Comments


  • Spanky
    I am not advocating cutting services. I don’t mind paying my fair share because I know it takes tax revenues to repair and build the new highways and bridges that my family; friends and neighbors use every day. We should all be angry at the waste and fraud, whether it’s the welfare recipient or the no-bid contractor. We always tend to focus on our own pet peeves; or those that do not have a strong lobbyist.

    Not one of the 535 lawmakers are asking for the elimination of Medicare, Social Security, or Medicaid because they would be ex-lawmakers.

    The current administration is sitting down with the insurance companies, big pharma, HMOs, and the medical practioners to see if health care costs can be reformed. That is step one in reforming any of the entitlements I mentioned. Getting people back to work is another.

    May 18, 2009 at 9 a.m.

  • Cut services? like what? Welfare is not a service its a transfer of wealth, or a social program. The war on poverty is the longest war and most costly in the history of our country. It haven't worked the same % of americans are still in there except our poor have Tv's Cell phones and Cars, unlike other poor people in the world....So do we really have poor people? What makes me made is the poor when they do work pay Income/Social Security Taxes...SS alone is 12% plus the other Income Taxes just that along would help more than any "service"

    May 17, 2009 at 9:05 p.m.

  • Oops! I made a mistake. The government does not need to borrow $1.8 trillion, no it needs to borrow $2.6 trillion THIS YEAR!

    What I forgot is the $800 billion stimulus package is "off budget" and is not included in the "on budget" deficit. The "stimulus" is considered emergency spending - kind of like someone giving you a blank check to fill in. They like to pretend this spending doesn't count.

    But oh yeah, they still have to go out and borrow the money, don't worry about that - that is if they can get anyone to loan it to them at a reasonable interest rate. Otherwise they will just have to go ahead and print some money to pay for everything, but don't worry that will just cause a "little" inflation!

    May 17, 2009 at 5:56 p.m.

  • There is already pressure on interest rates. Try to go out and borrow $1.8 trillion dollars when you already owe $11 trillion dollars.

    This recession was not caused by a contraction in the money supply it was caused by a collapse of our credit and financial systems. But the solution employed was to dramatically increase the money supply. This is starting to take effect and over time I think you will get your wish about inflation - then what?

    May 17, 2009 at 12:02 p.m.


  • Exresident
    Read carefully and don’t exaggerate my statements to make yours sound more logical.

    My statement in context

    Today, inflation is not a problem but when it starts to rise then we have tools like the Fed and treasury…..Our country is not on the gold standard, so we use the fed to monitor and take steps to keep inflation in check…An argument could be made that interests were kept low in 2000-2005 for political reasons, ensuring our economic woes.,, [Greenspan’s mea culpa before congress]

    The free-market left unfettered leaves it open for greed and corruption….

    My example in context
    If inflation starts to rise means people are starting to borrow, inventories are depleting, so interest rates have to be tweaked…Simple, but that is how the economist are explaining it.

    I have said many times, I do not nor do I pretend to be an economist and I don’t know if the stimulus plan will work but some components of the economy are improving. If it fails, I will tip my hat to those that had logical reasons and materials to disprove the theory but I am glad I never called them misguided because I don’t think anyone knows but we have a lot of posters that think they do.

    May 17, 2009 at 11:48 a.m.


  • So everyone agrees that entitlements are the problem. In fact they have been projected to completely overwhelm the budget in about 20 years. That was before we had the last election. So the solution to this problem is to INCREASE entitlements?

    Sooner or later someone is going to have to step up and say, enough is enough, this is not working - of course the other option is for the country to go bankrupt. That will "fix" things one way or another.

    And oh yeah, Mike I'd be careful what you wish for with regard to inflation. You seem pretty confident that it can be controlled - you say it can't spiral out of control like deflation. That would be news to many countries that have experienced runaway inflation.

    May 17, 2009 at 10:16 a.m.

  • Legion,It must have been the welcome rain because we have finally agreed on something...:-)

    I have always considered you a center right moderate poster; that I enjoy exchanging ideas with.....We don't always agree but we keep it civil.

    May 17, 2009 at 8:07 a.m.

  • Alton
    Weak assumption is your opinion but I would not expect anything less from someone that accuses me of not supporting the constitution (as is)without producing any evidence…I call that a cheap shot…I stand by my statement.

    Chris Matthews did not use the word budget in a literal sense. He used it in a general sense like expenditures, outgo, or entitlements. No matter what the revenues, our government will always be left paying for the entitlements plus defense, any attempts to cutting spending without addressing those will not be taken seriously. Governor Sanford knew what Chris Matthews was talking about.

    We all have our pet projects that we would like the federal government to eliminate but just about all of yours would require legislation that is unlikely to pass by either party.

    At this point a little inflation would be a welcome sign (a sign of recovery) because we have tools to control that; deflation is what we want to avoid because of its spiraling effect.

    May 17, 2009 at 8:01 a.m.

  • Mike one paragrah about the subject of your heading ?
    your logic that Fox News coverage of the events turns it into "a right wing, anti-Obama, anti- taxes and anti- government movement. " This is an a weak assumption at best.

    Chris Matthews is wrong. Social Security is an off line budget item. It does not even appear in the regular budget. Its deficent is over 44 trillion dollars. And not a single political leader has been able to reform it a manner to even start paying off this debt.

    "All this comes down to simple logic if we’re going to cut taxes, we will have to cut services. " So why is this a problem? Most families realize you can not keep running up bills ignoring the income they bring home.

    We can start with a freeze on all federal salaries, require new members to the Senate and Congress to serve at least 20 years before getting full retirement. Tax the benefits of Senate and Congressional members. Prohibit acceptance of campiagn funds when the transportation to and from events were paid by taxpayers. Eliminate all foreign aid to countries that vote against us in the UN. Stop all new construction of federal buildings. Freeze increasing the payroll of the federal government, even the President. Require the President to have fixed staffing budget. Sell or eliminate the US Postal Service operations. Eliminate all earmarks, give the President the right of line item veto.

    Let's face it the government is broke, it can not pay its debts as they come due. However, they have a printing press. They can print additional money to pay the debts. But the citizens pay for it as the dollar is drops in value. Imports cost more, especially oil.
    Inflation is coming Mike.

    From your other blogs, I realize you do not support many of the admendents, so I will not go there.

    Doing something is not the same as doing the right thing.

    Audrey, many individuals defend the actions of President Obama, by stating, " he is following through with his campaign promises." Well, the Republican Party plan is still on line, the one they promised during the 08 campaign. It is at http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/.

    May 16, 2009 at 3:06 p.m.

  • Mike,

    I can't argue anything with anything in your reply.

    And it is impractical to compare a private company to a government run one (altho those lines are blurred right now), for one reason. For every dollar spent by the federal government in the stimulus package, that actually makes it into being wages a worker earns, the federal government is guaranteed a return of at least 15.3% thru SS taxes.

    Every $100.00 a worker earns from the stimulus the government actually only spends $84.70.

    May 16, 2009 at 2:31 p.m.

  • Hello Aubrey
    I like the first budget the GOP rolled out without any actual numbers, they when they mocked for it; they came back with one that was basically tax cuts and a repeat of trickle down economics…That’s too bad because I know my democrats will overreach since the GOP is becoming irrelevant.

    President Barack Obama pulled off a brilliant move by making Utah’s governor Jon Huntsman his Ambassador to China nominee…Independents are very strong in this country and candidates in contested districts need their vote…Jon Huntsman would have seriously challenged Barack Obama in 2012….Florida’s Charlie Crist can win that very important senate seat but he will be challenged by a Club for Growth candidate (right-wing ideologue) candidate.. That might split the vote allowing the Democrat to win.

    I hope the GOP will come back to the table because divided government works best.

    May 16, 2009 at 10:17 a.m.

  • Hello Legion357
    I never said I wanted to do away with the 10th Amendment….I was explaining the charade of governors running for office using the tax revolt as a prop,

    I agree California overreached with it’s alternative fuel projects in the same manner they have failed before..Enron comes to mind…I ended my blog by saying liberals must not overreach, same goes for state governments. New York is considering raising the tax on high earners by 35%.

    You said” If the private company is in the same boat they cut spending where they can, and modesty increase advertising to generate new business.”…Wall Street came up with complex predatory schemes to meet it’s declining bottom line, credit card companies are raising their rates to the consumer while the taxpayers are bailing them out…Companies have been cutting spending (except to its CEOs) with stagnant wages, outsourcing, and reduced benefits.

    I am not taking up for California or the federal government (we the people) but if you are asking me if I believe in stimulus economics, then I will say yes….I am about politics; so I don’t really get caught up in this democrat, liberal, conservative, and republican food fights when it comes to economics…The economy is sick; we have supply but no demand, the private sector has been paralyzed by a credit based economy…Ideology won’t fix it because if anyone had a sure answer we would be using that answer right now. No one wants to go through hardship.
    For the short –term, republicans and democrats believe a stimulus is the only tool we have, it’s the targets and amount that they disagree on. I have said if Obama’s plan fails the GOP will benefit and we will change course. I do not believe Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas and Rush when they said Obama was trying to purposely trying to bankrupt this country.

    I don’t like spending any more than you do but whene you are complaining about a wasteful $9 million going to fix a convention hall in a democrats district ,congress will pass the $95 billion for four more months of wars without an exit plan or explanation. I am more worried about all the money the fed is printing without any transparency and the fact that no one knows how the first $350 billion bailout was spent.

    I think we need a complete overhaul of government because we began this new direction of private sector in bed with the government in 1979…..Bill Clinton was the right democrat the conservatives needed in office but that’s another blog.
    I will give you a hint…Look back to when unions were being disbanded, usery laws were being changed, government public servants wages were being scaled back, outsourcing became the norm, government oversight became rare, and lobbyists started writing legislation.

    May 16, 2009 at 10 a.m.

  • And also, soooo Mike the 10th Amendment should be done away with?

    Ok, if you really feel that way, I'm sure that more changes to the constitution are in the works.

    May 15, 2009 at 7:03 p.m.

  • "All this comes down to simple logic if we’re going to cut taxes, we will have to cut services. California’s ready to join a tax revolt since their sales and personal income tax are among the highest in the nation"

    Actually wrong, California now wants federal aid (bailout), because they can not raise enough revenue to support there generous public aid programs.

    True New York City did the same thing years ago, but NYC has rebounded and now stands on it own feet. California however has followed the same logic as the federal government..... spend more $$$$ because we are already loosing $$$$.

    IF a private company is in the same boat, they cut spending where they can, and modestly increase advertising to generate new business.

    The federal government and California obviously believe that if you make less,you expand non-revenue generating programs and spend more.

    May 15, 2009 at 7 p.m.

  • Mike if we listened to you we would ride this roller coaster of exploding deficits into oblivion. Gosh we just can't do anything about the country going bankrupt - oh shucks! Listen up I will go over this slowly so all you socialists won't get confused.

    Have you ever heard of the law of supply and demand? Well it's a simple law it says basically if you make something free the demand will go up, way up. The law also says that if the price remains low then suppliers cannot and will not meet that demand. Shortages develop but costs continue to rise because of the pressure from the demand. Did you ever stop and wonder why health care costs are exploding?

    For example suppose the government decided that for some reason everyone should be able to buy a new car - ahh, don't get any ideas. If some people can't afford a new car then government will buy one for them.

    Well guess what the demand for new cars will skyrocket. People will get a new car even though they don't really need one. In order to service this demand the price of new cars must increase. So the government soon finds out that the cost of their "free car program" is exploding - more cars being purchased at ever increasing prices.

    Another example would be where the government decides to make "housing affordable." This creates a huge artificial demand for housing, that combined with a government relaxation in lending standards - well do I really need to go on?

    And finally you point out that social security costs are not exploding as fast as medicare - that is correct. In fact I was surprised at how small the cost of social security was rising compared to medicare in the recent 10 year budget proposal. That is until you realize that social security is a revenue source. It has been contributing a surplus of about $180 billion dollars per year to the treasury. This surplus is what is rapidly evaporating.

    But Mike you are right this is a tough problem to solve. There are now literally millions dependent on these programs. Programs that have become self fulfilling. Costs have gotten so high that yes we need a government program to help correct a problem created by a government program - Socialism don't yah love it.

    May 15, 2009 at 6:27 p.m.