You are here

Log in or register to post comments
JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt

Now this is scary


Quote:

What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama's plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That's in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama's budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html

$163,000 per family....WOW!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt

Geez! That is scary! Now I really hate that SOB Bush and how he left this nation! Good thing we elected "O" and more Dems to the Congress to clean up after the F'ing Repubs! (Polls show about 70% of Americans blame W for the recession - I think that # might be higher around the world - while few other than the rabid right wing nut jobs blame O.)

You forgot to mention just how much that personal debt would have figured out to be if the Repub Lirpa budget had passed since their's ran into the trillions in deficit spending also.

You also forgot to mention O's budget includes items (like a quarter trillion for two wars started and perpetuated by the Repubs) that W. left out for his last seven years in office.

Just an oversight on your part I'm certain.

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt

Ah, another comment without having read the piece...if you had read it you would know that it only discusses debt directly attributable to Obama...BDS does not apply.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt

My points remain unanswered. Yes, this is only O's plan but this is a small snippet of reality. Just what I have come to expect from a partisan.

Look deeper to see the whole picture. There's quite a bit more to be found when you pull your head from that dark place, wipe away the accumulated crap that obscures them and open your eyes and your brain to reality.

commsysman
commsysman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 8 hours ago
Joined: Apr 4 2006 - 11:33am
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt

What comes over the next 4 years is subject to economic variables so massive that NO ONE can possibly predict the result accurately.

The damage Bush did over the last 8 years is a matter of record, and unarguably the result of a moron in the White House and a Congress that went along with the deal.

Obama couldn't possibly do half as much damage, even if he tried.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt

It's amazing to me how some drowning people will fight tooth and nail those who are trying to save them.

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
My points remain unanswered. Yes, this is only O's plan but this is a small snippet of reality. Just what I have come to expect from a partisan.

Look deeper to see the whole picture. There's quite a bit more to be found when you pull your head from that dark place, wipe away the accumulated crap that obscures them and open your eyes and your brain to reality.

The whole story is that our leader is dumping over $160,000 in debt over 10 years on every families shoulders and the left, many of whom do not seem to pay taxes, could care less.

Let me put this another way...what, if instead of the government spending money again, they simply sent every person who submitted a tax return a check for say $10,000 a year for ten years and let those folk spend the money..OOOHHH!

After all, it all comes from the same place, government printing presses and debt.

I'd pay off my mortgage, buy a new car in 5 years, an perhaps visit relatives I cannot afford to see today.

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
Obama couldn't possibly do half as much damage, even if he tried.

He already has...9 trillion in new debt...doubling the national debt...

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
The whole story is that our leader is dumping over $160,000 in debt over 10 years on every families shoulders and the left, many of whom do not seem to pay taxes, could care less.

Let me put this another way...what, if instead of the government spending money again, they simply sent every person who submitted a tax return a check for say $10,000 a year for ten years and let those folk spend the money..OOOHHH!

After all, it all comes from the same place, government printing presses and debt.

LordyOLordy! You haven't been paying any attention at all, have you?

Look at my first post.

Pay attention to what I posted.

Even the Repub Lirpa budget plan would have added Trillions to the deficit and national debt - money we don't have and money that would have been borrowed and shrugged off on the next five or so generations, if we could find a lender!

At this point, after the disasters W left to the world, even with the Lirpa plan of freezing benefits to anyone other than their "have mores" base there is no way around more deficit spending and higher debt as far as the mind can figure.

That is a fact!

W spent us into a near depression (Grover Norquist is wearing a broad smile as he fills the tub) and the Repubs were the first to go along with their own agenda added to the bill. You do rememebr me mentioning the Medicare Plan "D" that was not only under budgeted but non-funded, right? Kind of like W's "No Child Left Behind" non-funding of programs except this one was pure political pandering with a multi-Trillion dollar pay off to the pharmaceuticals and insurance lobbies. "No Child" only paid off Bush's relatives and few other influential lobbies, nothing on the grand scale of Plan "D"!

Question; who passed that by holding the vote open for hours while DeLay arm twisted and threatened even his own fiscally conscious House members into voting or loosing their campaign financing support? (An illegal act, by the way.)

Answer; Repubs! (No real choice on that one, they were the only party in complete power at that time.)

So do not go on about how O has sent us into a death spiral. W drove us off the cliff with a brick on the gas and the brakes disconnected. Even the Repubs would be doing double gainers right now had Lirpa passed (that gives me a cold chill).

You should, as a proud American, be applauding the Dems right now for showing more fiscal transparency in the last 70 days than W and the Repubs could muster in eight years. But, no, you are too filled with mindless hatred of anything unlike your Party line to be so reasonable. It's going to take a long time for you to find your shame, isn't it? If, that is, you can find it at all by now.

Now comes the "OHMYGAWD! part. How much attention have you not paid to the basic news lately? Did you put your TV on Faux News and then toss away the remote or what?

Providing cash to the American public will not result in a stimulus in this situation. W has us running scared and the banks are pulling the levers of power. Only a small portion of last year's pay off to the public to keep their mouth's shut resulted in any actual spending that benefitted the US - a nation without a manufacturing base thanks to the Repubs and 30 years of Reagononimcs. Most spending went to foreign manufacturing powers, paid off "too big to fail" bank credit card debt for foreign made goods or it got stashed away for the more dire times W has left us in.

Giving money to the consumer is fruitless and will simply not result in the sort of credit unlocking required to make business work. Like it or not, the only thing left - other than the Repub's absurd idea of now doing nothing (this after giving Trillions away when W was in office) while the country burns - is to prop up the banks and financial institutions.

If you had read the article JA posted yesterday, you would have had a better understanding of the situation and you wouldn't post such inane ideas as you have here.

READ! LEARN SOMETHING NOT TOLD TO YOU BY RUSHBO! He is the Liar In Chief for special interests that do not include you "the average schmoe", Franken proved that every week for years.

GEEEEZ!

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
Even the Repub Lirpa budget plan would have added Trillions to the deficit and national debt - money we don't have and money that would have been borrowed and shrugged off on the next five or so generations, if we could find a lender!

Do you really not see the obvious flaw in this argument..You are saying, in effect, the republicans want to spend $4 trillion in new debt then Obama's $12 trillion must be OK.

Have you ever considered that BOTH are bad ideas and the smaller of the two is less of a bad idea than the grander?

Obviously not.

If you do not understand this very simple concept, the rest of your argument fails as well.

It does not matter what bad ideas the republicans have when their plan has no chance and when the plan that IS being passed is far, far worse.

Like talking to children here.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
Do you really not see the obvious flaw in this argument..You are saying, in effect, the republicans want to spend $4 trillion in new debt then Obama's $12 trillion must be OK.

That's not at all what I'm saying, that's what you are reading and we can see your reading isn't all that good.

What I'm saying, what JA's article said and what every thinking person understands is that with the mess W left there is nothing productive to be done that will not add to the debt.

Even doing nothing is certain to make things worse!

You do understand that, don't you?

The Lirpa plan was a joke to be sure - I expected no less from the R's. To do even less than that would be sheer idiocy and would certainly set off a world wide depression unlike any other.


Quote:
If you do not understand this very simple concept, the rest of your argument fails as well.

OK, we've taken care of that bit of lunacy too. You don't understand even the simplest of concepts. If you don't want to spend the money and you don't want to do anything, there are no other options.


Quote:
It does not matter what bad ideas the republicans have when their plan has no chance and when the plan that IS being passed is far, far worse.

KNEE SLAPPER! SPIT TAKER! LAUGHED SO HARD I HURT MY SIDES TILL I THOUGHT THEY'D BUST!

JUST PLAIN ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!

If you can't make any more sense than that, it's time to pack this in and move your show to another forum where they appreciate this sort of stuff. Try Hannitty's blog - he hasn't made sense in I don't know how long - if ever!

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
That's not at all what I'm saying, that's what you are reading and we can see your reading isn't all that good.

What I'm saying, what JA's article said and what every thinking person understands is that with the mess W left there is nothing productive to be done that will not add to the debt.

You say he left a mess, which is subjective and partisan, though you state it as a fact. OK, in your world we'll leave it as a 'fact'. How does taking $500 billion in unplanned deficit spending under Bush and making it $9-12 trillion under Obama make it better?


Quote:
Even doing nothing is certain to make things worse!

Prove it


Quote:
The Lirpa plan was a joke to be sure - I expected no less from the R's. To do even less than that would be sheer idiocy and would certainly set off a world wide depression unlike any other.

This is a non issue which you keep revisiting...It is like, having painted ones home blue, one constantly speaks of ones sons plan to paint it green...

The republican plan was never going to be approved, or even considered so why discuss it at all when we do have a real mess in Congress that has nothing to do with the republican plan at all and will be passed?

Why discuss the imaginary when the real has so much room for discussion???


Quote:
OK, we've taken care of that bit of lunacy too. You don't understand even the simplest of concepts. If you don't want to spend the money and you don't want to do anything, there are no other options.

A stupid argument and a logic flaw. A false either/or argument in which we either do the stupid thing advocated by your side or we do nothing. Putting aside your utter inability to prove doing nothing would be worse than this action, you leave off the universe of other options ranging from letting the business fail and reduce spending in hard times to spending less than the dems desire as the republicans wanted.


Quote:
KNEE SLAPPER! SPIT TAKER! LAUGHED SO HARD I HURT MY SIDES TILL I THOUGHT THEY'D BUST!

There is a medical term for that condition "Cachinnation"...Laughter without apparent cause, often observed in schizophrenia. There is treatment.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
You say he left a mess, which is subjective and partisan, though you state it as a fact. OK, in your world we'll leave it as a 'fact'. How does taking $500 billion in unplanned deficit spending under Bush and making it $9-12 trillion under Obama make it better?

Eventually you have to question someone's grasp on reality when they make statements such as that.

"$500 billion in unplanned deficit spending under Bush" is what? There was no "unplanned spending" under Bush other than, if you're being very, very generous about it, the several trillion dollar cost of the wars he couldn't finish. He admitted he was going to run deficits for his entire two terms in office (and beyond actually is what he said) and, for once, he told us the truth.

Any "unplanned spending" ended the day after he told us "Mission Accomplished". Everything has been planned since that day. Or do you still refer to Plan "D" which the R's didn't think to fund? I can think of nothing that was "unplanned spending" under W.

Not well thought out, I'll grant you.

"Unplanned"? ... "unplanned"???

As Pappy HW used to say, "Nope! Not gonna go there."


Quote:
Prove it

OK! You do nothing for the next eight years.

Please.


Quote:
Why discuss the imaginary when the real has so much room for discussion???

Can I quote you on that? Discussing the hypothetical seems to be one of your favorite topics.


Quote:
A stupid argument and a logic flaw. A false either/or argument in which we either do the stupid thing advocated by your side or we do nothing. Putting aside your utter inability to prove doing nothing would be worse than this action, you leave off the universe of other options ranging from letting the business fail and reduce spending in hard times to spending less than the dems desire as the republicans wanted.

I see, it's stupid because you say so. This is like when you wanted a legal case presented isn't it? If I say it, you call it stupid.

Oh, you've been watching O'Reilly too much.

No, it's not a false argument and it is not flawed logic. Not unless you really don't care what happens to this country and the world. Then you have the attitude everything is stupid except that which you have ... a ... ppro v e d ...

Oh, dear, I've done it again, havent I? I've wandered into territory that's embarrassing to you. If it doesn't fit in your little skull with the other junk Rushbo has told you, it's stupid, eh?

OK, we'll leave it at that. It's cruel to poke at the defenseless.

Look, why don't you read JA's article? Then we can talk sensibly.


Quote:
There is a medical term for that condition "Cachinnation"...Laughter without apparent cause, often observed in schizophrenia. There is treatment.

You're leaving?!

Need help packing?

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt

I'm sorry. I thought you knew something about budgeting...I guess like law, you are clueless.


Quote:
"$500 billion in unplanned deficit spending under Bush" is what? There was no "unplanned spending" under Bush other than, if you're being very, very generous about it, the several trillion dollar cost of the wars he couldn't finish. He admitted he was going to run deficits for his entire two terms in office (and beyond actually is what he said) and, for once, he told us the truth.

Bush submitted a budget for last year with around $420 billion in deficit spending. He added $125 billion in a rebate probram and $400 billion in Tarp I....unplanned deficits.

Obama has proposed $1.2 trillion in deficit spending in his budget BUT he has also proposed between 2 and 3 trillion in additional spending NOT in his budget. As the CBO has costed his planned deficit spending at around $9 trillion and he has added 2-3 trillion more his deficit spending is as I posted...

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
Bush submitted a budget for last year with around $420 billion in deficit spending. He added $125 billion in a rebate probram and $400 billion in Tarp I....unplanned deficits.

Obama has proposed $1.2 trillion in deficit spending in his budget BUT he has also proposed between 2 and 3 trillion in additional spending NOT in his budget. As the CBO has costed his planned deficit spending at around $9 trillion and he has added 2-3 trillion more his deficit spending is as I posted...

OK, this is tough, isn't it? Well, a dumby like me can't be expected to get this right the first time out, you know?

So, let's see if I have this right ...

The only spending that didn't count (?) under W was the "$125 billion in a rebate probram [sic] and $400 billion in Tarp I."

Even though W's administration asked for and got authorization for spending $700B in TARP I?!

AWWWW ...... Damn! See? That's the kind of shit that throws me every time. W planned it but O spent it even though W really, really wanted to spend it hisownself but those rotten ol' D's said, "No way, Jose!" and wouldn't trust anyone who had spent all that planned? money on other shit with nothing to show for it with everything he wanted this time, so it's O's spending and not W's! Cause O did that like, what? three days five days? into his administration? So it's obviously O's. No doubt! It's O's alright!

Gotcha!

DAMN! That's not so easy to figure!

OK, OK, so W spent $400B on TARPI. And that's because you think W didn't plan to pay off his "have more's" cronies as he was headed out of Dodge, is that right?

OK, I'll play along but, guy, that's just dumb! I mean he didn't even ask for a receipt!

But, what about the "emergency" funding of two wars? Doesn't "emergency" kinda mean it's not planned? Or do you have planned "emergencies" at your house?

Ok, Ok, you're getting me off track here and this is getting complicated as all hell.

OK, $500B in unplanned spending because when W told us in 2001 he woud run deficits as high as $500B each year - not counting those "emergencies" he did or didn't? count on, man! this is tough! OK, those things he predicted don't count since they were planned unplanned spending. Is that right? Since W told us he was going to spend like a drunken soldier with someone else's credit card and PIN number, that doesn't count at all. Is that right or not? I tell ya, this is so damn confusing to a lunkhead like me.

OK, let's see if I'm following this. When W tells us he's gonna run up humongous deficits it's OK and it's "planned"? Not counting the "emergencies" that crept up every year for seven years, right? Those were planned emergencies?

Not like that Katrina shit that just surprised the hell out of W about a week later.

But when O tells us he's "proposed" spending money, that's "planned". Right? "Proposed" = "planned". I mean he hasn't spent it, has he? He's proposed spending it? So it's planned because he hasn't spent it yet?

But you know he's gonna?

I see! He's planned to spend it by proposing it!

I gotta tell ya, after seeing how this all works out on paper this makes my "proposed" "plans" to paint the house look like a friggin' run away train!

OK. back ...

Let's see, no, that would make O's proposal "planned" spending. Wouldn't it?

So when O plans to spend he's not doing the same as W who planned to spend?

Cause W is W and O is O!

Right?!

And because you're a right wing nut job!

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
So, let's see if I have this right ...

The only spending that didn't count under W was the "$125 billion in a rebate probram [sic] and $400 billion in Tarp I."

No, all spending counts but some is on budget and some is off budget. Let me give you an example...Most of the $125 billion a year used for the war was OFF Budget, but it was part of the known and anticipated deficit, like Obama's $1.2 trillion in his budget. Money Not in the budget either as funded or as a deficit is unplanned deficit spending. Bush did about $500 billion last year...Obama is doing $2-3 trillion this...FACT, not opinion, not partisan...simply numbers anyone can look up.

Anything I say about the wisdom of such spending is opinion, but the underlying numbers are rock solid.


Quote:
Even though W's administration asked for and got authorization for spending $700B in TARP I?!

He asked for $700 billion, the DEMOCRAT congress bumped the total to over $820 billion, adding vast amounts of pork but limited what Bush could actually spend to around $400 billion, requiring a new vote (on Obama's watch) for the rest...Tarp II

It really helps if you know what is going on and what has occurred before you say 'gotcha' when all you have is the brown end of the wipe.

Gotcha!

After that your post wanders into the realm of opinion and silliness having nothing at all to do with Obama's budget and the trillions he is sticking us with so I'll ignore it.

edever
edever's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: Mar 19 2009 - 3:05pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:

You say he left a mess, which is subjective and partisan...

Tell the guy whose family is now living in the street because they've lost their means of making a living that his situation is, "subjective and partisan."

Ya know, I bet he wouldn't even care about labels and categories and terminology...I bet the only thing he cares about is taking care of his family. And I'd even bet he doesn't care WHO makes it happen.

So why not get on board the winning team and let's all pull together to make the right thing happen. All of this finger pointing serves no purpose other than to blow time on an internet messageboard, because judging from the depth of understanding your screeding has betrayed and the literature you use to source what I gather is your malformed belief system indicates you don't know what the fuck you're talking about anymore than ANY OTHER swinging dick on the block. And yeah, that include me too.

By the way, first post!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
After that your post wanders into the realm of opinion and silliness ...

I'm upset you think so. And I tried so hard to understand.

Really, I did.

But, no matter how much you sweet talk me, that's my final answer, you are a right wing nut job.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
By the way, first post!

Ya really shoulda spent it on audio.

Look, say it was just a proposal, unplanned and all that jazz and then you get a Mulligan.

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt

Remember your words a year or so from now when the current 5.5 million unemployed is 6-8 million unemployed...on your fellows watch.

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt

Yet you remained clueless...

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
Remember your words a year or so from now when the current 5.5 million unemployed is 6-8 million unemployed...on your fellows watch.

OK.

I'll know who to blame if that happens.

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt

That is all I ask...

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt


Quote:
Yet you remained clueless...

There was no need for that! I tried to be nice to you - to make you chuckle at your own stupidity. There really was no need for that.

It was because I called you a "right wing nut job" wasn't it?

Yeah, well ...

JIMV
JIMV's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 31 2008 - 1:46pm
Re: Your 'Fair Share' of the Obama debt

I weigh my opponents by the strength of their arguments... and I measure my response in terms of preparation by the same measure. No need to build a serious argument then confronted by pure opinion...

agb
agb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Oct 30 2014 - 12:48pm
Jan Vigne is clueless

Most ironic is he/she calls the political opposition "partisan." Cute, the pot calling the kettle black.

That kind of intolerant mindset is what happens when one watches too much MSNBC. They become so open minded that their brains fall out. Now we have a few years behind us and the record is a matter of record. I often remind my lib friends that everything is so, unless it isn't.

For example, for the Bush Deranged crowd of which Vigne is a charter memeber, they know there was no WMD in Iraq and Bush lied in his 16 word message about the yellowcake that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame could not find, right? The nation went to war in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, right?

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2008/07/06/cameco-scoops-550t-of-yellowc...

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=50430

It's amazing how much liberals don't know and how much the mainstream media won't tell them, isn't it?
Just keep watching MSNBC friends...read Huffington, KOS and Media Matters and you too can become as smart as Vigne. Listen to Obama and the Democrats who voted for Clinton's War in Iraq:

http://fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm

It's good to hate bush for Clinton's War, isn't it? Oh, before I forget, every Democrat senator voted for the act.

I wrote the second of these in 2012, true then, truer today:

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2014/10/17/to-my-dearest-left-liberal-fr...

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2014/07/02/my-life-as-a-young-genius/

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-propaganda-glo...

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
He started a political topic

He started a political topic 5 1/2 years ago. And you are just now showing up for the party. The keg is empty dip shit. "true then, truer today."

jgossman
jgossman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 2 hours ago
Joined: Aug 18 2011 - 6:21am
I'm not sure anyone is hitting the mark

Our budget deficit is a result of American's being essentially decent people who vote for essentially decent men. Men that make decisions full well knowing that roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of us will disagree with them most of the time. Men who WANT to help elderly people afford their medicines, poor people afford health insurance, despots to be taken out of power, etc. We have become way too cynical about who these men are. I don't think I've yet to comment on here regarding politics. I have to be clear, I am an Eisenhower/Reagan Republican. I am not repulsed by the Tea Party in the way many of us in the Center Right are. I have an immense amount of respect for their passion and advocacy.

As for the deficit. It's scarcely dangerous on the path we are on. It's a problem, but it's more than manageable. We are reaching the morbid reality that the baby boomers and their frankly culturally reckless attitudes regarding their own self importance are starting to dye off - rapidly. Now that's morbid, but it's the case. Restructuring medicaid and medicare to help poor people with health insurance isn't a good idea now, but over the next 15 years just as the fiscal pressure from their aging abides their children and grand children will be entering their 30's and 40's where they leave the median income, 45-50k a year and start to enter the top 10%, 75-100k a year. This is also the meat of the time in people's life where cost per head for things like healthcare are at their lowest because they are the healthiest and most active (even with children of their own) and especially among families who have been firmly middle class for multiple generations. People who actively pay more attention to their health.

So the arm flailing on the left with Bush's stimulus rebates (which were remarkably effective for the 2 or 3 years they were tried) and now on the right regarding Obamacare are just kind of silly. Bush's budget wasn't the best, but save for the war (which is a huge expense mind you) was close to in balance for most of his presidency, with the margin of GDP being pretty low, actually. Regarding the bank and auto bailouts. First, casting aside my own moral objections - which are there and just looking at them eyes wide open. The bank bailouts were not bailouts, they were loans. And they were paid back early and with interest. When JP Morgan bailed out the banks in the first major bank scare, the banks paid him back, in full and early. When Reagan and Bush 41 bailed out the S&L's they were paid back, same story. Having an argument about which president, Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Bush was to "liberal" in it's oversight of banks is academic. It's not generally a good idea for the government to focus too much on bank regulation. When banks fail, it's barely a ripple in the economy. And because they usually fail in non-crisis times when their assets can be gobbled up by healthy banks, most people never notice. Now when it looks like they might almost all fail, then it's a problem. Fortunately it's a problem we don't face very often and with each time banks and governments learn better how to handle it. Stop flailing about and think - with your brain. As far as the Auto bailouts, I do have a problem with how GM was handled, and think Chrysler went exactly how you'd want it to. Any way you slice it, the remains of the bankrupted GM was stolen by the unions from the stockholders by fiat of the Obama administration. And that's decidedly unfair. The Chrylser deal was a good fit. Chrysler has been manufacturing autos for the Fiat brand for decades under the Masarati, Fiat, and Alfa Romeo brands. Many of them bumper and badge deals. So it was a win win for both companies.

Regarding the deficit. My fellow Republicans and Democrats need to be open to a fundamental simplification of the tax code. What this means is yes, some people, and especially the top 1/2 of the much maligned and unfairly criticized 1% will end up paying more in taxes. But not by much, may 1-2% marginally. Now here's the wonderful trade off, if you look at what that means in real revenue, many people, even some fairly well off upper middle class people, could not pay any Federal Income tax. Imagine what that would mean for employment. People who spend most of their money effectively getting a raise. Also the $ per family analysis of deficit and debt is silly. That's not how the government is paid for. Income from middle and working class families doesn't even pay interest and bond payouts on our debts. The wealthy already pay ungodly amounts of money in taxes. I don't say that as woe are the rich - they are doing just fine, thank you. But the Professionally Offended Left SHOULD be vilified for their abject hatred of successful people (except their own, of course). Look, the problem is not going to solve itself. But the first step is to keep the scope of the problem focused, so we don't make draconian decisions regarding how much we tax the upper class OR how much we make cuts to vital spending. The fact the vast amounts of federal spending isn't even CLOSE to vital is a different discussion. All I'm saying is the Left/Right divide is making it far worse than it needs to be far more than the Military, Social Security, or Obamacare.

Allen Fant
Allen Fant's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 37 min ago
Joined: Sep 12 2010 - 3:42pm
Excellent points JGossman!

Excellent points JGossman!

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading