The Obama Watch
Obama’s Fantasy Budget
it’s nothing but a shameless exercise in left-wing extremism. There are no two ways around it.
To understand Barack Obama, you have to recognize that he has established a clear pattern of calculated misrepresentations to mislead and confuse the public as to what he is doing and what he believes. For example, he repeatedly says he is only interested in what works, not ideology. That is meant to mislead and distract you away from his left wing extremist ideology, which is really what governs his policies and actions.
If you carefully examine his economic policies, you see he thoroughly avoids proven, practical policies that would stimulate economic growth, and pursues left-wing ideology instead. Nowhere in his economic program is there any reduction in tax rates, which is what creates real incentives for economic growth. Instead, he proposes in his new budget to sharply increase tax rates, because of his liberal/left ideology.
Instead of reducing government spending, just a few weeks ago he adopted the largest increase in government spending in world history through his so-called economic stimulus bill, which will only stimulate the increased welfare and Big Government that Obama believes in ideologically. Obama’s new budget proposes the largest increase in Federal spending since World War II, an insane one-year increase of 33% over the prior budget, from $3 trillion in fiscal 2008 to $4 trillion for fiscal 2009. That whopping $4 trillion is the largest Federal spending total in U.S. history.
Obama says in his budget message that we have arrived at this present crisis “as a result of an era of profound irresponsibility….” Does this wild spending increase to record levels sound responsible to you?
Obama introduced his budget with much fanfare regarding his promise to cut the federal deficit in half by 2013. That will never remotely happen, as we will discuss further below. But it serves its purpose for now, which is to distract you from the astounding deficit the budget does propose for this year: $1.75 trillion, more than three times the highest previous total except for World War II. This is not George Bush’s deficit. This is the deficit Obama has proposed for the rest of this year, resulting from the $1 trillion in increased spending he just adopted in the no-stimulus stimulus bill, and the $400 billion supplemental spending bill he supported and adopted in addition the next week, and the $275 billion housing bailout he proposed the next week, and the $638 billion he has proposed as a “down payment” on a new national health insurance entitlement that will be the most expensive entitlement of all, and the additional $250 billion in bank bailouts he is considering proposing. That is all after only little more than a month in office. See what I mean by left-wing extremism? Does this sound like responsibility to you?
That deficit, by the way, is 12.3% of GDP, about one-eighth of the entire U.S. economy, for the federal deficit alone! That is again the largest in U.S. history except for World War II. The federal deficit for 2008 was 3.2% of GDP. Reagan’s largest deficit as a percentage of GDP was only half as big as this Obama deficit.
Obama’s own budget also states that the national debt will grow by $2.7 trillion this year alone, an increase of 27% in one year! The national debt this year will reach $12.7 trillion, almost as large as our entire economy of $14 trillion. After 10 years of Obama’s glorious budget policies, his own budget projects that the national debt will be $23.1 trillion. Does all this sound like a new era of responsibility to you, or more extremism?
Obama has also touted himself as a big budget cutter, saying he has gone line by line through the budget, and has already proposed budget cuts of $2 trillion over 10 years. But $1.5 trillion of that is from supposed savings from the Iraq war due to the pullout of U.S. troops. That comes from assuming that without Obama’s policies Iraq war costs would have continued indefinitely at the same level as in fiscal 2008, when fighting from the surge was still at its peak. But President Bush already started withdrawals from Iraq last year, and signed an agreement with the Iraqi government providing for all U.S. troops to be pulled from active combat duty by July of this year, and phased out of the country completely by the end of 2011. Obama’s latest policy only moves that complete withdrawal forward by less than 5 months.
You can use Obama’s same budget methodology to save $1 million from your own family budget. Just budget a family vacation to Disneyland this year for $1,005,000. Then have a family meeting next month, and decide you can only afford $5,000 for the vacation, for a total family budget savings of $1 million.
Obama the budget cutter also supposedly saves $311 billion in interest expenses over the next 10 years by raising taxes on that disfavored top 5% of income earners, even though he projects the national debt over that time will more than double, with soaring interest expense. Another $316 billion in budget savings is from “health reform,” $287 billion of which comes from “promoting efficiency/accountability.” Obama’s budget says:
As part of health care reform, the Administration would support comprehensive, but fiscally responsible, reforms to the payment formula [for doctors and hospitals]. The Administration believes Medicare and the country need to move toward a system in which doctors face better incentives for high quality care rather than simply more care.
Is that $287 billion coming out of the compensation of doctors and hospitals, or out of the care given to patients? And who decides what is high quality care: the patient or the government?
The Obama budget also helpfully includes $1 trillion in tax increases on that hated upper 5% of income earners, mostly tax rate increases. But nothing close to that will ever materialize from these tax increases. The top 1% of income earners already pay 40% of all federal income taxes. The top 5% already pay 60% of those taxes. Besides the dubious morality of trying to impose still more of the burden on this small group, they are not going to sit still and get sheared for more. These higher income earners have the most legal options as to where they take their income, when, and whether they take it at all. With the higher tax rates, total taxes paid by this group could even decline.
Then there is another trillion dollars in tax increases in the Obama budget, on businesses. Indeed, the Obama budget projects that revenues from the corporate income tax will more than double in 3 years, increasing, in fact, by more than 124%. In this globalized economy, that full revenue will never materialize either.
About $645 billion of that business tax increase comes from Obama’s cap and trade system, which will raise costs by that amount on the production and use of carbon energy, such as oil, natural gas, and coal. Is that going to be paid by business, or by their customers? At CPAC last week, Newt Gingrich gave his opinion, saying:
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (244) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/04/obamas-fantasy-budget
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- We Have Her Example
- Consternated Conferences
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Rocco| 3.4.09 @ 7:10AM
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic." Ben Franklin's statement was prophetic. Thanks to the idiocy of the "one man one vote" policy, removing property qualifications from the ballot, and the gross ignorance of most of the citizenry, due to a dumbed down (consciously, I believe) by a Democrat run unionized education bureaucracy, we are well on our way to the end of our constitutional republic. Granted, property qualifications of the time (early 1800's) were used to exclude others from the ballot, but there should be no excuse for it today. Any property owner (male, female, white, black, etc) should have the right to vote - they are the only ones with "skin" in the game, as our illustrious VP would say. Think of how much more responsible and responsive our government would be. But, alas, it is a pipedream in this environment.
Rocco| 3.4.09 @ 7:11AM
Correction: "due to a dumbed down (consciously, I believe) public education system run by a Democrat run unionized education bureaucracy"
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.4.09 @ 7:22AM
The reason the deficit has to be so high like World War II is that this is a new war, World War III, the war against the truth.
Pingback| 3.4.09 @ 7:54AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Fantasy Budget links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Red Bubba| 3.4.09 @ 7:56AM
If Obama is even half as smart as his supporters say he is, and his policies systematically destroy wealth...
Trackback| 3.4.09 @ 8:33AM
The American Spectator : Obama's Fantasy Budget, on PunditKix, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Terry| 3.4.09 @ 9:09AM
If BHO is as smart as the American public has been led to believe, there is almost zero chance he sees his agenda as anything other than a total transformation of American governance and entitlement. His attempts to associate himself to both Lincoln and Roosevelt use their 'greatness' as his target when in actuality it is their use of the government for expansive political purposes that he envisions in his mind. Do not expect him to ever change or reach a point of truthfulness. This leopard will not change his spots during the next four (or, God forbid, eight) years.
Anthony| 3.4.09 @ 9:32AM
Being the good Alinsky Orwellian Marxist that he is, Obama has recently inserted in each of his speechs the trope that he is giving the people the "radical change" they voted for in the November election. As we all know, this is an outright lie; he eschewed any radical notions during the campaign and engaged in platitudinous rhetoric that sent the MSM gaga, as well has having tingly feelings down their legs. Obama's bait & switch is wearing thin, real quick. He & his comrades had damn well better start paying attention to what the markets are telling them, or our voices will get increasing louder.
Bob| 3.4.09 @ 9:33AM
Please, Ferrara, give up this notion that decreases in tax rates are stimulative. Again, here is a graph of GDP over the longer term:
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
You'll notice that the economy grew faster under the tax increases of Clinton than the tax decreases under Reagan or Bush. Furthermore, those tax rate decreases led to the greatest increases in debt in history as this chart shows:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Now I don't like the Obama stimulus plan either. I believe the spending is not well thought out nor is the Obama administration correctly communicating the timeframe of its elements. It is also loaded up with other items that would normally be in other bills and argued separately.
So please get off this disproven notion of the stimulative effect of tax cuts. Spending can be stimulative, but the question with spending is how much return you get from that spending.
As a dedicated RINO and fiscal conservative, I don't believe that government is the answer with EITHER tax cuts or spending. Economic growth has more to do with private enterprise and the business cycle that government action. I know you worked in the Reagan administration so you are severely biased. Even many conservative economists don't consider Reaganomics as extremely successful because of the huge debt created that plagues us today.
So let us use true analysis and state the economic truths to people so that we can really be efficient and effective in improving our country and our economy. Enough of the right wing and left wing politics. We have enough history to be pragmatic and analytical and not ideological.
Old Guy | 3.4.09 @ 9:40AM
Does "Reform Asset Test" mean make it easier to get a mortgage?
Tailgunner| 3.4.09 @ 10:36AM
Obama was mentored by Communists, associated with Marxists in college, pastored by an extremist anti-American black racist, politically groomed by unrepentant domestic terrorists, and inspired by agitprop author Saul Alinsky to undermine the capitalist economic and political system that have made America great.
Obama entered the White House with a carefully cultivated and concealed rage and hatred against America.
He intends to make the most of this opportunity and to burn this capitalist system to the ground and rebuild it in the image of Stalin.
Neither the freefalling stock market nor the growing bipartisan backlash will stop his crusade.
And like other collectivist crusaders throughout history, Obama believes so passionately in the rightness of his cause that, as we will see, he will let nothing stand in his way.
Ryan| 3.4.09 @ 10:39AM
Hey Bob,
I'm not seeing much in your argument - per the chart, the growth in real dollars appears to be about the same. You also have to deal with job creation, middle-class access, upper-class access (something little spoken of in Reagan's era), inflation, etc.
How does a tax decrease lead to an increase in spending? Are they definitively related, that one HAS to lead to the other?
Is your argument - even if a singular chart on a singular subject - is somewhat valid, is it still an argument against lowering taxes?
Is it better to have money in the hands of citizens or government?
Indiana Alex| 3.4.09 @ 11:06AM
Ryan,
Pay no attention to "Bob". Although he subscribes to no specific school of economic thougth, he argues like a liberal in that if you disagree with him you are ignorant or uneducated.
With "Bob", you see, the science is settled and only knuckle draggers disagree.
Sound familiar?
Len| 3.4.09 @ 11:11AM
Off target
One thing that articles like this do is get the focus off something of greater importance. By discussing what kind of impact these policy decisions will have credibility is given to the President and Congress in having legal authority to make such decisions. No power has been given to them to make such decision, thus they are acting illegally, or put another way usurping powers not theirs.Remember the Constitution itself was birthed in a time of economic crisis, which is why a government with the power of direct taxation, rather than the states giving the revenue to the federal government was instituted, so there is no excuse to bypass the amendment process and illegally enact legislation and impose it on the states and people. In truth as there are no Constitutionally granted powers for such legislation, all laws made outside those powers are null and void, and any enforcement actions are abuse of power, and merit at least removal from office if not resistance by force a la the Declaration of Independence.
TimmW| 3.4.09 @ 11:17AM
Bob -
Your analysis of the economy under Bill Clinton leaves out an important point. Seems to me in 1994 there was somewhat of a change in spending trends brought on by conservative control of Congress (thank you Newt Gingrich). Lowering the spending increases (note I did not say "spending decreases") and the resulting economic recovery were the reasons the deficit closed.
One could even argue, given that an action taken now can take a couple of years to become evident, that the slowing economy in Clinton's final year was in part caused by the tax increases.
Bob| 3.4.09 @ 11:27AM
Ryan, tax decreases do not lead to increases in spending. I did not make that argument. Because of the nature of our political system and the fact that social security, medicare, interest and the military accounts for over 80% of federal spending, you won't see any significant decline in federal spending by either Republican or Democrat administrations. Politicians get elected to bring back pork to their districts. In the latest earmarks in the omnibus spending bill Republicans average more in earmarks than Democrats so seeing them on TV talking about spending restraint is just plain funny. Besides, from a political standpoint Republican voters are older than Democrat voters and thus Republicans will not address changes in social security and medicare since that will mean even fewer votes.
Therefore, my argument with lowering taxes is that not only do they not stimulate economic growth in any meaningful sense, but because spending is never reduced it always leads to increased debt.
Don't get me wrong. I want lower taxes. But this should be as a RESULT of decreased spending and not separated from it. Besides, if we spend, a TRUE and responsible conservative should support the responsibility of paying for these programs. Thus, I believe we should have a balanced budget amendment. Since government, both parties, are irresponsible spenders, we must force them to budget.
Furthermore, I would call for a flat tax to include entitlement spending. The government has not been proven smarter than markets. Their job should not be to provide tax incentives, but to provide appropriate regulation that will keep are markets fair and operating properly.
Alex has proven that he knows little about economics. Political economists and policy wonks are not objective because they are paid for being biased.
Bob| 3.4.09 @ 11:36AM
Tim, your wives tale regarding spending control by Congress in 1994 does not stand up to any real analysis. Here is a graph of federal spending over the years. You'll see the slope of the graph doesn't change much in the 1994-1995 timeframe. Yes, there was a very slight decrease, but it was not significant. There was no significant reduction in spending from the Gingrich congress. Furthermore, when Republicans had control of Congress and the White House, we saw the greatest growth rate of federal spending in our history.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S1-Federal-Spending-Has-Increased.html
Again, the main part of the federal budget is based on actuarial tables since it is social security and medicare. That's why there is no significant change. If we want to reduce federal spending, then we must attack these two items or we will never get rid of our debt.
By the way, that chart was created by a right oriented group. Facts are facts.
Len| 3.4.09 @ 11:41AM
Bob you can call for a flat tax to include entitlement spending all you want. You can also talk all you want about governmnet regulation, and making the market fair and operating properly, but it really doesn't matter as the Federal government has no such authority. There are actions are illegal, and merit mininumly removal from office if not criminal conspiracy trials, which would have to be done through state governments. Oh, and please don't try to use the oft repeated lies of either the Commerce Clause, or General Welfare covering such actions. The Commerce clause was put in place for state regulation only, to say otherwise is negate the reason for putting it there in the first place. As for General Welfare THERE IS NO!!! power given DIRECTLY for that , rather the enumerated powers granted were those considered to be necessary for promoting general welfare.
Real American| 3.4.09 @ 1:00PM
this came up over and over again during hte campaign. Obama would say he's for tax cuts, but McCain never challenged him to show where Obama has supported decreases in tax rates. Obama would say he believed the 2nd Amendment recognized an individual right, but McCain never challenged Obama to show what he ever did to promote that view.
This is where Obama's lack of experience came in handy. it was harder to show what he'd ever done, yes, but McCain never took the opportunity to demand that Obama reconcile his liberal record with his so-called moderate rhetoric.
AM| 3.4.09 @ 1:10PM
Bob, I seem to recall a new technology called the internet having a huge impact on the economy during the clinton years. This new technology was the major driver of the economy during that time. I don't recall any new technologies or markets that had such a major impact on the economy during the Reagan years.
daboss| 3.4.09 @ 1:23PM
Len –
I agree 100% with you – most of what the Fed does IS unconstitutional.
Bob – I agree that spending must be cut and I am in favor of a flat consumption tax. So we are not that far apart.
To All –
We need to stop quibbling over minutia and take action. We need to inform the public that social security is a PONZI scheme – frame it by using the Bernie Maddoff (sp) scheme.
We need to battle, once and for all, the constitutionality of these programs in court. If that fails … well let me just quote something “it is their right, it is their duty” and if it comes to that then so be it.
Bob| 3.4.09 @ 2:04PM
AM, it is true that you had the internet bubble during the Clinton administration. But during Reagan's term you had the introduction of personal computing that resulted in a huge increase in productivity. I would claim that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had more to do with growth during Reagan's term than any government action.
That's exactly my point. It is private enterprise that makes GDP grow -- not government. Politicians have far less influence on the economy, positive or negative, then they are given credit for.
Dave| 3.4.09 @ 2:27PM
Bob, isn't it the conditions/restrictions set by government a serious influence upon which businesses can thrive or not? Big business grew well in the 80s under Reaganomics, but my father's small business tanked.
Todd| 3.4.09 @ 2:30PM
The difference Bob is that Reagan understood it was people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs that would grow the economy and that the government should just get out of there way and let them do their thing. Obama on the other hand believes the exact opposite and thinks the government should determine the winners and losers and punishing those that don't go along with his redistributive program. Politicians can have a very negative influence on the economy and that is exactly what we are seeing happen with the stimulus, bank bailouts and GM and this monstrous budget as proposed by Obama. Great job by Peter in detailing the outright lies and hypocrisy in this budget and the Orwellian language of "fiscal responsibility".
Pingback| 3.4.09 @ 2:36PM
Obama’s Fantasy Budget « Stop Socialism Now links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
jack preston| 3.4.09 @ 2:40PM
Rev Wright has become President. Obama doesnt froth at the mouth but his plans,budgets,and cabinet appointments show a no respect for our country,economy or history. Only in the Dem party could you find this many tax cheats and scoundrels. Geitner tells us yesterday he is going after tax evaders! This is our Democrat party,they are the party of theives and hypocrites.
Holders Coward speech was pure Rev Wright. Obamas destruction of Vegas jobs with his loose lips was pure Rev Wright.
He wrote in his first book that Wright was the greatest influence in his life.
Please Republicans,oh gutless opposition party,you dont get many chances like this. The President not only is a socialist tyrant but appears to be an imecile.
1.57 states
2.proper tire inflaton to solve energy crisis
3.said yesterday profit earnings ratios were down
4.threw the poles and chechz underneath the bus in an overt act of appeasement
5. duh,uh,ahhhh,emmmmm,uh,chose Biden as a VP
By this time in Ws first term many Dems were calling for his impeachment for just existing. We have a President who seems to me to be a stone cold moron and a marxist
Bob| 3.4.09 @ 2:56PM
Dave, what the data shows is that government has a minimal influence on business development. I spent 35 years of my career developing new businesses. We looked at long term return on investment and tax incentives had an almost non-existent impact on that calculation.
Big business has grown well for many periods in our development. They grew at the fastest rate in the Clinton administration. Much of what is propounded on Reagan on boards like this is pure fantasy. That does not mean Reagan wasn't one of our better presidents. I believe he was but primarily for his strategies to fight communism -- not for economics.
Todd, I agree that government should get out of the way and have said that many times. However, Peter's diatribe is just a hack job by a right wing policy wonk. I see very little interference with private enterprise in his budget. The big issue is the TARP and continued bailouts which were supported by both sides of the isle. The problem with much of the spending is that it is not immediate. However, over 95% of the spending would be done by both sides over time. That's just the reality. Things like the AMT fix is always passed. As the infrastructure fails, the government will pay for it. There are placeholders for future emergencies that former administrations spent but did not budget for. An objective analysis of the budget with appropriate apples/oranges comparisons would not show a big difference over the longer term.
I would spend less and have different priorities, but that's because I'm interested in the growth of the country and not in politics. I find a lot to dislike on both sides of the political spectrum.
Edward| 3.4.09 @ 3:09PM
It's a subliminal message. If you write down the 33rd letter of every line. It keeps repeating, "Peter Ferrara is gay."
ruth| 3.4.09 @ 3:14PM
Duhhh! The guy's a marxist--what else would he come up with--Reaganomics? Supply-Sider he ain't.
Todd| 3.4.09 @ 3:32PM
Apparently $400 billion deficits under Bush greatly concerned Bob but not a $2 trillion deficit for this year alone under Obama's deficit. We are all aware that you feel the great need to comment on every Ferrara article and call him a right wing hack. Maybe your emnity towards him is particularly acute because he is a Harvard graduate and is also a conservative and you just can't wrap your mind around that.
Len| 3.4.09 @ 3:34PM
Bob does the data include such things as the impact of the Federal Reserve (illegal), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac(illegal), government imposed pay scales (illegal), imposed hiring practices (illegal), and how I could go on. Data is meaningless if not properly used, so please drop your attempts to say that government has a minimal influence on business development. I doubt there is a serious formulation that properly factors in a strictly Constitutional government and the resources and wealth that would be freed up in such a scenario.
Bob| 3.4.09 @ 4:17PM
Todd, do you understand that the $400 billion deficit number does not include TARP ($750 billion) nor does it include the social security trust fund which comprises the "total deficit". Of course you don't understand the deficit. Political hacks on the right and the left want to hide much of the deficit and you guys just bite. That's why you need to "trust but verify" this nonsense. By the way, the $400 billion also does not include the bailout of Fannie and Freddie, all of which occurred under Bush -- not Obama. That is not to say that Obama will not raise this -- he will. But it is not as much as you think or the Harvard trained LAWYER (not economist) Peter Ferrara talks about. I'd like to know the advanced mathematics courses Ferrara took at Harvard to understand macroeconomics.
I don't have any enmity against Ferrara. Only that his posts are highly misleading. He doesn't talk about what's missing in the deficit number, does he? He doesn't talk about the offsets, does he? He's a legal hack, not an economist who understands the numbers.
Again, I'm not supporting Obama's budget which I believe is fiscally irresponsible because I believe that private enterprise is the engine of growth, and not the government. But this is an argument based on facts and analysis not a one sided legal opinion by a policy hack.
The point is this, Todd. If conservatives would embrace a strong analytical underpinning rather than continue one sided misstatements that distort the truth, there might be a chance for the Republican party to grow. But as long as this stuff is misstated, it gives liberal hacks ammunition to go in the other direction. Republicans should be the party of fiscal responsibility. Part of this is being truthful and non-partisan about the data.
ruth| 3.4.09 @ 4:18PM
Bob's crazy, you guys. He's arguing with the voices in his head, not you.
Bob| 3.4.09 @ 4:20PM
Len, I have a background in math, business, and economics -- not law. I am not competent to adjudicate whether these things are lawful or not. That's why I have not responded to you. Perhaps you should ask Peter Ferrara this question. He's not an economist, he's a Harvard educated lawyer.
Len| 3.4.09 @ 4:42PM
Bob, my mentioning the illegality of programs instituted by those in the Federal government was only a sidebar, and not a question, a pointing out of fact. The main point concerning data and proper formulation still stands. As it would be far too hypothetical with so many variables that no data exists for, your statement saying that government has minimal influence on business growth is merely a supposition.
Bob| 3.4.09 @ 5:09PM
Len, certainly government has an impact on business, but we are talking about marginal influences right now and not the differences between capitalism and communism. Tax cuts and discretionary spending are marginal influences from an economics viewpoint. If you are trying to make the argument that if we reduced government so there was no income tax, no regulation, etc., then I would have no data to form a deductive conclusion -- obviously. To answer that hypothetical, I would have to take an anthropological point of view looking at the nature of our societal progression from agrarian to industrial to service each requiring increasing specialization and urbanization. In addition, we have the factors of local to regional to national to international in terms of production and trade. Each of these progressions would require increasing governmental coordination in order to operate effectively and competitively. We have now reached the stage of competition on a country to country basis. How do you do that successfully without a cohesive national strategy and the laws that support it?
Len| 3.4.09 @ 5:41PM
Ok, Bob you are getting closer, but due to your misunderstanding(benefit of the doubt) of what constitutes lawful government you are saying the influence is marginal. I would like to say, please don't put words in my mouth such as "no income tax, no regulation", that is not what I said and illustrates your confusion as to legitimate vs. illegitimate government. Let me rephrase here, if you are going to say government has minimal influence on business growth, you must first define government, and what those influences are, otherwise how can it truly be known if what you said is true. Also, so many of the variables would be dependent on other variables, such as freedom to hire whoever one wants, which then influences others in their choice whether or not to support that business, and potentially the quality of employees they have, and the freedom of having to be answerable to bureaucrats or needing lawyers, etc., As I said far too many unknowns for there to be a solid formulation developed that could be called "hard" science. It is as you rightly acknowledged dependent on many sociological factors, which would then all have to be weighted in value, but in my opinion would create a range far too broad to be relied upon for accuracy. SO AGAIN..please put to rest your statements saying government influence is minimal, as much of that depends on your definition of government.
Robert Rosencrans| 3.4.09 @ 5:45PM
Bob has claimed in previous incarnations that GDP is the only true way to measure spending, but then he claims that Bush was a big spender. The fact is that Bush spent about the same as Clinton on a historical basis when you look at GDP. Bob simply changes the goalposts to match his thought du jour. Not genius, but pretty damn close at being a genius con artist.
The fact is, since WW II, spending as a percentage of GDP has gravitated between 18 and 22%. Bush was at 20%, not bad when you consider the tremendous costs associated with the War on Terrorism.
However, the real big spender has arrived. Barack Obama. Here are the facts. See the charts in the article for further information.
The real horror story lies ahead, not the Twilight Zone, but entitlement costs.
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2193.cfm
* Context: Since World War II, federal spending has generally remained between 18 and 22 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). During the Bush Administration, spending increased from 18.4 to 20.9 percent of GDP.
* In 2008, spending increased by $249 billion, or 9.1 percent. Revenues declined by $45 billion, or 1.7 percent. This increased the budget deficit from $162 billion to $456 billion.
* In 2009, spending is projected to rise 20 percent, and revenues are projected to fall by 7.0 percent.
* The 20 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation).
* In 2009, Washington is expected to spend $184 billion on the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and $218 billion on the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout.[6] Excluding those temporary expenses, 2009 spending is set to rise by 6.3 percent excluding any additional "stimulus" legislation.
* In 2009, federal spending is projected to reach 25 percent of GDP--the highest level in American history outside of World War II. The next economic "stimulus" package would push this total even higher.
* Between 2009 and 2019, revenues are projected to remain relatively stable at 17.6 percent of GDP (slightly below the 18.3 historical average). Spending is projected to fluctuate between 22 and 25 percent of GDP--well above the 20.7 percent historical average.
* Medicare and Medicaid are each set to rise another 10 percent in 2009. Since 2005, Medicare has grown 40 percent faster than inflation. The Medicare drug entitlement alone will cost $56 billion per year by 2012 and $112 billion per year by 2018. Its annual expense will continue to increase thereafter.
* Unemployment benefits are estimated to cost $77 billion in 2009, up from $34 billion in 2007.
* Defense spending is currently 4.0 percent GDP, up from 3.0 percent when President Bush took office. However, it remains well below the 40-year average of 5.1 percent of GDP, and lower than it had been at any time during the Cold War.
* From 2001 through 2008, federal spending surged 60 percent--6.9 percent per year, on average. Had spending increases been limited to 35 percent--4.4 percent annually--the 2008 budget would have been in balance.
* While the costs of the financial bailouts and economic stimulus bills are staggering, they are only a fraction of the coming costs from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Over the next decade, the CBO projects that Medicaid will expand by 7 percent annually, Medicare by 6 percent annually, and Social Security by 5 percent annually. These programs face a 75-year shortfall of $43 trillion--60 times greater than the gross cost of the financial bailout. They are the chief reason budget deficits are projected to grow even after the recession ends.
Deficits and Public Debt
* Background: Since World War II, the largest budget deficit recorded was 6.0 percent of GDP in 1983. The Bush Administration oversaw budget deficits averaging 2.0 percent of GDP.
* The projected 2009 budget deficit of 8.6 percent of GDP would shatter the postwar record. The next economic "stimulus" package could push the budget deficit above 10 percent of GDP.
* The budget deficit is projected to remain above 4.5 percent of GDP indefinitely. By comparison, the budget deficit has not reached that level since 1992.
* By 2019, the budget forecasts a $1.5 trillion annual budget deficit, a public debt of 78 percent of GDP, and annual net interest spending of $761 billion.
* Since World War II, the public debt has ranged from 23 percent of GDP to 49 percent of GDP. Large deficits are estimated to drive the debt ratio to 50 percent in 2009, and 78 percent of GDP by 2019--a peacetime record.
* The public national debt--$5.8 trillion as of 2008--is projected to double by 2015 and nearly triple by 2019.
* The public debt rose by $3.8 trillion during President Bush's eight years in office. It is projected to rise by $7.5 trillion over the next eight years.
* As the budget deficit increases over the next decade, so will net interest spending, from $196 billion (1.4 percent of GDP) in 2009 to $761 billion (3.4 percent of GDP) by 2019.
* Lawmakers have proposed $800 billion in "stimulus" spending based on their misguided belief that budget deficits stimulate economic growth. Yet the budget is already projected to run a record $2 trillion in budget deficits over the next two years even before any stimulus is enacted. If $2 trillion in deficit spending is not enough to aid the economy, then perhaps a new approach is needed. A more pro-growth stimulus would reduce marginal tax rates and thus create incentives to work, save, and invest--which are the true drivers of economic growth.[7]
* An $800 billion stimulus bill would add approximately $40 billion in annual net interest costs, which would grow by a compounding rate indefinitely.
* The coming tsunami of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs are projected to push the federal public debt to nearly 300 percent of GDP by 2050, and over 850 percent of GDP by 2082.[8]
Taxes and Tax Policy
* Context: Tax revenues have historically averaged 18.3 percent of GDP, and typically remained between 17 percent and 19 percent of GDP. As late as 2007, revenues were above the historical average.
* The recession pushed 2008 revenues down to 17.7 percent of GDP. Revenues are projected to bottom out at 16.5 percent of GDP in 2009 and then rebound to a stable 17.6 percent of GDP (assuming all tax extenders).
* Incorporating tax extenders, the CBO projects that 2009 revenues will fall by 7.0 percent, or $176 billion. Even this is optimistic. The shallow 2001 recession produced an 11 percent revenue drop over two years, and therefore the current much larger recession is likely to cause a much greater revenue drop.
The Tsunami Is Coming
The new budget baseline shows a historic expansion of government occurring right as the first baby boomers begin collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits. Current spending trends are absolutely unsustainable. If lawmakers continue to avoid necessary budget reforms, they are guaranteeing a future of record government debt and historic tax increases.
Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
[1] J. D. Foster, Ph.D., and William W. Beach, "Economic Recovery: How Best to End the Recession," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2191, January 7, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2191.cfm.
[2]Brian M. Riedl, "Restrain Runaway Spending with a Federal Taxpayers' Bill of Rights," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1793, August 27, 2004, at www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1793.cfm.
[3] Stuart M. Butler, Ph.D. et. al, "Taking Back our Fiscal Future" Heritage Foundation White Paper, March 31, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wp0408.cfm. See also Alison Acosta Fraser, "The SAFE Commission Act (H.R. 3654) and the Long-Term Fiscal Challenge," testimony before the Committee on the Budget, United States House of Representatives,June 25, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/tst062508b.cfm.
[4] For proposals, see Brian M. Riedl, "A Guide to Fixing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2114, March 11, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2114.cfm.
[5] Past budget data comes from Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government: 2009 Historical Tables, at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/hist.html (January 7, 2009). Future projections were calculated by The Heritage Foundation using Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019," January 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf (January 7, 2009).
[6] CBO calculated the TARP cost by assuming a subsidy rate of just over 25 percent of the final $700 billion purchasing authority. This is a very rough estimate.
[7] See Brian M. Riedl, "Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2208, November 12, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg2208.cfm; Foster and Beach, "Economic Recovery."
[8] Congressional Budget Office, "The Long-Term Budget Outlook," December 2007, Figure 1.2, at www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc
8877/12-13-LTBO.pdf, and supplemental data for Figure 1.2 at www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8877/SupplementalData.xls. This represents the alternative fiscal scenario.
Sign up for Morning Bell Email
First Name
Last Name
Email
Recent Heritage Studies
Omnibus Spending Bill: Huge Spending and 9,000 Earmarks Represent Business as Usual by Brian M. Riedl
March 02, 2009
Obama's PAYGO Law Would Not Slow Spending or Budget Deficits by Brian M. Riedl
February 26, 2009
The Elements of a Responsible Budget Proposal by Brian M. Riedl, Mackenzie Eaglen, Curtis S. Dubay, J.D. Foster, Ph.D. and William W. Beach
February 24, 2009
Contact An Expert
MEDIA INFORMATION LINE:
Phone: 202.675.1761
Fax: 202.544.6979
Print Interview Requests:
Jim Weidman
Director, Editorial Services
202.608.6145
Jim.Weidman@heritage.org
Opinion Editorial Requests:
Paul Gallagher
Manager, Editorial Services
202.608.6151
Paul.Gallagher@heritage.org
Radio/TV Interview Requests:
Matt Streit
Director
202.608.6156
Matt.Streit@heritage.org
Elizabeth F. Lincicome
Senior Media Associate
202.608.6157
Elizabeth.Lincicome@heritage.org
Israel Ortega
Senior Media Associate
202.608.6176
Israel.Ortega@heritage.org
Audrey Jones
Media Associate
202.608.6159
Audrey.Jones@heritage.org
Asia-Pacific Media Requests:
Nick Zahn
Asia Communications Associate
202.608.6150
Nick.Zahn@heritage.org
-----
Rick Josey | 3.4.09 @ 6:35PM
Obama is not being "disingenuous." He is lying. To the American public who elected him. He talks about going against wasteful spending, but behind the scenes he is working to establish a quarter million new "government" employees...which is wasteful spending, par excellence.
That's why McCain and Ryan are wasting their time trying to get Obama a line-item veto power. Obama does not want it, and will not use it. He wants Pelosi and her cronies to take the fall for government spending.
Our citizens must return to theirs senses and throw the liberals out next time around. They never should have been voted in in the first place. The Founding Fathers never meant for our system to include a big federal government.
We need to CUT OUT ENTIRE FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS. Beginning with the Dept. of Education, which is merely the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party.
www.PatriotHangout.com
Len| 3.4.09 @ 7:16PM
Rick Josey at 6:35, what Federal Departments? Agencies such as the Dept. of Education have no Constitutional basis, thus they are illegal entities using the threat of force to carry out the agenda of certain power blocs. Yes, those power blocs may include Senators and Representatives, and even the President, but the only legitimate exercise of power is that which conferred by the Constitution. Now I'm sure you know this, but I'm merely making a point. I'm going to go a little further here, at any point outside of lawfully/Constitutionally granted powers that someone attempts to exert power they are acting as an individual in violation of either state rights or personal rights, and as they are not acting in a lawful capacity any individual is then within his rights to resist such violations and usurpations, of course one individual acting thus will be trampled upon, and only a significant percent of the people acting in concert would be reasonable.
Reps tops in Earmarks| 3.4.09 @ 8:56PM
Check newsmax
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/gop_earmarks/2009/03/04/188489.html
How can the Republican Party have any chance in two years if these morons are playing the same game they played from 2000 to 2006. They sell us on their commitment to fiscal responsibilty and they laugh in our face. Some of the most vocal anti spenders are on this list. These people need to be purged from the party. Why vote for a Republican who is a big spender when you can vote for a real Democrat? This is insanity and is why we see no leadership in the party. The Republicans for all their conservative talk are grabbing as much of our money as they can. We must put new rules on Congressional spending. This is nuts.
Pingback| 3.4.09 @ 9:45PM
Dear President Obama - Bigger is not better — The Baglady links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lloyd| 3.5.09 @ 12:14AM
Bob continues to insist that Peter Ferrara is a lawyer and has no knowledge of Economics. However, as I mentioned in another thread where Bob was doing exactly the same thing, Peter Ferrara "is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Harvard College, where he studied both law and economics........as a research assistant at a Boston-based consulting firm, he worked with Arthur Laffer and other economists on the development of an econometric model of various supply-side tax cuts." (bio from Peter J. Ferrara, "Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction", Cato Institute, 1980.)
BTW, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, etc, were not Economics graduates. Nor is Milton Friedman's son, David, and he writes Economics textbooks.......
Lloyd| 3.5.09 @ 1:35AM
I'm intrigued by Bob's comment : "Tax cuts and discretionary spending are marginal influences from an economics viewpoint". His evidence for this seems to be a comparison between the Reagan and Clinton administrations vis a vis economic growth/tax rates. Apparently a single instance is enough to derive an ineluctable economic law from.
Just to provide a few counter-examples - in the interests of balance - I'll quote from Alan Reynolds' article on "Marginal Tax Rates" in "The Fortune Encyclopaedia of Economics":
"Several economies that seemed to be on the verge of bankruptcy in the early eighties were suddenly revived once marginal tax rates were reduced. In 1983 to 1984, Turkey's marginal tax rates were slashed: the minimum rate dropped from 40 to 25 percent, the maximum from 75 to 50 percent. Real economic growth jumped to nearly 7 percent in the following four years and to 9 percent in 1990. Like Turkey, South Korea was deep in debt to international banks in 1980, when real output fell 2 percent. Korea subsequently cut tax rates and expanded deductions three times, and economic growth averaged 9.3 percent a year from 1981 to 1989. In the early eighties the African island of Mauritius faced an unemployment rate of 23 percent and massive emigration. Tax rates were cut from 60 percent to 35 percent, and the economy grew by 5.4 percent a year from 1981 through 1987. "
Now it may turn out that Alan Reynolds doesn't hold an Economics degree and so can't be considered a real economist like all those graduates who swore by the Phillips Curve for years and found stagflation a theoretical impossibility.............
As I'm too aware of the pitfalls of using History to establish Economic Truth, however, I'll just adduce a simple hypothetical regarding marginal tax rates. Let's assume there's a law that payroll tax comes into play once you have fifteen employees. You have fourteen. Is any decision to hire an extra worker related to the foregoing - or is it "a marginal influence from an economics viewpoint"?
Pingback| 3.5.09 @ 6:21AM
Law professional in Roosevelt offering legal service to those suffering from mesothel links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Onlythetruth| 3.5.09 @ 8:13AM
Re Bob: The absolute facts: The Clinton administration was the beneficiary of the exponential growth in information technology on a scale not yet replicated. That - and that alone - was the reason for the increase revenue flow via taxes into the gov't. I repeat - that and that alone.
Furthermore, the impact of Jobs and Gates was not felt until the 90's - Windows was not even in desktops until the 90's. In the 80's DOS was still the op system on desktops and Lotus 123 was the spreadsheet of choice. The computer software industry for personal computers was embryonic at best. And the personal computer industry was almost non existent. Mass buying of personal computers and software did not occur until the 90's as well as the emergence of the internet. This sparked the huge growth in the global economy and made Clinton look good.
Those are the irrefutable facts. It is a total falsehold to represent anything else. Particulary giving the Clintons any credit for fiscal responsibility and sound economic policies. That is a lie continually spoken by synchophant Clintonbots (read here: the smarmy Paul Begala and the rest of those despicable Clintonites) and the LSM.
Big "C" | 3.5.09 @ 9:11AM
"...to insist that we not be governed by people who won't tell us the truth. "
You have hit the one glaring truth in all of this mess. We are cursed now with "leaders" who are so clueless and arrogant that they think they can serve us any old pile of bull manure they want. But that's not all. They're also sure we we are dumb enough to think we're eating prime rib. I think what sets this generation of leadership apart is their open contempt for those who they are leading. This contempt is reflected in the irresponsible attitude toward spending HUGE amounts of borrowed money. Imagine how many fortunes are buried in each $1B we borrow and spend. Now, times that by 1,000. Now, times by 10. You think anyone other than unions and hand-picked cronies are going to get the goodies? The contempt is also reflected in the lapdog media, who are merely mimicking this scorn in order to be part of the glamour.
Bob| 3.5.09 @ 9:14AM
Rosencrans -- I actually agree with most of what you have said. You are wrong about the Bush administration spending -- perhaps because you left out 2008, but it is not that far off. You even come to the same conclusions as me when I said that entitlement spending is the problem because it is 53% of the budget and growing. You can't significantly cut spending without cutting entitlements. Furthermore, I've consistently stated that the Obama spending plan is way out of line and it is not as stimulative in the short term as it should be.
However, I still maintain historically tax cuts have not been stimulative and have only resulted in increased debt. It is monetary policy that is more effective and the fact that the Fed funds rate at the beginning of Reagan's term was so high was the thing that drove that recovery -- not lower taxes. Most economists would agree with me on that, by the way.
Only the truth -- you are conflating facts about the early computer industry. While personal computers on desktops didn't take hold until the 90's, the innovations in personal computing in the 80's led to lower cost computing in corporate America helping to increase productivity. It was this rise in productivity that helped Reagan.
I started working in corporate America in the early 70's and, as a trained mathematician, was at the forefront of computing. The information we were able to process was both expensive and limited. Starting in the 80's, the personal computer forced mainframe and mini producers to increase computing power and lower costs (i.e., Moore's Law). It was the in the 80's that these corporate computing platforms with PC's that we all shared as smart terminals, that led huge increases in corporate productivity. Ironically, during the 90's, there was less of an increase in productivity as putting a PC on every desk was expensive and software development lagged hardware development.
LLoyd -- I've seen similar articles. The issue here that is oft debated is cause and effect. You could make the exact same argument regarding the Fed funds rate and its effect on the rest of the world. The cost of capital, worldwide, was reduced significantly during the 80's. I suggest you review the work of non-political economists who will almost uniformly correlate the economic growth in the 80's to the Fed and Volcker. Now it is a fact that Reagan supported Volcker, most of the time, in his quest and I would certainly credit Reagan with this. If you've ever heard Reagan's Treasury Secretary at the time, Don Regan, talk about his encounters with Reagan, you'd know that Reagan didn't know much about economics. That said, Reagan did choose some good people and trusted them to do the right thing. In that sense, he was leagues better than Bush.
Bob| 3.5.09 @ 9:41AM
LLoyd -- here is Ferrara's bio from his current job:
"Peter Ferrara is Director of the International Center for Law and Economics and President of the Virginia Club for Growth. He served as a senior staff member in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and has practiced law with firms on Wall Street and in Washington, DC. He wrote the first book for the Cato Institute providing a comprehensive intellectual foundation for a personal account option for Social Security, Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction (1980), and has continued to write on that concept in further books, studies and articles for Cato, the Heritage Foundation, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Family Research Council, the U.S Chamber of Commerce, and a wide range of other institutions and publications."
Having one or two undergraduate courses in Econ does not make someone an economist and Ferrara knows that or else it would have been in his current bio. He has spent all of his professional career as a lawyer, not an economist. When I was going to business school, I spent a summer as a "research assistant" for the National Marine Fisheries Service working for a very senior biologist, but that did not make me an expert on marine biology.
I see you have not spent much time reviewing resumes and hiring people....
William Patric Hitler| 3.5.09 @ 10:51AM
Deliver us from evil, and lead us not into temptation.
Do not borrow money at interest because you do not know if you'll ever be able to pay it back.
America is in debt to China and the people of America is in debt to the Banks. The people who borrowed the money from the banks have lost their job and the house they borrowed the money to buy. Deliver us from evil and Satanic temptation, such as living beyond our means.
Pingback| 3.5.09 @ 3:10PM
Fool Or Villain? — The New Clarion links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lloyd| 3.5.09 @ 10:58PM
Bob, I don't know quite what Peter Ferrara's current bio proves about your allegations regarding his supposed lack of economics knowledge. Sure, he's primarily a lawyer but so too is Richard Posner and he regularly writes economically-literate articles for journals such as "The Journal of Law and Economics" (note the conjunction). And if you bothered to read Ferrara's book on Social Security you might note the emphasis on ECONOMIC - rather than primarily LEGAL - argument. Besides, you ignore the fact that people like David Friedman, who never took a class in Economics, writes Economics textbooks and lectures in Economics at the University of Chicago. To be honest, an Economics Degree doesn't mean a hell of a lot about anybody's knowledge of the stuff of the matter, as Nobel Prize-winner James Buchanan examines in "What Should Economists Do?" The idea that a few letters after your name means more than any substantive arguments offered is simply an ad hominen dismissal.
All your arguments amount to is taking one or two examples that can be interpreted as supporting your case, denouncing all contrary arguments as politically-motivated, and making ludicrous assertions such as " Tax cuts and discretionary spending are marginal influences from an economics viewpoint". Frankly, Bob, this is a complete denial that economic incentives exist - and yet you call yourself an economist. Do you really believe that " government has a minimal influence on business development"? If so, then why not confine it to non-business matters?
Lloyd| 3.5.09 @ 11:31PM
Bob, I assume you understand that tax rates are not identical with tax receipts. Yet you continue to denounce the Reagan administration for increasing deficits because they cut tax rates and therefore tax RECEIPTS. Which suggests you think that rates and receipts ARE identical - and your assertions that tax cuts are " marginal influences from an economics viewpoint" only reinforces this.
The problem with your argument is that tax receipts actually INCREASED by a third in inflation-adjusted dollars between 1980 and 1990 - despite the tax rates being lowered. And the top five percent of taxpayers paid 45.9% of all federal income taxes in 1988 while in 1979 they'd only paid 37.6%, while the top marginal rate was reduced from 70% to 33%. (Fortune Encyclopaedia of Economics, 1993, p 330.) The reason Reagan ran deficits is because government spending increased on his watch, not because tax receipts were down.
So how does this comport with your belief that tax cuts have only marginal influence from an economics viewpoint?
Osamas Pajamas | 3.6.09 @ 1:19AM
Further on the subject of the influence of tax cuts on taxpayer decisions -----
Rather than give the state [i.e. all government] any more dollars in taxes, I'd rather throw that money on the floor, set it ablaze with gasoline, and whiz on it to put the fire out, saying to those predatory humanitarians and so-called public servants, "Seize this, you bloodsucking pigs!"
Don't decry the lack of civility or the choice of language. Stir-up the victim class --- the privately-employed taxpayers --- and get them into the streets, raising hell with the politicians, bureaucrats and public employees.
Consult the rabble-rousing language of Samuel Adams, knock over the coffee tables and strike fear into the hearts of our political masters. Oh, and exercise your Second Amendment rights ---- those rights protect your First Amendment rights.
Michele San Pietro| 3.6.09 @ 6:04PM
Ann Coulter is absolutely right: this liberal extreme left is destroying America.
mike| 3.7.09 @ 1:36AM
after reviewing your article, it seems you have several solid complaints on the stimulus bill. however i've noticed several commonalities between your article and an article submitted by charles hraughthammer in the the daily news. essentially these similiar criticisms were that the bill does little yto promote economic growth, is based on liberal ideaologies that misrepresent the cause of the recession, and that the bill unfairly taxes the top 5% while these individuals pay as written, 60% of the total federal income tax revenue. however, the basis of the bill is not nessesairily to target the growth of the economy but the people within it. to that end, the tax increases are designed around aided families and other individuals with financial supplements. further more while this does not create economic growth very quickly it does not allow individuals to be overwhelmed during this time of recession. thusly these people recieve payments because they are nessesary in the long run and when no attention is paid to them they will become even more intense burdens of the state through deteriorating access to nessesary facilities. you also seem to have a problem with the education goals of the bill, via you're criticism of universal education because like kraughthammer, you do not believe it will stimulate the economy and the top 5% will have to pay the bill. however, increased oppurtunities for individuals help the economy in the long run by providing access to careers that are more viable. futher more the top 5% are not the top 5 for nothing, as they control the majority of the wealth, as small a group they are. increasing money to lesser off individuals and increasing wefare help to preserve a populous of ablebodied persons, a nesesary resource. also, the reason for the recession was due to housing loans being taken out through irresponsible pretenses, which caused severe finaancial problems, this much we know. part of the bil is designed to deal with that mess by promoting a better standard of living. cash rebates also help to revitalize the economy via spending, even if rate cuts would produce increased economic oppurtunity, it is simply a different rate of looking at the problem. people tend tosave portions of their incomes rather than spend them, so such thinking is flawed as people are ever so more cautious, there has to be a vsible restoration in the economy by people believing it is safe to conduct regular financial practices. futher more it does not matter that 20% of the middle economic standing pays only 4.7% because they significantly less, thusly this porpotion shows nothing unless you can show that 4.7% of the F.I.C is not significant compared to what that 20% make. finally, energy taxes are so designed for the reason of so much lack of profit: dependency on foriegn oil, which further agravates the problem. and i'm curious, why not mention the fact that the bill lacks any method for slowing down the outsourcing problem that puts people in a place for irresponsible behaviors because they are desperate? or the fact that technology puts many out of work, very quickly, creating persons unable to work? the bill has it's shortcomings granted but one cannot substitute an opposition to an idealology as criticism.
Strawman Derby| 3.7.09 @ 4:00AM
To understand Barack Obama, you have to recognize that he has established a clear pattern of calculated misrepresentations to mislead and confuse the public as to what he is doing and what he believes.
Nice premise. Now if I may: To understand this site, you have to recognize that it has established a clear pattern of calculated misrepresentations to mislead and confuse the public as to what it is doing and what it believes.
Strawman derby 2009! This shit is on! You guys are going down. Obama is going to destroy you jerkoffs.
Robert Rosencrans| 3.7.09 @ 8:42AM
For those who propose that tax cuts are stimulative or worthy, look at Michigan. Michigan is on the edge of economic destruction and nothing will ever bring it back. When did the trouble start? They did the opposite of tax cuts, raising taxes on everything. Six years later their economy lays dead, yet there is still a cry for more taxes by Democrats in the state. Maryland raised business taxes on just about service 2 years ago. Downtown Annapolis looks like a ghost town in several areas now.
Robert Rosencrans| 3.7.09 @ 8:43AM
That should have read tax cuts are NOT stimulative or worthy.
Robert Rosencrans| 3.7.09 @ 8:46AM
Bob: Even though you claim that the 2008 deficit wasn't figured into Bush's spending as a percentage of GDP it won't make any difference. Bush deficit spending will still fall within the historical norms. So your claim that he's a big spender doesn't pass the smell test.
Obama will be the big spender because GDP is plummeting at the same time the deficit is increasing. In fact, he will be the biggest spender of all time.
America is DEAD| 3.7.09 @ 5:15PM
America is DEAD, it's been dead for more than 10 years. over 67 Trillion in debt, who that is sane think America can pay off their debt?.
In March 2009 America will not even be able to pay off the interest on their debts. America is finished, the best thing Russia could do is drop a Nuclear bomb on it.
Michele San Pietro| 3.8.09 @ 2:29PM
America will definitely be dead within a few years, if not a few months, if it does not wake up and starts being America again. America will definitely die if it doesn't get rid of its enemies once and for all.
Pietro| 3.8.09 @ 7:53PM
During the campaign, both Obama and the MSM accused anyone who disagreed with THE GREAT ONE as engaging in "McCarthyism. The cruel irony is that Obama is turning out to be far more destructive than most of his critics probably even imagined. In short: WE ARE SCREWED.
Michele San Pietro| 3.9.09 @ 9:17AM
It sounds as though it's always "McCarthyism" every time a non-liberal dares say their own opinion.
Pingback| 4.5.09 @ 2:11AM
West Virginia Mesothelioma Law professional, WV , malignant mesothelioma, WV Lawyers links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.21.09 @ 3:31PM
READY TO PAY FOR GOVERNMENT WASTE? $11 Trillion in Bailouts. Billions in Bribes. « Fa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 9.4.09 @ 1:41PM
Unemployment rate rises to 9.7 percent in August, highest level in 26 years - Page 4 links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
gfdg| 12.2.09 @ 1:33AM
H264 Converter,
H264 Converter for Mac
udsfas | 12.10.09 @ 11:29AM
Cheap Coach Shoes
mbt | 1.15.10 @ 7:51PM
I feel very grateful when I read your wonderful post
buy mbt shoes
nbvm| 1.19.10 @ 2:53AM
Convert to MKV is a powerful MKV video converter and MKV file converter, that can help you convert videos to MKV files with fast speed and excellent output quality.
Convert MKV to DVD as well as all the other popular formats are supported; batch and multithreading convert MKV to DVD and make the most of your multi-core processor power; create MKV to DVD with menu templates, split your movies into chapters and watch them on your home DVD player afterwards;
convert MKV to DVD by deleting unwanted parts, split and join video files and much more...
dingmei | 1.24.10 @ 10:43PM
What an inspiring article you wrote! I totally like the useful shoulder bag info shared in the article.
Great article, it's helpful to me, and I also like the useful info about backpacks.
jennifer2012| 3.6.10 @ 6:50PM
Yes, it comes. It is a big problem.
iPhone to Mac Transfer, Most powerful and must-have app to transfer the iPhone to Mac, iPhone to iTunes and copy files from Mac to iPhone.
Teronk | 3.9.10 @ 3:37AM
The variable PA income tax for Pennsylvania is determined by PA state tax legislation. How much income tax that is withheld from your paycheck depends on which tax bracket you fall under. Best Home Improvement Tool
Brian Messad| 3.15.10 @ 11:21PM
If you try searching on Google for this you might find it.
monster energy hats | 4.10.10 @ 4:02AM
Best new era caps,new era hats,delicate monster energy hats,magical nfl hats,one industries hats,rockstar energy hats,Red Bull Caps,The Hundreds Hats,Supreme Hats,DC Comics Hats ,red bull hats are in stock now.
Tucson carpet cleaning | 11.20.10 @ 5:26PM
Obama's fantasy budget is more like a budget for fantasy spectators. No matter what the issue, there are going to be people on all sides. Good to see some real insight here. Thank you.
Sales Letters Template | 12.2.10 @ 10:20PM
As a business owner and sales professionals, I am sure we share many of the same problems. I am always have to write letters. I have to write a follow up letter, sales letter, thank you letter, welcome letter, and other legal and professional letters.
I have found a great Letter Template Tool that i would like to share with all business owners and Sales agents, reps, and professionals...
It has helped me save time and money...Check it out, and give it a try...