

    http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2012/12/02/why-kafka-would-like-fema/?singlepage=true

    WOW are there many people here going through this nightmare with FEMA????

    you would think some of the stenos in the msm would get some courage and write about this

    • KenoshaMarge

      They won’t “report” on anything if it isn’t flattering to their Obamamessiah.
      They never missed an opportunity to attack Bush and absolutely refuse to report the truth about Obama. Scum of the earth both them and him.

      • DianaLC

        I loved the guy interviewed on FOX yesterday who accused Obama of lying and giving the people hurt by Sandy the finger.

        • KenoshaMarge

          Problem with that is you’ll only see it on FOX. MSM not interested in “News” if it isn’t flattering to obama.

  • HELENK2
  • getfitnow

    Hey, if you like your insurance, you can keep it!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/12/02/obama-admin-by-the-way-were-going-to-need-insurers-to-pay-to-use-those-exchanges/

    Stay healthy ya’ll.

    Thank you Justice Roberts. :(

    • DianaLC

      He was right in a big way–Obamacare is a frustratingly taxing mess.

  • getfitnow
  • HELENK2

    http://www.chron.com/business/article/EPA-rejects-governors-requests-to-waive-ethanol-4045621.php

    EPA rejects governors of drought states request to waive ehtanol

    EPA more hindrance then help to this country

  • Heather Stein

    usgovermentspending.com is a complete crock. That is a far-right wing funded piece of crap. Why don’t you use a source of information that is slightly more objective like the CBO or OMB?

    Where do they come up with their definition of “welfare” and where do they come up with their “welfare” spending number? Their numbers are complete nonsense.

    Larry Johnson your comment is garbage in garbage out. Read how governmentspending.com comes up with their information here:

    http://usgovernmentspending.bl

    It is a joke.

    That website is run by Christopher Chantrill. He is a real right-wing nut. In fact, he is an extreme right-wing nut.

    Lets just look at some real numbers and a real definition of “welfare”.

    That moron Chantrill at usgovernmentspending.com seems to throw all kinds of spending into a generic category he calls “welfare”. He likely included Medicaid (mostly going to disabled and retired), CHIP, Pell grants, etc. and who knows what else in his ridiculous definition.

    Lets deal with reality.

    Welfare” traditionally (as in pretty much always) refers specifically to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, the federal program that was created in 1996 to replace the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program — also known as “welfare” — that had existed since the New Deal. This is what people refer to when they say “welfare caseloads” and “welfare rolls,”. The federal government spends $16.5 billion a year on TANF and, combined, the states spend another $10 billion. That is a lot lower than your bullshit usgovernmentspneding.com claims. Traditionally “welfare” spending is about 1% of Federal spending.

    As for your comment:

    “They provide some pretty damning charts.”

    Yes, lets look at those charts you Larry Johnson provide. They are pretty damning. The first one shows spending in whole numbers pretty much growing at the same trajectory it has been growing at for years. Government spending is sure to grow given the aging population and the corresponding growth in social security (which is paid for) and medicare (representing healthcare inflation). Also, military/security spending has gone through the roof. However, what is more important in your first chart is the blue revenue line. Notice anything. It has fallen dramatically over the last few years. It has no longer kept pace with spending. In fact, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is below 15% or well below its 60 year average of about 19%. Your first chart shows it is entirely a TAX REVENUE PROBLEM.

    Given the aging population it is unrealistic to believe that total government spending will remain the same, given the high proportion of medicare and social securitity spending in the budget. We have a growing retired population so government spending is going to have to grow. Nothing wrong with that.

    Your next two charts show share of income paid by income group. Yes, given that the top 1% have captured most of the income gains in the last 30 years it makes sense they will pay proportionally more total taxes. It is simply because they are making all the money in the country. If you look at their effective tax RATES. like Romney’s 13% rate, it has plummeted. So relatively to their income and wealth the top are paying far less taxes than they use to at any time in the past.

    “And what happens if we go ahead and raise taxes on the rich? They will survive. But they will spend less money in the non-government part of the economy. That will dampen economic growth, not spur it.”

    There is absolutely no proof of that statement. In fact, most academic studies say that the spending of the wealthy is the least effective way to spur the economy. You can only buy so many yachts and houses. Any incremental money the wealthy have just goes into investment accounts and is not spent in the economy to spur growth.

    The simple reality is during the Clinton and Reagan eras the economy grew quite good and taxes for everyone, not only the wealthy, were higher. In the 1950s we had +70% tax rates on the wealthy and the economy grew rapidly for a generation.

    ” All other Government programs should be held at 2008 levels.”

    That is garbage. There is no way the U.S. government can keep spending at 2008 levels with a huge aging population. How about we just pay some more taxes?

    Total U.S. government spending, including state spending, is about 35% of GDP. Even after adjusting for different healthcare systems, that is very very low compared to the OECD average of closer to 45-50% government spending to GDP. The U.S. already has one of the smallest governments for a major industrialized nation on the planet. You want to shrink it even further with all these baby boomers retiring. Yeah right!

    Keep living in your bubble of quack far-right wing theories and “facts”. Keep defending the very low tax rates the wealthy and guys like Romney have. That will do your side good at the polls.

  • HELENK2

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/12/02/a-poem/

    a poem from 1949 sounds like it was written today

  • HELENK2

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/12/02/Morsi-reaches-deal-army-constitution-protesters

    morsi reached deal with military

    Egypt is not good for the USA any more

    heck of job backtrack

  • MG6
    • DianaLC

      I haven’t read it yet, but our local rag in CO has a big headline this morning about how Obamacare has made it possible for the state to deny Cygna a rate increase. This is a paper that wasted more column inches and much too much ink in it’s endorsement of Obama during the election. I read letters to the ed that said they’d be doing what I will do when my next bill comes–stop the subscription.
      So, I am a bit concerned when the last two weeks the paper has spent lots of ink and column inches on stories about how Kaiser Permanente (my insurance) feels that setting up a CO exchange will be beneficial and now how Cygna is being denied rate raises. We have a Democratic gov and Senate, so naturally you know where this is all going in CO.
      I’m at the point of saying that I personally don’t give a rat’s patooty what I’m paying in health insurance either way. I’m used to it–I do have Cygna for my dental. I just want the federal government out of my life, especially when this fraud is in charge.

  • MG6
  • HELENK2

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/12/02/iraqi-refugee-arrested-for-bombing-arizona-social-security-office-with-ied-media-silence-ensues/

    Iraqi refugee arrested for bombing Arizona SS office

    this story has a lot of unanswered questions.

    why is he still here in this country?

    why wasn’t he deported?

    why no media coverage?

    • MG6

      Bombed again by a Muslim? Uhmmmm, hadn’t heard about it.

  • binky354

    For starters, Republicans should propose cutting defense by 20%. All other Government programs should be held at 2008 levels. Federal Government employees should have their wages frozen. And Senior Executives (i.e., those who are Senior Executive Service and General Officers) should accept a 10% pay cut.

    ———————
    Agree!

  • MrLynn

    Current defense spending as a percentage of the federal budget is at an historic low (c. 23%):

    http://treeofmamre.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/defense-spending-as-a-percentage-of-the-federal-budget-a-historical-perspective/

    That’s not where we should be cutting.

    /Mr Lynn

    • Heather Stein

      That is complete BS. The average defense spending per GDP is artificially inflated in the charts you show because of WWI, WWII, the Vietnam war, cold war etc. There is no way this country, particularly during peace time, should be spending historically the same as a proportion as the economy as it has in the past. Also, maybe America was just spending too much on military spending in the past, particularly when the threats are now significantly reduced. You do not need armies of tanks and endless nuclear missles today.

      • MrLynn

        Since when is this ‘peacetime’?

        Not only are we fighting a long war against the Islamists in many places, we are responsible for maintaining the freedom of the seas for the Western World. China is moving to challenge us in the western Pacific in coming years (just launched their first aircraft carrier), Russia is busily reviving its old Soviet aims, and Iran is on the verge of triggering a general Mideast war.

        Cut out the departments of Education, Energy, Homeland Security, and the EPA–not Defense.

        /Mr Lynn

  • HARP2

    Obama Gets Humiliated in the Pacific

    President Barack Obama attended the summit to sell a US-based Trans-Pacific Partnership excluding China. He didn’t. The American led-partnership became a party to which no-one came.

    Instead, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, plus China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, will form a club and leave out the United States.

    Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/12/03/obama-gets-humiliated-pacific#ixzz2E0qV2N8s

  • HELENK2

    http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121203008-egyptian-silence.html

    as morsi ( backtrack”s BFF) new constitution reinstates slavery, there is a great sound of silence from the msm and the backtrack bunch

    • Hokma

      But the Muslim religion is a religion of “peace” except for rape and sodomy, or stoning, or beheading, or slavery, or suicide bombing, or targeting innocent civilians, or using innocent civilians as shields. And let;s not forget how they are SO tolerant of other people and religions.

  • Heather Stein

    Larry Johnson is completely lame. Why do you hide behind censorship? I thought you were a tough guy, but you are really an empty suit. Deleting comments that you do not like or push back against your BS is completely lame. Why do you run a public website with a public comment forum if you are going to censor all posts that you disagree with? Shows just how weak your arguments truly are. Typical conservative. Your groupthink and NQ bubble is a joke.

    • Heather Stein

      It is also funny that you conveniently leave out a number of important charts from the article you quote from Business Insider. You in fact leave out the most important charts.

      http://www.businessinsider.com/who-pays-taxes-2012-8?op=1

      The very first chart in the Business Insider article you quote shows how the top 50% capture all of the income growth since 1980.

      The third chart in the article you quote comes with the heading:

      “As a percent of the economy, though, federal tax revenue is actually well below average–only 17% of GDP”

      Suggesting that we have a huge tax revenue problem. We are not collecting anywhere near as much in taxes as we have over the last 72 years.

      If you read all the charts in the article that Larry Johnson quotes and not just the selective ones he wants you to read the most astonding conclusions are:

      1) the wealthy in this country have done amazing well, they have managed to capture most of and an increasing part of the income and wealth in this country. They can afford to pay more in taxes. They can afford to pay what they paid under Clinton.

      2) the bottom income part of social actually pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes versus what the wealthy pays.

      3) although spending has increased, primarily because of more spending because of the aging population, the real problem is tax revenue. It has fallen off a cliff and has not been this low as a percentage of GDP since the 1950s.

      It is clear. The poor are getting progressively less and the wealthy are getting progressively more. Welfare has nothing to do with the current fiscal situation.

      • HARP2

        Zzzzzzzzzz

        • HELENK2

          do you want to tell her Pravda is not interviewing today???

      • http://www.missmalevolent.com/ Miss Malevolent

        http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/01/if-you-dont-think-spending-is-at-the-roo

        Please educate yourself.

        Want Clinton era taxes? Have Clinton era spending. There’s the compromise.

        • Heather Stein

          Actually current spending is about 23% of GDP, which is only slighly above where it has been historically and during Clinton when it was closer to 21%. Given the retirement age population has grown exponentially since Clinton you cannot expect the government to spend the same level forever with an aging population. Spending has to go up in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Nothing wrong with that, we just have to pay for it with a proper level of taxes. The same thing is happening in western industrialized countries all over the world. As the population ages the government has to spend more to support that aging population. That is where the bulk of new spending is occuring. Now where America is very different than all other countries is in our obscene level of military expenditure. Would you rather keep Granma out poverty with a social security check or build another aircraft carrier? It is all about priorities.

          • http://www.missmalevolent.com/ Miss Malevolent

            Clinton 20.6%, Obama 24.3%, You’re being glib on it being a minute difference. A difference of $1 Trillian damned dollars…and it’s only going up from there as Obamacare hasn’t been fully put into place. Some are saying at our current rate it could reach 36% in the next 25 years. How is that sustainable? Once again, when you have a current populace that is underemployed or unemployed?

            And I’m sick to death of logical fallacies.”Would you rather keep Granma out of poverty” BS that is nothing but “an appeal to pity”, dash of “red herring” with a pinch of “straw man” thrown in for spice.

            Here let me throw a little straw man back at you for good measure. We’re paying for Granma, her grandson, cousin Ray Ray, and aunt Pookie NOW..but who is going to be there to pay for us? What industries are we as a country fostering that will secure the future, not just for the kids, but for us as we mature? Like I said, your president is not an honest broker. If he were he’d say that he wants EVERYONE to pay more. Cause that’s what it’s going to take to get us through NOW.

            But as we all know, if they take more, they’ll spend more..and the vicious cycle continues, until we end up like Greece, Portugal, Spain and everyone else.

            Want Granma to keep getting her checks? Think up ways to drive up our industry to get more people to work to pay for her check. Instead of this ridiculous fantasy, that taxing the rich 4% will take care of our woes.

            • Heather Stein

              “A difference of $1 trillion damned dollars…”

              Your math makes no sense. Where do you get your $1 trillion?

              CBO says ACA bills will actually reduce the deficit.

              36%???? What are you talking about?

              You don’t get the point. If you are going to cut spending then it is all about priorities. Should we be cutting Social Security or military spending?

              Comparing the economy, the economic power, the taxing power and the debt level of the U.S to Greece, Portugal and Spain is a complete joke.

              According to the CBO if we just let all the Bush tax cuts expire the deficit as a percentage of GDP would fall to about 2.5-3.0% of GDP, which would be close to the very manageable 2.0% 60 year average.

              Your fear-mongering on the deficit and debt is just that. What exactly do you expect to happen? Financial markets are currently putting U.S. treasuries at historic low yields. There is no sign of any panic on the deficit and debt other than by political hacks like yourself and your Republican party.

              • http://www.missmalevolent.com/ Miss Malevolent

                If you’re going to get serious, then you cut AND tax.

                You and your party’s lies and demagoguery and says that going up 4% on the top earners will pay for these programs, no it won’t, and it will do ZERO for the deficit.

                “Adjusted for inflation, Clinton spent $2.24 trillion in 1993; that level stayed relatively stagnant, rising to $2.41 trillion in 2001. Now let’s look at Obama’s budgets starting this year: $3.8 trillion. By the time we hit 2022 under Obama’s plan, we’ll be spending $4.77 trillion. That means that Obama is spending twice what Clinton did.

                That’s why no Democrat will ever agree to go back to Clinton-era spending. If they did, they’d have to agree not to $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, but to $1.4 trillion in spending cuts this year alone. That’s 37% of the federal budget.”

                You either have higher taxes and higher cuts. And nothing else.

                If you’re for cuts in defense, you should be for the restructuring Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. This kick the can down the road shit with SS does not impress me. And Democrats have no leg to stand on with Social Security being so sacrosanct when they’ve been all to willing to break into the piggy bank to fund whatever bullshit they wanted at the moment. Now all the sudden, you’re care about Grandma? No you don’t. And you never did.

                And I’m not a Republican. I’m just not an automaton like you.

    • Heather Stein

      usgovermentspending.com is a complete crock. That is a far-right wing funded piece of crap. Why don’t you use a source of information that is slightly more objective like the CBO or OMB?

      Where do they come up with their definition of “welfare” and where do they come up with their “welfare” spending number? Their numbers are complete nonsense.

      Larry Johnson your comment is garbage in garbage out. Read how governmentspending.com comes up with their information here:

      http://usgovernmentspending.bl

      It is a joke.

      That website is run by Christopher Chantrill. He is a real right-wing nut. In fact, he is an extreme right-wing nut.

      Lets just look at some real numbers and a real definition of “welfare”.

      That moron Chantrill at usgovernmentspending.com seems to throw all kinds of spending into a generic category he calls “welfare”. He likely included Medicaid (mostly going to disabled and retired), CHIP, Pell grants, etc. and who knows what else in his ridiculous definition.

      Lets deal with reality.

      Welfare” traditionally (as in pretty much always) refers specifically to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, the federal program that was created in 1996 to replace the Aid to Families With Dependent Children program — also known as “welfare” — that had existed since the New Deal. This is what people refer to when they say “welfare caseloads” and “welfare rolls,”. The federal government spends $16.5 billion a year on TANF and, combined, the states spend another $10 billion. That is a lot lower than your bullshit usgovernmentspneding.com claims. Traditionally “welfare” spending is about 1% of Federal spending.

      As for your comment:

      “They provide some pretty damning charts.”

      Yes, lets look at those charts you Larry Johnson provide. They are pretty damning. The first one shows spending in whole numbers pretty much growing at the same trajectory it has been growing at for years. Government spending is sure to grow given the aging population and the corresponding growth in social security (which is paid for) and medicare (representing healthcare inflation). Also, military/security spending has gone through the roof. However, what is more important in your first chart is the blue revenue line. Notice anything. It has fallen dramatically over the last few years. It has no longer kept pace with spending. In fact, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is below 15% or well below its 60 year average of about 19%. Your first chart shows it is entirely a TAX REVENUE PROBLEM.

      Given the aging population it is unrealistic to believe that total government spending will remain the same, given the high proportion of medicare and social securitity spending in the budget. We have a growing retired population so government spending is going to have to grow. Nothing wrong with that.

      Your next two charts show share of income paid by income group. Yes, given that the top 1% have captured most of the income gains in the last 30 years it makes sense they will pay proportionally more total taxes. It is simply because they are making all the money in the country. If you look at their effective tax RATES. like Romney’s 13% rate, it has plummeted. So relatively to their income and wealth the top are paying far less taxes than they use to at any time in the past.

      “And what happens if we go ahead and raise taxes on the rich? They will survive. But they will spend less money in the non-government part of the economy. That will dampen economic growth, not spur it.”

      There is absolutely no proof of that statement. In fact, most academic studies say that the spending of the wealthy is the least effective way to spur the economy. You can only buy so many yachts and houses. Any incremental money the wealthy have just goes into investment accounts and is not spent in the economy to spur growth.

      The simple reality is during the Clinton and Reagan eras the economy grew quite good and taxes for everyone, not only the wealthy, were higher. In the 1950s we had +70% tax rates on the wealthy and the economy grew rapidly for a generation.

      ” All other Government programs should be held at 2008 levels.”

      That is garbage. There is no way the U.S. government can keep spending at 2008 levels with a huge aging population. How about we just pay some more taxes?

      Total U.S. government spending, including state spending, is about 35% of GDP. Even after adjusting for different healthcare systems, that is very very low compared to the OECD average of closer to 45-50% government spending to GDP. The U.S. already has one of the smallest governments for a major industrialized nation on the planet. You want to shrink it even further with all these baby boomers retiring. Yeah right!

      Keep living in your bubble of quack far-right wing theories and “facts”. Keep defending the very low tax rates the wealthy and guys like Romney have. That will do your side good at the polls.

  • Hokma

    I was reading how the GOP had an opportunity to politically corner Obama on this issue, but it is Obama who has cornered the GOP.

    This is somewhat similar to the confrontation a conservative House had with Bill Clinton who they did back into a corner and forced to be amenable to their direction.

    The difference between then and now is “leadership.” There is a huge difference between the leadership of John Boehner and Newt Gingrich. Boehner is a competent and well meaning civil servent. Newt was a fiery visionary who was able to go to-to-toe politically with Clinton.

    Right now the GOP, and the country, needs a leader to counter the demogoguery of Obama and the far left. I don’t see any Newts right now and it appears the GOP (and the country) are going to have to bend to Obama and the left and take one up the . . . .

  • HELENK2

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/garfinkle/2012/11/30/small-calamities/

    small calamities in the ME
    what the UN vote will cause

  • MG6

    http://www.barenakedislam.com/2012/12/01/maryland-catholic-school-to-be-replaced-with-the-largest-islamofascist-indoctrination-enter-in-america/

    Found this in one of the comments:
    Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in
    1907.
    “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes
    here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us,
    he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it
    is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed,
    or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s
    becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an
    American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says
    he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.
    We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for
    but one language here, and that is the English language… and we
    have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the
    American people.”

  • Theymustbemorons

    Hope all is well at NQ. Tried several times over last two days to access and received a message that NQ was “unavailable.” Tried again and was finally able to get through. Have a good day everyone!

  • HELENK2

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20154358

    the downward mobility of education

  • HELENK2

    http://freebeacon.com/flailing-fema/

    and here is FEMA failing again.

    many homeless due to Sandy

    empty fema trailers sitting in PA

  • MG6
  • Hokma

    I am not going to go into a dissertation about branding but to be brief, once you have decided on what your brand character is, you have two choices: (1) to be proactive and focus almost exclusively on who you are, or (2) defend who you are against attacks from competitors.

    If you choose the latter you lose.

    I just read a piece by one the key advertising executives for the Romney campaign in what he considered to be what they did right:

    1. We reinvented political advertising.
    The entire ad and production team was in-house. Creatives, media, production, editorial, everything. Our ability to create quality work in a hurry was historic. We turned an Obama gaffe into a TV spot in 90 minutes.

    3. The Obama campaign pulled a ‘new Coke.’
    Before I was a political ad guy, I was a brand ad guy. I believe in the power of brand, especially in politics. That’s why I was amazed when the Obama campaign took a big, positive, thoughtful brand (Hope and Change) and tossed it overboard in favor of talking almost exclusively about fear and negativity.

    http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/ad-making-romney-campaign-a-firsthand-account/238559/

    What this tells you is that Axelrod outwitted these guys. By Axelrod going negative on Romney even to the extent of outright slander, he drew in the Romney campaign into constantly defending the candidate against a barrage of attacks and then engaging in the same petty negative attacks as Obama did.

    So what was missing?

    The Romney brand which when rarely aired was muddled and weak.

    I am not saying that Romney could ignore the negative attacks, but following the major win in the first debate, his campaign should have been prepared with an all out assault of positive uplifting Romney brand commercials. But they never did that and squandered the opportunity Romney had created after the first debate.

    Below are three Reagan commercials from 1984 that should be the gold standard:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzfF6E-tx7o

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA

    This ad executive concludes how close the election was. The fact is that if had done his job effectively it would not have been a close election at all.

  • HELENK2
    • getfitnow

      That One is NEVER going to agree with anything the GOP puts forward. NEVER. He’s not even in this except to say NO to any offer that’s put on the table. Once again, he’s leading from a golf course. Soon he’ll try and lead from his $4 million taxpayer-funded vacation in Hawaii.

  • HELENK2

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/03/us-usa-tax-irs-idUSBRE8B21HA20121203

    IRS releases 159 pages of new tax rules due to obamacare.

    Isn’t that just peachy

  • HELENK2
  • HELENK2

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57556704-38/cops-to-congress-we-need-logs-of-americans-text-messages/

    WTF

    want providers to store sms for two years ” just in case a crime is committed?”

    • DianaLC

      I guess the old fogeys like me can commit crimes now because we’ve just never decided to learn how to text message or tweet or get on Facebook–not that we want to learn those things.

  • HELENK2

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/03/Los-Angeles-POrt-Strike-Drags-On

    strikers at ports of LA and Long Beach

    these fools are costing California millions.
    ships going to mexico to unload

  • http://lesstalkmoreactivism.blogspot.com/ Canaan

    The only Republican I know calling for defense cuts is Pat Buchanan. PB opposed the Iraq War and opposes war with Iran. He’s a harsher critic of the Neocons than Michael Moore (and far more substantive).

    None of that matters to the ‘Lying Left’ because they don’t really care about peace. They drove a leading conservative who is anti-war and pro-defense cuts off BSNBC because PB’s idea of a “national conversation on race” is not a one-sided lecture where Eric Holder does all the talking.

    A prostitute with Stage 9 syphilis has more principles in her diseased cunt than the modern American left.