Democrats & Liberals Archives

I am an Obama Liberal

Before Obama (B.O.), I was an ordinary liberal fighting for the interests of workers against conservatives, who were fighting for the interests of business. Although the conflict started as a battle between Americans with different political points of view, it sank into a no-holds-barred zero-sum war between Democrats and Republicans. President Obama is changing the nature of the political conflict by replacing fighting with negotiation. I applaud arrival of the After Obama (A.O.) era.

What is a liberal as opposed to a conservative? Some say conservatives favor small government and liberals favor big government. This is wrong. Conservatives usually claim this because they want to reduce government programs favored by liberals. However, there are plenty of programs - related to commerce and defense, especially - conservatives want to keep and even expand. The issue is not the size of government, but what government should do.

Conservatives are traditionalists, who like things as they are because they are famous, rich or executives in big corporations. Why change things when they are going so well? Naturally, conservatives try their best to help business and CEOs, whom they call "job creators." Liberals think that conditions could be improved, because they are minorities, poor people and ordinary workers. They don't have it so good. So naturally they try their best to help ordinary Americans get jobs.

In the Before Obama (B.O.) Era, long before Obama was inaugurated, the Republican Party did not consist of only conservatives; there were some moderates, even a few liberals. Similarly, the Democratic Party did not consist of only liberals; there were some moderates, even a few conservatives. There was plenty of conflict, lots of patisanship, a great deal of criticism. But there were also tough debates that often led to results that both sides accepted without rancor. There were plenty of liberal-conservative friendships. When it came to foreign policy, partisanship stopped at the water's edge.

The greatest cooperation between the 2 parties probably occured between roughly 1930 and 1960. The most likely reason for this was the terrible misery caused by the Great Depression.

Since the '60s and '70s the parties have been moving steadily apart, each moving toward its extreme. The Republican Party kept shedding liberals and moderates. The Democratic Party kept shedding conservatives and moderates. Righteous polarization ensued: Republicans called Democrats socialists and Democrts called Republicans fascists.

A political war followed. Each party tore down the other party. Filibustering, name calling and smearing became the rule. Soon, the war was also fought in the media. Rush Limbaugh knocked everything remotely related to liberals and liberalism, and his budies at Fox News became an appendage of the Republican Party. So, MSNBC joined the fray and started tearing down Fox and conservatives. During George W. Bush's administration the polarization was ridiculously intense.

During his campaign, Barack Obama said he wanted to cut the hateful political polarization and get liberals and conservatives to work together to solve urgent problems. Both liberals and conservatives in Congress fought him throughout the first 2 years of his presidency. Conservatives fought Obama because he was a liberal. Liberals fought Obama because he was too eager to compromise with conservatives.

The After Obama (A.O.) Era, the time when liberals and conservatives "disagree without being disagreeable," had a tough time starting. During the stimulus debate, conservatives were against spending money, while liberals wanted a bigger stimulus. During the healthcare debate, conservatives denounced the bill as reducing freedom, while liberals were furious that the public option was removed in compromise. During the financial regulation debate, conservatives were for minimal regulation of financial houses, while liberals fought tenaciously for financial consumers; liberals were extremely unhappy that Obama did not denounce the bankers enough. Hateful barbs flew between conservatives and liberals.

A.O. truly began after the mid-term elections when we were faced with a standoff. Conservatives had won the House, increased their membership in the Senate and insisted on extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone, including the wealthy. Liberals insisted that tax cuts should be given only to those earning less than $250,000 a year. Conservatives wanted to cut spending, while liberals were eager to spend in order to stimulate the economy and grow jobs.

President Obama stepped in and negotiated a deal with the Republicans. He realized that the most important issue for conservatives is tax cuts for the rich. So he agreed to a 2-year extension of all tax cuts. To Obama, the most important issue is to stimulate the economy to increase jobs. So he insisted on unemployment insurance for 13 months and for other stimulative tax incentives amounting to a total of $450 billion, which is expected to produce about 2.2 million jobs. Not bad, considering that the total for the 2-year tax extension for the rich amounts to about $75 billion.

Liberals are screaming while Republicans are sitting back and enjoying the show. Neither group understands what has happened. The O.A. era has started in earnest. President Obama is demonstrating to both aggresive parties that the time for fighting is over and the time for negotiating has arrived. Our problems are so great we can't afford to keep fighting. We must negotiate in order to achieve the best solutions.

Obama has been called so many names, I haven't got enough space to list them all. I believe he is a liberal, plain and simple. But unlike most people who call themselves liberal, he does not want to fight conservatives who disagree with him. He prefers to negotiate with them: conservatives get to help the rich, while he gets to help the middle class and the poor. The final result can be harmony and prosperity.

Welcome to the After Obama (A.O.) Age. I am an Obama liberal.

Posted by Paul Siegel at December 11, 2010 7:37 PM
Comments
Comment #314957

Lol, Paul.

That’s gonna stir some hornets out of the nest. My favorite ploy is to use Wikipedia to get “librul” haters to understand they are liberals, too.

Posted by: gergle at December 11, 2010 9:39 PM
Comment #314962

Obama negotiated a deal with Republicans, where both sides made compromises. Good for both. I wish some others would get the message.

Posted by: C&J at December 11, 2010 9:55 PM
Comment #314965

Paul,

I’m one of the nay-sayers on the left I’m afraid.

Compromise is a good thing, and I’ve indicated it many times here on WB. But, and that ‘but’ is capitalized, compromise can sometimes be a hindrance as well.

Example: The health care situation. Most have agreed, even conservatives, over the past eighty years or so, that America needed to do something about its health care system. Until 2009 there was no real chance of anything positive happening because all programs presented cost too much. Comes a time when it would be possible to provide health care reform without adding the cost factor as a negative, i.e., the public option. Because the President, whom I voted for and admire, wanted to do his feel-good thing with the disloyal opposition, he settled for a reform that did not include the only part of the package that would actually curtail costs. Now we have something that will help folks for the next twenty or so years, but then will add more to the debt than even the DOD.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 11, 2010 10:51 PM
Comment #314968

PS:

C&J and others on the right, before you jump into what I’ve said about his feel-good blend with your side, I’d like to squelch it right now.

The President could get NOTHING positive out of Republicans going into serious negotiation phases. All Republicans wanted to do was tell the President that he could do it the conservative way or not at all. Since he could find no one on that side to negotiate with, he merely took positions that Republicans had indicated in their own offerings previously, that they would be for, and he added them himself. In other words he compromised with the stonewalling, non-compromisers. The one thing he needed help on, he had to leave out, and that one thing was the thing Republicans should have been for, because it would have reduced the deficit in the out years.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 11, 2010 11:00 PM
Comment #314978

Marysdude

Yes. I understand that President Obama had to complain about the deal he made. You know that he did it for people like you. He knows what is needed, but he has to bring along the netroots. There will be lots of shouting, gnashing of teeth and rending of liberal flesh, but practical reality won out over ideology. Obama led the way. I really didn’t think he had it in him.

Conservatives don’t love this compromise and many have spoken against it, but it would be the broad middle against the wings.

Posted by: C&J at December 11, 2010 11:40 PM
Comment #314983
Conservatives are traditionalists, who like things as they are because they are famous, rich or executives in big corporations. Why change things when they are going so well? Naturally, conservatives try their best to help business and CEOs, whom they call “job creators.” Liberals think that conditions could be improved, because they are minorities, poor people and ordinary workers. They don’t have it so good. So naturally they try their best to help ordinary Americans get jobs.

Talk about an oversimplification. Following the aforementioned logic, a non-wealthy (poor) person cannot be a conservative. Of course we know that is wrong. Likewise, if one isn’t famous, rich or an executive, one cannot be a Liberal either. Moreover, since when does only ‘ordinary people’ help only ‘ordinary people?’

Indeed, CEOs are not ‘Job Creators’; they are merely managers. ‘Job Creators’ are any person or persons who take risks, foster innovation and ideas, and are generally entreprenuerial.

Btw, neither Conservatives or Liberals champion the status quo. Each strive to find better solutions. One of the most glaring ironies that I’ve seen in quite a while is the fact that the Progressive and/or Liberal caucus of the Democratic Party are so incensed with the Obama/GOP Bush-era tax cut compromise. How can one minority portion of society and Congress (Liberals make up approximately 20 percent of voters) demand so much for their own ideological beliefs when the majority of Americans expect a simple, pragmatic approach to taxes and spending during a recession?

Think about this: The very high ideals that both Obama and Liberals fought so hard for during the ‘08 presidential campaign (i.e., transparency and change) got so twisted that the very thing that Democrats in general tried to prevent (lobbying and special interests) became the very thing that they once hertofore railed against. In other words, the Democrats are themselves - hypocrites.

The storyline goes: “we want everything that we had coming because we know what’s best for everyone AND we controlled both chambers of Congress along with the Oval Office.” “Special interest groups are BAD; but we don’t count as special interests because, somehow, we’re special.”

The fact is, Obama, Clinton, and like-minded Republicans are correct with the notion that this is the best deal for the American people at this point in time.

It’s also interesting that, according to various political sources, Obama chose to ‘read up’ on Clinton’s 1994 - 1995 dealings, strategies and history right after the Nov. 2010 midterms. Thus far, Mr. Obama is looking like a very good student of history, given his recent political manuevering.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at December 12, 2010 12:34 AM
Comment #314986

Kevin,

I’m not sure ‘capitulation’ counts as ‘political maneuvering’. It is not a good thing for him to forget the long range harm this will do to the economy, for the short range benefits he gained. Keeping liquid assets out of a recovering economy is basically against every precept. The dollars those with incomes in excess of $250,000 are holding on to (about two trillion and rising), or putting offshore, are actually a drag, and thus viral to us, and will have greater effect as time goes by.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 12, 2010 6:41 AM
Comment #315000
What is a liberal as opposed to a conservative? Some say conservatives favor small government and liberals favor big government. This is wrong. Conservatives usually claim this because they want to reduce government programs favored by liberals. However, there are plenty of programs - related to commerce and defense, especially - conservatives want to keep and even expand. The issue is not the size of government, but what government should do.
The problem is too much selfishness from both the extreme right and the extreme left, which are equally pathetic and destructive and to the nation:
    There is really no big difference between Democrat and Republican Incumbent Politicians. Unfortunately, the only major difference between the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY are the two equally destructive extremes that each go to:
    • Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism, little (if any) government regulations, and freedom to explore and wallow in almost every manifestation of unchecked greed.
    • Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; tries to disguise envy and jealousy as demands for equality; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.
    Other than those two equally destructive extremes above, consider the vast number of destructive similarities …
As for taxes and debt, here’s a quetion to ponder:
  • Where will the money come from to merely pay the interest on the $14 Trillion federal national debt and the $57 Trillion of total nation-wide debt, when money is created as debt at a fractional ratio of 9-to-1, 90% (or more) of all money in the U.S. already exists as debt, the economy is now 80% consumer-spending driven, and the money required to merely pay only the interest on the current $57 Trillion nation-wide debt does not yet exist?
Not to mention the perpetuation of these 10 major abuses by BOTH political parties, still hammering most Americans?

Sadly, the IN-Party, OUT-Party, and all of their blind partisan loyalists prefer to wallow in the blind, circular partisan warfare, while the nation continues to deteriorate, and the 10 major abuses continue perpetuated by BOTH main politician parties continue to hammer most Americans.

Voters improved a bit, by reducing Congress’ re-election rates from 87% in year 2008 to 77% in year 2010.
Perhaps year 2012 will be like year 1933, when unhappy voters delivered 61% re-election for Congress?

  • Start _ End _ Congress _ Re-Election Rate
  • Year __ Year __ # ______ Rate /b>
  • 1927 __ 1929 __ 070st __ 83.6% (87 incumbents ousted)
  • 1929 __ 1931 __ 071st __ 79.7% (108 incumbents ousted)
  • 1931 __ 1933 __ 072nd __ 76.8% (123 incumbents ousted)
  • 1933 __ 1935 __ 073rd __ 61.2% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted; 59 Dems, 147 Repubs)
  • … … … … … … . .
  • 1989 __ 1991 __ 101st __ 90.1%
  • 1991 __ 1993 __ 102nd __ 87.7%
  • 1993 __ 1995 __ 103rd __ 73.5% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)
  • 1995 __ 1997 __ 104th __ 79.8%
  • 1997 __ 1999 __ 105th __ 77.4%
  • 1999 __ 2001 __ 106th __ 89.2%
  • 2001 __ 2003 __ 107th __ 89.2%
  • 2003 __ 2005 __ 108th __ 87.9% (65 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2005 __ 2007 __ 109th __ 88.6% (61 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2007 __ 2009 __ 110th __ 84.9% (81 of 535 incumbents voted out/replaced)
  • 2009 __ 2011 __ 111th __ 86.9% (70 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2011 __ 2013 __ 112th __ 77.0% (123 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2013 __ 2015 __ 113th __ ??.?% (??? ousted perhaps?)
Notice the similarity of increasing anti-incumbency above for 1929, 1931, 1933 AND 2009, 2011, and possibly 2013?
Perhaps voters are finally getting fed up with BOTH parties?
Too bad though, in the last election, that more voters didn’t oust large numbers of FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians in BOTH political parties.
Letting the two-party duopoly simply take turns is essentially letting dumb and dumber continue to run the nation into ruin.
It’s really no wonder that independents now out-number the IN-Party or OUT-Party, who have merely perpetuated the same 10 major abuses for 30+ years, which did not all come about by mere coincidence.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2010 11:29 AM
Comment #315003

Although Obama is doing his best,perhaps, but the negotiations should have included the Democratic leadership. The Democratic party is the only party now that represents the 98% of Americans, we should have more say of what the 98% want. Why is this country allowing the wealthy to take more control and more taxes benefits and assets from the rest of us.
They are taking our homes,our money,and our childrens futures by increasing our debt for their petty whims.
Take out the GOP and their cronies the moronic TP’ers, and we would have a great country.
For now we have a plutocracy, and we are royally screwed!

Posted by: daniel at December 12, 2010 11:47 AM
Comment #315007

More like Plutarchy. Small group of Wealthy folk.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 12, 2010 12:46 PM
Comment #315009

Daniel & Marysdude

Last election, a majority of the voters voted against the Democrats. If you figure that 2% = 50%+, perhaps we understand something about liberal thinking (and perhaps cognitive skills).

The problem for liberals is that in a democracy the people get to choose and they tend not to choose liberals.

Liberals speak for about 20% of the population. According to the last elections, it looks like Democrats speak for around 48% and Republicans speak for around 52%.

You really do not speak for “the people”. At best, Democrats today speak for just under half the people and Republicans speak for just over half.

I don’t know who is “taking your homes”. Did you remember to pay the bill or did you buy more house than you could afford?

Posted by: C&J at December 12, 2010 1:27 PM
Comment #315010

More like a kleptocratic plutocracy.

  • Kleptocracy: A government characterized by rampant greed and corruption.
  • Plutocracy: Government by the wealthy; a wealthy class that controls a government; a government or state in which the wealthy rule.
What do you think of the Republicans argument that we should continue to tax the wealthy a lesser percentage (for example, Warren Buffet agrees) the majority of working Americans, because the wealthy create jobs for the rest of us?

Perhaps what should be done is to lower total federal taxes on everyone to 17.7% (above the poverty level), just like Warren Buffet?

The current tax system is regressive:

  • 35% |——————————————————————————————-
  • 33% |—————————o——-o——————————————————
  • 30% |——————o—————————o——————————————- = (30% total
  • 27% |—————-o:———————————-o———————————— federal tax for
  • 24% |—————o-:——————————————-o————————— secretay making $60K
  • 21% |————-o—:—————————————————-o——————
  • 18% |————o—-:———————————————————————o- = (Warren Buffet’s total
  • 12% |———o——-:———————————————————————— federal taxes on
  • 09% |——-o———:———————————————————————— $46 Million in 2006)
  • 06% |——o———-:————————————————————————
  • 03% |—-o————:————————————————————————
  • 00% |ooo————-:————————————————————————
  • ____$0__30K__60K__90K_120K_150K_180K_210K_240K … … $GROSS INCOME …
Preserving the cuts only for people making $250K or less will make the tax system more fair (but not completely fair), bringing the total federal tax percentage that people pay closer to an equal percentage of their total income (since the majority of the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy (i.e. tax cuts on capital gains, interest, and dividends; which are also not subject to Social Security and Medicare taxation).

Most Americans polled think that a flat percentage of their income (ALL TYPES of INCOME) is most fair, but we have a regressive tax system instead.
Yet, despite the evidence above that taxes (in many cases) are regressive, many voters believe we have a progressive tax system.

Here’s how the tax system works for the wealthy, and the majority of Americans:

  • The top federal income tax bracket on $60K (in year 2006) was about 20% (or 18.33% after standard deductions and exemptions);
  • Social Security tax is: 2 * 6.2% = 12.4% (on the first $94,200; on the gross income, before any deductions);
  • Medicare tax is: 2 * 1.45% = 2.9% (there is no cap on Medicare; on the gross income, before any deductions);
  • Total Social Security and Medicare tax rate is: 2 * (6.2% + 1.45%) = 2 * 7.65% = 15.3% (the employer pays half of the Social Security and Medicare tax, but it really comes out of the employee’s income; the employee really bears this cost; also, the self-employed pay the entire 15.3% themselves);
  • therefore, the maximum percentage of federal taxes on $60K of payroll could be as high as 31.0%.
    For example:
    Tax = [($60K - $5150 personal deduction - $3,300 for standard exemptions) * 18.33% tax rate] + ($60K * 15.3% Social Security & Medicare)
    Tax = [($51,550) * 18.33%] + ($9,180 for Social Security & Medicare) = [($51,550) * 18.33%] + ($9,180 Social Security & Medicare)
    Tax = [$9,451 ] + ($9,180 Social Security & Medicare)
    Tax = $18,631 = 31% of $60K (which is a higher percentage than Warren Buffet’s 17.7% in total federal taxes on $46 Million).
    Is that fair?
  • However, Warren Buffet’s secretary paid 30% in 2006 (1% less than the potential 31% above) in total federal taxes on $60K income (see above), which is probably because of a 401K deduction, and/or some other deduction (e.g. a charitable donation).
  • Even if the employer’s 50%/50% contribution for Social Security and Medicare are excluded, the secretary’s Tax is:
    Tax = [$9,451 ] + ($9,180 / 2 for Social Security & Medicare)
    Tax = $14,401 = 23.4% of $60K (which is still a higher percentage than Warren Buffet’s 17.7% in total federal taxes on $46 Million).
Pretty clever, eh?

Is that fair?

Not according to most people polled, and Warren Buffet agrees it is not fair (source: www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/30/watch-warren-buffett-cal_n_70455.html).
Whatever sort of tax system the voters have, they should ask to see the tax-curve across all income levels, because many tax-payers are not aware of the clever schemes being used to heap the highest percentages onto the middle-income group, and lower the tax percentages for the wealthy (such as the current regressive tax system).

Aside from the poor, who pay no federal income taxes, who among you think benefits most from the ridiculous myriad of tax loop-holes in the current tax system?
And what about the cap ($106,800 in 2010) for Social Security taxes ONLY on payroll (not on capital gains, dividends, and interest income)?
Why is it certain TYPES of income are taxed much less than payroll income?
Democrats had two years to do something about the ridiculously complex, unfair, and regressive tax system, but didn’t.
It’s clear most that BOTH parties mostly only care about their wealthy supporters who fund their campaigns (as evidenced by 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more coming from a very tiny 0.3% of all 200 million eligible voters (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/OpenSecrets_DonorDemographics.htm).

So what’s most fair?
Why can’t we have a simple equal percentage on all types of income (above the poverty level)?
Unfortunately, the extremists on the left want a progressive tax, and the extremists on the right want a regressive tax (as we have now), and few (if any) of the FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbents in Congress do the right thing.

So, we have a regressive tax, and the wealth of the wealthiest 1% in the U.S. has doubled from 20% of all weatlh to over 40% of all wealth in the nation.

  • Percentage of wealth owned by the wealthiest 1% in the U.S.:
  • 45.0% |—o——————-
  • 42.5% |-o-o—————-o
  • 40.0% |oo-o—————o-
  • 37.5% |——o—oo——o—
  • 35.0% |——o—oo——o—
  • 32.5% |——-oo—o—o—-
  • 30.0% |——-oo—o—o—-
  • 27.5% |—————o-o—-
  • 25.0% |—————o-o—-
  • 22.5% |—————o-o—-
  • 20.0% |—————-o——
  • 00.0% |—————————-YEAR
  • _____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
  • _____ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0
  • _____ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  • _____ 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0
Notice above; the disparity (percentage of wealth owned by the wealthiest 1%) has never been as high as it is today, since the Great Depression.
This should not about jealousy and envy, disguised as demands for equality.
This should simply be about what is most fair.
Most Americans polled believe an equal percentage is most fair.
What’s fair about no Social Security tax on any payroll income above $106,800 and no Social Security and Medicare taxes on types of income such as capital gains, dividends, and interest (the most common type of income for the wealthy)?

Of course, all of that makes too much sense.
A flat percentage of all types of income above the poverty level would be better than the regressive taxation we have today.
We don’t lack for good ideas and solutions.
Unfortunately, today, Congress is where good ideas and solutions go to die.
But the majority of voters are culpable too, since they prefer to wallow in the distracting, circular partisan warfare, and repeatedly empower Congress with perpetual re-election, and the power to continue to be FOR-SALE, arrogant, incompetent, and corrupt.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2010 1:28 PM
Comment #315012

CORRECTION (disagrees ; not agrees):

    What do you think of the Republicans’ argument that we should continue to tax the wealthy a lesser percentage (for example, Warren Buffet [dis]agrees) the majority of working Americans, because the wealthy create jobs for the rest of us?

Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2010 1:31 PM
Comment #315015

d.a.n.,

If the data in the chart you posted (copied below) is accurate… it is easy to see why the Republicans HATED Bill Clinton so much.

d.a.n.’s chart:
Percentage of wealth owned by the wealthiest 1% in the U.S.:
45.0% |—o——————-
42.5% |-o-o—————-o
40.0% |oo-o—————o-
37.5% |——o—oo——o—
35.0% |——o—oo——o—
32.5% |——-oo—o—o—-
30.0% |——-oo—o—o—-
27.5% |—————o-o—-
25.0% |—————o-o—-
22.5% |—————o-o—-
20.0% |—————-o——
00.0% |—————————-YEAR
_____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
_____ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0
_____ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
_____ 0 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

Posted by: LibRick at December 12, 2010 1:39 PM
Comment #315018

I am NOT an Obama liberal.

I want to see universal health care, education for all who qualify through a college level, and lowering the retirement age to 62. That is just for starters. How? Restoring the Clinton era taxation levels will more than pay for universal health care. Withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan will cover the cost of educating the populace. Removing the payroll cap on Social Security will provide retirement.

Until we change the tenor of the national conversation, I am no longer interested in supporting cave ins and capitulations. I want to discuss how we can do more- not less- for our citizens. The fundamental greed and selfishness and negativity of the conservative mode of thought does not deserve to be entertained any longer, especially in light of the FACT that it has been implemented in the past, and it has gone very, very, very badly for almost everyone.

It’s time to turn around the country. Implementing the program I just outlined will do just that. Copmbine it with cutting the Defense Department budget in half will end the national debt in short order.

Posted by: phx8 at December 12, 2010 2:04 PM
Comment #315027

1. Universal health care

Provide by restoring Clinton era levels of taxation.

2. Universal education through college level at public universities for all who qualify.

Provide by ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and substantially cutting DOD budget.

3. Lower retirement age to 62.

Provide by removing cap on Social Security.

Next, fix infrastructure, create jobs, and switch to a green economy. Simple. All three go hand in hand. Universal education would require cutting DOD budget by several percent. An additional cut of several percent, combined with eliminating tax breaks to corporations who outsource, and eliminating federal contracts to companies that outsource, would cover the costs. This would bring about growth, a greener economy to address Global Warming, and drastically reduce oil consumption through improvements in infrastructure and public transporation.

That’s a liberal agenda. That is worth pursuing. It is worthy of us as a country, as Americans. That is change we can believe in. It is well within our means.

Posted by: phx8 at December 12, 2010 3:02 PM
Comment #315029

>Last election, a majority of the voters voted against the Democrats. If you figure that 2% = 50%+, perhaps we understand something about liberal thinking (and perhaps cognitive skills).
Posted by: C&J at December 12, 2010 01:27 PM

C&J,

You sure have a lot of nerve. After the majority of voters elected Democrats to majority in both houses of Congress and the Presidency as well, your champions came out with the biggest Congressional blockade in history, and you spout this crap about how naughty Democrats are to act the way we are…what rot! And, speaking of cognitive skills…whew! You say the most ignorant thing today, and say the other side can’t think…wow!

Posted by: Marysdude at December 12, 2010 3:16 PM
Comment #315032

As with politicians, most of the writers here are all about money. Some have it, others want it. Little regard is paid to whether the money is earned or not. The liberals, in their unceasing quest for what belongs to others have created new “group” rights found nowhere in our constitution.

The common thread running thru liberal political arguments is that 20% of the electorate is always right and the other 80% wrong and only motivated by greed and corruption.

Our nation is deeply in debt with no end in sight. Yet, we constantly hear calls for more spending and more taxes to pay for it. Never mind that our government revenue from taxes is about where it should be based upon historical norms. It is spending that is on an ever-increasing curve upwards to infinity.

There are those who would advocate gutting our national defense if it put an extra $10 in their welfare check. We already have nearly half of American’s who pay no income taxes at all and many of those even receive cash incentives for paying no income tax. It would seem that some liberals would like to see 75% or more of American’s pay no income tax.

For liberals the federal government has become a “Cash Cow” that can be milked ever harder with no fear of it ever going “dry”. I grew up on a dairy farm and can tell liberals that doesn’t work very long.

One writer above even suggests lowering the retirement age for collecting Social Security benefits. Of course, left unsaid, was any mention of them paying more into the system to allow the system to pay at an earlier age. It is just assumed that someone else will pay for it.

I find it astonishing that the liberal mental disorder has spread this far. However, it would appear that the vaccine has been administered and the disease will soon wither and die. Hope is on the horizon.

Happy Conservative New Year.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 12, 2010 4:58 PM
Comment #315036

I find it hilarious that Paul uses B.O. and A.O. in referring to Obama.

Does it remind anyone of B.C. and A.D.? Well, there are plenty of liberals who consider Obam their earthly God so why not? After all, wasn’t that Paul’s point?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 12, 2010 5:15 PM
Comment #315037

“One writer above even suggests lowering the retirement age for collecting Social Security benefits. Of course, left unsaid, was any mention of them paying more into the system to allow the system to pay at an earlier age. It is just assumed that someone else will pay for it.”

It would be funny, if it weren’t for the fact there is rioting in the streets of Europe over ths same socialist agenda.

I think Paul, when referring to Obama (bless his holy name), should be using B.S. and A.S.S.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at December 12, 2010 5:27 PM
Comment #315038

Socialists expect something for nothing and tend to get fiesty when denied the resources of others. For them, the “General Welfare” clause means Christmas all year long.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 12, 2010 5:35 PM
Comment #315041

Yeah, poor people get all the breaks.

Posted by: phx8 at December 12, 2010 6:23 PM
Comment #315042

“There are those who would advocate gutting our national defense if it put an extra $10 in their welfare check.”

We spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military. We have over 500 military bases throughout the world. It is a force far beyond our needs for national defense. What’s the justification? What are the lost opportunity costs for Americans by continuing this level of military spending? It would seem to me that Eisenhower’s concerns about the military-industrial complex have come true.

Many conservatives attribute the collapse of the Soviet Union to the economic pressure caused by attempting to maintain pace with the US after Reagan substantially increased military spending. They might well consider whether we are doing the same to ourselves.


Posted by: Rich at December 12, 2010 6:36 PM
Comment #315043

Lowering the retirement age for collecting Social Security would open an enormous number of jobs for younger people. Remember, the problem with the economy is very basic: lack of consumer demand.

Consumer demand no longer drives the economy because during the Bush administration wages for 80% of population dropped-that’s real wages, after inflation. Growth was fueled by debt originating in the real estate market.

The real estate market will take years to recover, years. How can we stimulate demand and jobs?

Lowering the retirement age performs precisely that.

Removing the salary cap on contributions would result in an immediate infusion of a huge amount of money to Social Security, making it solvent for virtually foreever. In addition, anyone who contributes will be eligible to collect their money upon their own retirement.

Posted by: phx8 at December 12, 2010 6:46 PM
Comment #315044

Oh Please phx8, get off your pity pot. No one is implying we shouldn’t help the poor. Take a look at the waste in government that has nothing to do with helping the poor. The General Welfare clause has nothing at all to do with how much money one has or doesn’t have. Only a liberal could construe the clause as one meaning government sending folks checks.

First, what did “welfare” mean in the age of the Founders? From the Free Republic Web Site:

“We all know the meaning of words can change over time. In order to more accurately assess the meaning of the word “welfare”, with respect to its use in the Constitution, I consulted a source from that period. I happened to own a reprint of the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language. Here is how the word “welfare” was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution:

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word “welfare” is used in the context of states and not persons. The “welfare of the United States” is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 12, 2010 6:52 PM
Comment #315046

phx8 finds the never-ending “Cash Cow” by writing…”Removing the salary cap on contributions would result in an immediate infusion of a huge amount of money to Social Security, making it solvent for virtually foreever.”

Liberals lay awake at night scheming and finding new ways to enrich themselves at the expense of others.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 12, 2010 6:57 PM
Comment #315049

Royal Flush,
Generally speaking, I have always been one of the people who pays and enriches those less fortunate than myself. I’m glad to do it. In return, a healthy economy helped my income a great deal, far more than the Bush tax cuts ever helped in the following years. Given a choice of lower taxes or a healthy economy, I want to see a healthy economy. That includes an economy of healthy, educated, employed people earning living wages, making real goods and delivering real services, and spending money as they see fit.

Perpetuating a sick economy through the same negative conservative philosophy simply makes no sense. Even if I pocket more through tax savings, I lose those savings and more, much more, through a poor business environment, declining real estate, and so on.

It’s time to think in terms of improving our country for all of its citizens. All. Because obsiously we will ALL benefit.

Posted by: phx8 at December 12, 2010 7:55 PM
Comment #315053

>Our nation is deeply in debt with no end in sight. Yet, we constantly hear calls for more spending and more taxes to pay for it. Never mind that our government revenue from taxes is about where it should be based upon historical norms. It is spending that is on an ever-increasing curve upwards to infinity.
Posted by: Royal Flush at December 12, 2010 04:58 PM

I’m assuming by this statement, which preceded a diatribe against spendthrift ‘liberals’ like none I’ve seen for a while, and also several later entries by this self-same individual and a cohort, that burned my ears, was an attempt to solve all our economic problems. Mercy! I had no idea what a horrible citizen I’ve been, and how much money I’ve cost our dear wealthy taxpayers, and how evil me thought this country was for all of us instead of just a chosen few. And…I got to feeling so sorry for myself and so guilty, I almost forgot which party accumulated most of the debt these two characters are so concerned about.

Reagan inherited one trillion…doubled that to two trillion.

Bush I inherited two trillion…added another fifty percent to three trillion.

Clinton inherited three trillion…left the same amount.

Cheney/Bush inherited three trillion…left Obama with eight trillion, and a pocketful of trouble that has cost almost that much to tame.

My humble opinion is that taxes, large or small, have little to do with how the economy performs. Those who shout the loudest about high taxation understand the least about it, have never studied it, and have little interest in it other than to shout about it.


Posted by: Marysdude at December 12, 2010 8:34 PM
Comment #315057

I want the federal government to obey the Constitution.

But Congress is violating the U.S. Constitution in more than one way.

How anyone praises the federal government for any of that is a mystery.

And anyone who idolizes any person is a fool.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 12, 2010 9:53 PM
Comment #315090


Royal Flush, the first wealthy barbarians to take over our governemnt were named Washington and Hamilton.

Today, slavery is considered barbarian. Christians don’t own their slaves anymore.

My comments are opinions, like your comments on welfare, then and now, are opinion, shared by a conservative/Christian group calling itself Free Republic.

Posted by: jlw at December 13, 2010 4:04 PM
Comment #315139

Marysdude:

My humble opinion is that taxes, large or small, have little to do with how the economy performs. Those who shout the loudest about high taxation understand the least about it, have never studied it, and have little interest in it other than to shout about it.

Then just tax 100% and take it all.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 13, 2010 10:09 PM
Comment #315141

Craig,

Silly statement. If you want to debate the issue, feel free. If you want to ignore the statement feel free. But, silly statements are a waste of time for both of us.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 13, 2010 11:12 PM
Comment #315157

Anyone that wants to debate abusive, regressive, oppressive taxation, see this.

The federal government is raking in over $2.2 Trillion per year in tax revenues, and borrowing over $1.2 Trillion more (about 1/4 of GDP), and the $14 Trillion federal national debt is now about 100% of GDP.

The federal government needs to downsize and cut spending, regardless of the jobs lost, since many of those jobs provide no net benefits.
Do we need all of this bloat, $60 Billion in Medicare fraud, corruption, and waste?

Much of the middle-income-group are paying much higher percentages of their total income to federal taxes than many millionaires and billionaires. That’s because Social Security (2 x 6.2% = 12.4%), Medicare (2 x 1.45% = 2.9%), and federal payroll taxes (about 15%-to-20% for someone making $60K to $90K per year) all come to about 30% per year in total federal taxes.

But the Republicans’ (and some Democrats’) argument takes the cake:

    We need to tax the rich less since they give us jobs.

Some people (i.e. master parasites) appear able to rationalize anything for their own greedy benefit, to perpetuate these abuses.

Both of the mostly (if not completely) FOR-SALE Democrats and Republicans in Do-Nothing Congress have had plenty of time (i.e. decades) to do something about the ridiculously complex (by design), regressive (by design), and oppressive tax system (all by design), and have done more to make it less fair, than make it more fair.

Personally, I’d prefer that ALL of the tax cuts expire, since most of the Bush era tax cuts were mostly for the wealthy, and letting them expire will bring the total tax percentages back to a flat percentage. It didn’t affect the middle-income-group much then, and won’t affect it much now.
Even Warren Buffet agrees, who paid only 17.7% on $46 Million, while his secretary paid 30% in total federal taxes on $60K.

However, I don’t agree with an oppressive 55% estate tax.
Why not tax ALL TYPES OF INCOME the same flat percentage? That would be better than what we have today, and most Americans polled believe an equal percentage is most fair.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 14, 2010 8:59 AM
Comment #315194

Marysdude:

The silly statement was appropriate to your position that tax rates do not have a big effect on the economy.

We have a long history of taxes collected being less than 20% of GDP. That is what built our post WWII economy.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 14, 2010 9:26 PM
Comment #315200

Craig,

Taxation has a small part to play in the scheme of things.

Regulated commerce has given us much in the way of advancements in the sciences, innovations in manufacturing methods and products, and comforts of life. That being said, if we flip that over and discuss unrestricted commerce, we find little in the way of advancements or innovations, but rather some very painful lessons.
Unrestricted commerce (some call it ‘free market’) has led to most of our national ills:

Herds of meat animals, fur bearing creatures, and some birds have been trapped/hunted to extinction and near extinction.
Millions of native peoples have been killed or displaced from their lands, and forced to change their customs and traditions.
Peoples have been enslaved, and civil war has broken out.
Robber Barons have participated in land grabs, plus mineral and water rights violations.
Wars, i.e., Spanish American, Boxer Rebellion, etc., have been initiated.
Sweatshops, child labor and eighty hour workweeks without benefits or overtime, in unsafe work places, were commonplace.
Pollutants have created unusable lands and seas, health endangerment, unbreathable air, and undrinkable water.
Several recessions, a stagflation and at least one depression.
Debilitating graft and corporate corruptions like ENRON, the Savings & Loan fiasco, bubbles formed in electronics markets and housing/mortgage markets.
Financial house meltdowns created because of unsupervised derivatives trading, bringing on horrible unemployment.
Political corruption unparalleled in our history.

Our nation’s greatest growth and finest hours, have been during times of the most regulation of our business concerns (highest taxation too). Our nation’s greatest debasements and turmoils have been during the freest of free market periods (lowest taxation too).

Posted by: Marysdude at December 14, 2010 10:30 PM
Comment #315213

Marysdude:

Our nation’s greatest growth and finest hours, have been during times of the most regulation of our business concerns (highest taxation too). Our nation’s greatest debasements and turmoils have been during the freest of free market periods (lowest taxation too).

Taxation has been close to level since 1945 as a percentage of GDP. So when are you talking about highest taxation?

America is founded on Limited government. I’m very confused by your assertion. Do you believe the constitution to be in err? You seem to be arguing for Socialism.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 15, 2010 12:57 AM
Comment #315218

No, Craig, not FOR Socialism…AGAINST rampant Capitalism. I’m a firm believer in the less free market system, with the amount of taxes needed to run it so that all American citizens get the benefit of living here. I honestly don’t believe the amount of taxation has as much to do with a growth economy as many other factors do. I honestly don’t believe that in a depressed/recessed economy we can continue to keep liquid assets out of circulation. I would prefer that the Cheney/Bush tax cuts remain in place for those making less than any given figure such as $250K or $1M or $5M, but if they cannot be broken down like that, allow the whole package that was being held up for ten years to expire. That Socialism thingee gets old after while. We have always had a combination of the two main programs. My little show and tell above merely shows how when one goes too far the country always suffers, and as a consequence, so do its peoples.

As far as America is concerned, I believe we must fear a Plutarchy (oligarchy/plutocracy mix) than we do a Socialist take over. The reason for that fear should be obvious, as we currently have the widest gap between the owners and the workers (wealthy/non-wealthy) than at any time in our illustrious history.

But if we ignore what is going on with the nation’s wealth, a resultant revolution could very well end up as a more Socialist take over. American citizens do not deserve to go back to the ‘good old days’ of servitude and slavery. And, that is the direction your leaders, and the TP, want to take us.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 15, 2010 8:11 AM
Comment #315220

Craig, The federal government may receive less than 20% of GDP in tax revenues, but exceeds 25% of GDP when borrowing by the federal government is included.
The total federal national debt is now $14 Trillion (about 100% of GDP), and the interest alone on the $14 Trillion is about $1.5 Billion per day.

The question I’d like to ask is:

  • Where will the money come from to merely pay the interest on the $14 Trillion federal national debt and the $57 Trillion of nation-wide debt when money is created as debt at a fractional ratio of 9-to-1, 90%-to-95% (or more) of all money in the U.S. already exists as debt, the economy is now 80% consumer-spending driven, and the money required to merely pay only the interest on the current $57 Trillion nation-wide debt does not yet exist?

What’s going to happen when they start creating MUCH money more money out of thin air to merely keep up with the interest on so much debt?

Marysdude, We don’t need bigger government.
We need more effective, less bloated, less wasteful, less corrupt, more transparent, and more accountable government.

  • Where was the SEC while Bernie Madoff was made off with $50 Billion in the largest ponzi scheme in the history of the world?
  • $60 Billion in Medicare fraud in 2009 is outrageous.
  • The current tax system is regressive.
  • Congress is violating Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
  • Waste and bloat are beyond nightmare proportion.
  • The federal government won’t enforce immigration laws, because they want votes and cheap labor.
  • Education is declining in quality, while rising drastically in cost.
  • Healthcare is not only increasingly unaffordable, but dangerous too! Politicians and government bureaucracy (in year 2006) controled 46% of national health care spending. HealthGrades.com reported (27-July-2004) that “An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records”. Since 1999, that is over 1.5 million people killed by preventable medical mistakes. That is more than all the 917,316 American soldiers killed in all American wars (American Revolution (4,435), the War of 1812 (2,260), the Indian Wars (1,000), the Mexican War (1,733), the Civil War (462,000), the Spanish American War (385), WWI (53,402), WWII (291,557), Vietnam War (58,209), Korean War (36,574), the Iraq Gulf War (529), and the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars (5,232 as of 18-OCT-2009)) combined! Compare those 195,000 killed by preventable medical mistakes to the 43,000 people killed annually in the U.S. in automobile accidents.
  • The federal reserve and Helicopter Ben Bernanke think they can simply create money out of thin air, but all pyramid schemes are mathematically doomed (as evidenced by $57 Trillion in nation-wide debt, and no one can say where the money come from to merely pay the interest on the $14 Trillion federal national debt and the $57 Trillion of nation-wide debt when money is created as debt at a fractional ratio of 9-to-1, 90%-to-95% (or more) of all money in the U.S. already exists as debt, the economy is now 80% consumer-spending driven, and the money required to merely pay only the interest on the current $57 Trillion nation-wide debt does not yet exist?

Until that improves, why would anyone want more of the same? ! ?

But, the majority of voters are culpable too.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 15, 2010 8:38 AM
Comment #315221
Marysdude wrote: … we currently have the widest gap between the owners and the workers (wealthy/non-wealthy) than at any time in our illustrious history.
Well, not since the Great Depression; the wealth of the wealthiest 1% in the U.S. has doubled from 20% (in year 1967) of all weatlh to over 40% (today) of all wealth in the nation.
  • Percentage of wealth owned by the wealthiest 1% in the U.S.:
  • 45.0% |—o——————-
  • 42.5% |-o-o—————-o
  • 40.0% |oo-o—————o-
  • 37.5% |——o—oo——o—
  • 35.0% |——o—oo——o—
  • 32.5% |——-oo—o—o—-
  • 30.0% |——-oo—o—o—-
  • 27.5% |—————o-o—-
  • 25.0% |—————o-o—-
  • 22.5% |—————o-o—-
  • 20.0% |—————-o——
  • 18.5% |—————————-YEAR
  • _____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
  • _____ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0
  • _____ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
  • _____ 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 0
And it will most likely get worse as long as the majority of voters reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with perpetual re-election.

However, there seems to be a promising trend developing with the voters?
Voters appear to be getting angrier (as they did in years 1929, 1931, and 1933):
Voters appear to improving a bit, by reducing Congress’ re-election rates from 87% in year 2008 to 77% in year 2010.
Perhaps year 2012 will be like year 1933, when unhappy voters delivered 61% re-election for Congress?

  • Start _ End _ Congress _ Re-Election Rate
  • Year __ Year __ # ______ Rate
  • 1927 __ 1929 __ 070st __ 83.6% (87 incumbents ousted)
  • 1929 __ 1931 __ 071st __ 79.7% (108 incumbents ousted)
  • 1931 __ 1933 __ 072nd __ 76.8% (123 incumbents ousted)
  • 1933 __ 1935 __ 073rd __ 61.2% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted; 59 Dems, 147 Repubs)
  • … … … … … … . .
  • 1989 __ 1991 __ 101st __ 90.1%
  • 1991 __ 1993 __ 102nd __ 87.7%
  • 1993 __ 1995 __ 103rd __ 73.5% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)
  • 1995 __ 1997 __ 104th __ 79.8%
  • 1997 __ 1999 __ 105th __ 77.4%
  • 1999 __ 2001 __ 106th __ 89.2%
  • 2001 __ 2003 __ 107th __ 89.2%
  • 2003 __ 2005 __ 108th __ 87.9% (65 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2005 __ 2007 __ 109th __ 88.6% (61 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2007 __ 2009 __ 110th __ 84.9% (81 of 535 incumbents voted out/replaced)
  • 2009 __ 2011 __ 111th __ 86.9% (70 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2011 __ 2013 __ 112th __ 77.0% (123 of 535 voted out/replaced)
  • 2013 __ 2015 __ 113th __ ??.?% (??? ousted perhaps?)
Notice the similarity of increasing anti-incumbency above for 1929, 1931, 1933 AND 2009, 2011, and possibly 2013?
Perhaps voters are finally getting fed up with BOTH parties?
The voters are culpable too, and refusal to repeatedly reward failure and corruption is probably the ONLY thing that will get the attention of the FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt Congress.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 15, 2010 8:47 AM
Comment #315227

Marydude:

The problem with show and tells is that anyone can do it. The biggest problems have been caused by government. All one needs to do is look at communism, and Nazi Germany etc.

No one that I know if is advocating NO government involvement.

You are advocating more government envolment that we currently have in our country.

I will be happy to argue that the average revenue stream to the US Government is adequate because it is been in place for roughly 60 years (since WWII) and has created quite a society. It is enough. In addition federal government spending of roughly 20% of GDP is enough.

This combination has created a great economic system. That does not mean that we can’t move the money around, but the pre Obama size government was satisfactory to meet the needs of our citizenry.

I will be thrilled to take the pre Obama size of federal government and argue that the average Federal expenditures of roughly 20% of GDP are a good upper limit on spending, on average. (Recessions and wars excluded of course).

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 15, 2010 10:29 AM
Comment #315237

>The problem with show and tells is that anyone can do it. The biggest problems have been caused by government. All one needs to do is look at communism, and Nazi Germany etc.

Craig,

Since we still elect our public officials, I’m not sure how you make the leap.

We rise and fall by how we handle what we have. We have great potential that we do not use, and we don’t use it particularly well right now. We are not utilizing our natural resources to their greatest potential, mostly because we can get foreign slave labor to produce/exploit it cheaper, dirtier, and we don’t have to smell the dirt and pollution. We have a wonderful federal highway system that we fail to maintain because we’ve been sold a bill-of-goods on the evil of taxation. We have a failing education system, mostly because it has been under grievous attack from the right ever since it went public. We have the greatest wealth in the world, but allowed it to gravitate to the hands of just a few. We have fewer people starving, the least people drinking bad water, but are heading in the other direction right now. We had, until recently, the best health care in the world, but have lost that distinction, and are going in the other direction. It is US…WE, who have allowed these things to transpire, not the big bad government. We are the ones who set the agenda and name the priorities, and it is we who have failed at every turn to make the right choices. It is we who allowed Reagan to convince us that collective bargaining was evil. It was us who, in our chase to spend the least, allowed Sam Walton to convince us that cheaper was better, no matter how many jobs it cost or how many foreigners died to provide it. You can harp on the government all you want, but the government is we. It is neither too large nor too small, it is somewhat dysfunctional, some of the time, but the reason it is dysfunctional even sometimes is US…WE.

Taxation did not get us to this point of failure.

Bad government did not get us to this point of failure.

Our greed (read Capitalism to the excess) got us to this point of failure.

The best time in our history. The time when more people prospered, did not depend on low taxes, and did not depend on conservative policies.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 15, 2010 1:34 PM
Comment #315241

Marysdude:

You did a great job of listing each item that the left would see as a failure without any of the positives of our nation’s history to date.

For the sake of argument, let’s say I accept your list as is. (I certainly do not accept it, but for the sake of argument).

How does this translate into increasing the size of government?

Government officials are exactly as human as corporate officers. So what would be your rational for increasing government?

For instance it is Entitlements that are scheduled to bankrupt our country. Medicare and Medicaid being the biggest culprits.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 15, 2010 2:17 PM
Comment #315252

Craig,

Actually the Military Industrial Complex is the biggest culprit, and our unbridled Health Care System the next biggest. You have a problem with social programs, and I understand your concerns, but they have to take the back seat.

Let’s pretend the Supremes overturn our recently passed HC Reform. At the percentage of GDP it has been consuming, and its rates of inflationary growth, how long before it would have stood us on our ear? The current reform is a band aid without the ‘public option’, and it won’t be long before it raises its ugly snout once again. It will likely surpass both social programs you worry so much about before either of them die.

We are not manufacturing much in the United States any longer. Most of our military supply, research and development require foreign input and production. It is already about a third of GDP, and we are losing status and friends around the globe because we have broken their banks with our unbridled finance houses, i.e., the recent meltdown has caused havoc, not only here but all over the world.

Reform can cure many of the problems with Social Security and Medicare, but it will take more than reform to fix those things that are the greatest threat.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 15, 2010 3:56 PM
Comment #315254

Craig, you said:

>Marysdude, You did a great job of listing each item that the left would see as a failure without any of the positives of our nation’s history to date.

But my introduction to that list had a qualifier:

>Regulated commerce has given us much in the way of advancements in the sciences, innovations in manufacturing methods and products, and comforts of life. That being said, if we flip that over and discuss unrestricted commerce, we find little in the way of advancements or innovations, but rather some very painful lessons.

I know what side of my bread contains the butter. But I also know that unfettered free market has led us to the brink, too many times, and we fail to learn from that.

Our biggest problem remains, what to do about the cornering of our national assets into the smallest enclave of power and influence.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 15, 2010 4:09 PM
Comment #315279

What got us here are these 10 major abuses.

Simply blaming the IN-Party or the OUT-Party is exactly what the fuelers (master parasites, cheaters, and manipulators) of the partisan warfare want you to do, as they take turns gettin’ theirs, and screwin’ everyone else.

If it’s not obvious yet to partisan-loyalists that NEITHER the IN-Party or OUT-Party gives a damn about the majority of Americans, then you have what you deserve.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 15, 2010 7:13 PM
Comment #315287

Marysdude:

We have never had unrestricted commerce in this country.

Our constitution says:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

With Health care the key to me is that the more we innovate the more it costs. Every time a new procedure improves our health we live longer and our children need to pay longer on SS and health care expenses. We need to change that by linking medicare and SS to longevity. Then whenever there is an increase in longevity it means we work a little longer instead of giving the bill to our children in the form of higher taxes or debt.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 15, 2010 10:01 PM
Comment #315297

Craig,

Our average expectancy in 2010 is about 77.7 years. We have actually decreased in expectancy recently, and are actually seventh among our main stock, i.e., Western European nations (England, Spain, France, Italy, Germany) and Australia. There are others, but these few are one, two and three years longer than us. Since our health care continues to rise at alarming rates, our expectancy will decline exponentially. You continue to dwell on some of the least of our real problems.

1. Why are we declining in expectancy while other first world nations continue the incline?
2. How can we stop the amassing of our wealth into less and less hands, so as to diffuse the oligarchy/plutocracy assumption of power that is likely to occur if that wealth does not redistribute itself?
3. How do we reverse current trends and convince the American people that the government is NOT their enemy, so that when steps are taken to improve things, we allow it to happen?

You still have not understood that with all the shouting, lies and fear that has been passed around by those on the right, we are approaching third world status at an ever increasing rate. When that happens, your concerns about Social Security and Medicare will be moot.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 15, 2010 11:33 PM
Comment #315394

Marysdude:

Here are some answers:

1. Our longevity is not declining. One year data does not a trend make. Longevity has been rising for years around the developed world.

2. The wealth gap is a world wide issue. So instead of thinking just America, think globally.

(ie, you are probably one of the wealthy if you change your frame of reference to global).

3. We change the trend of viewing government as the enemy by making the government smaller as a % of GDP and making it less intrusive into our lives. America was started on a fear of large government. It’s what we do!!

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/income.php

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 17, 2010 12:54 AM
Comment #315401

Craig,

If I were to be concerned about global Democracy, I would be thinking globally about economy right now. We, as in the Democratic Republic of the United States of America, are losing our identity as such, and the main reason is the Capitalistic necessity to gather all the wealth in one place. I call it the King-of-the-Hill syndrome. Economy is a game to pure Capitalists. The game is to see which of the major players can accumulate the most assets. Since the vast majority of citizens have no real interest or talent for wealth accumulation, the game is tilted toward the bullies who do. You can see the results of those games right now, right here, in the real world. While you people are concerned with the over taxation of the ultra wealthy, they chortle all the way to the bank with the wealth of a nation. We are no longer a voting Democracy, we are being bought and sold down the river into Oligarchy/Plutocracy (Plutarchy).

Our Congress is corrupt, not because we elect evil people, but because the wealthy care so much more for asset accumulation than they do for retaining Democracy, that they place influences and temptations that even Jesus would have had a hard time turning from. Then along comes a Supreme Court, and says that accumulating all the wealth in one corner is preferred, and that any method to get it there is Constitutional.

You are worried about Grandma getting too much out of our economy via Social Security, when the real problem is the shrinking number of hands the economy passes through. Please remember that corporations, and the very best asset accumulators do not care what kind of political system they are in, as long as their accumulation does not have to stop. In the deepest recession since the great depression, our Wall Street is thriving and riding high. The national wealth is traveling around in circles in the stratosphere of high finance, and none of it is circulating in the day-to-day economy. Wall street does not eve miss us as we fade into the fabric of time.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 17, 2010 7:34 AM
Comment #315402

PS:

>America was started on a fear of large government. It’s what we do!!
Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 17, 2010 12:54 AM

I beg to defer…America was founded on the fear of a domineering government, there was not a thought nor was there a mention of the size of George III’s realm, only that we were not being properly represented in it.

Size of government has almost nothing to do with freedom or the adequacies of an economic system. Fluidity of assets and efficiency of government are far more important than size.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 17, 2010 7:41 AM
Comment #315409

Marysdude:

What I am saying about income inequity is that it is a worldwide problem including other democracies incuding Europe. Income inequality is not just an “American Problem”. This is important for two reasons. One it eliminates some of the simplistic answers from the left, “It’s George Bush’s fault”. It also has us look to more complex and I would argue more likely to be successful answers. Larger government is not necessarily an answer as countries with Larger governments are struggling with the same issues.


Our Congress is corrupt, not because we elect evil people, but because the wealthy care so much more for asset accumulation than they do for retaining Democracy, that they place influences and temptations that even Jesus would have had a hard time turning from. Then along comes a Supreme Court, and says that accumulating all the wealth in one corner is preferred, and that any method to get it there is Constitutional.

Congress is corrupt because power corrupts. That is why it is so important to limit federal power. It limits government corruption which is the worst kind.

I am not at all worried about Gramma getting her full share of Social Security. She is not at all what I am talking about.

What I am worried about is future generations of sixty somethings getting money out of medicare and social security and living longer then their parents and grandparents and putting a higher burden on their children than was ever put on them.

I am not at all worried about taxing the wealth more. I am concerned about the over all tax rate as a percentage of GDP. Keep it under 20%. Raising taxes on the wealth is fine by me as long as we lower the somewhere else. The corportate tax rate would be my first choice as it is the highest in the world, (or among the highest).

Size of government has almost nothing to do with freedom or the adequacies of an economic system. Fluidity of assets and efficiency of government are far more important than size.

But you are the one who is advocating reduction in free enterprise which is advocating reduction in economic freedom. Can you explain who wanting a larger government and wanting less economic freedom (free enterprise) should not be interpreted by me as larger government=less freedom?


Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 17, 2010 9:47 AM
Comment #315434

Craig,

Free enterprise is never free. Someone pays for it. In the past those who paid, paid with their health and with their lives. Some restrictions were applied and voilà, more people enjoyed the ‘free’ part of free enterprise.

Our corporate taxes are the highest (perhaps?), but the Treasury realizes less from them than almost any other nation as well. I’ll cry for corporations when they stop bleeding this country for all the benefits they can get here, yet ship jobs, opportunities and wealth off shore.

Your equation is faulty…larger government = less freedom.

You could just as easily have said, more government = more freedom, or smaller government = less freedom. All these equations are dependent upon what is meant by large and small, and how we Gage freedom (which kind of freedom, and how much) The freedom to build a ladder that collapses without penalty, restricts my freedom to do a job that needs to be done without injury. Could BP have used freedom more unwisely? How free should Madoff have been to continue his Ponzi? What about AIG and Lehman’s? Should an insurance company be able to offer insurance at a price, while not placing funds in reserve to pay for the very thing they are insuring against? In other words, just how free is free in your book of free enterprise?

You still have not approached the problems I’ve presented about the collection of so much national wealth in the hands of the few, and the resultant implications of that…

Posted by: Marysdude at December 17, 2010 7:26 PM
Comment #315452

Marydude:

American free Enterprise is regulated. And American free enterprise has created jobs and wealth for millions.

Individuals and Corporations have every freedom to seek their own prosperity within the law. That happens to be what America is about.

When you say Larger government = less freedom is faulty, I am taking that from your words. You want more government and less free enterprise.

You talk about unregulated free enterprise. Slavery was regulated. Government legalized and institutionalized slavery or it would never have happened. You can’t put the negatives of society in one neat column and blame capitalism when in fact Government was there all the time overseeing the project.

We have done that frequently with our current financial mess. Youtube Barney Frank housing crisis. Liberal Democrats were full partners in creating the housing bubble. I am not blaming them by the way, just saying they were partners. The Congressional Black Caucus were huge partners as many lobbied for these (now called bad) loans to help increase home ownership among minorites. Government created the regulations with the full encouragement of the left.

As you blame corporate America, Democrats where there all along enabling.

Now with the recent taxcut bill this week. Again Democrats are there voting to extend taxcuts to the wealthy. They say they were forced to do it. That is crap. They chose to delay the vote until after the election because they didn’t want to face the voters with the result. Now they claim fowl which is just a political tactic. The cuts to the wealthy are not rightly called the “Bush Tax Cuts” but rather the “Bush-Obama” tax cuts.

My point in bringing this up is that the ills you mention, were regulated at the time by our government. It was our governmnet that let the Indians down years ago. They waged the Indian wars and put the American Indians on reservations. Of course corporate interests were involved. it was a Government-private enterprise partnership.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 18, 2010 7:45 AM
Comment #315454

>When you say Larger government = less freedom is faulty, I am taking that from your words. You want more government and less free enterprise.

Craig,

You are bloviating again. I’ve never been for ‘more’ government. I want enough government. You seem to want ‘less’ government, no matter what the cost to citizens. When you say we have a regulated free enterprise, you are half right. We do have some now…we have had more in the past…we are heading in the direction of less for the future. Your need to return to the days of slave and indentured labor, unsafe work places, etc., is frightening.

On slavery, government did not sponsor slavery, it capitulated to the Capitalists, to the captains of agri-industry (cotton and tobacco processors and transporter/shippers) who said they could not survive without it.

You are right about government involvement in the rape of our Indian tribes, but yet again downplay the part of Capitalism in those negatives in history. It is much the same today, as citizens cannot control corporate America without government, and government all too often fall prey to corporate America. It is happening as we speak, and your SCOTUS did not help with its Citizen’s United finding. We are complicit in our own downfall by allowing the marriage between business and government. We lose sight of what is best for all of us in the quest for what we think is best for us as individuals. Our own greed infects the government. It is that infestation that Democrats try to inject with curative solutions. Yes, I know that Democrats are all too willing to sacrifice what is best for what they want, but the drive for better is there, unlike with conservatives who have little drive to be better, and lately no drive at all to do what is best for all of us.

Government is a tool we use to administer to our needs…there are times we use that tool unwisely, but if we merely remember it as a tool, we can make it work for us instead of against us. As to size…a tool needs to be big enough to do the job properly. This has turned into a war between the haves and the have nots, so that tool had better be pretty big. After all the haves now own half our national assets.

On a side note: The European pioneers and explorers learned most about the benefits of slavery from the Indian tribes they befriended. They also learned about freedom from those tribes that practiced a type of democratic elective council to administer to their tribal needs. As soon as we learned what we were to later to adopt from them, we began a pogrom of genocide on them…all that because of our drive to dominate commerce.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 18, 2010 8:40 AM
Comment #315461

Craig,

When you speak of free enterprise and smaller government, I’d like you to think of where that leads. Child and/or forced labor is being used in at least these listed industries in the world. You would ask America to compete with them without utilizing child and/or forced labor?

Carpet weaving
Cocoa bean harvesting and processing
Coal mining
Diamond mining
Cloth/garment making
Rice harvesting and processing
Cattle raising, butchering and processing
Coffee harvesting and processing
Brick and Terra Cotta making
Tobacco harvesting and processing (sound familiar?)
Sugar cane/beet harvesting and processing (sound familiar?)
Cotton harvesting and processing (sound familiar?)
Gold and other metals mining

Don’t you understand that the only entity standing between you and the above is ‘government’? As bad as it is, and as corrupt as we’ve allowed it to get…it is still the only buffer between us and ‘free’ enterprise. Free Enterprise is never free.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 18, 2010 11:31 AM
Comment #315468

Marysdude:

And the reverse?

Do you want me to make a list of the sins of Communism?

Again America has always had government constitutionally empowered to regulate interstate commerce. The amount of government we have had since 1945 (20% of GDP) has served our country well. Increasing the size of government will have the unitended consequences of restricting economic freedom partularly of our children as it increases their taxes and thus decreases their ability to enjoy the same opportunities we have enjoyed.

20% is rationally “enough” federal government because it has served us well.

How much government are you arguing for? Right now we are at 24 or 25% or a 20% build up in a few short years. How high do you want to go?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 18, 2010 2:49 PM
Comment #315473

>Do you want me to make a list of the sins of Communism?

Craig, you need to come off those ‘silly’ pills you’re taking. I did not deserve that, nor will I accept it from you. Get civil or don’t even respond to my stuff.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 18, 2010 4:26 PM
Comment #315501

Marysdude:

I apologize if you were offended because I am enjoying our discussion. However they are mirror arguments. On one side you name some of the abuses of unbrided capitalism.
(too little government).

In your second to the last post, you said that you are not for larger government, but more regulation. Increasing regulation implies more government workers to enforce this regulation.

And let me define the amount of Government I want. I want the same amount we have had for the last sixty years before Obama. I want the size of government reduced to pre 2008 levels.

Above you said:

You seem to want ‘less’ government, no matter what the cost to citizens. When you say we have a regulated free enterprise, you are half right. We do have some now…we have had more in the past…we are heading in the direction of less for the future. Your need to return to the days of slave and indentured labor, unsafe work places, etc., is frightening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Number_of_Fatal_Work_Injuries_1992-2006.gif

Worker safety is improving. So if worker safety is improving then why would I want to change from the status quo and increase government involvement? Obviously we are heading in the right direction!!

Imagine we have been deregulating for 60 years, union membership is down, and worker safety has improved dramatically.

I think we had a formula that worked and worked well. All we need to do is get back on budget and we will be fine.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 18, 2010 11:38 PM
Comment #315504

Craig,

Unions brought on OSHA. Unions are dying, but OSHA is not. OSHA will die though with smaller government.

Most government growth over the past ten years or so have had to do with Homeland Security. And of course the growth to support two wars. The growth under President Obama, at least so far, is mostly paying for itself, so that growth may very well be a good thing.

I promise not to say you follow Adolph, if you promise not to say I follow Joseph or Mao, okay? Just because conservative leaders and their shills are lying and rabble rousing and targeting much like Hitler did, does not mean they are Nazis, it merely means they use the same methodology.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 19, 2010 12:33 AM
Comment #315565

Marysdude:

I am for reducing government to the pre Obama level. OSHA will do well in that environoment.

Most growth in government has happened over the last two years. We must control spending or our children/grandchildren will not have the same opportunities we have had.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 19, 2010 8:35 PM
Comment #315571

Craig,

Where did you get your data on that growth thingee of which you speak? I looked and looked, and all I found were the growth records to 2005. Link please.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 19, 2010 10:26 PM
Comment #315572

Marysdude:

Congressional Budget office:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budget.cfm

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 19, 2010 10:34 PM
Comment #315575

Marysdude:

Here is a link to federal revenue from all sourses from 1900 to 2010.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=1379_876&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s&show=

Notice how really constant it is. the reason for the sharp drop off recently is the great recession. This is inspite of Income tax reductions.

This is an analysis of President Obama’s plans from the CBO which is currently run by a Democrat.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/index.cfm

Notice the prescription for bankruptsy. Increasing deficits to 2020.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 19, 2010 11:13 PM
Comment #315625

Craig,

Am traveling right now. I thought I could get into this and travel too, but my mind won’t wrap around it, so I’ve copied your links and will get back to you on a later thread. Sorry.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 21, 2010 10:43 AM
Comment #315628

Marysdude:

Have a great time.

I would only add done thing at this time to what I said above.

I have no quarrel with the level of government at this time, and even the level of the current deficit. In times of crisis, we have to do what we have to do.

My quarrel is with future spending and that there is no plan to bring the government back to it’s historic size. If you look at the CBO’s scoring of our President’s budget you can see deficits of over a trillion dollars into the year 2020.

We need to reduce deficits past simply sustainability, so that deficits will grow slower than the economy so that over time their burden will become lighter.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at December 21, 2010 2:13 PM
Comment #315637

It’s doubtful Congress will curb spending, until it’s too late to avoid much of the painful consequences.

Federal Debt-to-GDP per-capita (over $45K) has never been larger.

Total nation-wide debt per-capita (over $184K) has never been larger.

Helicopter Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve thinks we need more inflation.

GDP, in 2005 inflation adjusted U.S. Dollars (or in 1950 U.S. Dollars, etc.), has actually been falling since year 2006. That has not happened in over a century (if ever):

  • _______________GDP (in 2005 Dollars)______________
  • $14.5T |——————————————————————
  • $14.0T |————————————————————-o—
  • $13.5T |————————————————————o-o-
  • $13.0T |————————————————————o-o-
  • $12.5T |————————————————————o-o-
  • $12.0T |———————————————————-o——
  • $11.5T |———————————————————-o——
  • $11.0T |———————————————————-o——
  • $10.5T |———————————————————-o——
  • $10.0T |———————————————————-o——
  • $09.5T |———————————————————o——-
  • $09.0T |———————————————————o——-
  • $08.5T |——————————————————-o———
  • $08.0T |—————————————————-o————
  • $07.5T |————————————————-o—————
  • $07.0T |———————————————-o——————
  • $06.5T |——————————————-o———————
  • $06.0T |——————————————o———————-
  • $05.5T |—————————————-o————————
  • $05.0T |—————————————o————————-
  • $04.5T |————————————-o—————————
  • $04.0T |————————————o—————————-
  • $03.5T |———————————-o——————————
  • $03.0T |———————————o——————————-
  • $02.5T |————————-o-o-o———————————
  • $02.0T |————————o—————————————-
  • $01.5T |———————-o——————————————
  • $01.0T |———-o-o-o-o———————————————
  • $00.5T |o—o-o———————————————————
  • $00.0T |——————————————————————
  • _______1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
  • _______9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0
  • _______0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 0 0 1
  • _______0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0

Foreclosures are still very high, and took years to climb to these levels, and will probably take years to fall from these levels:

  • ________ FORECLOSURE FILINGS PER MONTH (2005 -to- 2010) _____________
  • 400K |———————————————————————————————————-
  • 375K |————————————————————————————————-o-o-o-
  • 350K |——————————————————————————-o-o-o—-o-o———-
  • 325K |——————————————————————————o——-o-o—————
  • 300K |—————————————————————-o—-o—-o—————————-
  • 275K |————————————————————-o—o——o——————————-
  • 250K |———————————————-o———o-o———————————————
  • 225K |———————————————o-o—o-o————————————————-
  • 200K |———————————————o—-o——————————————————
  • 175K |—————————————-o-o————————————————————-
  • 150K |————————————o-o——————————————————————
  • 125K |——————-o———-o-o———————————————————————-
  • 100K |——————o-o-o-o-o—————————————————————————
  • 075K |o-o-o-o-o-o——————————————————————————————
  • 050K |———————————————————————————————————-
  • _____2 2 2 2 2 222 2 2 2 2 222 2 2 2 2 222 2 2 2 2 222 2 2 2 2 222 2 2 2 2 22(YEAR)
  • _____0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 00
  • _____0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 001 1 1 1 1 11
  • _____5 5 5 5 5 556 6 6 6 6 667 7 7 7 7 778 8 8 8 8 889 9 9 9 9 990 0 0 0 0 00

  • Year 2010: ~4.0 million (or more; up to 11,480 per day in 2010)
  • Year 2009: 3.0 million
  • Year 2008: 2.0 million
  • Year 2007: 2.0 million
  • Year 2006: 1.2 million
  • Year 2005: 846,000

Inflation, GDP, Debt, Unemployment, Money Supply, etc. may not be getting reported accurately.

Congress doesn’t get it.

At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, … , and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with perpetual re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at December 21, 2010 5:29 PM
Post a comment