The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Campaign Crawlers
Print Email
Text Size

Campaign Crawlers

Democrats Renew Their War on America’s Youth

By on 7.20.10 @ 6:09AM

With election year at hand, Democrats and their liberal allies are back to scaring seniors and denying there’s a Social Security crisis.

Facing dangerously low approval ratings for an incumbent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has turned to an age-old tactic in his bid for re-election: scaring senior citizens.

As soon as Sharron Angle emerged as his Republican opponent, Reid made Angle’s professed support for personal retirement accounts a centerpiece of his campaign against her, launching a series of ads blasting her for wanting to “wipe out” Social Security. 

Reid’s gambit to defend his seat in a state with the nation’s highest unemployment rate is part of a broader effort by Democrats to navigate a difficult electoral environment. With a weak economy and a public that has turned against President Obama and his agenda, Reid and his fellow Democratic incumbents are trying to resurrect their glory days, when they were the only ones standing in the way of President Bush’s sinister plot to destroy the popular but fiscally unsound government program.

The strategy was telegraphed in late January, when Obama cited Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” entitlement reform plan in his talk at the House Republican retreat as a “serious proposal” that he nonetheless opposed. Soon after, the Democratic National Committee pounced on the plan and leading Democrats argued that because Ryan was the ranking GOP member on the Budget Committee, it showed that Republicans wanted to “privatize” Social Security.

The weak-kneed Republican leadership has mostly distanced themselves from Ryan’s ambitious plan, emphasizing that it wasn’t the official Republican budget. And in the midst of campaign season, any GOP candidate who has indicated support for Ryan’s proposal has been subjected to relentless attacks.

In the race for Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional seat, for instance, Democrat Julie Lassa has blasted Republican Sean Duffy for making general statements in support of Ryan’s plan, which calls for voluntary personal accounts for younger workers and other changes to make the Social Security system solvent.

The campaign season debate over Social Security is set against the backdrop of Obama’s fiscal commission. While conservatives are convinced that the body is just a Trojan Horse for a European style value added tax, liberal activists are worried that it’s part of a plan to cut Social Security.

Last Wednesday, the liberal group MoveOn.org sent out an email seeking to raise $185,000 to launch a preemptive campaign against any efforts to cut Social Security. The ominous email warned of a “showdown coming to Washington” over Social Security, with conservatives and Blue Dog Democrats on one side, and “progressives” on the other. As of this writing MoveOn had raised $192,489, and had set a new goal of $250,000.

As part of the effort to avert any serious attempts to do something about the looming Social Security crisis, liberals have sought to deny any crisis exists in the first place.

Nancy Altman, co-director of the group Social Security Works, a coalition of unions and other liberal activist organizations, argued that “Deficit hawks plotting to cut Social Security to reduce the deficit are seriously misguided. The truth is that Social Security contributes not a single penny to the deficit. Indeed, it is the poster child for fiscal responsibility.”

“Social Security is not in crisis,” declared AARP President Barry Rand in May, urging the deficit commission to avoid addressing the program.

At last month’s Nevada Democratic Convention, Reid got into the act, too. “One of the myths around here is Social Security is in deep trouble,” Reid said, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “Social Security is not in deep trouble. If we did nothing with it, it would be OK for the next 40 years. Now we want to make sure it is OK for the next 40 years.”

Those who deny that Social Security is facing a crisis rely on a series of specious arguments. The first is to put the focus on 2037 — the year the Social Security Trustees project the program’s “trust fund” to be exhausted, rather than 2016, when the program is expected to start running annual deficits. But to draw such a distinction is to pretend that all of the money doesn’t ultimately come from the same bank account (or in this case, the collective bank accounts of American taxpayers).

The Social Security program is financed primarily by payroll taxes. When the amount of tax revenue collected exceeds benefits, the surplus is theoretically put in the trust fund. But in reality, the federal government uses that surplus to finance ongoing government operations, and puts a stack of bonds — or IOUs — in the funds instead. So, while it’s true that for about 27 years, there’s theoretically enough money within the system to keep paying beneficiaries, after 2016, that money will have to come from somewhere — at a time when the nation is already suffocating under a mountain of debt.

The 2009 Social Security Trustees report concluded that because redeeming bonds held within the trust fund will need to come from the general treasury, “Pressures on the Federal Budget will thus emerge well before 2037.”

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (156) |

Curly Smith| 7.20.10 @ 6:42AM

The 'utes are in a bad way. First, they'll leave college with massive student debt from costs that rose 4 times the rate of inflation, thanks to those meddling bureaucrats. Next, they'll survey the landscape and discover that not nary a job is to be seen, thanks to those meddling bureaucrats. Finally, if they do stumble across a job then they'll be paying +50% of their gross wages in Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, ObamaCare, Cap&Trade;, GM/Chrysler, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac taxes, again thanks to those meddling bureaucrats.

It's a shame that when they pulled the lever for change they never considered that it might be a change for the worse. Cue the music... "I'm a believer..."

Old Soldier| 7.20.10 @ 7:27AM

And it will get ugly when they realize how they were ripped off. Their future earnings already committed to liberal interest group payoffs and purchased voted from oldsters.

I'm raising my kids not to get caught in that trap. Trying to teach them real skills and keep them out of debt (other than the debt the Dems are running up in their name).

vtwin| 7.20.10 @ 8:42AM

The present and/or future deficits are not because of Social Security or Medicare, both of which are at present running surpluses ($5 trillion) but rather the irresponsible fiscal policies pursued by one Republican administration after another going all the way back to the Reagan administration. These deficit ($13 trillion) creating policies include the massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, bloated defense spending; which primarily benefits the wealthiest whom own the companies that produce the products and services purchase by the pentagon, unnecessary wars; the Iraq war alone is going to cost $3 trillion, and unrealistic free trade policies which further erodes the tax base; where our chief export is JOBS.

sean| 7.20.10 @ 9:18AM

Just focusing on your ire over the Reagan tax cuts, I then presume that you'd prefer we have today the following tax rates/brackets?

bracket rate
$0 - $3,400 0%
$3,400 - $5,500 14%
$5,500 - $7,600 16%
$7,600 - $11,900 18%
$11,900 - $16,000 21%
$16,000 - $20,200 24%
$20,200 - $24,600 28%
$24,600 - $29,900 32%
$29,900 - $35,200 37%
$35,200 - $45,800 43%
$45,800 - $60,000 49%
$60,000 - $85,600 54%
$85,600 - $109,400 59%
$109,400 - $162,400 64%
$162,400 - $215,400 68%
$215,400 - and over 70%

Because without the Reagan tax cuts, this is where we'd be - middle income families paying taxes at more than a 50% marginal tax rate. You do remember that part of the Reagan tax cuts was indexing them for inflation, don't you?

vtwin| 7.20.10 @ 12:50PM

The National debt, largely because of the Vietnam War, was less than a $1 trillion in 1980; today it is over $13 trillion. Over the last 3 decades we gone from creditor to a debtor nation; we have to borrow from the Kingdoms in the Middle East, the Socialists in Europe, and the Communists in Asia.

ObserverOnTheHill| 7.24.10 @ 8:32PM

Let's address current finances - 13.2 TRILLION deficit and over 100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities - social security, medicare, medicaid. While the trolls on websites play the Repub / Demo game the world is on fire- just how they like it- blame the other "party" when it's the politicians that need to go, SEE HERE :
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/woes.htm

Brian Mc| 7.20.10 @ 9:19AM

vtwin,
You really should turn off the engine, step out of the garage and into the fresh air before attempting to write something on your dad's laptop.

If you are a representation of the product bought by our tax dollars that fund the public school system, we are all screwed.

Clinton nee Publius | 7.20.10 @ 10:11AM

Well, here's a surprise - another liberal-progressive who claims the perpetrators of the greatest Ponzi scheme of all time is somehow not a problem for the people who are perpetrating the scam. It's not their fault - they created the scam in good faith; that faith being the one where they steal all the money and then have the nerve to stand there and tell you to ignore what your lying eyes are saying.

As usual, when it comes time for serious solutions, all we can count on from liberals is serious distraction, serious denial and serious lying so that they can do whatever it takes to sustain the scam at your cost and expense.

The reality is that Social Security is already running deficits 12 years ahead of the most optimistic predictions of the operators of this Ponzi scheme and it is going to fail. The math cannot be made to work. People who paid into the plan and people who are paying into the plan now have been defrauded. They cannot raise tax rates high enough to sustain the scam because taxation is a limited activity that always creates economic destruction as its chief outcome. This means there is a practical limit. In the case of the Modern Era, any time the marginal tax rate exceeds 19% of GDP, the economy slides into a recession and the actual collection of receipts is reduced until the marginal rates are adjusted below the 19% rate. This is what happened at the end of the Clinton era when the rates reached approximately 21% of GDP and the resulting recession lasted until the Bush tax cuts took effect (interestingly enough, despite the so-called "conventional wisdom" that the Bush tax cuts "weren't paid for", the reality is that tax receipts reached record levels in the years following the cuts, thus completely sustaining my position and completely repudiating any credibility owing to liberal-progressive claims). This means they cannot tax their way out of the mess - there will never be enough tax revenue to sustain the program even if they eliminate all other discretionary spending - which we all know the liberal-progressives in the political class will never do because they give that money to their fellow Ponzi scheme co-conspirators. This means they have to face the reality that, once again, the liberal-progressive movement will be defrauding people by taking away a benefit that these people already paid for. This is fraud and theft under color of authority - but since fraud and theft under color of authority is the central political philosophy and real economic agenda of the political class and the modern liberal-progressive movement, their hope is that you will let them get away with it by virtue of them calling it a "reform" and suckering you yet again with another series of lies.

Which brings us to the key issue: why would we ever believe them on anything? Until they can keep their promises on a single item in the liberal-progressive agenda (other than spending with no restraint and taxing us until we are dead), nobody should believe a thing a liberal-progressive has to say because it points to this glaring problem; there is no agenda, just a criminal conspiracy.

This would not be complete without a solution. The reality of this situation is that Social Security must change. We had the government run it as an exclusive monopoly for more than 60 years and the result is that, like AMTRAK and the Post Office, the liberal-progressive movement bankrupted the program by stealing the revenues and paying them out to themselves. This means Social Security will change and the choices are either to accept the current variations of being defrauded, or look at the only solution that can provide a complete resolution of the Social Security OASDI program without reducing benefits and do so without a single dime of taxpayer funds. That's right, The Fix For Social Security (part of The Fix - Capitalism Version 2.0) is the only fiscally-responsible plan out there that demonstrates a workable solution for resolving this nightmare that prevents government corruption from ever stealing another penny of the program's funds, actually increases benefits to our poorest senior and disabled households and provides a complete workout for the program without another dime of contributions. It's all part of Lovellian Economics (a branch of the Austrian School of Economics) and it is the only plan that Congress is actively attempting to prevent us from having any public discussion of because it ends the very corruption these people specialize in perpetrating.

Loshooligan| 7.20.10 @ 12:51PM

I love that there is historical evidence that shows us what makes or economy work, but these leftisit want to continually return to their ideology, and failed economic plans.

There are no new ideas coming from the left.

God Bless You Clinton nee Publius!!

vtwin| 7.20.10 @ 3:04PM

Here’s some “historical evidence” of the failure of Reaganomics; the poverty rate reached its low point of 11.3% in the late seventies and is now almost 16%, while the wealth disparity in America is at levels not seen since twenties.

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#2

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor.....ealth.html

Loshooligan| 7.20.10 @ 4:17PM

Did you actually read the whole articles? Or only skim to the part that you like best?

Lets see...a couple of facts from your web sites you over looked:

1. Poverty is highest among single mothers (28.7%)
2. Poverty of foreign-born residents are 17.8% versus 12.6% of natural citizens.
3. Foreign born, non-citizens was even higher at 23.3%
4. There are equal numbers of White, Black, and Hispanic children living in poverty by total numbers.
5. Some how the Asians have a dispropotionatly low level of children in poverty. (better get some from the Gubment over there right away and fix that.)
6. The poverty levels reported don't take into consideration all the Gubmnet subsidies they receive as a whole.
7. Poverty levels are still lower than the 22.4% noted in the 1950's....this is even after the counter culture's distruction of America.
8. You linked a web site for a professor who is from a school whose mascot is a Banana Slug.
9. The footnotes from the professors article is from the whos who of leftisit in America like, the AFL-CIO, New York Times, Faireconomy.org, and whole litany of leftists sociology professors (no self-importance there).
10. National Poverty Center has no axe to grind, right?
11. The NPC is using the same calculation methods for over 40 years. (Before Regean was Gubnor of California) Might be out dated, or just serves to get them more money from the gubment.

So how does Regean play into this? Maybe the changes in societal behavior might have more to do with this than economic policies? Maybe the 12 percent of impoverished are just plane lazy asses just like you? Feeling bad about the money you make?...Go lift a poor person up!! Maybe they don't want to be lifted up. Maybe they're waiting for guys like you to get them the hand out they need. Why don't you post links to actual economist instead of intellectual elite leftist sell outs?

Jamman | 7.25.10 @ 11:40AM

The problem with "poverty" rate statistics are that they are based on "income", which is an economic term that excludes government transfer payments.

For example, since 1997 when the S-Chip program was introduced, a family of four at 200% of the poverty level (around 43K) receives a substantial benefit: free health insurance for their children. The dollar value of that benefit does not impact the poverty level.

So in America, a person in "poverty" might well be receiving Government Housing Aid, Welfare, free meals at school, free health insurance, la da, la da, la da, la dal....all the while being officially in poverty based on income.

WhiteBikerTrash| 7.20.10 @ 10:30AM

V-Twin, you make me wonder, could it be a Honda, or Yamaha? Your information is askew. The CBO projects that Social Security's cash deficit will total $202 billion between now and 2020. No future deficit here? Social Security will pay more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes in the current fiscal year. Ummm, no that's not a deficit in a Honda riders eyes.
Do you know what a Ponzi scheme is? and when it collapses? here's a hint, Social Security is going to start paying out more in benefits this year than it's collecting in taxes -- close to $29 billion more. Umm, that's just this year!!

vtwin| 7.20.10 @ 12:28PM

$202 billion over ten years, in 2009 interest alone on the National Debt totaled $260 billion, over ten years that’s $2.6 trillion!

WhiteBikerTrash| 7.20.10 @ 1:04PM

Okay, Honda boy, I can tell by your little try at diversion that you have no idea what a Ponzi scheme is. It works just like a Government imposed "Social Security" system does. With the same outcome!
And by your reply you indicate that you not only know about, but also disapprove of deficit spending. So what point were you arguing?

vtwin| 7.20.10 @ 2:43PM

Social Security and Medicare are no more a “Ponzi scheme” than any other form of insurance; you pay premiums in, a 13% payroll tax in the case on S & M, and receive benefits out.

Since the creation of Social Security in the thirties and Medicare in the sixties neither has added a dime to the national debt. In fact together the S & M payroll taxes have an accumulated surplus of about $4.8 trillion and are the major source of funds used to finance the Republican tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.

And, in turn some of these wealthy Americans, to avoid repayment of those funds borrowed from S & M to pay for their tax cuts, fund organizations like the Heritage Foundation that produce pseudo-research studies, in an attempt to convince working class American that Social Security and Medicare are bankrupt.

mark| 7.20.10 @ 3:02PM

what planet are you on.

Loshooligan| 7.20.10 @ 3:04PM

vtwin said: [In fact together the S & M payroll taxes have an accumulated surplus of about $4.8 trillion and are the major source of funds used to finance the Republican tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. ]

The wealthiest Americans (5%) pay 65% of the total taxes (irs.org) So how many poor people do you know that have created jobs? Are you still buying into the whole government can create jobs by taxing the rich and re-distributing to the not so wealthy? I can see by your class warfare comments that you are an epic failure in life. Does the term "Would you like fries with that?" sum up most of your public conversations?

I love that the Heritage Foundation is being funded by S.S. and Medicare. The first step to recovery is by removing the tinfoil hat and admitting you have a problem. Come on man just say it out loud...My name is Vtwit and I'm a Commie!!

vtwin| 7.20.10 @ 4:13PM

It’s 60% not 65%, and federal income taxes, not all taxes.
But this reflects the increasing income disparity in America - the results of the economic policies of the past thirties years - which finds too many Americans not earning enough to pay federal income tax.

What I wrote was: “some of these wealthy Americans… fund organizations like the Heritage Foundation”

Loshooligan| 7.20.10 @ 4:29PM

Really?! Your correcting me on 5%..ROFLMAO. So too many people not earning enough to pay federal taxes? If they earn, then they can pay. How does this show income disparity? So there are people who make a lot of money, and those people end up paying most of the taxes, that pay for all the things that poor people get to use for free. How about a tax system that everyone pays the same percentage EQUALLY, or pay based on how much you consume. Or a tax system that allows wealth to be spent to create more jobs and more opportunity for the poor to become wealthy? If they want to.

I bet your favorite quote is " From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

ablubud| 7.25.10 @ 12:46PM

You are an ignoramus, who couldn't shine VTWIN's shoes.

carnot| 7.20.10 @ 8:39PM

that happens when you do not have skills demanded for the better paying jobs! best you look elsewhere for root causes.

BillW| 7.25.10 @ 5:59AM

I with a GED, went to work as a machinists helper 1970, I was running CNCs in the AERO industry, bought a Condo, put 15% into a 401K etc.
12/08 was the day the company went from 65 employees to 33, & laid me off, my 401K worth 1/2 of what I put into it.
I wish I could have my SS I put in over those yrs available to me, since there's no Jobs up & down the East Coast. My Taxes in CT are where we'll be look'n to sell the condo, & rent.
Our last yr working tax burden was on $98K, the future depends on the Government, & whatever I can hide from them.......................

Rich| 7.20.10 @ 3:54PM

I think you drank too much of the liberal's kool-aid!

Tim*| 7.20.10 @ 5:29PM

Your Employer Is Forced To Pay Half !

" The Social Security tax withheld from employees during the year 2010 will be 6.2% of the first $106,800 of each employee’s taxable earnings. The employee’s earnings in excess of $106,800 are not subject to the Social Security tax. In addition to the Social Security tax, the entire amount of each employees’ taxable earnings is subject to the Medicare tax of 1.45%.

Both the Social Security tax and the Medicare tax must be matched by the employer. This means the employer must remit to the federal government 12.4% of each employee’s first $106,800 of taxable earnings plus 2.9% of each employee’s earnings regardless of amount."

vtwin| 7.20.10 @ 6:23PM

You are absolutely correct. And, it is nice to read a comment on TAS that is not bullsh*t.

Purpleguy| 7.21.10 @ 12:06AM

Yeah, what a bite - why should employers have to pay for their worthless employees? - even after they have the privilege of running a business in the greatest country on earth.
But I am glad every year I don't have to pay SS taxes ... it's a nice little bonus for Xmas and all.
But remove the Social Security cap, and Blamo! solvency forever... and y'all can stop worrying your little heads about the fiscal crisis. Just have the balls to tell your Reps to remove the cap on Social Security. It's the wealthy that will pay - like me - why would YOU care?

resistnow| 7.26.10 @ 8:17AM

Ah, gentlemen.....the employer doesn't pay half of your wages to the government....he pays the amount he would have paid you in salary to the g'ment. When I decide to hire an employee, I figure out how much I have to spend, say $50,000. I subtract health insurance costs, 2 weeks vacation costs, 6 sick days costs, payroll tax costs etc. and I am left with 39,000. That is the salary I offer. Without taxes and other costs, I would give out 50,000. The costs are borne by the employee technically. Sorry. That is how it usually works.

Purpleguy| 7.21.10 @ 12:02AM

Bingo! Not that this audience will believe - it's not in the dittohead's nature to absorb facts, or check on them for themselves. A simple Google search would tell them, but they won't do it... upsets the applecart to see their Gods, Fox and Rush, Beck and Hannity as the liars and spinners they are.

mogar| 7.24.10 @ 10:49PM

vt

mogar| 7.24.10 @ 10:58PM

Got two questions for you. What the hell are you smoking and where can I get a bag of it. SS is NOT an insurance policy! You have nothing in your hot little paws that states what this insurance policy will deliver if anything! It is a ponzi scheme in the best traditions of the ponzi schemes. Those surpluses you speak of are special bonds that can't be sold in any market, they are just IOU's from the gov't. When they start redeeming those bond where do you think they will go to get the cash to do so. They have no choice here, they have to take it from a live tax payer or print it. If you don't see the problems that that will cause then your are to far gone to be saved.

Jamman| 7.25.10 @ 11:54AM

It's woud be hard to conceive how Mr Klien's article just doesn't reach you, except your concept of a 'tax cut' needing to be funded clues us in on your sophist thought process.

The funds in the Social Security trust fund have been replaced with Government Savings bonds. There is no 5 trillion dollar surplus. The money is replaced with Treasury Notes, which at some time, will have to be repaid from current income.

The concept that a "tax cut" has to be financed seems a fallacy at the high margins in effect here. There is a tax rate: there is revenue generated. When high taxes are a drag on private growth, they decrease revenue. I don't know of any evidence of tax revenue declines from Reagan or Bush tax cuts, because of growth in the economy. Could you cite the years when this occurred?

Loshooligan| 7.20.10 @ 11:41AM

Hey Vtwit,

Republican deficits? Who had control of congress during the Reagan administration? Let me give you a hint….Democrats! Who had control of Congress under Bush Sr. …..? You might need another hint…Democrats! Then during the great economic boom of the 90’s and falling deficits under Clinton who had control of Congress…now hold onto your seat Vtwit…Republicans! When the economy took a down turn 3 years ago who had control of congress….Democrats! Who runs the purse strings of the federal budget and ultimately influences the US economy? Just in case you’re a little slow at picking up subtle hints…Congress! Are you seeing a pattern here yet?

No matter how much leftist like try to rewrite history, Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand as the most successful economic policy of the 20th century. His tax reforms triggered an economic expansion that was unseen in history until Bush Jr. did it again after Sept 11th. Reagan’s investments in national security ended the Cold War and made possible the subsequent defense spending reductions that gave us federal surpluses in the 1990’s. His efforts to restrain the expansion of federal government helped to limit the growth of domestic spending.

Bush Sr. would have never needed to increase taxes if Reagan's critics had been willing to work with him to limit domestic spending even further and control the growth of entitlements. Remember who was holding mock funerals on the nation’s capital steps with a casket containing Reagan’s propose budgets? That wasn’t Democrats, was it? Reagan’s proposals would have balanced the budget five to ten years sooner and without the massive tax increase imposed in 1993 by Clinton. The funny thing is that Clinton’s economic policy was do what Reagan did, but he continued the legacy of increased government spending. It took the Republicans taking control of congress in 1994 to finally start reducing government spending, which contributed to the economic boom of the 90’s.

I can see that you’re just another hit and run leftist blog troll. Maybe you should spend some more time reading about history instead of regurgitating Rules for Radicals propaganda. Why don’t you drop a few anti-Bush slogans to make you feel better? You know you want to.

vtwin| 7.20.10 @ 1:00PM

In January 1981, when President Ronald Reagan took office the nation's debt was only $934.1 billion.

In January 1989, when President Ronald Reagan left office the nation's debt was over $2.7 trillion.

Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt!

vtwin| 7.20.10 @ 1:04PM

“ Ronald Reagan's record of fiscal responsibility continues to stand.”

Another Reagan myth torn down!

Loshooligan| 7.20.10 @ 1:19PM

Obviously reading comprehension is not one of your finer skills. You throw two stats against the miles of information presented in this comment section to counter your arguement that Republicans have create the deficit problem. Two BS stats? Thats all you got....pathetic.

Heres a myth. LEFTIST INTELLIGENCE. I can see your 6th grade education has gotten you pretty far. Go troll some other site Jethro.

Jamman| 7.25.10 @ 12:14PM

Of course it's important to recall that GDP increased during the 8 RR years from 2.7 trillion to 5.1 trillion (87% GDP)

Under Clinton, 6.3 trillion to 8.8 trillion (37% growth)

Under GWB, 9.9 to 14.4 (45% )

As much as you dislike Reagan era defense spending, it ended the Soviet Empire, which during my childhood was the world's biggest problem.

Surfdumb| 7.25.10 @ 12:55PM

Thanks Loshooligan, I've been noticing a concerted attack on Reagan's legacy lately, leftists are worried, the propaganda machine found one isolated stat to run with, an increase in nat'l debt - taken out of context regarding who controlled the purse strings and ignoring that pesky Cold War thingy and the great expansion that Reagan secured for decades to come (as you aptly point out).
It's quite pathetic that leftists are now attacking the Reagan legacy and rewriting history once again. Their success is made possible by their actively dumbing down of our 'Utes' and the instant sounbite gratification and hypnotic brainwashing by the 4th estate and public edumacation system.
"The Press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free
press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people."
-– Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail. Without it nothing can succeed. He who molds public opinion is greater than he who enacts laws."
-- President Abraham Lincoln
I am favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it's possible.
Milton Friedman
Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it.
Milton Friedman
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
Milton Friedman
The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.
Milton Friedman
The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.
Milton Friedman
The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.
Milton Friedman
Alas, our Utes never hear of Milton Friedman, just Keynesian hacks like Krugman. Socialists )like Hitler) loved Keynesian policies because it invariably results in more and more centralized gov't control over the economy, Keynes was, and is, the fabian socialists best friend.

Tim*| 7.20.10 @ 5:05PM

" At $13 trillion, that figure has risen by $2.4 trillion in about 500 days since President Obama took office, or an average of $4.9 billion a day. That’s almost three times the daily average of $1.7 billion under the previous administration, and led Republicans on Wednesday to place blame squarely at the feet of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrat. "

Derek P| 7.20.10 @ 6:40PM

Is this 2010 or 1976? The same ol' BS arguments and the same ol' BS demagoguery .......geez it gets sooooo old........

JimE| 7.20.10 @ 7:17PM

vtard, can't come up with anything other than a cut and paste from hufpo, loser.

kenema | 7.24.10 @ 8:34PM

Social security will be running a deficit in a few years. The tax cuts for the wealthies included me. I earn $50,000 per year and I got $1800 more back. Some in your party want to now extend the "tax cuts for the wealthy". Hypocracy? The stimulus package that created a handful of jobs (with money going out as far as 2019)? That cost more than 2 wars in 6 years. Wasn't NAFTA a Bill Clinton idea? Hey, I got an idea. Why don't we pay for all our kids college education? Just like in Norway (which your senator adores), the government will select what schools and the curriculum they study. Doesn't sound much like freedom to me. I must digress though. ALL OF THEM NEED TO GO.

Ken| 7.24.10 @ 10:34PM

What free trade policies re you talking about? Do you remember back in the 50's and 60's when you could find a production job almost anywhere in the U.S. any time you wanted one? What happened? Are you trying to blame Republicians for this???

Delphinus13| 7.25.10 @ 8:02AM

vtwin,

The current administration, with a large majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate is running a $1.4 Trillion deficiet this year, the highest in U.S. history. SOcial Security and Medicare are nothing but federally mandated Ponzi schemes which coercively force working-age people to pay for the benifits to current retirees. I've even written my senators and representatives to ask why there isn't an "Opt Out" provision so I can put my 6.2% along with the 6.2% my employer matches on my behalf into a private, FDIC-insured account, and they all keep giving me the same bogus, canned response. "We appreciate your concerns, but Social Security is solvent and only needs minor adjustments to keep it so. Besides, we can't afford to let younger workers opt out and still pay benefits to current retirees...." A Ponzi scheme!! Even when I write them again and point out that they can only give two reasons NOT to let me opt out a.) it's for my own good or b.) it's a Ponzi scheme, they send the EXACT SAME canned response.

Another question for you. Since the Top 10% bear around 60% of the income tax burden despite the fact they only earn 36% of the income (hence already paying WAY MORE than their "fair share"), why shouldn't they be the biggest benificiaries of any tax cuts?

Buzz | 7.25.10 @ 11:17AM

Since 1965 with the passage of LBJ/ Democrat contrived entitlements, $13 trillion has been doled out createing and perpetuating a dependency class, who have given up their self respect and self reliance and expect and now demand handouts from their government, which has to be paid for with the taxes from the 50% of us still paying taxes plus borrowed money (41 cents out of each dollar spent by government today is borrowed). They are wards of the state and are expected and encentivized to vote to keep those who promise to continue the handouts coming in their plush government positions. This unholy alliance has destroyed our financial future and in dollar terms the entitlement handouts to date equal our national debt of $13 trillion. At this point the ship has taken on too much debt for which there has been no investment benefit(the seed corn was eaten) only greater dependency on "other peoples money" . Our unfortunate childern and grandchildern best learn Chinese. What a sorry state of affairs. Too many lawyers, too many self serving politicians, too many tenured radical professors, too many socialist media hacks. Too late.

Billy G| 7.25.10 @ 11:56AM

Ok, a lot of you are being taken for a fool by vtwin here. He mentions a statistic that is only partially true and none of you have caught it. It's his statement "Social Security or Medicare, both of which are at present running surpluses ($5 trillion)". This statement is partially true but as a whole is an outright lie. Social Security has a cumulative surplus of $5 trillion. Medicare has been running over $ 700 billion in deficit this year alone and has never had a surplus in decades, if ever. Taken together, as vtwin wants you to, they are running a massive deficit.

Joe| 7.25.10 @ 4:54PM

I guess you forgot the part that everytime tax cuts were implemented rahter Reagan, BUsh or Kennedy the federal government actually takes in more revenue (under Reagan from 500 bill to a trillion) because it expands the economic pie, as aoppsoed to taking more from an ever shrinking one. As for your diatribe over Iraq etc. your democrats could have pulled the funding during the end of the Bush years and haven't done a thing to stop that funding now despite all of Obama's promises to the contrary.
I further guess it doesn't bother you that this president has increased the deficit by 3 trillion in only 18 months, all with promises of unemployment coming down to 8%, what is unemploymnet now?
Funny how with people like yourself its never the spending that seems to be out of control.

COLORADO NATIVE| 7.25.10 @ 6:22PM

I figured it out back in 1984 that I would very likely never see Social Security. It just was not going to work. I only have a High School education. I do have commen seance. I have been saving at least 10 to 15% of my pay. I think it sucks big time because of what I have paid in but I bet in 15 years when its my turn I won't get any. I hope others are saving or your a %%%%.
This country has lived WAY over its means and now we are all going to pay for it. Buckly up it going to be ruff.

David| 7.26.10 @ 9:24AM

vtwin - the Bush tax cuts to the 'wealthiest' (you know the people who have money to spend and actually create jobs) amounted to 14% of the deficit spending in the last 8 years. Obamao has spent $1.4T or 10X that amount in just 20 months.

Shamus| 7.20.10 @ 10:38AM

There are plenty of jobs. All you have to do is move to China.

Hershl| 7.20.10 @ 7:02AM

Obama is on a roll. The war on America's youth is just one detail of many.

He wants us to embrace our enemies, the very ones who are trying to kill us.

We are at war with people who want us all to accept eternal slavery= Islam ( translation from Arabic = submission).

Consider this:

The chief of the operation that killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics just died. What is telling is that the man whom Obama and the rest of the world is calling on Israel to give land to, to essentially capitulate to, Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, just sent a letter to the murderer's family in which he praised him for his service to Palestine and the enemies of Israel and Judeo-Christian society.

http://www.jewishdailyreport.wordpress.com

Carol| 7.20.10 @ 7:05AM

I am sick of the GOP distancing themselves from a common-sense but tough plan like Paul Ryan's. What's their plan? Playing along with Obama to further the detriment of the country?

If these morons in the GOP had an ounce of brains they would be telling seniors Social Security will be paid to them - IT'S OBAMACARE THEY REALLY NEED TO WORRY ABOUT BECAUSE OBAMA IS GOING TO MAKE SURE THEY'LL HAVE TO TAKE A PILL BEFORE THEY'LL GET TO LIVE TO A RIPE OLD AGE BECAUSE OF ANY CARE A DOCTOR COULD GIVE THEM.

Now that's how you scare seniors.

Purpleguy| 7.20.10 @ 11:58PM

Let me guess - you aren't on Social Security or Medicare and hubby brings home the bacon so you can dabble in your inane existence?

Haven't you given up on the death panels yet? It's over, it didn't play for long, but the intended victims are wise to the tactic - they may be old, but they're not stupid. Ahem, like some others.

Carol| 7.20.10 @ 7:08AM

I want to add something to my post.

The "youth" don't worry about Social Security now. That's because the "youth" are more worried about getting jobs.

GOP: YOU HAVE SO MUCH AMMO TO USE AGAINST THESE COMMUNISTS IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY - WHY NOT USE IT?

Purpleguy| 7.20.10 @ 11:59PM

'Cause they don't really. They want power, not what you want, that's all.

Melvin| 7.20.10 @ 7:39AM

Damn! Come on people. How many time do we have to get the shaft from Progressive aka moderate Republicans.?
Come to think about it, there is no longer any Reagan Republicans left in the Party. They either have been killed off by the Democrats and Progressive Statists within the Republican Party or they more or less have said the, "To hell with Politics."
Expect no redress of grievances from Conservatives from the Republican Party Leadership who sit upon the sidelines while Obama and the rest of the Democrat leadership declare open season on Conservationism.
Congressman Ryan is just a blip on the radar screen and it won't be long till the Democrats and Republican leadership marginalize and neuter him to nothing.
Congressman Ryan cannot do the heavy lifting by himself and he will eventually burn himself out because the man is human.
Can someone tell me what the Republican Party Stands for anymore? Is this the Republican world that the Country Club Blue Bloods have in store for America while they co rule with the Democrats. Because that is what they are doing.
Micheal Steel in whom I had such high hopes for as turned into an abysmal failure. But this cannot be solely dumped upon his shoulders.

The Republican Party does stand for one thing. The leadership would rather kowtow on their knees at the feet of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid than choose to fight on their feet for Conservative principles.

Dan Hirsch| 7.20.10 @ 7:55AM

Yesterday, Rep. Michelle Bachman of Minnesota got approval from the House to establish the Tea Party Caucus.

Better ask your Republican Congressional candidate if they'll join that caucus.

If they won't say, you better ask them if they are a RINO or a bluedog?

If they won't say, you better ask them if they are an unrepentant communist or just a useful idiot.

By the way, they should have lost your vote with the first negative answer...

Nolite conculare me!

Dan Hirsch| 7.20.10 @ 7:58AM

And another thing!

By 2020, the democrats and republicans will have joined into one party and the Tea Party will be the opposition. Or there'll be only one party...

You heard it here first.

vtwin| 7.20.10 @ 9:15AM

After the November elections the “Tea Party” will up and disappear like a “fart in the wind.”

You heard it here first.

ds80| 7.20.10 @ 10:11AM

... nobody listens to you, Breck Boy.

stephanie| 7.20.10 @ 11:58AM

You wish, vtwin. I can assure you, they are going anywhere but to DC to make their voices heard................get used to it.

stephanie| 7.20.10 @ 11:59AM

they AREN'T going anywhere. sorry for the misstype.:-)

BillW| 7.25.10 @ 6:03AM

AMEN.................GOD BLESS the TEA PARTY !

Loshooligan| 7.20.10 @ 12:58PM

With about the same aroma from the crap left on your lips from all the leftisit ass kissing you do. Just think...thats the same mouth you kiss your Mom with?

Tim*| 7.20.10 @ 5:33PM

After the November elections the Democrat control of Congress will up and disappear like a " Knucklehead Hog ".

kenema | 7.24.10 @ 8:44PM

Ever light a fart? For the sake of your socialist party, you can only hope so. It's not going anywhere, just going to grow

mogar| 7.24.10 @ 11:00PM

Your Dems are walking into a buz saw

Donna| 7.25.10 @ 5:47PM

vtwin, you are so gross.

TaterSalad| 7.20.10 @ 11:08AM

Wrong!

The Liberal mind.......Pathetic!

So let's see:
The gargantuan federal health-care entitlement actually lowers the deficit.
Progressive taxes on investors and entrepreneurs stimulate economic growth.
Expanding welfare benefits incentives personal initiative.
Legislation outlawing guns is something murderers wouldn't consider violating.
Shuttering terror detention centers, publicizing national terror-fighting secrets and granting civilian trials to admitted terrorists strengthens our hand in the war on terror.
Juries, who hear taxpayer-funded attorneys in appeal after appeal before condemning convicted killers to death, are cruel and inhumane. But a doctor destroying an unborn baby in her mother?s womb is a medical choice worth celebrating.

Petronius| 7.20.10 @ 9:29AM

The House granted that request so they could install moles in it. The RINO's will have their stooges in it too, to sabotage conservative Republicans back in their districts. All they care about is their money, and preventing any outsiders from accumulating our own wealth, not because we want to associate with them, but because we don't. Some choice on election day; the commie despots, or the snobs.
As to SS, there's no way conservatives can win on that issue because the last thing people want to do is manage their own assets. They want government to be mommy, hold their hands, and take care of them.
Ask PG and co. they'll tell you. There are 2 givens in a free society: social and material innequality, and risk. Most people want the nursery school sandbox where each has a level pail full and no one gets ahead of the next.

BrianMc| 7.20.10 @ 11:03AM

Excellent point, Petronius. The childish "Gimme, gimme!" is eroding the rights of the many because of the moral superiority of those providing the sand. The 'sandbox' cannot be improved and if this causes consternation, I say go build your own.

It reminds of the scene in "Enemy at the Gates" where the comrade finally comes to the conclusion that communism never gave him the equal outcome that he had hoped for, but left him wanting. The revelation to the reality of inequality that is never-ending caused him so much distress that he stepped into a bullet. The world needs more liberals like him!

kenema | 7.24.10 @ 8:49PM

That shit won't be tolerated. I don't know where you're from but round here, we want them gone. The gays said out of my bedroom and we're saying get outta the house.

Louis Jenkins| 7.20.10 @ 8:15AM

Of course Harry Reid is going to say SS is good for another 40 years-long after he has passed on to his reward. Meanwhile, the people in the trenches will just have to "deal with it." I have said all along that SS was a sham. A game. There is no real lock box because its filled with IOUs. Can you imagine when the public goes to that lock box and finds it so? IOUs written by Senators and Congressmen long dead? For now the youngsters are worried about getting jobs, but one day they'll be looking towards retirement, and there will be nothing. Better start instructing oneself in the basics.

Appleby| 7.21.10 @ 7:37AM

If Social Security were to be reversed to its original parameters, it would not be hard to keep it solvent without bankrupting the country. All the free riding straphangers that were added on have caused the wagon to break down.

Originally the SS system was designed only to compensate people who worked until the age of 65 -- at a time when most working men died by age 50. It did not cover divorced third wives of working people, or children of deceased working men, or the disabled children of working men, for example -- and if you died before you collected, nobody got anything.

Today for every man who paid into the system, five or six people collect full or partial stipends from the pot.

Raise the retirement age to 70, cut off all the freeloaders, and the system would soon be solvent again.

gearjammer| 7.20.10 @ 9:05AM

If we'd have put a few bucks a week in a private account back in the 80"s a serious percentage of baby boomers soc sec benefit would be funded with cash on hand, thus taking great pressure off the future outlays. On line calculators can show what just ten or fifteen a week, increasing at 3 per cent per year can compound into at a reasonable 5 per cent return. Annuitize this sum over 20 years and it is a decent payout , and if multiplied by 10's of million recipients is a staggering sum. The democrats, especially with media, union, and NGO(AARP) support killed this. Question why did public sector unions not in social security oppose these efforts ? i KNOW POLITICAL SMART GUYS AND GALS WILL SAY THIS IS ALL TO HARD TO GET ACROSS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. BUT IS IT REALLY. Why not a class action law suit against those who destroyed people's golden years with misinformation and disinformation. WE the people stuck in this system should own ABC,CBS, NBC,NPR, NY TIMES, WASH POST et al, and sell them off to replenish the trust fund. We should go after individuals and their estates as well. Sell off what these traitors got,leave them enough for a 2 bedroom condo in a middle class zip code and a 5 grand a month pension. Kennedy, Kerry, Rockefeller, all of them take their fortunes and refill the trust fund. We'll be kind and draw short of hanging them by the neck. Sound like class warfare ? Make you girls nervous that some rich people are evil and rip off Americans ? Probably and in the end that is why it will still be Speaker Pelosi and Majority leader Reid in 2010. They'll paint the opposition as the party of the rich yet again. Conservatives and Republicans can't even say Soros is a sleaze bag corrupt thief of a billionaire. The new rule the 11th commandment for the party is " thou shall not speak ill of the rich ". It would the opulent plutocrat Rushbo most notably upset-and that is the real purpose of conservatism and the GOP-kissing that dopes ass.

ds80| 7.20.10 @ 10:14AM

Angry and stupid is not a way to die, gearjammer. You need some chai tea and aromatherapy. All I hear from your post is jealousy.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡$| 7.20.10 @ 1:13PM

gearjammer, if you had been paying attention, you would at least be dimly aware that Glenn Beck has been sounding the George Soros alarm for quite some time now. You might also be aware that in much older comments I have opined that it’s my belief that Soros is the puppet master pulling the strings of our marionette-in-chief. As I am sure you are fully aware, Soros is a master manipulator of the foreign currency market and made at least a gigabuck toppling the British pound. If he succeeds in toppling OUR dollar and placed his buys appropriately, he could make a billion squared in the Forex market. Soros is also behind stimulus billions for Brazil oil, and Brazilian oil fields are potential beneficiaries of obummer’s moratorium on off-shore drilling. The only drilling that will continue in OUR country will be in the American Taxpayer. Your points about letting individuals decide what to do with their own money indicates that you do have a clue. Should have quit while you were ahead.
Gill O’Teen ✝✡$
gill.Oteen07041776@gmail.com
“Markets are constantly in a state of uncertainty and flux and money is make by discounting the obvious and betting on the unexpected.” - George Soros
Only 915 days to go.

kenema | 7.24.10 @ 8:53PM

Sharpen your blade. I'm there dude.

Samwise| 7.20.10 @ 9:41AM

If Republicans and Teapartiers don't get out to Nevada to help Sharon Angle, we are going to have Reid with us for another term...where is Sarah Palin? Is she going to help Sharon? Harry Reid is pulling out all the stops to slime Sharon Angle and he's got a very powerful political machine behind him and tons of money...it's like David going up against Goliath...let's hope the results are the same...

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 5:08PM

Sarah will there only if she can make money doing so. She's busy right now, helping Bristol and Levi get their own reality show.

Purpleguy| 7.20.10 @ 11:55PM

Yeah, let's call it Palin Place - it's perfect - the Porn Star wannabe, the unwed mother, the Sled King henpecked husband, and Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin all together in their own little sitcom...

Donna| 7.25.10 @ 5:50PM

Is sarcasm all you have?

kenema | 7.24.10 @ 8:55PM

Sharron can help herself immensely by shutting her big mouth and running on Harry Reids record

Anthony| 7.20.10 @ 9:56AM

This is the problem with the leadership of the R Party. They are weak and feckless; they have no guts, nor do they have the intellectual fire power and verbal ability to communicate and defend these principles, that are clear winners with the American people!!!
They are part of the elite ruling class that has lost its ability to govern effectively. It's all about remaining in D.C. once they get there, and to hell with their constituents and their principles, assuming they had any to begin with. Their D.C. advisors suffer from beltway myopia, hence, are as clueless as they are. The governing class is reduced to huddling in capitol conference rooms with staff, but have lost their ability to deal with their constituents. Last summer's town halls proved this point clearly. They are completely seperated from their roots.
If these hapless Rs can't bring a reprobate and serial liar like Harry Reid down, they deserve the same fate. Ignore the RNC folks, give to Ms. Angle directly, she appears to have the balls and the ability to bring Harry down, unlike the R brain trust.

Petronius| 7.20.10 @ 9:58AM

Peter Brimelow proved a similar example to the musing of GJ back in a Charticle for Forbes in the summer of '85. He posited 2 individuals graduating college and starting full time work at $25k per anum. Amortization for Social Security has this person retiring at 67 and with average life expectancy at the time, he would lose 6% on the principle paid in. The other would have the same amount deducted from his check and invested and compounded at an annual return of 6% over the same period. He would be able to withdraw $5000 per month indefinitely and never go into his principle, which would go to his heirs. The FDR worshipers shot him down in full cry. Their hatred of the financial markets and held beliefs in the unconditional guarantees of the New Deal are holy writ. And yet those who scream loudest will never admit the real reason for opposing private retirement accounts. They know there is no SS trust fund. They also know that their benefits are being paid out to them the week after the wage earners pay it in. And if that wage earner is allowed to sequester His Own Money in His Own Account, the government will not have that money in hand to pay the Social Security recipient.
We're toast.

Stan Redmond| 7.20.10 @ 10:51AM

libs are so predictible. I will put on my liberal thinking cap for a moment and spew forth their wisdom.

Reagan's defense spending. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans. Two illegal wars. Clinton's magical 5 trillion dollar surplus.

That's it. That all they got. No evidence just a simple jingle of Bush and Reagan. Never mind the fact that American's USE to be responsible for their own lives. FDR was a fledgling communist dictator who started this mess and, like Obama, used a government caused crisis to gain massive unprecidented power over the lives of all Americans and doomed America's economy to failure with his inept economic policies. Fostering dependence on government was the beginning of the end of this country. It iss only a matter of time before the massive government programs collapse. Democrats speed up the process and Republicans pathetically try to slow it down. But cowards the majority of the DC pols that won't do what is needed and kill the beast of government. And so many useless loser government dependents would riot before giving up their government cheese in the government mousetrap. I shudder to think of what would have happened to this country were we not united to win WW2. I shudder again to think what it's going to take to undo the damage from Obama.

The only bit of glee I see will be the democrat liberal meltdown when republicans have access to the massive new power the democrats have secured for the federal government.

Loshooligan| 7.20.10 @ 1:35PM

I would only ask one thing of you and everyone else in these comment sections. Please stop calling these people liberals. They are leftist. We need to call them what they are. These leftists are no where close to representing the personal liberties that a true liberal once did. These are in the bag leftist ideologues.

kenema | 7.24.10 @ 9:00PM

Ok, I'll call them what they are? Their a cross between communists, marxists and fascists that have a different set of rules that apply to you and me.

Donna| 7.25.10 @ 5:51PM

So true. They are leftist.

Melvin| 7.20.10 @ 10:58AM

Let us say for sake of conversation that Social Security as we knew it is Kaput!
Some have called SS a scam, Ponzi Scheme, or an alleged benefit.
We are all in agreement that trillions upon trillions have been paid out for benefits or so we have been informed. By whom the government? Hmm, that might be considered a very weak argument. But nevertheless the money is gone, disappeared, vanished, but not necessarily trough benefits.
Where did all this money go, through the years, and years since the Legislative branch started sticking it's very, very sticky fingers into the, "Lock Box."
Could it also be said that copious amounts of taxpayers money that was destined to go into the SS account was skimmed off and placed into who knows where by unscrupulous politicians, especially those politicians that have spent their whole adult lives in political office?
Could it also be construed that said politicians actions or inactions but still aware of the shenanigans border on criminal activity?
Political oversight is all but non-existent. Redress from the Justice Department? Pllleeeaasseeee, the Justice Department cannot even adjudicate the New Black Panthers voters intimidation properly. Like, we didn't know the outcome of that one anyway.
So, what are we going to do? Continue the status quo? The outcome of that is untenable. Allow the government to saddle present and future generations of Americans with suffocating additional taxes and fees. Will we allow benefits to be reduced or eliminated but increase to to others either by their political philosophy or maybe even by the color of ones skin.
Or do we joint together as Americans and hold politicians future and past accountable by grand jury investigations, charges, and jail time.
Because jail time is the only way that we will stop the white collar crime that is taking place in Washington D.C.
A petty thief is a petty thief regardless in whether or not they wear a hoody or a Brooks Brothers Suit.
Just something to think about while your seventy years old with an aching back, swollen calves, and ankles working your job as pushing shopping carts back into the department store because the Legislative Branch raised the retirement age again, again, and again.
Hmm, I wonder what the retirement of Senators and Congressmen is? I make a fair guess that they won't be pushing shopping carts with you, will they?

Curly Smith| 7.20.10 @ 11:53AM

Prior to LBJ, the receipts from Social Security taxes were handled separately. During LBJ's administration those taxes were moved to the "general fund" so that the excess taxes could be used to hide the cost of the Vietnam War. All money collected from Social Security and Medicare since then has gone to the "general fund" and Congress has continued with it's "Money In, More Money Out" spending policy. All excess taxes have been spent, largely to fund the expansion of Government, and IOUs were issued. What VTwin doesn't want to admit is what happens when the IOUs for $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities come due. Imagine for a minute the level of taxation necessary to cover both our current $4 trillion budget and the $100 trillion in SS/MC IOUs.

Steve A| 7.20.10 @ 11:01AM

Hey VTwin, Are you that chick Flo in the Progressive commercials who says she drives a Vtwin?? If so, please cancel my policy.

Tarter Sauce| 7.20.10 @ 11:08AM

The Liberal mind.......Pathetic!

So let's see:
The gargantuan federal health-care entitlement actually lowers the deficit.
Progressive taxes on investors and entrepreneurs stimulate economic growth.
Expanding welfare benefits incentives personal initiative.
Legislation outlawing guns is something murderers wouldn't consider violating.
Shuttering terror detention centers, publicizing national terror-fighting secrets and granting civilian trials to admitted terrorists strengthens our hand in the war on terror.
Juries, who hear taxpayer-funded attorneys in appeal after appeal before condemning convicted killers to death, are cruel and inhumane. But a doctor destroying an unborn baby in her mother?s womb is a medical choice worth celebrating.

Tom in Michigan| 7.20.10 @ 11:18AM

Of all people, Seniors have an obligation to understand how the Social Security system actually works.

But, I challenge each and every correspond here to talk to ten people and see how many actually understand the situation.

My own brother, who should know better told me his Social Security benefits are held in an account bearing his name. This is what he learned during 30 years in a UAW-controlled shop.

Tom in Michigan| 7.20.10 @ 11:19AM

Sorry, "correspondent."

Steve A| 7.20.10 @ 11:38AM

Tom, Your brother was not misinformed. The UAW just forgot to tell him that his account is NSF....It's like that briefcase at the end of Dumb & Dumber with all of the IOU's in it.

Oldefarte| 7.20.10 @ 3:06PM

SS was originally established as a forced savings account by the government for financial morons/indigents which spent every nickle that they earned. It's in financial trouble simply because the government has STOLEN its funding to use for other government expendatures. To fix same, the entire stolen amount needs to be repaid by the government [it's a croc that the government can expend $trillions on welfarecare, un-affordable homes/residential welfare,etc, by stealing from those workers who have PAID FOR their earned retirement SS accounts through their payroll deductions]; the % payroll deduction needs to be increased and the maximum payroll limitation needs to be eliminated [if someone makes $3 million/year, all of it should be taxes for SS]; the younger generation of workers [say 40 years old and below] need to be converted to a privately owned SS type system of forced savings; and the retirementment age for collection needs to be raised to say 70. Beyond this fixable solution for SS, the government's truly most serious financial problems are its deficit spending and debt, which needs to be substantially reduced toward an eventual balanced budget scenerio [cutting/eliminating welfare, foreign aid, farm aid, non-crutial military hardware,etc]. To do all of this will require electing Republican political leaders, as Democrats should now be seen as noting more than radical extremists intent upon providing quid-pro-quo governmental benefits to their indigent constituents for their repaying votes. The American taxpayer-voters have got to go en masse to the polls in November and vote for conservative Republicans if this country is to survive!!!!!

David| 7.20.10 @ 3:23PM

vtwin, you and some of the others sure are pieces of work: you've have been meticulously molded and indoctrinated by the leftist commies in our public education systems from K through college, which translates into, you folks are unable to think for yourselves.

Purpleguy| 7.20.10 @ 3:29PM

"With a weak economy and a public that has turned against President Obama and his agenda, " - Really?

With 43% of Americans trusting President Obama, and 34% of Democrats in Congress trusted to do the same, and with trust in Republicans coming in at a sad 26%, just exactly how have Americans turned against the President and his agenda?

What's pathetic is that the right wing keeps trying to make it so by endlessly repeating the same thing over and over again. America has wised up to your propaganda ploys and see real progress being made by the Democrats - not just word play and politics.

BTW - Reid leads Angle in the latest Rasmussen polling ... oops.

carnot| 7.20.10 @ 9:01PM

ahhh...finally I hunt you down. you are remarkably shallow..I'll concede that!

1) T n exchange in the Codevilla blog that was shut down before I had an opportunity to respond: you conflated a command economy with the Keynesian model in arguing...rather summarily...that WWII demonstrated the efficacy of Keynesian economics/government multipliers. FIrst, the economy as recovering prior to WW2 in large part to exogenous variables - specifically foreign demand for war material, shipping, etc. The economy during the war was run nothing like a Keynesian model...it was in large measure a command economy with rationing, price controls, etc. Finally, pent up consumer demand and private savings played a huge role in the post war takeoff. but...I will concede that the Obama administration does realize...dimwitted as its actual policies might be...that a key component to recovery is expanding trade. it can't get to that, however, with budget deficits that continually create unfavorable positions for the dollar. couple that to the idea that the US has less and less each year..particularly in the manufacturing sector....to exchange...and the long-run situation does not look favorable.

2) the immediate post is laughable for the unintended humor. you neglect to mention the rocketing descent of Mr Obama's popularity/trust from 60%+ to its current...and declining...position.

keep posting....the diversion from reality provides temporary respite from the horror that is this administration.

the horror. the horror.

Purpleguy| 7.20.10 @ 11:20PM

It's painfully obvious that you think you have all the facts, and answers - in your mind you maybe you do.
But out here in the real world it's not as bad as you would have everyone believe. Yes, President Obama's polls have dropped to the mid 40's - same place I might add at this same time in the Reagan administration for the Gipper's polling .. and a dozen other modern presidents... so no biggie there... no matter how much you screech.

As far as the WWII and Great Depression argument goes, regardless of how they did it, the Government spent our way out of the Depression, period, end of story. You can spin it however you want, but that is a fact and you can't refute the facts - which you haven't I noticed - you simply added an explanation that satisfies you - but it doesn't change the underlying premise that the Government can, and has spent our way out of a Great Depression or in today's scenario, a Great Recession. Of course, there are other ways, but your way is oh so Reaganesque - well actually, it's not, since bumblehead never cut the deficit or taxes in reality.

carnot| 7.21.10 @ 8:03AM

no.

what is obvious is that you mistake 2 facts serially lined up for argument. every time you post it's an embarrassment to folks everywhere who actually like to examine the nuances of a problem from all angles. Your apporach is largely simpleminded..and very often dishonest. The President's popularity/trust numbers being a case in point. Like many Liberal's....Mr Franks weekly comedy routine in the WSJ is another case in point....you simply ignore what doesn't fit the conclusion (i.e., political objective) while windowdressing the specision logic with all sorts of strawmen targets.

You are..what you are. It's not your fault. Repeat after me. It's not your fault.

An idea PUNK.

carnot| 7.21.10 @ 8:06AM

specious...not the fat fingered specision.

in fact..that's your new monker!

The misnomered Purpleguy is now...drum roll....Mr Specious!!!

carnot| 7.21.10 @ 8:48AM

almost forgot.....

huh?

even by your standards....this is a pathetically shallow...circular argument.

ok Mr Specious...put the comic books down, turn out the nightlight.....leave the adults alone for a while.

kenema | 7.24.10 @ 9:06PM

You'll be purple Nov. 3rd. Harry Reid is an out and out ASS clown. He's also a flagrant liar and, by the way how is that bridge to Harrys property coming along?

martin j smith| 7.20.10 @ 3:35PM

The big mistake is in trying to talk with trolls. They are not here to0 talk but to lecture you-Don't you get it. Trolls are not members of the sophmore debating society they are paid operatives to infiltrate and to disrupt. When will you get it ?

carnot| 7.20.10 @ 9:04PM

you're right. but it's good practice for the local exchanges that really do matter.

Purpleguy| 7.20.10 @ 11:22PM

I wish - and you wish you could dismiss me that easily. If you knew anything besides what Fox and Friends feeds you, we could have a conversation without the name calling - that's the ignorant's tactic.

carnot| 7.21.10 @ 8:12AM

yes...your posts are replete with wishes.

dismissing you? that's laughable. I and others would have to take you seriously in the first place. don't think so. your just a tool for sharpening the axe in antiicaption of much more impotrant target.

I stopped measuring any credence to you mos ago during an exchange on military doctrine we had in which it was obvious you had no clue what you were talking about.

Your constant references to media sources you detest belies your own core weakness: by all appearances...that's all you really have to rely upon. no real world experience that counts for much.

so pine on sweet patriot!

martin j smith| 7.20.10 @ 3:35PM

The big mistake is in trying to talk with trolls. They are not here to0 talk but to lecture you-Don't you get it. Trolls are not members of the sophmore debating society they are paid operatives to infiltrate and to disrupt. When will you get it ?

martin j smith| 7.20.10 @ 3:53PM

A bigger mistake is to give the Average American too much information. I have a sense that the coming months will show more and more Democrat Left,their MSM allies and other support groups in a viscvious full scale assault against Conservatives and Republicans. Please wake up to this reality. The only response is to attack twice as hard as even more visciously than the democrat party.

Steve A| 7.20.10 @ 4:20PM

Hey Purple, Yeah, how bout that real progress on display with your Pal BO extending unemployment to 99 weeks. What a shining example of left wing progress. Raise taxes on smokes, lie about GITMO, lie about IRAQ, lie about taxes, pass Obamacare (a tax hike), print $$ & extend unemployment. Oh what a summer of recovery!

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.20.10 @ 4:58PM

Folks,

Please quit ...just quit...arguing with these PAID, (minimum wage), communist talking dummies.

The day is coming very quickly, when tax-paying citizens say ..."ENOUGH"!

Again...I can't quite see through the rocket's red glare...but it does give proof that our flag of freedom truly is still there.

The dawn is coming.....but blood must be shed...just like it was at Fort McHenry.

Lock and load, and store up some food and medicine...and ammo.

Purple and vtwin and their ilk will be no where to be found. They are merely minimum wage cowardly collaborators.

Purpleguy| 7.20.10 @ 11:36PM

It's a shame you can't hold a debate with the ignorant closed-minded types, which you apparently are. You've made up your mind, and that's it. How pathetic to be stuck in that rut. I'm on here to hear what others say, and on HuffPost too... I'll venture you've never been on any liberal/progressive site, huh?
To your errors:
I'll guarantee you I pay more in taxes than you will ever see in a year.
You and your kind have drunk the Kool-Aid of your Corporate masters to keep you slaves to all they promote, and you don't even see it.

Get off the macho violent kick, didn't you leave that behind in high school or cowboys and indians in grade school? Good Grief, how childish....
You use the tools your Founders left you, no more, no less. You have no right to revolution as they did. You are not oppressed - you can vote. You are not abused, you are protected by law. You might be ignored, but that's your own fault. Your ridiculous screeds push you further and further from the mainstream of America - which is okay with me.
You won't win in November - Sharron "Fluoride in water is a Commie Plot" Angle is losing to Harry Reid! And Rand "I'm against the Civil Rights Act, Title X" Paul is losing in Kentucky... oops, some slippage there, huh?

You're funny - minimum wage - I haven't worked for minimum wage or anywhere near that low since I was 15 - I'll venture a number of AS regulars are making that right now - or on unemployment - and biting the hand that feeds
'em. Ingrates. Try being thankful for all you DO have and stop being greedy and selfish.
When's the last time you gave to charity?

carnot| 7.21.10 @ 8:17AM

"when's the last time you gave to charity"

probably follows the same pattern of VP Bite Me!

you really are a self parody! keep it up! You have many of us rolling on the deck with your unintended jocularity.

as mr lennon once sang: "how do you sleep at night?" with all your assumed self importance and obvious limitations....life must be a real burden for you.

kenema | 7.24.10 @ 9:13PM

Again you're wrong. We're lied to on a consistant basis, we're robbed of our loot , property and freedoms by an out of control government. Thomas Jefferson once said that we should have a revolution every 25 years just to keep the garbage out of politics. AQccording to him, we're over due.

kenema | 7.24.10 @ 9:15PM

Pauls winning in Kentucky, douchebag. Thats what us tea partiers call you marxists.

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 5:05PM

Ken, your "Texas Ranger" mountain man survivalist act is getting old and tired. It was cute at first, but now its just tiresome. Give it a rest.

Bydand76| 7.20.10 @ 5:22PM

RCV (aka Doucher)

I am willing to bet you would'nt say that to his face!

Pro Libertate!

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 5:25PM

Do you guys never give up the macho act?

Tim*| 7.20.10 @ 5:40PM

Yeah Girls, let's take ballet lessons with Rahmbo Emanuel .

Arabesque !

Plie' !

Hurry Girls !

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 6:47PM

You obviously have a lot of experience, Timmy.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.20.10 @ 6:19PM

Bydand,

Heh... the little wimp would never face me.

He/she has proven once again that he/she is a cowardly wimp paid by Soros/Obama.

On another thread I gave my bio with full name....

COME AND GET ME...RCV. CALL ME OUT, COWARD!

Heh heh, he/she is a coward, but he/she has an FBI agent by the balls...
Heh...
One problem.
I am a Texan, and I know some Texas Rangers, and they trust me.
(Been there done that)

C'mon RCV.....sic 'em on me. If I don't show up here for a few days...several hundred thousand folks lock and load...and put their shotguns by their beds.

Folks,
It is "those days"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RCV simply reminds us......THANK YOU RCV.

You remind us that we are truly at war.

Click.

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 6:27PM

You are seriously in need of professional help, old man.

carnot| 7.20.10 @ 9:06PM

there's a riposte distinguished for its wit!

Purpleguy| 7.20.10 @ 11:44PM

RCV is right - you're purveyance to violence hides a deep-seated problem - probably hiding the shame of a small penis, made up for by the BIG GUNs and MUSCLE cars ... if I get name calling back at me, you know I hit paydirt!!!!

Bydand76| 7.21.10 @ 7:38AM

Purple-douche,

Why are you concerned about penis size?

I also noticed that you capitalize the words " big guns" and " muscle".

Now, I know why you call yourself purple!

Tell you what. Here is what you do. Go down to TX and find out if your hypothesis is right. (this goes for you to RCV-douche)

Find the first Texan you see with a lot of "big guns" and who drives a "muscle car" and ask to inspect the size of his penis. Then you will know if your right or not!

Oh and one more thing. You had better be grateful for my purveyance to violence!

"People sleep peaceably in their bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf" - George Orwell

Have a nice day!

Pro Libertate!

carnot| 7.21.10 @ 6:26PM

purveyance?

bahahahaha. public school graduate. have to be.

kenema | 7.24.10 @ 9:19PM

are you purple because you're choking on Barney Franks penis?

carnot| 7.21.10 @ 8:19AM

geez.

ok. we get it. you're in touch with your feminine side! you're totally "au courant"

martin j smith| 7.20.10 @ 5:05PM

Ken ( old texan ) Yes Sir !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is the ticket. It is time to toss these trolls out and over. Ignore !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. And for any non troll out there is there any question that this is what it is ?

noneofyourbusiness| 7.20.10 @ 5:28PM

Before you read anything else, you should go check out the US debt clock to get a sense of the impending crisis in the pension system – it has all sorts of fascinating numbers on all sorts of stuff. Truly frightening http://www.usdebtclock.org/ -- and everything else too, for that matter. To be aware you must be informed!

The social security “trust” fund will be paying out more within a few years than it takes in. By 2035 (optimistic IMHO) it will, effectively, be completely broke. As far as I am concerned, once it is paying out more than taking in (i.e., 2015, supposedly) it is effectively insolvent and begins adding to the annual deficit.

And look at the numbers on government spending, annually (current figures and rising through the end of the fiscal year in September) for just the few the largest items:
• Medicare/Medicaid – nearly $800 billion
• Social Security – nearly $700 billion
• Federal pensions – almost $200 billion
• Defense – pushing $700 billion
• Interest on debt -- $200 billion

That makes about $2.5 trillion on just these five items (note that much reviled earmarks – rightly so, unless your community is getting one, and just about everyone does -- are a rounding error in comparison). That is about the estimated total federal revenue for the fiscal year. In other words, spending on everything other than these five items accounts for the estimated deficit of, give or take, $1.5 trillion (this is simplistic, but makes the point in a rather straightforward way).

So what do you cut???

Can’t do anything about interest, really. And that is only likely to go up, if and when the economy starts to improve.

Defense?? Well, I suppose you could trim a couple hundred billion off that if we immediately ended the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. But who (except some way out there on the left, and a tiny pocket like Paul –pere et fils – on the right).

Federal pensions? That would be nice as they are a bit fat. But folks – some of you even, no doubt :-) --do contribute to them (and the government contribution to same is part of their “wage packet”) and it is covered by contracts. So a bit tough there.

Medicare? Well ,then we would really have death panels. Or just deaths. And people have paid all their lives into that as well with expectations. I propose the Logan’s Run Bill :-) But seriously...

And now to Social Security. What a mess. A disclosure – I am a Canadian, and have no horse in your politics. But I am frightened at what I see, because if the US goes BOOM economically (sovereign debt failure or whatever) it will make this little episode we have gone through the past couple of years look like a minor slowdown in comparison (there’s an old saying up here that when the US catches a cold, Canada gets pneumonia – although that hasn’t held through this latest mess due to some remarkably sensible things we did here in the ‘90’s, combined with a historically conservative banking system).

I am amazed that Social Security contributions in the US top out at $100k-plus. How can you have a problem? Contributions up here top out at about $47,000. Yet our system is now considered to be solvent for as long as anyone can see (our publicly funded health system is another matter).

We were in the same boat, however, just 20 years ago. What changed (and so quickly, really)? Well, like in the US currently, the pension fund was only allowed to hold domestic government bonds, with their meagre return (next to nothing today). Then after 1993 it was allowed to “get speculative”, within a balance, and invest in stocks, corporate bonds, and equity interests, etc...It holds shares/stakes in mining companies, real estate development, you name it. Took a little hit with the crash of 2008, but due to prudent management it was far less than most portfolios and has now bounced back very nicely. (Oh -- and I know it is a really bad word in here -- and we raised taxes, which have since been reduced well below what they were prior to 1993. And real serious cuts were made to spending, possible due to our system of majority parliamentary governments at the time, and continuing more or less as a practical matter today. Your system, while theoretically far more virtuous, is as practically absurd in terms decsive action and of getting things done as Italy's. No offense intended -- just a practical observation on the curerent political realities :-) )

Just a thought of a “baby bear” solution lying between the current Mama Bear situation and the Papa Bear black/white alternative that would be privatizing Social Security, whatever that may mean. If that means just letting people invest what they can for themselves, we already know that means disaster for 50%+ of the population. If it means letting people control their own investments in whatever they want within some sort of a government overseen IRA, the problem is one of what happens if they screw up and end up with nothing? A massive government bailout of everyone?

Just trying to be helpful in providing some food for thought.

Hope you eat well!

Your friendly neighbour to the North (please don’t forget about us! :-) )

Cheers!

Purpleguy| 7.20.10 @ 11:50PM

I like that idea, put Social Security Investments into the Stock Market - with one small change - the law to state that Social Security Market instruments can only go up - that way the Government (the people) can win on the upside, but cannot lose for making a bad bet. That way we would reverse the trend for today that Government backs the bad bettors, and gets none of the upside or winnings. I like it... Social Security would be solvent forever, and everyone else is free to dabble in the free market as they see fit. Government crisis solved. I love it. Then everyone would push for business to do more, buy more, more, more ... It's excellent market forces at work....

Billy G| 7.25.10 @ 12:05PM

Just a question and comment to try to answer one of your questions on Social Security Solvency. I do not know how much of this differs from Canada. In the US, the amount paid out to beneficiaries is indexed to wage growth, not inflation. Also, the amount received is not proportional to the amount put in. Those at the low end received vastly more proportionally than those at the top end. It is also used for the same fund for Social Security Disability Benefits and other things. I believe the main issue between solvency of the Canadian and US systems is probably due to the differences in payout of benefits between them.

dw| 7.20.10 @ 5:31PM

Minions of the left unite. Regurgitate your collectivist talking points. Renounce your American heritage for a foriegn doctrine that has failed all humanity. Unite with Marx, Stalin, Castro, Obama and Biden to overthrow Capitalism for a big centralized bureacracy run by slaves to socialist ideology. Support stagnation, malaise and dependence because you can't think for yourselves and need others to control your lives.
Bring on the Vodka so we can drown our lost productivety in hazy, lost days of mediocrity.

Purpleguy| 7.20.10 @ 11:51PM

No one on the left talks like that .. but in your echo chamber Fox to Rush to Beck to Hannity you wouldn't know that. Do you ever think for yourself?

John II| 7.21.10 @ 12:41AM

But Purp: YOU talk like that. Aren't you on the left?

carnot| 7.21.10 @ 8:24AM

bingo!

isn't it hilarious.

I love this guy! He almost crosses the finish line...and then he simply ends up trumpeting how shallow his thinking truly is. time after time after time. in fact...he's the poster child for what he despises most: he's an echo chamber for worn out bumper sticker slogans. I hate to say it...but he reminds me every time he posts of the old saw about arguing with an unarmed man!

carnot| 7.21.10 @ 8:32AM

here's the ugly truth he can't admit to:

while I find fault with Limbaugh from time to time and understand the polemics/politics behind his agenda.... more so than the other clowns in talk media (e.g., Keith)...Limbuagh does approach an argment with a bit more theory and structured argument. the Left's unrelenting approach is to beleaguer the listner with conclusions...with "facts".....unconnected to any real testable hypotheses. they are all about outcomes and not really about methods. and that is the primary reason they are presently sinking like a rock: they have no methodological underpinnings (look at the current economic fiasco) and...more importantly...the outcomes aren't materializing.

the "facts" are out there for everyone to see. they are FAILING. they can throw all the ad hominens/journolist diversions/subversions they want at the targets de jours. it doesn't matter. they are FAILING.

carnot| 7.21.10 @ 8:36AM

failure...thy name is Mr Specious.

dw| 7.21.10 @ 12:27PM

Hit close to home lefties doesn't it, because real truth finds the mark. The life I have I do not want the government to take. Our heritage is unique in this world and that's what you fail to understand. It is the source of an unparalleled standard of living while history has definitively shown that the collectivist theory produces societal stagnation and population imprisonment. Only mental dwarfs like you have ever tried to break into Cuba or the Soviet Union. Those who are unfortunate enough to be ruled by that political philosophy are ultimately disincentivised to participate knowing there is no future, no oportunity. The system becomes bankrupt due to the fact that wealth can not be created by a bureaucraticly dominated central government that increasingly robs its population of its motivation to produce.
Hence stagnation and malaise and in the case of the Soviet Union a population that turned to Vodka to drown its sences. Only economic dummies like the present administration do not understand that.
The reason you think no one on the left talks like that is because you have been successfully brainwashed with the right nuancing to believe that somehow you are reacting within the bounds of American philosophy. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are a contrarion who, instead of solving our problems using our proud foundation of limited government has been manipulated to believe socialist theory is the answer. Again a foriegn born theory created for overthrowing the equally reprehensible dictatorship of the Russain monarhcy.
If you have any intellectual objectivety left you may want to use it to re examine the position you have been ingrained with and realize the best answer for societal organization is the one our founders gave us.

kenema | 7.24.10 @ 9:25PM

I couldn't of said that better.

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 6:25PM

Get a life.

carnot| 7.21.10 @ 8:35AM

I take it this admonition comes from someone who supports taking lives.

Yosemeti Sam| 7.21.10 @ 1:25AM

Yo, put all youth to work - Dingy !

At minimum wage!

Finding that Mao Zoo Dung White House Christmas tree ornament!

ObserverOnTheHill| 7.24.10 @ 8:33PM

Let's address current finances - 13.2 TRILLION deficit and over 100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities - social security, medicare, medicaid. While the trolls on websites play the Repub / Demo game the world is on fire- just how they like it- blame the other "party" when it's the politicians that need to go, SEE HERE :
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/woes.htm

Harlan | 7.24.10 @ 10:16PM

The SS and Medicare situation brings a variety of philosophical ideas to front. First, can the government ever do anything that "saves" money. For example the SS trust fund. It doesn't make sense at the federal level. The Feds print the money and control monetary policy. So even if they had vaults filled with SS money they have collected, it couldn't be introduced into the economy with upsetting monetary balance. Increase in money supply has to be offset with increase in production. I think the Federal Government should just print the money it needs each year and stop all taxing at the Federal level. Wouldn't that be interesting? If they kept the amount equal to growth in GDP wouldn't that work?

Greathornedlizard| 7.24.10 @ 10:51PM

The idiot's main argument appears to be that the repayment of the Social Security surplus put's the government in a bad way, well that's what tax cuts for the well off do, so shut up or quit trying to have it both ways.
Pig.

TooMeddling| 7.25.10 @ 7:30AM

As a 29 year-old person in this whole debacle, I feel I need to speak out. I don't identify with a political party, so everyone can hop off of a bandwagon. Please listen, and cordially create discussion (I have high hopes).

This country is debt-ridden, but the national debt and therefore increasing deficit are nothing compared to the way that Americans actively choose to spend their money. It's ridiculous that I talk to my peers and they have five or six credit cards, rent an apartment, have a $700/month car payment, and blame someone else for their financial problems. The average American credit card debt is over $10,000, yet the average American household grosses less than $60k per year. Are you kidding?

We can expect from our government what we expect from ourselves. Make your money, spend it wisely, and vote accordingly. No one is here to pay your rent/mortgage/lights/gas/toilet paper/infectious disease care, and it damn well should not be expected.

And yes, I am up to snuff on my taxes, social security, and MediCare payments... and my self-earned 401(k).

Social programs are as effective as the people that are being cared for, and at this point in time there are too many people effectively looking for a handout.

Truth Detective| 7.25.10 @ 9:44AM

What do you think is going to happen when young people wakeup and figure out they have been sold into slavery?
Most of thier income taken away to finance retirees who did not save for their own retirement.

J in Pasadena| 7.25.10 @ 12:32PM

Here's a nice one: Since the SS payroll deduction stops at $106.5k then lets means test it at that same amount. No more uber wealthy octogenarians collecting money they don't need. For that matter, no wealthy retiree who makes more than $45k should get SSI. Yes, it's insurance, dammit! It's insurance for when you blew all your money with Madoff and have nothing left, not insurance for you to have ca$h for an Escalade payment.

Somalily33| 7.26.10 @ 2:28PM

Well, that seems a little unfair, doesn't it? I thought all democrats wanted 'equality for everyone'! So, if someone pays into a system their entire adult lives, they don't deserve to get anything back because the were hard working and successful? That seems like a bad motivator to me! Hm....I can work hard and give more of my money to the government and get less in return....or I can not work as hard and not have to pay taxes AND get lots of stuff from the government.
I'm just trying to point out that its not really 'fair or equal' to give my hard earned money to someone else! I do that on my own through charities....I don't need the bloated bureaucracy telling me that I'm a bad person if I'm for wanting to encourage people to succeed on their own and stop suckling on Mother America's teet!

aljones| 7.25.10 @ 9:56PM

The problem with social security is that it's controlled by a bunch of lying S.O.B's, in congress who B.S. the public with unrealistic promises - NOT unlike the health care bill - which promises to do more for less. S.S. in the 30's was put in effect with those monies set aside - not to be touched. Lie no. 1.
Government programs do only one thing well. They grow. Now at it's current pace it is unsustainable. Congress does only one thing well - taxing it's citizens to pay for what they can't manage.

Bennet| 7.26.10 @ 12:16AM

The debt has increased more than 9% annually since 1970. Much of the paper money is in other countries. When there is a run on the dollar those pieces of paper will come to the US and buy our real estate and businesses. To prevent a run, interest rates must go up like they did in the 70s and early 80s. Stagflation is likely to prevent total collapse of the currency.
The recent crisis was not severe enough to wind down domestic and military spending. The next one might be.

More Articles by Philip Klein

More Articles From Campaign Crawlers

A Man Without a Tribe

June 3, 2013 | Ryan James Girdusky

The Ronald Reagan of Virginia

May 29, 2013 | Peter Ferrara

The Tragedy of Mark Sanford

April 30, 2013 | Kyle Peterson

Massachusetts GOP Primary Coming to a Close

April 29, 2013 | Teresa Mull

Sanford Resurrected in Carolina

April 3, 2013 | Robert Stacy McCain

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/20/democrats-renew-their-war-on-a

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|96 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|97 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|55 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|24 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|29 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|32 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|88 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6:34PM

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6:01PM

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.