The American Spectator : What Would Reagan Cut?

Text Size

What Would Reagan Cut?

By Robert W. Patterson on 8.19.11 @ 6:09AM

Social Security and Medicare are not the problem.

The press is trying to paint me as trying to undo the New Deal.… I’m trying to undo the Great Society.
— Ronald Reagan, in a January 1982 diary entry

As Congress’s “super committee” begins its work of trimming $1.2 trillion in spending over the next decade, the pressure is on to overhaul Social Security and Medicare.

To be certain, these two programs place the fiscal health of the country at risk as Baby Boomers retire. Yet current and short-term federal deficits, driven by George W. Bush’s spending spree and Barack Obama’s blowout budgets, have little to do with Social Security and Medicare.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, these pay-as-you-go programs have been budget-bracers, not budget-busters. In fiscal year 2009, when the federal deficit reached $1.4 trillion, these self-financing programs generated a $121 billion surplus, according to the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees. In 2010, the surplus was $32 billion.

These surpluses were no fluke. Since Ronald Reagan’s first term, revenue from payroll and self-employment taxes, income taxes on benefits, and Medicare premiums have generated a combined surplus in the four programs that the Board of Trustees oversee: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, Disability Insurance, Hospital Insurance, and Supplemental Medical Insurance. By itself, Social Security has generated a 25 percent surplus since 1990.

Yes, the surpluses will ultimately dry up and become deficits, due to declining marriage and birth rates. But the Board of Trustees’ latest report does not project significant increases in Social Security and Medicare spending, relative to GDP, until the 2020s.

Consequently, if the “super committee” wants to cut the fat, it won’t find much in these social-insurance programs, which have paid for themselves for decades. That doesn’t mean Social Security and Medicare should run on autopilot; they do need tweaking. But it should prompt the committee to go after the biggest fat producer: the “means-tested” welfare programs of the Great Society. These 185 overlapping programs across six federal departments — as counted by Peter Ferrara of the Carleson Center for Public Policy — account for no less than half of current federal deficits.

Thanks to President Obama, means-tested welfare now commands nearly $700 billion in federal resources annually, according to the Heritage Foundation, which estimates that federal anti-poverty spending will total $7.8 trillion this decade. Moreover, unlike New Deal programs, these ever-proliferating Great Society initiatives lack a critical element: reciprocity. To this day, Social Security and Medicare retain this concept; beneficiaries receive no assistance unless they have paid into the system while benefits are determined in part by their contributions and number of dependents.

Accordingly, while Medicare was not adopted until 1965, it remains the only front of the War on Poverty that can be claimed a legitimate heir of the New Deal. Virtually all the remaining weapons of LBJ’s domestic war — including Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and the Low-Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program — are means-tested and none has a funding mechanism; they simply drain the public treasury. As their recipients have never paid into the system, these programs should never be considered “entitlements” but as discretionary and subject to downsizing.

That distinction should not be minimized; indeed, the contrast between social insurance of the New Deal and the social engineering of the Great Society — to which Ronald Reagan alluded in January 1982 — is more than just fiscal.

As a former Democrat who voted for FDR, President Reagan never considered the New Deal legacy in conflict with his economic vision. That’s because Social Security is rooted in the explicit social conservatism of the New Deal. It upholds without apology the married-parent family as the social and economic norm; its benefit structure presumes marriage as an economic partnership, provides assistance to widowed mothers, and recognizes the contribution of full-time mothers who do the unheralded work of rearing the next generation. Indeed, when later linked to Medicare, Social Security spearheaded the family-benefits package that the private sector emulated after World War II and which workers today still covet.

In contrast, liberal welfare schemes — by displacing marriage and fathers from low-income families, a staggering loss for society and the economy — have left the underclass far less capable of self-reliance. Ironically, the main beneficiaries of the War on Poverty have not been the poor but, as Charles Murray has noted, “the poverty industry — bureaucrats, caseworkers, service providers, and a grab-bag of vendors in the private sector who plan, implement, and evaluate social programs on government contracts.”

The bottom line: America can’t afford both New Deal-styled programs and the War on Poverty. It’s time to honor President Reagan’s 30-year-old insight and signal retreat from the latter with its pernicious social and budget-busting effects. Unless that happens, don’t expect anything super from the “super committee.”

About the Author

Robert W. Patterson is editor of The Family in America: A Journal of Public Policy.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (299) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.19.11 @ 6:57AM

I don't see the problem. Cut EVERYTHING. Cut everything by 10%. Get rid of our MARXIST "Progressive" Income Tax System, and replace it with a 20% FLAT TAX. (The Fair Tax is STUPID. Having people's Tax Rates be determined by HOW MANY THINGS they buy, will just cause people to buy LESS, than they otherwise would. And, that, would be BAD, don'tcha think?)
Throw in a bunch of Cabinet Departments - Education, Energy, Commerce. Now, His Majesty, the King of the Vineyard, and the Duke of Golf and Shared Sacrifice, wants a Department of CREATING JOBS, in the Cabinet. One wonders if this Department will fare any better than his little Committee on "American Companies Hiring More Americans"? It's the Committee headed up by GE's Jeffery Immelt, who keeps moving one GE Division, after another, over to CHINA. Jeffery Immelt - FRIEND of Obama - who paid ZERO TAXES, on GE's $5 BILLION Profit, in the United States. I highlight "FRIEND", because our young Pharaoh's credo is: "We REWARD our Friends, and PUNISH our Enemies".
Indeed.
And, while we're at it, we can get rid of all of those DUES PAYING, Democrat Voters that Obama hired, as New Government Employees. The GOVERNMENT shouldn't be HIRING, while everybody else is being LAID OFF.
This really isn't that difficult. Think: Reagan, and the Air Traffic Control Union. Does anyone think that could happen today?
Of course not. Reagan HAD A PAIR. He did, what had to be done.
It's time for someone to STEP UP.

Harry the Horrible| 8.19.11 @ 9:20AM

There are some things that can be cut completely.

The mission of the Department of Energy was the USA's energy independence and security. It has failed utterly. De-fund it, fire them all and close the doors..
The Department of Education has failed utterly at its mission. De-fund it, fire them all and close the doors..
The BATFE is more of a threat to law-abiding Americans than it is to criminals. De-fund it, fire them all and close the doors..
The National Endowment for the Art is a cesspool. De-fund it, fire them all and close the doors.

And I'm probably missing a lot...

John Navratil| 8.19.11 @ 10:10AM

Harry the Horrible,

I'm certain the DoT performs live-saving activities doing, among other things, certifying pressure bottles for transportation. Similarly the Dept. of Agriculture inspects meat for safety (no E.Coli in the U.S., I'm sure).

Get rid of ALL of them except Interior, Justice, Defense, State and Treasury. Legitimate regulation (requirements - not standards - for pressure bottles, e.g.) can be handled by Congress while standards can easily be shifted to industry.

Before suggesting that safety is the province of government and cannot be privatized, think of the consequences of tainted meat to the USDA meat inspector. What happens to an ATF agent who oversees a rogue program which results in a border agent's death? Sovereign immunity shields the government from bad actions while the market punishes the bad corporate player; have you bought any Uniroyal tires lately?

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:44AM

Thank you, John. It's nice to see my ideas on cuts have some support.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 12:15PM

Wanna know how much we'll save?

Look here!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar.....department

At that site they also detail budgets from 2007-2009...the increases are spectacular...

In short, 2010 Cabinet Department Budgets:

Agriculture $142.016 billion
Commerce $16.714 billion
Defense $692.031 billion
Education $106.944 billion
Energy $38.278 billion
Health and Human Svcs $868.762 billion
Homeland Security $52.903 billion
Housing & Urban Devlpt $62.518 billion
Interior $12.042 billion
Justice $30.333 billion
Labor $209.265 billion
State $25.726 billion
Transportation- $90.944 billion
Treasury $502.980 billion
Veterans Affairs $124.565 billion

Do we really need Education? Energy? LABOR? Agriculture subsidies? What the hell is Treasury spending half a trillion on anyway?

Eliminating Education, Energy, Agriculture, Labor will SAVE half a Trillion $ a year! Voila!

Oh, yea where the hell is EPA hiding?

Crisis solved!

Do NOT tread on me...

massmile | 8.19.11 @ 12:46PM

lrgon| 8.20.11 @ 7:40PM

Once Reagan was elected the establishment cats in the GOP did their utmost to ignore abolishing Depts of Ed and Energy. Their excuse was " we don't have enough votes." Pure Bull! They didn't even try the bast ---ards! The biggest phoney was William Bennett who ran Education just like a democrud would. The campaign promises were forgotten due to the likes of Bill Bennett and others who had no intention of ending uneeded cabinets and agencies. A bunch of horses behinds all of them. Except a few like Paul Craig Roberts and James Watts who tried to reduce the size of government.

The RR administration was Clinton with a cowboy hat.

Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 1:38PM

I agree. I would also eliminate the FDA, which is a surrogate for Big Pharma. Now an exec from Monsanto is on that board, and a slew of effective drugs and treatments are kept off the marketplace because frankly they don't make money for these companies.

Trinacria| 8.19.11 @ 2:09PM

Amen, Harry.

Incidently, I heard last week a fitting commentary on the hapless (and hopeless) state of affairs in our public education system, stated by none other than an administrator in the Virginia Department of Education. When asked by a reporter to comment on why test scores among Virginia students weren't meeting the standards set forth by the federal department of education, the administrator responded, "It's not that we're not making progress, it's that the metrics we have in place simply can't capture that progress."

Predictably, the reporter failed to ask the appropriate follow up question ("But sir, if the metrics can't capture it, how do you know that your making progress?").

Sounds like the Obama Doctrine (We're not failing; we're "leading from behind") is trickling down...

Trinacria| 8.19.11 @ 2:32PM

That's "you're" making progress...fingers faster than brain

Mimi| 8.19.11 @ 5:38PM

May I add to your List...The EPA has done more to Kill jobs, than anything ! To save a little fish stopped water from going to California farmland this was a downright CRIME, now preventing the large Natural Gas supply from gotten In the Marcellus Shale in N.Y. and Pa. The Dept of Interior stopping EXON in the GULF from getting the fantastic find of Oil...the guy who runs that Dept should be arrested for treason...to allow all those workers to be idle...For what?

John Navratil| 8.19.11 @ 7:42PM

Mimi,

Absolutely! But to be precise, the EPA isn't strictly a department. Only the head, Lisa Jackson, is a cabinet level officer. Get rid of it as well!

Intelligent Design| 8.19.11 @ 10:08AM

It's time for Congress to vote on the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org), which would completely eliminate the federal income tax system, eliminate the IRS, and result in unprecedented economic growth. There would be no payroll withholding tax, no separate Social Security tax, no taxes on capital gains, interest, or dividends, no AMT, no estate tax, no corporate income taxes, no complicated IRA, Roth and 401-K rules, and no federal income tax returns. Revenue would be obtained from one simple national sales tax levied on new goods (not used) and virtually all services. This sales tax, estimated initially at 23%, would be collected using existing state mechanisms (most states have a sales tax) and forwarded to the U.S. Treasury. The tax would not be added on at the point of sale, but would be embedded in prices. There would be no loopholes ---- illegal immigrants, drug dealers, other crooks, and tourists would all help pay for our federal government. Fair Tax legislation has actually been introduced in both the House and Senate in prior years, but it has not received sufficient support from the old, corrupt Congress. It should be possible to pass this legislation in the House, and also in the Senate after more Democrats there are throw in the garbage truck by voters in 2012.

The Fair Tax is the single most effective step Congress can take to restore freedom and create truly astounding economic growth. This would lead to a massive reduction in the national debt, assuming that federal spending is also drastically cut.

How many Americans are in favor of ending the federal income tax system and the IRS? Who would be opposed?

The web site: www.fairtax.org provides details.
BTW, the Fair Tax is not a flat tax, nor is it a VAT.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 10:58AM

Intelligent post, but we'd have to repeal the 16th Amendment to protect the country from future Democrat Presidents and Congresses who'd reinstate the income tax as soon as they could and leave the fair tax as a VAT.

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 12:02PM

Good post, Mike (as usual.)

Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 1:41PM

Problem with the fair tax is that it is not fair. As someone just retiring I am spending the money I that is left over from being taxed on income. Now the fair tax would have me paying tax on it as I spent it. How is that fair?

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 2:51PM

It's called growing pains. Besides... when you retire and draw SS, what's fair about me footing the bill? Or... what's fair that right now about 50% of people don't pay taxes at all. How's that fair?

In order to get to what is right, SOMEONE is going to have to bite the bullet. Thank your parents/grandparents for that for voting for guys like FDR, Wilson, LBJ, etc.

Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 5:38PM

You aren't footing the bill. I paid into it for 45 years. I also spent two years in the military service. I assume you haven't. Is that fair. I would add we need too require everyone who wasn't once eligible for the draft, spend two years of government service.

I made my case against medicare when in college in the '60s. I called it generational warfare. I lost that battle and I paid into medicare also all these years. So now it's my turn to collect.

Wade Smith| 8.19.11 @ 8:13PM

You do not have a savings account with social security. ALL the funds that were taken from you for 45 years have ALL been spent. Social Security itself acknowledges that it doesn't save ANY money for your retirement. Social Security is now drawing funds from the US Treasury under the 'special administrative' US Bonds. These bonds are not redeemable in the normal sense. These bonds can be eliminated by Congressional action. Medicare will be BROKE by 2016 IF the government is correct in their calculations, how often has that happened?

I too served for 10 years, that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Trinacria| 8.19.11 @ 1:53PM

Well said, TLP!

Purpleguy| 8.19.11 @ 6:36PM

Wanna toss the bloated Dept of Homeland Security? It was completely unnecessary and useless.

chuck| 8.19.11 @ 8:28PM

Yes, and that pig idiot Napolitano, too!

Tommy| 8.20.11 @ 8:29PM

I agree with you Purpleguy, Homeland Security Department is another encroachment on our civil liberties.

Alan Brooks| 8.19.11 @ 8:24PM

Reagan was a good guy, but that was so long ago it isn't valid anymore. It was over 22 years ago; 22 years after Ike was 1983!-- a different ballgame.
We have something in common, though: the nostalgia derived from getting old.

Alan Brooks| 8.20.11 @ 3:04AM

Now it is clear: 'conservatism' in America is now nothing more than a nostalgia club.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 11:03AM

Quit Poseur Posting under my name Brooks.

Alan Brooks| 8.20.11 @ 8:49PM

I have never posted under your name or anyone's name, you paranoid little tin soldier!
ask AS's computer guy, he can look up the IPO and find out who is impersonating you, you Napoleon rag-doll of a Tea Partier. Clinty boy, you are the best argument for voting Democratic in the world.

So f*ck you.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 10:03PM

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha !

Golly Gee Little PunkAsshat,You Seem So Upset & Shaken .

Maybe, It's Because You're A Creepy Little Israel Firster Troll, Who Gets Your Rocks Off, Hiding Behind Your Little Computer & Annoying People.
Why Would Anyone Suspect You Of Poseur Posting ?

Hmmmm Asshole ?

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 11:36AM

Stop Poseur Posting under my name Brooks

Alan Brooks| 8.20.11 @ 8:56PM

Put on your tiny wittle thinking cap, Clinty-poo.. all you have to do is contact the computer specialist next business day, to ask what IPO shows up for the impersonated comments in question-- a HS freshman would know what to do in a jiff, but you of course don't want to strain your brain; do you, Clintie?

Speaking of HS, how DID you graduate High School, Clinty? did you suck the Superintendent of Schools' you-know-what?

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 10:10PM

Let's Get Your Story Straight Here, Little Punk Ass Israel Firster Obama Troll.

You're Telling Us That You Went So Far As To Call AS,When You Were Punk Posted & They Told You,Who Did It.

I Say You're A Liar, Brooks.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 10:20PM

Uh Oh !
More Queer Talk From Obama's Little Skin Flutist.

Little Negative Attention Craving Creep Trolls Like You Get The Negative Attention You Ask For.

Bring It You Little Gutless Bastard.

Alan Brooks| 8.20.11 @ 11:06PM

No, Clint. Do you happen to remember Ruth?
Ruth wasn't blogging at AS so long ago; it was before you graduated from Special Ed, probably.
Anyway, Ruth wrote that she contacted AS and they told her they could in fact check the addresses.

Alan Brooks| 8.20.11 @ 11:08PM

"You're Telling Us That You Went So Far As To Call AS,When You Were Punk Posted & They Told You,Who Did It."

Do you happen to remember Ruth?
Ruth wasn't blogging at AS so long ago; it was before you graduated from Special Ed, probably.
Anyway, Ruth wrote that she contacted AS and they told her they could in fact check the addresses.
cancel reply

Clint| 8.21.11 @ 10:00AM

No, Screwball ObamaBoy & Fanatic Israel Firster Serial Trolling Negative Attention Craving Creepy Weasel , I Don't Know This Ruth,You Second Hand Refer To .

I Asked You, If You Ever Called AS When You Were Punk Posted & If They Told You,Who Did It.
Now, Answer The Question You Creepy Little Bastard.

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 7:26PM

NO, I did not contact AS-- it was Ruth, Margie, or someone else; whomever it was said, last year, that they knew who the impersonator was.
There is a computer guy or gal, Tyrrell doesn't run the entire magazine himself, and they can and do check addresses.
Point is, I did NOT impersonate you, and would never do so. I would want to stay as far away from you as possible in every way; you are bad luck, you are a jinx.

And too bad for YOU Khaddafy was overthrown during Obama's administration. Glory be! Hallelujah.

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 8:21PM

..what angers me is, months ago you accused me of impersonating you, and after a bunch of back 'n' forth comments you finally realized it wasn't me. I don't like your identity and would never impersonate it; your identity is to me a bubonic-carrying flea on a rat... to be avoided as if it were the plague itself. Your identity is to me a hideous, loathsome thing cursed equally in both Heaven and Hell.
There are quite a number of commenters here who don't like you, Clint. And now I know exactly why!

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 8:43PM

Clint, I would never impersonate your identity because it is tainted with the number 666, a monstrosity of Biblical proportions cursed by every angel in Heaven and every demon in a burning Hell.

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 8:48PM

(PS, Clint: are you starting to get it [pay close attention to the following] I did not in fact impersonate you at any time and have no intention of ever impersonating you, ever? do you want a notarized affidavit to that effect? a deposition filed with the court in your community and placed in a temperature-controlled safe deposit box at a bank nearby you?)

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 5:07AM

You know Alan, you and I have some things in common. Sometimes I agree with what you have to say and other times not. Alan, buddy, can't you see the difference between the economic ideologies? Between Regan and Carter? Can't you see which ideology produces prosperity and independance and which produces poverty and dependance?

I didn't like Bush either. I didn't vote for the guy. I didn't vote vor President Obama for that matter. I think that President Bush got us involved in an endless war against an enemy that we haven't even completely identified for all the wrong reasons. Then on the other hand President Obama has done nothing to end this war.

All of that aside though, you have a demonstrated economic ideology that produces prosperity and a demonstrated ideology that produces poverty and you seem to choose poverty. Now why is that?

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 8:36PM

Because Obama's re-election is a virtual guarantee the Right in America wont run any more Nixon Ford Bush Dole McCains.
IMO the above supersedes all else.

Carter and LBJ were FAR worse than Bush, but they were so bad they got themselves out of office after one term; we wasted eight years with the dynasticist from Crawford-- and it will take the rest of this decade to recover.

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 8:39PM

...IF we recover.

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 9:20PM

One more thing:
IMO Bush was not a bad person or bad president, however he is only underrated because he was called a monster by his enemies-- when he was only a mediocrity (i.e. Bush was called "a Hitler" many times when he wasn't as smart as Hitler).

Bush had the full eight years; if he couldn't do it, he couldn't do it. NOW you have to do better.

kurgan| 8.22.11 @ 3:57AM

Cease fire Alan, I'm the one that says that the grand experiment in self government has failed. I'm not running anybody. I President Obama's reelections as being as bad in outcome as the election as anybody else. I look at American politics as basically staving off the final fiscal collapse for another four years.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.19.11 @ 7:15AM

Social Security is a regressive tax. Your comment that the system is flush doesn't square with the future. In the future the system is in deficit.

It would have been far better and far more productive for society to allow people to invest that money in private accounts.

Many would be millionaires and control their destiny.

Instead they find themselves elderly wards of the state existing on meager payouts.

That's not a pleasant existence.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 7:29AM

Good points. Sadly, since so many are dependent on Social Security and Obama has destroyed trillions of dollars in individual wealth we're stuck with the system for a "few more years.

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 8:32AM

I don't think that we'll be stuck with the system for a few more years. Best as I can tell all of Western Civilization has been playing Musical Chairs with their economies for the last seventy or so years. The music hasn't quite stopped yet but it's getting awfully faint. We've borrowed and lent money that doesn't exist to each other for far too long now and anybody that questioned the practice was called all sorts of horrible names.

The music is about to stop. Then the screaming starts.

BD57| 8.19.11 @ 2:44PM

Beyond which, actuarially speaking, the benefits are way out of whack with the contributions.

I can justify some of that as compensation for depriving workers of the use of the money deducted - if all of it had been going into a safe, well run pension system, they'd be looking at more than they'll get from Social Security - but all of it? Probably not.

Regardless, because Social Security has no true "trust fund", it's affected by fluctuations in birth rate, etc. - fluctuations which would not be there if each of us had our own, individual retirement account.

Social Security & Medicare are going to eat the economy if we leave them alone. And it's hard to justify everyone else "taking a haircut" while we leave those programs alone.

P.S. I'm 54 ... Paul Ryan's Medicare reform would affect me. And it should; my kids & grandkids don't deserve to be left a bankrupt America. To those who say "we paid in, we're entitled to our benes," you've gotten something for your money - an America where you had the opportunity to live, work & build toward your dreams.

How 'bout we try to give our kids & grandkids the same opportunity?

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 2:53PM

Thank you BD for being a reasonable and just person who understands that it's wrong to make your decendants pay for your luxury.

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 8:42AM

If many would be millionaires then what difference would it make? It would simply translate into each individual dollar being worth less than it is now. Then some bunch of thieving do-gooders would come and take from you in order to pander to the worthless. The story of "the Little Red Hen" gone murderously wrong.

Do "educators" even still read "the Little Red Hen " to kindergarteners any more?

"In the Carboneferous Epoch
we were promised abundance for all
By robbing selected Peter
to pay for collective Paul.
And though we had plenty of money
there was nothing our money could buy.
And the gods of the Copybook Headings
said, "If you don't work, you die."

That's Kipling, from a day when the word "education" still meant something admirable instead of something foul.

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 8:42AM

Do "educators" even still read "the Little Red Hen " to kindergarteners any more?

That's Kipling, from a day when the word "education" still meant something admirable instead of something foul.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 7:29AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
"When it comes to Social Security, we must understand that the system does not represent an old age pension, an “insurance” program, or even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits. There is no Social Security trust fund, and you don’t have an “account.” Whether you win or lose the Social Security lottery is a function of when you happened to be born and how long you live to collect benefits. Of course young people today have every reason to believe they will never collect those benefits."

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 7:30AM

This is one thing I Ron Paul has said that I can agree with.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 7:41AM

That's because Your Mancrush, Ricky Perry is Parroting what Dr.Ron Paul has been saying for years on Social Security, RINO-CINO Flunkie Apologist, Micky.

The tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Carpe Diem.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 7:50AM

Clint I know fasting for Ramadan makes you irritable, but you need to take a chill pill and get some home training. No doubt your Mullah did some bad things to you when you were a boy, but look how well your fellow believer Obama handles his experiences with man love. You need to be more like him.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 7:58AM

I'm a Catholic Little Micky RINO.

Wanna make something of it RINO-CINO BOY?

Hmmmm Micky RINO ?

Go sell your Israel Firster Propaganda to your Fellow Acolytes Dr.Reich & Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie.

The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On Little Micky RINO's Face.

Wipe Your Feet.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 8:03AM

You boorish behavior isn't like a Roman Catholic, but if you are you need to seek counseling from your Priest to deal with the spirit of hate and bitterness that animates you. That or start taking your meds again.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 8:11AM

That's A Joke.

You're The Chairman Of The Bores, Micky RINO.

Aaaand, You don't get to "Define" Catholics, Non-Catholic Israel Firster PropagandaBoy Micky RINO.

Take to Shock Treatments & Call John McCain in The Morning .

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:47AM

And you don't get to define Jews, Jihadist Butt Boy.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:14PM

You Don't Tell Me What To Do , Screwball Israel Firster Traitor Bastard, Tool Job.

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:57AM

"Two" shock treatments. Anal incontinence hits hard. The perils of Catamite-hood.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:16PM

You're A Sorry-Assed Bottom Of The Barrel Excuse For A Government Shrink, Screwball Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job.

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 12:01PM

Fisticuffs from the anally incontinent boy-toy of American Jihadists everywhere! OOHHH, I'm scarwed.

Take your threats and shove them up your all too capacious rear, California weird.

Al Adab| 8.19.11 @ 12:25PM

Clint seems determined to waste as much space here as possible. Apparently his intent is to clog the blog (ha ha ) with diatribe. Better if we all ignore him and focus on the issue.

There are good lists here of agencies and departments for elimination. The Republicans tried it in 1995, but were defeated by Clinton. This next time with a Republican (Conservative one is critical) in the WH and a Congress dedicated to getting spending under control it may be possible. Lets ask our candidates who is committed to repeal of Obamacare and the cutting or potential elimination of regulatory departments that cost far more than any good they may be doing. What candidates are on the record?

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:17PM

Let's See Ya Make Me Screwbal Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Traitor Bastard ,Tool Job.

Purpleguy| 8.19.11 @ 7:31PM

What are you people - 12?

Michael Tomlinson| 8.20.11 @ 12:52AM

Clint is multiple personalities he is just the latent homosexual and angry version of the personalities.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.20.11 @ 10:12AM

I'm only seven personalities, three are gay, two are lesbian, one is transvestite and one is a sheep.

But,we all get along.

Kilgore Trout| 8.20.11 @ 11:41AM

I LUV this ! Dont stop! MT, write one as the sheep, please!

Michael Tomlinson| 8.22.11 @ 4:55AM

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so thank you Trout. Could you be one of Clint's multiple personalities?

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 7:27AM

I'm with you on this one, this is the textbook example of why you don't argue with idiots, people can't tell who is who.

Tommy| 8.20.11 @ 8:28PM

Michael Tomlinson
Do you have a problem with Ramadan and the Muslims faith. I do not see much charity in your words.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.22.11 @ 4:39AM

Actually I have a problem with Clint and some of RINO Ron Paul's cultist and their anti-Semitism. Generally, you only see such vitriol against Israel from Muslim extremists and the nation of Islam thus I wondered if Clint was a Muslim. He says he's not.

carnot| 8.19.11 @ 8:07AM

like this is a brilliant insight from RP. any fool knows that actuarial data play into ultimate pay-in/pay-out calculations.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 8:14AM

Then why haven't The RINO-CINO Ruling Elite done a damned thing about it ?

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 9:52AM

Poor little Clint your not very bright are you, but that explains why you're a follow of Paulista cult.

Boorish = rude, ill-mannered, impolite, loutish, churlish, ignorant, etc..

You know attributes that the Holy See would prefer Roman Catholics not exhibit. No doubt you come from the Father Coughlin school of Catholics and bigots.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 10:53AM

You Non-Catholic Israel Firster AgendaBoys Don't Get To Define Me or The Catholic Church, Little Micky RINO, The Chairman of The Bores.

Go Try To Your Sand To The Arabs, RINO-CINO.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 11:02AM

Tsh, tsh, tsh such a sad person. Really you should seek professional help.

Thankfully, you don't define or reflect the Roman Catholic church, but merely a sick soul and hateful mind. I pray you would soon know the peace of Christ.

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 6:13PM

Actually, Clintypoo/Tim* reflects both Rome and Libertarianism quite well.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 11:07AM

Actually, Nut Bag Anti-Catholic Fanatic Joisey White Trash Bigot Margie reflects Israel Firsters & Bigots quite well.

RCV| 8.21.11 @ 2:11PM

No, Margie, he does not. He's just a juvenile idiot.

Margie| 8.21.11 @ 11:40PM

He represents the perverted Papacy who still teach the same exact false teachings from the beginning. He represents them absolutely perfectly.
And you know it.

android| 8.22.11 @ 12:03PM

"He represents the perverted Papacy who still teach the same exact false teachings from the beginning. He represents them absolutely perfectly.
And you know it."

Margie the Mullah Bigot Speaks Again! Margie is a closet Catholic lover... SHe likes Michelle Malkin.

Margie| 8.22.11 @ 1:18PM

Proving exactly what I have said, and do. Which is that it isn't a matter of hating anyone~ it is the doctrines which I hate. And so does God.

So, thanks for telling the truth, there, "android."

Now, you need to get real with regards to just what you are buying into~ the Bible~ or false teachings.

Clint| 8.22.11 @ 2:09PM

Bigoted Margie Speaks Again.

RCV| 8.22.11 @ 1:38PM

No, I do not believe that Clint represents John Paul II or John XXIII in any sense of the word, any more than I think Terry Jones represents what you would call "Bible-believing Christians".

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:46AM

"Go Try To Your Sand..." Did You Need To Poop, Anally Compromised Catamite?

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:20PM

This Zany Crazed Bottom Of the Barrel Loser, Sorry -Assed Excuse For A Shrink Tool Job, Is What The Government Hires To Treat Poor patients.

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:45AM

Hint, Clint: When people agree with you, don't insult them.

SpiralArchitect| 8.19.11 @ 12:58PM

Clint, your comments make you seem not only small minded but ill prepared to enguage in a sensible battle of words.

Do us all the favor & stop, please.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:24PM

Spiral Architect, No.

Thank You.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:23PM

Hint, Tool Job: The IDF Needs You To Join Up, As A Latrine Seal.

Dai Alanye | 8.19.11 @ 10:22AM

If Clint were able to think for himself instead of parroting Ron Paul and repeating various slogans he might occasionally come up with an original thought. As it is, he's just about the most boring commentator on this site, even when he stoops to invective.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 11:00AM

If Rick Perry were able to think for himself instead of parroting Ron Paul and repeating various slogans he might occasionally come up with an original thought.

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:48AM

He doesn't parrot Ron Paul. He believes America has enemies that retreat would embolden, unlike Jihadist Ron.

Al Adab| 8.19.11 @ 12:27PM

Clint represents a threat. This is the danger of being more committed to a person than to principle. It is the road to Ceasarism or to Bonaparte and there we do not wish to go. Beware in our efforts to save Liberty that we seek the man on a white horse.

Tommy| 8.20.11 @ 8:26PM

Nice words there, Al Adab, but what principle are you referring to.

Jackpine Savage | 8.19.11 @ 1:09PM

Idiots like little Clint here are one of the reasons I could NEVER force myself to vote for Ron Paul, even though I agree with him on most domestic issues.
You can tell a LOT about a candidate by Who supports him/her, and damn near Every Paulite I've ever debated with is exactly like little Clint here.
They are using the exact same hateful tactics the left has used for decades.

Here is your typical "debate" with a Paul acolyte.
Paulite: Only Ron Paul can Save this country, All Hail Messiah Paul!!
Me: I agree with Paul on most domestic issues but his foreign policy scares me.
Paulite: You are just a hateful Neo-con! I hope you die!

Yup, that pretty much covers it.

RCV| 8.19.11 @ 1:17PM

You're so right. I'm no fan of Ron Paul, but never has a candidate been so burdened with supporters who just repel anyone who might be mildly interested in his positions. Their only instinct is to insult people in the most juvenile of ways.

Jackpine Savage | 8.19.11 @ 1:31PM

I speak from experience too RCV.
My sister is married to a hard core Paulite.
He not only extolls the "Gospel of Paul" at every opportunity (ad-nauseum), but he's also a Huge conspiracy nut. Basically 30 seconds from wearing a tinfoil beanie. (He's now convinced the govt is planning to fake and alien invasion, to what ends I can't fathom)
If He is your "Typical Paul supporter" I prefer Obama :op

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:45PM

We Tea Party Patriots Actually Listen To What Dr.Ron Paul Is Saying, While The Israel Firster Screwballs Attempt To Smear & Marginalize Dr.Ron Paul.

You Must think We Tea Party Patriots Can Be Sold Your Israel Firster Screwball Crap Sandwich.

We Ain't Buyin' It.

Dr.Ron Paul,
“The President gave a speech today about our foreign policy in the
Middle East, and once again this administration has proven that it does
not understand a proper foreign policy for America. When will our
leaders finally do what’s right for America and rethink this irrational
approach we’ve followed for far too long?

“Israel is our close friend. While President Obama’s demand that Israel
make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her
long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own,
without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United
Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how
Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those
sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington."

Al Adab| 8.19.11 @ 1:33PM

See the reply to my 12:25 above. As i said here lies the road to Rome. Does anyone really think I am an apologist for Israel?

Interesting though that the modern nation was established through the U. N. which I thought all the left adored. Apparently internationalism is only good when we follow Leftist, statist thought.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:37PM

The Obama LawBoy Israel FirsterRCV Chimes In.

Jackpine Savage | 8.19.11 @ 3:20PM

Clint, with your fixation on "Israel Firsters" (whatever the hell that is) one could come to the logical conclusion that you're not a Libertarian, you're simply an Anti-Semite.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 10:25PM

Uh Oh ! Jack Off Attempts To Play The Anti-Semite Card.
It's The Last Refuge Of An Israel Firster Scoundrel.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.20.11 @ 12:56AM

Jackpine is right the candidate is reflected by his supporters. This is illustrated not only by Ron Paul, but Barack Obama.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 10:15PM

Apparently then, Perry Is A Pseudo-Intellect Mouth Fighter,With No Real Substance Like Little Micky Tommy Girl Here.

Tommy| 8.20.11 @ 8:35PM

RCV
I agree with you that some supporters of Ron Paul go overboard.
But isn't that true of all candidates.
Look at Obama's supporters at the Philadelphia voting booths trying to intimidate white voters.
Read some of the comments here from Israel supporters. They want to bomb and kill Arabs.
How about the supporters of Bachman. They want to deport all Mexicans who came here illegally.
There is very little rational commentary from these people who believe so strongly.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:26PM

Asked & Answered
You're A Serial Slandering Liar Screwball Israel Firster Fanatic,Tool Job.

Jackpine Savage | 8.19.11 @ 3:32PM

Wow, can I quote you?
Yhat is a Perfect example of the kind of "Debate" I have come to expect from a Paul-bot.

Congratulations, you have literally become a Self-Parody.

Kinda sad actually

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 4:54PM

Yea, Jackie Silly Savage, You May Quote Me.

Just Give Attribution.

Now, Have A Nice Weekend.

Martin Treptow| 8.19.11 @ 3:33PM

Clint,
What is it about you Ron Paul supporters? Conservatives agree with about 3/4 of what RP stands for, but there's no way any sensible citizen would actually cast a vote for someone whose every follower seems to behave in such a way. (I know, I'm an Israel Firster Neo-Con Nut Job etc.) Plus, Congressman Paul doesn't do himself any favors when he proclaims that he thinks it's "okay" for the Mullahs in Iran to have nukes, "we have them, why can't they?" which pre-supposes moral equivelance between the US and Iran. Thirdly, Congressman Paul is an OB/GYN, for crying out loud. All you Paulites all call him "Dr." like he has a PhD in Public Policy or something. Unless he's going to perform a Pap Smear on the Federal Budget, the Honorific seems misplaced.

And lastly, history shows us that whenever Western Isolationism rears it's head...
"show me an Isolationist, and I will show you an anti-Semite"
(And your constant "Israel Firster" epithets don't do you credit on that front)

Cheers!

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 4:50PM

There It Is.

It Doesn't Take Israel Firsters Long To Play The Anti-Semite Card.

Apparently, Treptow Has A Problem With Dr. Ron Paul Spending All That Time In Medical School & Would Rather Dr.Ron Paul Was Only A Congressman, Presidential Candidate, Doctor & Just A LawBoy.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here Treptow.

Live With It, Israel Firster.

Jackpine Savage | 8.19.11 @ 7:40PM

If you knew Anything about the Bible, you'd know that whoever deserts Israel is also destroyed.

So, call me an Israel Firster, I don't care, I consider it Insurance.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 8:27PM

Duuuuhhhhhh !

United States National Interests & Foreign Policy Aren't Arranged Around Your Eisegesis, Sport.
" The early Christian theologians saw the New Covenant in Christ as a replacement for the Mosaic Covenant . Historically, statements on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church have claimed her ecclesiastical structures to be a fulfillment and replacement of Jewish ecclesiastical structure,"

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 9:31PM

Ah yes, ye olde Replacement Theology of Catholicism. This is why it is an excellent hideout for anti-semites like Clint/Tim*.

Catholicism believes that their "church" actually replaces the Old Testament.

Not that Jesus came to fulfill it, which is what Jesus Himself says~ but that it replaces it~ making itself God.

Exactly why the whore of Babylon is in big, big trouble with God.

"Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
For truly, I say to you, till Heaven and Earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these Commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven." Mt. 5:17-19.

This "Replacement Theology" is exactly how and why Catholicism sees fit to make claim of itself as "Holy Mother Church" and that the Pope is the "Vicar of Christ" on Earth and all that other nonsense.

They actually believe that they replace God~ and it is the reason why it saw fit to murder millions upon millions of Christians that refused its false teachings and instead adhered to the Word of God Himself, Jesus Christ, and the Words that are written in the Bible.

Clint/Tim*s Religion is intertwined with his anti-semitism and his politics, both of which are the breeding grounds of his "beliefs."

The Ron Paul ilk and the Religion that presents itself as God on Earth have taught him everything he knows.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 10:31AM

Uh Oh !
American Spectator's Resident Anti-Catholic Bigot Margie is in the building .

She's Obsessed & fixated on The Catholic Church.
Actually,
"Protestant views on supersessionism revolve around their understanding of the relationship between the various covenants of the Bible, particularly the relationship between the covenants of the Old Testament and the New Covenant. The most prominent Protestant views on this relationship are called Law and Gospel, Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, and Dispensationalism. These views are not restricted to a single denomination.

Early in the postapostolic period and in the centuries since, many Christians have seen
the necessity of accepting Jesus Christ and the failure of Israel to do so as a sign that the
Christian Church, as New Israel, had superseded, or taken the place, of ethnic Israel.
This view of supersession, sometimes called “replacement theology,” saw the Mosaic
Law and the old covenant of God with His people as being replaced by the new covenant
ushered in by Jesus’ sacrificial death. In addition to early patristic authors such as Justin
Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen, later reformers such as Martin Luther and John Wesley
subscribed to some degree of supersessionism.'

Now, Bigot Margie, tell all the practicing Jews & Muslims where you say they go when they die.

You're up Joisey White Trash Bigot, Margie.

Margie| 8.20.11 @ 1:10PM

True Christians believe what Jesus Christ says, liar:

It's what Christians do & are: we believe every Word of God.

It's why your Papists tortured and killed us for 600 years~ because we refuse to bow to your false Religion which tries to play God.

Jesus Christ is Lord.

And Him only shall I serve. Mt. 4:10

And, I'm not a "Protestant", and couldn't care less what they subscribe to.
I subscribe to the Bible, not Religion or the Religious views of Men.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 4:29PM

Apocalyptic Crank Lady, Margie " I'm not a "Protestant", and couldn't care less what they subscribe to.
I subscribe to the Bible, not Religion or the Religious views of Men."

Joisey White Trash Bigot Margie couldn't care less what Protestants subscribe to, yet fanatically comes on American Spectator every chance she can with hubby Victor & Dr.Reich to attack Catholics, as she hides Her beliefs about where Practicing Jews & Muslims go when they die.

In other words, Margie is An Equal Opportunity, except when it comes to Catholics.

Tommy| 8.20.11 @ 8:42PM

I am new here and have been reading these comments for about a week, some interesting stuff.
But I can't believe there is a real person named Margie that has these views on religon. I thought we last saw this in Belfast and Londonberry from the horrible Reverend Ian Paisly. Has he been resurrected here in America, my Lord, help us all from these self appointed protectors of the Bible.
How do you people not respond to this idiocy.

RCV| 8.21.11 @ 2:27PM

I have responded to the anti-Catholic bigotry often and forcefully, but after a while thre is no point in getting into endless arguments with those whose hatred simmers at the mere mention of Catholicism. Like that vile Ian Paisley, they are so focused on the sins of dead Catholics from the 15th century, that they've failed to notice the John Paul IIs, Mother Theresas, John XXIIIs among us today. It would be no different than railing against modern-day Lutheranism because Martin Luther himself was a murderous, bigoted anti-Semite, or Anglicanism because Henry VIII was a lecherous murderer. And how about those Puritans in Salem in the 17th century!

It is 2011, and the are people of faith and goodwill in all denominations, sects and faiths, who love and revere the Creator of us all, who want to live in peace, and love and help their fellow human beings as Christ taught us to do. If we could only focus on that and stop fighting the religious wars of the past, I think God would be pleased. But that's just my view.

W| 8.21.11 @ 6:06PM

RCV,
Well said.
I just read your comment about Cuba. When I visited Italy, the Italians I spoke with mentioned Cuba as a favorite vacation spot, and I met an Italian married to a cuban woman.
The important question is how were the cuban cigars?

RCV| 8.21.11 @ 7:54PM

Fabulous. But I had to enjoy the while I was there, since I was traveling with a bunch of judges and I didn't want to embarrass them and myself at customs. The rum was pretty darn good as well, I'm told.

Margie| 8.21.11 @ 8:56PM

There you go again with the deceit, RCV.
For somebody who "believes" they can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to choose from (like Catholics do), and which apostles to throw under the bus (Paul)~ I find it so very hypocritical for you to point the finger at Christians (that is, Bible believing ones).

Real Christians do not pick and choose which parts of the Bible we can live by, but lukewarm ones do~ and pompous Religious people do.

But as for me and my house? We will serve the Lord.

Oh, and Jesus died for right and wrong. As long as I have breath in me I'll defend Him. As I've stated probably hundreds of times here, it isn't a matter of individuals~ it's a matter of doctrine~ which really does matter~ to anyone who really wants to be faithful to God.

But I understand that you're a Leftist~ you love Obama~ you reject parts of the Bible to suit yourself~ so of course you will lie and obfuscate when you can't stand hearing the Bible truth, just exactly as it is written~ and of course you will rather side with the anti-Christs who post here.

God isn't pleased with liars, you are right.
So then~ why don't you repent before it's too late?

It isn't from "goodwill" that you do so.

RCV| 8.21.11 @ 9:27PM

I'm not pointing a figure at anyone, Margie. I have no criticisms of Bible lieralist Chistians, even when I disagree with them theologically. They're good and honest people, just trying to figure out the mysteries of the universe like the rest of us. We're all using the sense of reason and wonder that God gave to us, and not surprisingly, we come to many different conclusions. In the end, all will be revealed to each of us. In the meantime, we could follow Jesus's summation of the Law and the Prophets: love God with all your heart and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Margie| 8.22.11 @ 1:31PM

Now RCV,

I won't let you (once again is is your habit), try and define me or what I think or believe.

I'm not a Bible literalist. Although anyone who truly believes in God understand and knows that His every Word proves true, we also know that the Bible isn't literal only~ but that God teaches us about the spiritual through the physical.

For example, the troll Tommy above, phonily took issue with me for posting a Scripture about not withholding our swords from bloodshed.

An honest person wouldn't have done that, but since he despises God and Christians, he must try and find fault.

An honest person knows that God meant it at that time to whom He was directing at that time~ and Christians know that it is also meant spiritually.

The Bible (God's own Words) speak to us in the New Testament about spiritual warfare~ and that we ought to put on the whole armor of God. Read Eph. 6.

And God commands us to be of one mind as well, so it isn't His will that we are of differing opinions.
True Christians reject all teachings that are unbiblical, and do not compromise.

And as to love? Again~ what is His definition of love?
Jesus tells us that if we love Him~ we must keep His Words.
As the World like to say (and it is true) "Words mean things."
And God's Words mean everything.

"Jesus answered him, "If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word, and my Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him." Jn. 14:23.

That means His Words, not the Pope's words, and not any man on the face of this earth who doesn't teach what He teaches.

W| 8.21.11 @ 6:12PM

Tommy,
There is no point in responding because they are dogmatic in their views about religion, and the response is "you are wrong, and I am right."
Don't waste your time. Move on to other topics.

Margie| 8.21.11 @ 8:59PM

"my Lord, help us all from these self appointed protectors of the Bible."

You are talking about the Catholic church~ they have been doing that for centuries!
sounds like you need to brush up on some history, TROLL!

Tommy| 8.22.11 @ 1:40PM

Thank you, Margie, you do not dissapoint and are consistent.
What is a troll. When you have no logic or reason resort to ad hominem.
Judging by your comments the past week you make up your own history.
Good bye, not interested in wasting time with you.

android| 8.22.11 @ 12:06PM

"And, I'm not a "Protestant", and couldn't care less what they subscribe to.
I subscribe to the Bible, not Religion or the Religious views of Men."

Margie is a Religion of One. She is Both Leader and Prophet. And idiotic bigot. It's a Package Deal with Mullah Margie!

Margie| 8.22.11 @ 1:34PM

No, W, er I mean "android" I know you can't help yourself, but the truth is that real Christians actually read and believe the Bible~ and reject anything that doesn't agree with God's Words.

What's your excuse?

W| 8.22.11 @ 3:21PM

Margie, I am not Android. You know my views and I have no reluctance to state them if I choose.
You have another fan.
Just because they use the word Mullah does not mean it is me.

Margie| 8.20.11 @ 1:37PM

Furthermore, while your false Religion is busy playing God, real Christians are bust leading the Jews to Christ, preaching His Gospel of Salvation by Grace through faith, not through Religion~ but by a relationship through the Spirit.

"God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." Jn. 4:24.

And furthermore, spiritual Israel are those who believe in Jesus, and are therefore Jews inwardly, by the Grace of God :

"He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God." Rom. 2:9.

And the "church" has not replaced Israel, as once again, God says this:

"Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers." Rom. 11:25-28.

You should read all of Romans 11 to understand what God Himself says concerning Israel.
That is, if you really care about what He thinks, says, does and is going to do~ instead of believing what Man thinks, says, does and is doing.

Real Christians believe what God says, and follow it.
Clint~ whoever you are~ you're disdain for Israel is inexcusable, and the way you think because of what you've been taught is all wrong.

Your hideout (Catholicism) has become your prison.

android| 8.22.11 @ 2:27PM

"And, I'm not a "Protestant", and couldn't care less what they subscribe to.
I subscribe to the Bible, not Religion or the Religious views of Men."

Margie is a Religion of One. She is Both Leader and Prophet. And idiotic bigot. It's a Package Deal with Mullah Margie!

Tom| 8.20.11 @ 2:34PM

Stuff it, Bigot Margie.

Tom| 8.20.11 @ 6:31PM

Hey Bigot Margie, stuffy your white trash bigot talk.

RCV| 8.22.11 @ 8:12PM

How do you explain Rick Santorum and Steve Lonegan, Margie, two other devout adherents of "the demonic cult" as you call Catholicism?

Tommy| 8.20.11 @ 8:24PM

Jackpine, what section of the Bible says that, does this mean we base our foreign policy on what you think Bible says, what does it say about Arabs, what does the New Testament say about turning the other cheek, shouldn't we all be pacifists and turn the other cheeck.

Boar Hunter| 8.19.11 @ 8:51PM

Clint has even insulted those when they gracefully agree with him. Id love to see Clint discuss his politics in the direct company of few grown men from my generation. That whole you can't make me temper tantrum thing, oh I am soooo not into that. I would love to see Clint receive the lesson in polite and manly discourse his father never gave him.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 10:35AM

I discuss my politics every month, at our monthly Tea Party Meetings, Sport.

Where's Your Tea Party Meet ?

Hmmmm ?

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 11:11AM

Screwball Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Traitor Bastard Tool Job wants American Warriors to be Cannon Fodder & do Israel's Fighting For Them.

How Many Israeli IDF have been KIA or WIA in The War On Terror in Iraq & Afghanistan Tool Job ?

Hmmmmm Israel Firster ?

L. Ross| 8.19.11 @ 7:33AM

As a trailing edge baby boomer, I am accutely aware of this problem. A quick look online reveals its true scope.

"Back in 1950, as the baby boom was just getting started, each retiree's benefit was divided among 16 workers. Taxes could be kept low. Today, that number has dropped to 3.3 workers per retiree, and by 2025, it will reach-and remain at-about two workers per retiree. Each married couple will have to pay, in addition to their own family's expenses, Social Security retirement benefits for one retiree. In order to pay promised benefits, either taxes of some kind must rise or other government services must be cut."

Think about it. 2 workers/retiree. As far as I can tell, you can just forget about welfare and food stamps. We won't have any money for such foolishness. Nor will we have any money for anything else. Two workers per retiree? I don't see how that could possibly be sustainable. I have no idea why Robert Patterson doesn't think this is a crisis.

carnot| 8.19.11 @ 8:08AM

hmmmm.....I'm begining to understand the logic of Obamacare and death panels!!!!!!!!

Jerry K| 8.19.11 @ 9:01AM

Back in the early 90s when I first heard of government healthcare for all my first thought was that the government could eliminate two liabilities by simply withholding treatment. The patient dies and thus ends his social security and his medicare. When I told this to the liberal who brought up government healthcare, she was speechless, shocked. I just smiled and said - you don't trust republicans and I don't trust them much and I absolutely don't trust democrats. When push comes to shove fiscally, there can be no other way.

SpiralArchitect| 8.19.11 @ 1:19PM

Well done.

Invariably there will be someone, after citing I am a conservative, that tells me how bad or wrong I am because I 'am a Republican'.

Predictably, the logical end point is never the end. There should be no need to continue after explaining that conservative is an ideal & Republican is a political Party - not the same thing.

Similarly it is needless ( and plain goofy ) to attack one on the premise that they are a member of a political group that shares in the same ideals.

BTW, my dog's PAC is about ready to make an anouncement as to run or not against Odrama.

Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 1:45PM

What the progressives have known for a long time is that 40% of all medical cost occurs in the last 6 months of ones life. So they have to save that 40% by denying medical. Then with that money they can pay for the medical care of 12 million illegal aliens.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 12:01PM

Exactly!

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:49AM

And that's why the Jihadist boys are a PROBLEM! 'Cause they come from places with 4 kids per mom. Lots of spare Allah bombs.

Thanks, Mr. Ross.

Al Adab| 8.19.11 @ 1:36PM

Just imagine what your net worth would be if those SS "contributions" were in a personal IRA or 401. Not only would it belong to you, but you could use it to pay emergency expenses like medical perhaps or pay off the mortgage. It would be yours and the public, the collective, would have no "responsibility" for you. Now that would be a moral system.

Pecos Pete| 8.19.11 @ 7:38AM

TLP: I agree with cutting the government any which way we can by any amount we can. Eliminate whole agencies whose worth has been demonstrated to be counter productive; e.g., EPA, HHS, Education, Energy. Repeal ObamaCare. The list is endless.

But, as to taxes, IMHO replace the current income tax system with a sales tax. An accounting valued Income, by its very nature, is a bookkeeping result which is subject to massive manipulation. A sales tax can not be manipulated, it is paid as items are purchased.

People/companies/organizations will continue to buy goods and services that are competitively priced in accordance with their available cash/credit. Those classified in the poverty class can be issued exemption cards to allow them to purchase their needs without paying a sales tax.

Sales taxes are prevalent in the USA. Transaction systems universally exist to collect and pay sales taxes. Thus, no more IRS, no more regulations, no more games played with when to record Income and how to accelerate expenses. And, no new regulations are required.

People buy products every day that are subject to sales taxes therefore your point that a federal sales taxes will cause less transaction activity is not valid. Sales taxes would be paid by everyone in the USA, except as exempted by poverty rules, and the approx 50% who pay no income taxes now would begin to contribute revenue to the federal government.

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.19.11 @ 8:02AM

I understand what you're trying to say. People will STILL buy the things that they NEED. But, at a Sales Tax of what? 20%? 30%? I know that you're gonna think that: Yeah. "But they'll weigh that against what they would be paying, if it was the old way."
No, they won't. They will buy LESS. Companies will "Manipulate" it, by purchasing the things they need OVERSEAS. People will "Manipulate" it, by simply buying less. It's Human Nature. No one will be looking at THE BIG PICTURE when the Cashier starts ringing things up.
Nothing will be "COMPTETIVELY PRICED" while there's a HUGE Sales Tax attached to it.
When I proscribe a Flat Tax? I'm talking about EVERYBODY. Those 50% not paying, now?
They go BACK ON THE TAX ROLLS.
It's Occam's Razor.
(Not the guy who posts comments. The REAL Occam's Razor.

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 9:36AM

The flat tax does not put power in the hands of people to reign in government... they are still compelled to fund it regardless of what it does. A Fair Tax, however, grants them at least some control over how much they wish to pay in taxes. PLUS... people won't buy less... at least not in the long run. They may at first becasue of sticker shock... but at the end of the month they will have more cash on hand left over from a) getting it ALL in their paycheck which they don't know and b) having bought less over the month. They will adjust their spending habbits accordingly and, in the end, buy just as much. You're right... in the short term, sticker shock will drive people away. As for pushing them overseas? What would be different between now and then? I can still buy some things cheaper on-line or over-seas... but I don't because of conveinience. That wil be the same under a Fair Tax.
And while I'm not against a Flat Tax (at least as opposed to what we have now, certainly) it still allows the government too much control. If we go to a flat tax (hell... it should be this way regardless of the format) it shouldn't be automatically pulled out. Every individual ought to have to pay AFTER recieving a full paycheck for their labor. This way the citizenry will actually KNOW and SEE how much in taxes they pay. Pleanty of the middle class who are of the soccer mom type probably feel like taxes for "schools" and "healthcare" and other emotional BS aren't high enough... but make them write the check and talk about sticker shock!

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.19.11 @ 9:53AM

You're absolutely right. They have CNTROL. And, they will use it.
They will BUY LESS THINGS!
Revenues will PLUMMET. We'll be right back where we are, today. Maybe, even WORSE.
Under the FLAT TAX, yes you are still COMPELLED to pay. You're COMPELLED to pay it under the FAIR TAX, as well, cause, sooner or later, you'll have to BUY something.

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 10:09AM

Yes! We WILL have control. And, as such, the power will reside more with the people than the self-proclaimed kings/queens! This is a bad thing how? It will force the government to shrivle up to the point that it is as minimal as possible? The people deserve only as much government as they are wiling to support. They certainly don't deserve a government as large as the government can extort from them.

Dai Alanye | 8.19.11 @ 10:27AM

We already have a "Fair Tax." It's called the Corporate Profits Tax, and is added to the price of almost every American-made product and service we buy, just like a sales tax.

How is that working out?

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 10:46AM

You can't pick one part out and say, "LOOK! On it's own, it doens't work so the whole thing dosen't work!"

The Fair Tax is consumption ONLY. We don't have that right now. So your question is invalid.

darcy| 8.19.11 @ 1:57PM

Beware the consumption tax. While it sounds good on the face of it, once enacted I do not trust the thieves inside the Beltway not to cry foul, that they haven't enough money to fund all the "programs the people want," (wink, wink). In very short order they will fire up again an income tax, saying something 'reasonable', like, "it'll only be 5% of everyone's income." Once they get that camel inside the tent, be prepared for them to raise it repeatedly, as their spending thirst will never be slacked.

Tax reform is needed, that's for sure. And I don't claim to have any quick answers. I would just say that until America returns to being a country where "Thou shalt not steal" is emblazoned in our classrooms and that ethos permeates our culture -- and with it an "if you don't work, you don't eat" ethic -- no tax structure can effectively turn our lawmakers into statesmen and not the whores they are.

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 2:56PM

We should codify Congress from being unable to change tax rates (under any tax structure) without a vote of support by the people and states. That would allow Congress to retain the power to tax, but not without the people being truely represented.

darcy| 8.19.11 @ 6:36PM

Is this with or without a Pelosi-type 'deem and pass' body at the helm in Congress?

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:52AM

Hey, Tim. How often do I bite you?

Incidentally, Tim, as a point---they will also invest more. They will also have more money to invest, and the poor "will have skin in the game."

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:59AM

Hey, I liked your posts today, Tim. Why ya cutting me, man?

And when I'm not neener, neening Clint, I am relentlessly, painfully logical. Not pleasant, but neither is a razor.

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.19.11 @ 5:02PM

Evidently, you've misunderstood me. I did not "CUT' you.
I assure you, I am a fan.
I just wanted to make sure that people knew what I meant by Occam's Razor.
I know that you've got my back. And I've got yours.
Best Wishes.

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 6:18PM

Ah, sharp you are and should remain dear Occam!

You know what the Scripture says:

"Cursed is he who does the work of the LORD with slackness; and cursed is he who keeps back his sword from bloodshed." Jer, 48:10.

Tommy| 8.20.11 @ 8:44PM

I always thought that the New Testament is absolutely agaisnt violence, and we not use our swords.

florin| 8.19.11 @ 8:28AM

I think a flat tax would be simpler...everyone, rich, poor, middle class, pays a flat tax - no loopholes. And why are we considering paying our military less while paying members of Congress more in their retirement, even if they have been in Congress only for a few years??? And why not cut out the "Czars" - at least most of them. I wonder what kind of salaries and benefits these Czars get...I'm sure there are billions of dollars to be saved by cutting out needless, and often ridiculous, programs...such as why one dogs barks soprano and another bass...Congress needs to get real...and there should be age limits and term limits in congress...we often have old men who can't even do the job stay on forever while their interns do all the work...Congress needs to get real.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 12:21PM

We do not have a TAX problem - we have a SPENDING problem. Forget the flat tax, the bumpy tax, the fair tax, the unfair tax, the wicked witch of the west tax!

Stupid people, it's the SPENDING. You are getting lost in hopeless, useless discussion of fixing what is NOT the problem.

FOCUS, people, focus!

Sheesh...

Do NOT tread on me...

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 12:48PM

I agree... spending should be our first battlefield... not taxes. But that does not preclude us from discussing it. Especiallyl us... the citizenry who are not, at the moment, in the halls of Congress debating on what to focus on. If that were the case, then you should certainly beat us up side the head to focus... but here in the internet we have the luxury of discussing more than just the pressing matter of the day.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 1:13PM

Yelo;

Think of it this way:

Tax reform is 'lunch.'

Government spending reduction is "air."

You are in a car that has just spun out into a dark, deep pond, that is now sinking. Strangely, the first thing that comes to your mind is, 'boy, am I hungry...'

Prioritization matters.

Focus, friends, focus!!

Do NOT tread on me....

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 2:58PM

I agree with you 100%... IF I were in that car. But we do have the luxury of being able to have multiple conversations at one time. You would be very hard pressed to find a supporter of real tax reform that does not support spending cuts. They usually are one in the same. At least the rational ones are.

Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 1:48PM

Problem I have with the Fair Tax people is that try to usurp the Tea Party.

Trinacria| 8.19.11 @ 2:23PM

My dear friend, I (respectfully) beg to differ. When I pay 56% of my income to the government (federal, state, Medicare, SS), we most assuredly have a TAX problem. Add to that property tax, license fees, and various other local taxes, the number approaches 60%!

That's not to argue that we don't have a spending problem; clearly, the government spends money like a bipolar Beverly Hills housewife. When they get to confiscate more than half of what I earn to fund it, we've got a problem on both fronts...

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 2:39PM

Trinacria;

Get a new tax accountant. Or do you maintain legal residences in New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut?

No, I see that if you make over 360,000 you would be at the 35% bracket for the feds, NY would take 8.97% and SS is 7.5% and Medicare is about 8%. But these are not effective rates, they are the marginal rates (for NY and the feds.) Your actual tax % will be less than that because of the progressive nature of those taxes. Also for a while some of the SS taxes are capped at around $120K.

But, if we returned government spending to pre-Democrat Congressional levels, the increase in private-sector economic activity and decrease in the unreported inflation we are all experiencing because of way, way, way outta control spending will actually have a bigger impact on you than a decrease in taxes...Which would happen if the federal government needed less money because they cut spending.

Good luck...

Don't tread on me...

Yes you are paying way too much

Trinacria| 8.19.11 @ 2:58PM

Setting aside the issue of marginal rates (which I concede is not inconsequential), I chose for the sake of simplicity to base the figure on the established rate for my "bracket". Using those:

Federal: 35%
State: 10% (CA)
Medicare: 8%
SS: 3.5%

Total: 56.5%

This doesn't include the fact that the other 3.5% of SS (which is "paid" by my employer) is actually paid by me, nor does it include the >$20K in personal property tax, the $2900 in annual "license fees" for my vehicles, or the silly ass $4000 wetlands restoration tax that I have the priviledge of forking over each year.

To summarize, I concede the point on the marginal nature of the federal (but not the state) income tax. That issue notwithstanding, the point is that when citizens are being asked (actually, we aren't really being asked, are we?) to forfeit this much of their income to fund the "common good", there's a problem. How much, then, is reasonable? Well, I've always believed that if 10% is good enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for Uncle Sam.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.22.11 @ 4:41AM

Very informative. Thanks for a timely posting.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 8:00AM

It is a bit much to infer the New Deal was conservative or fail to note that until Barack Obama Ronald Reagan was the biggest spending President based on GDP, but the author makes a point considering 2012 is an election year and handing Democrats an issue they can demagogue isn’t wise. This is apropos since we may be on the verge of the political realignment President Bush and Karl Rove nurtured until it was sidetracked by the 2005 conservative crackup.

Why leave Social Security and Medicare reform in the hands of one Congressman or a Super Committee of 12 working under artificial deadlines? Does anyone remember how Obamacare developed? Obama sat artificial deadlines and then Democrats shut out Republicans and lazily turned the work over to their dim-witted staffs – voila on the road to the worst and most expensive health care system in the world. Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed, but making the necessary structural reforms takes time. That’s why Senator Pat Toomey’s budget that balances in 9 years and reforms Medicaid deserves a second look.

How about first eliminating the 25% non-defense discretionary spending increase Obama and Democrats gave us in 2 years? The CBO projected that the last Republican budget in the Bush years (2006) was on track to being balanced and in all likelihood would produce a surplus by 2015. Why not go back to those spending levels as Senator DeMint has suggested?

I’m all for making cuts that end America’s contribution to the UN, foreign aid to the majority of Muslim nations (that includes Obama’s fundamentalist Egypt and Libya), closing down the Corporation for Public Broadcasting & selling its assets, putting an end to the National Endowment for the Arts, AMERICORP, the Peace Corps & legal aid, abolishing the ATF & the Dept. of Education’s SWAT team, cabinet agencies should not be sacrosanct so cut or get rid of them and scaling back the European welfare program, NATO, is a must.

Pecos a consumption tax or flat tax would be better than what we’ve got now that allows rich Democrats to avoid paying their fair share. One caveat for the former we must repeal the 16th Amendment to protect the country from future Democrat Presidents and Congresses.

carnot| 8.19.11 @ 8:13AM

disagree on one point: Obamacare wasn't the warmed over product of undereducated/over-tasked Congressional staffers........the Liberal community has been working the content of that legislation for decides. the tipper for me was a small post I caught some place before the election that observed the low fanfare/visibility given to a trip by Sean Penn to a week long conference among Liberal PAC folks working healthcare positions. Obamacare has been worked in the wings for years....those staffs didn't generate 2000+ pgs of income transfers and government power grabs out of the thin air of 4-6 mos.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 9:53AM

Carnot true the Dems in Congress were just too lazy to do the work themselves. This garbage goes back to at least Harry Truman.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 8:19AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:54AM

The $12 billion we give to Arabs go into corrupt leaders pockets. The $3 billion we give Israel goes into weapons. Paul oversimplifies to the point of Idiocy, as usual. The funding of Arabs should cease, however.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 12:03PM

Just cut the $12 billion we give to the Arabs (I wonder if this includes Pakistan and Paulistas mean Muslims). Problem solved.

Al Adab| 8.19.11 @ 1:42PM

Most, if not all, "foreign aid" is wasted. The book on point is Mystery of Capital by Hernando DeSoto. He points out that without property rights other nations will never rise in condition. The foreign aid given to Egypt for example is nothing when compared to the unrealized value of proerty in the country. The people though, without title to the land, cannot capitalize on its value and so remain hostage to a lack of Freedom in their property. America has spent its wealth in gifts to others without any responsibility on the recipients part.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 10:32PM

Now, Little Micky Tommy will tell all the American Spectator Readers How Many Israeli IDF were KIA & WIA in The War on Terror.

The We'll compare that number with The Paks.

You're Up RINO-CINO Boy.

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:30PM

Go Sell Your Israel Firster Sand To The Arabs, Fanatic Tool Job.

We American Taxpayers Ain't Buyin' It, Anymore.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 8:34AM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Ccheuer,Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,

The President Should:

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

Tom| 8.20.11 @ 2:40PM

Cut the aid to the Arabs and Israel. Treat both the same. If if is anti Israel semitism to cut aid to Israel and criticize Israel then it is anti Arab semitism to cut aid to the Arabs.
I know from reading this site that to criticize Israel automatically gets a response from the Israel lobby here to call you anti semite, anti Jew.
It is ok here to say bomb and kill all Arabs.

SpiralArchitect| 8.19.11 @ 2:27PM

Clint, why do you keep writting letters to Ron Paul?

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 6:44PM

Spiral Aristocrat, Why Are You An Asshole ?

Boar Hunter| 8.19.11 @ 8:53PM

Clint you can confide in me...If Ron Paul touched you in any of your private places there are people you can go to that will help.

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 7:04PM

You Talk Like A Queer, Bore Job.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 12:27PM

Michael T,

Fact checking you:

FDR/ Truman and Clinton both spent more as % of GDP than Reagan.

Look here: http://www.usgovernmentspendin.....chart.html

Again arguing about the tax structure is to lose focus and the critical argument.

It's the SPENDING, stupid. (Not you Michael, I am addressing Bill Clinton as "Stupid." )

Focus, friends, focus. Now scream with me: "CUT SPENDING!!!!"

C'mon people.

Do NOT tread on me....

Michael Tomlinson| 8.22.11 @ 4:49AM

Dan thanks for the update. I used the same site to come to my conclusion. I used the one compiled by compiled by Christopher Chantrill on Aug. 22, 2011 US Federal Deficit As Percent Of GDP.

I didn't go back as far as Truman and WW II since we know Obama is spending at those levels of GDP.

Jack in Wi.| 8.19.11 @ 8:01AM

We can not afford the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror. I agreee with the authors comments about social welfare and that Social Security and Medicare are not the problem. But we have to bring our troops home, and closedown those forein bases. That will allow us to defend our borders and shores, but still allow us to cut defense spending 50%. We also should abolish foreign aid. It goes mainly to crooks and plutocrats. It is the only way to fiscal solvency. I would also close up the Dept of Transportation. It is the easiest to close down. Abolish the Federal taxes on energy and let the states take over the collections. Then we would save all that overhead and regulations. Numerous other depts.could be closed and the non overhead money could be bundled up and sent to the states an per capita basis. Again all that overhead and regulations would be gone. The Federal government should a big enema to get rid of all the bloat and corruption,

Shamus| 8.19.11 @ 8:11AM

I'd be happy if they ended the war on jobs.

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 8.19.11 @ 12:07PM

The war on poverty. We lost. We have more poverty than before we spent a trillion dollars on the war. Let's sue for peace and go home.

The war on drugs. We lost. We have a bigger drug problem now then when Nixon started the war. Let's sue for peace and go home.

The war on terrorism. We are losing. Either we kill them all until they give up or we go home. Don't know who "they" are? Then we have no business being in a war. Let's go home.

I think I just solved a big part of the budget problem.

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 8.19.11 @ 12:09PM

The good news is that we won the war on jobs!

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 8:06AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
" Notice that neither political party proposes letting people opt out of Social Security, which exposes the lie that your contributions are set aside and saved. After all, if your contributions really are put aside for your retirement, the money is there earning interest, right? If your money is in your “account,” what difference would it make if your neighbor chooses not to participate in the program? The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenue to fund the federal government. But no administration will admit that Social Security is nothing more than an accounting ledger with no money. You will collect benefits only if future tax revenues materialize as hoped; the money you paid into the system is long gone."

carnot| 8.19.11 @ 8:17AM

not quite accurate...but close. SS taxes are used to fund the government....but the fund is also one of the largest holders of government treasury notes.....an asset (such as it is).

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 9:41AM

The government has borrowed money that it doesn't have from itself... that means there's no money there. It's long gone. An acounting trick to cook the books. That's it. Bernie Madoff was such a rookie.

SpiralArchitect| 8.19.11 @ 2:30PM

The Treas. Dept hold more of the US debt than any three lender nations combined ( cannot source atm ) - around 12% of the US debt as I recall.

MikeBee| 8.19.11 @ 11:07AM

I am an accountant by trade, and have been trained in governmental accounting. In governmental accounting, there is a provision in the law which allows one government fund to "borrow" from another government fund, as long as it returns the money sometime. Robert mentions in the article that the Social Security fund has been in the black for a long time, and continues to do so. I beg to differ: whatever excess monies there are in the SS fund each year, are "borrowed" by the General Fund, to be returned at some point. The U.S. government has been using this accounting trick to "balance" its General Fund budget since SS was created.

Above commenters are correct in stating that this money is not set aside. First, funds are spent for present year's expenses, then, excess is borrowed by the General Fund. (Don't worry; they'll put it all back later, right?) So, I wouldn't say that SS has operated with an excess for years, as the author does; I would simply say that it has been breaking even, and the excess will be put back into the plan in the future (Right, and if you believe that, I've got some swamp land I'd like to sell you........).

Step One for the super group: take SS monies off the table. Do not allow borrowing from people's retirement accounts. If my corporation tried to do this, the CEO would be put in prison. Why do we allow the government to do so?

Step Two for the super guys(gals): NOW look at the General Fund budget. Completely eliminate entire government agencies and departments until the GF budget, without SS monies, is balanced, year over year. Start with the lists some have provided (above).

I guess I should wake up now...........................

fmm| 8.19.11 @ 11:53AM

Since the SS tax is used in the general fund could we say that makes the effective top individual tax rate 54.8%? This is calculated from the formal top rate of 39.6 + the entire SS tax of 15.2 since the 7.1 paid by the company comes out of your potential salary. How the government twists things.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 12:05PM

MikeBee,
Good post that shows why Social Security and Medicare are broken and need thoughtful reform.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 12:30PM

If private citizens do this, they are locked up for "kiting checks!" This is just theft, THEFT!

Do NOT tread on me...

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 8.19.11 @ 11:51AM

But.. But LOCKBOX! Trust account! SOLVENT! You cannot mean they lied to us, can you?

MikeBee| 8.22.11 @ 12:20PM

Tired,
The last time a senator tried to have SS and Med monies placed in a lockbox, unavailable to this borrowing from other funds, Senator Spence Abraham's (R, MI) bill was voted down. This was more than six years ago, before he was defeated by Debbie Stabenow (D, MI).

Boar Hunter| 8.19.11 @ 8:54PM

Ron Paul is a nut Clint...please don't go by him anymore.

DaveD| 8.19.11 @ 8:11AM

It will take a great deal of political courage to follow this prescription. I can hear the shouting and screaming already - mean-spirited Republicans hate the poor, hate the blacks, hate children; the rich need to pay their fair share in taxes.

The sad reality of this situation is that there are large numbers of people who rely on the Federal dole as their sole source of income, and they will react to its withdrawal. Plus, of course, the lame stream media will pounce on any serious proposal to reduce or eliminate Federal welfare programs.

I fear that any serious attempt to tame this monster will be met with riots in the street and demagoguery the like of which we've never seen from Democrats and the press. It will require an extraordinarily brave bunch of politicians to withstand the onslaught.

Consequently, I don't think its going to happen, or at least not happen smoothly by legislative action. Instead we are going to keep plugging on as if there no substantive problem until the money runs out. At that point, God help us.

carnot| 8.19.11 @ 8:19AM

maybe.

at the end of the day...even communities that are the purported beneficiaries of transfer largess are rearing up over unemployment...as we have seen over the last few days.

kurgan| 8.20.11 @ 2:57AM

You almost made the point Dave. Pull half the stunts that all the above folks have been talking about and the welfare class, swelled by the myriads of newly unemployed former public sector "Desk Drones" and every sizable population center in the country will be on fire.

I agree with what all the folks above have said about taxes and spending. The problem is that we dare not to not feed the beast and everybody pretty much knows it.

Couple all that with the certain fact that as soon as the world cop isn't standing on the street corner that planet earth will become a shooting gallery.

My guess is that there will come a leader that will have an "answer" to a lot of the aforementioned problems that folks have been talking about. This leader's plan will look good and start out well but end up with a lot of shooting and screaming and the like. Just like it always does.

It's pretty much the middle third of the Book of Revelation. Better get used to the idea that this God guy has had, has and will forever have a real good bead on things. Get the book out, read it and find out what you have to do in order to come out of this OK. Or you can sit and curse God with the rest of the damned. Your call.

Brubaker| 8.19.11 @ 8:39AM

Anyone who has lived in the DC metro area for a period of time is familiar with the "Washington Monument" phenomenon: Whenever there is a possibility of budget cuts, there immediately follows a pronouncement that this will force the closing of the Washington Monument and zillions of sad=faced school children will be denied the opportunity to visit the monument.

Of course this same phenomenon applies to various other government facilities and programs. Two favorites are Social Security and Medicare. Both programs could be better structured and their benefits more efficiently apportioned among recipients, but reference to these highly visible and heavily supported programs is at its heart nothing more than a diversion intended to draw attention away from the hundreds of government programs both large and small that could be cut with little or no adverse impact.

Petronius| 8.19.11 @ 8:53AM

Simply limit spending to what is originally mandated in the Constitution. Abolish entitlements except for veterans. And fire this flea wit at NASA who says we are a threat to the rest of the universe before noon today.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 2:10PM

Actually, the NASA thing has been way over-inflated by the UK Guardian.

Look here:
http://paleblueblog.org/post/9.....rification

I tend to be a little sympathetic to Shawn.

Silly girl - hope it doesn't cost you your pension...

Don't tread on me...

Bill S| 8.19.11 @ 8:57AM

The U.S. has about $5.3 trillion in unfunded liabilities for this year alone. That includes social security, medicare, medicaid, and federal pensions. When you add the official budget deficit of $1.6 trillion that means we're spending more than we're taking in by almost $7 trillion a year.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 2:16PM

Bill S;

I wonder if our unfunded liabilities social security, medicare, medicaid actually INCREASE by $5.3 trillion each year, or if this is the current value of the future unfunded liabilities.

Because $5.3Trillion/$14Trillion i.e. your unfunded liabilities / gross domestic product or 38% of our annual GDP, or about twice the actual annual government spending.

I'm just asking; I really think we need to know the right numbers on this...

Don't tread on me...

JP| 8.19.11 @ 9:00AM

SS has always been a pay-as-you-go system. It's a wealth transfer from the young to the eldery. From a financial point of view, it can only be sustained if parents have on average 3-4 children. Otherwise, it will implode. And even at 4 children, the program can't even begin to pay for the income transfers that we currently pay out.

And SS is also discriminating against stay-at-home mothers. If a housewife raises 6-7 children (thus, creating future taxpayers) and forgoes a career, the survivor benefits are a pittance compared to those who "worked". Yet, it is her 6-7 children who will be providing SS payroll taxes that will support the "working mothers" (many of whom had 1 or 0 children).

SS should be phased out. The bond between the generations are broke, and need to be restored. If you want comfort in your old age, have children, raise them correctly, save as much as you can. Those children you raised will be the only thing between you and Obama's Death Panels.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 9:56AM

JP your point on mothers is spot on. The whole welfare state, that started under FDR, has been anti-family. Look what havoc was wrought in the black community which in the 50's had the most entact marriages, lowest divorce rate and lowest number of illegitimate children.

Thank God Allen West is calling for African-Americans to break the chains of bondage and walk into freedom.

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:56AM

Correct as usual, Mike. Sweeping up FDRs messes in training in California did not predispose me to love FDR more, especially as my work was hopeless (working as a psychiatric resident in LA County Psych Emergency rooms. Yeah, we had separate PSYCH ERs in CA.).

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 6:34PM

My fellow Jew,

Thank you for the work that you do to try and stabilize and treat the neediest among us. I'm confident that the Lord does not overlook this.

FDR is so much like Obama, isn't he? He signed into law the beginning of the welfare state, and Obama's trying to finish us off.

Though we've had many Presidents in between with their fingers in the dike, we're spilling over into oblivion now.

I hope Sarah runs. Is she the only one who has the courage to end these government programs?

"Who is like the Beast, and who will fight against it?" (Rev.)

p.s. I'm a fellow Jew because I'm born (spiritually) of your God. Cool, huh?

android| 8.22.11 @ 2:21PM

Um, Margie Many Things, But Not Jewish!

darcy| 8.19.11 @ 2:25PM

You echo my conclusions exactly, JP. Excellent post.

1ConservativeUSA| 8.19.11 @ 9:08AM

The main problem with Social Security (and Medicare) is its flawed premise, which sends a cancerous message to our society.

This entiltlement, which was sold as a "safety net", takes private property (earned wages) and responsibility from the people and gives it to the government. Over time, as we are seeing now, people come to rely less on themsleves and more on the government for their retirement income.

The government, flush with Social Security Tax cash, is happy to take on this responsibility as it means it has more budget to spend and more control over the people. This control has been used to leverage votes from those who favor a nanny state.

Further, if the government can't afford to pay benefits, it enacts policy to tax benefits, or, as it has done in the last two years, it states there will be no cost of living increase.

Long term, as government realized the numbers just don't work, it has raised the retirement age. Lacking will of the people, it will raise the retirement age again.

Now, Social Security reform means to many, plans to say, "Sorry, you make too much money to collect benefits. Thank you for your continued contributions, though."

Increased Social Security Tax, increased taxation of Social Security benefits, increased retirement age and means testing do not represent true reform. These false reforms only illustrate and perpetuate the great government cash and power grab.

Beyond the numbers, it is decreased individual liberty, decreased self-reliance, decreased private property rights and an empowered government that are the sad results from the failed promise of "Social Security".

Removing Social Security contributions from the government's control and placing control with the people is true reform, in line with our founding principles. Will Americans wake up and show courage to enact this reform?

Mike 3/505| 8.19.11 @ 10:10AM

But what if I'm too stupid to wisely safeguard my retirement fund? (sarcasm)

Regards,

Mike

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 11:16AM

Then you vote for the person with the (D) next to their name. But if Florida 2000 is any indication, you would be too stupid to do this without government help as well.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 12:36PM

The safety net!

He who would trade liberty for safety will soon have neither. Wasn't that Ben Franklin?

How's your freedom holding up?

Obamacare mandates direct government access to all bank accounts; yes, Virgina, even yours. Starts in 2013...

Feel lucky?

Do NOT tread on me...

kurgan| 8.20.11 @ 3:06AM

You mean that social democracies really do implode as soon as the electorate discover that they can vote themselves lavish gifts from the public treasury?

kurgan| 8.20.11 @ 3:06AM

You mean that social democracies really do implode as soon as the electorate discover that they can vote themselves lavish gifts from the public treasury?

diviz| 8.19.11 @ 9:59AM

The question is how cold hearted are you willing to be? If seeing a child starving in the street ( the most pathetic and sympathetic conceivable case) makes you think that someone must do something, then getting rid of welfare could be impossible. Charities, though frequently quite efficient, can't print money and will run out of even sooner than the government.
In the long run getting rid of welfare could be best, but there will be transitional hardships and the worst case scenerio (see above) will happen.
So ask yourself, can you be a cold hearted bastered and let them die?

Mike 3/505| 8.19.11 @ 10:12AM

How many documented cases of folks dying in the street, were there the year before welfare was enacted?

Regards,

Mike

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 10:15AM

Absolutely. And I won't lose sleep knowing I'm not letting him steal from me (need does not grant justification for theft).

But that is also completely seperate from my WILLINGNESS to help him on my own. And the idea that the government can just print more money to cover the cost of welfare simply means inflation... means that the government is stealing value from everyone who worked for their money, devaluing their time and labor... to give it to someone else. Besides... if charities and churches were going to run out of money if the government didn't take it from people is absurd! People will give continualy over time... not just once. As such, as long as there is a fluid flow of money to those who work, and they are willing to give (which they are more likely to do when less is taken from them by the government in the first place) there will be a flow of money to charities to continually meet the needs of the poor and sick.

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 11:05AM

Unless Obama gets his way charities will always thrive in the US. Americans are the most generous and giving people in the world.

Tired Taxpayer PRM| 8.19.11 @ 12:01PM

"So ask yourself, can you be a cold hearted bastered and let them die?"

Yep. Next question?

Wait, what's a bastered?

If you promise to stop stealing from me I promise to stop feeding all of the starving children I meet in the street (or even on the street).

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 12:37PM

It's a turkey, after proper baking...

diviz| 8.19.11 @ 1:33PM

Now that is an a proper answer. I'm willing to throw someone elses granny of a cliff (I'll take care of my own), but many republicans are pretending that every thing will be wonderful if the poor, weak and helpless don't have any money.
If when accused of being heartless, a candidate says that under their austere plan the weak won't need help then that candidate is delusional or will buckle under pressure.
With tough love, some people will be crushed.

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 2:24PM

diviz;

Please refer me to ONE republican saying or implying that they are " pretending that every thing will be wonderful if the poor, weak and helpless don't have any money."

If you can.

Which you cannot. Do not invent things that you think others might think and then castigate the others for the thoughts you imagined they have.

Our little President does this all the time. Usually he does this saying, "Some say...."

This rhetorical trick is dishonest and a lie. It is also very uncivil behavior for our oh-so civil little President.

Without tough love, MORE people will be crushed. Look at any city of over 100,000 people in this country. You will see the crushed - they have been crushed by the soul-stealing federal largesse that destroys their family and their lives by banishing fathers, morals, religion, and any sense of self-responsibility.

Get a life, diviz;

Don't tread on me...

Trinacria| 8.19.11 @ 2:34PM

Took the words out of my mouth, Dan. Well said.

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 3:10PM

Reminds me of Ben Franklin who said (paraphrased) that the only way to cure poverty is to make the impovrished uncomfortable in their lot in life. Only then will they start to change.

Again, that still is seperate from someone else's willingness to help them.

diviz| 8.19.11 @ 4:55PM

A while back the democrats put out a bit of propaganda showing a little old granny in a wheel chair going over a cliff, the republican response to the ad was that they did not plan to throw any little grannies off of cliffs.
Personally I am fine with throwing the generic granny off a cliff, and that is the only way the system will work.
If you eliminate the safty net some people will crash to the ground. Mike and Dan above like Rep Ryan seem to have a problem with this, that is the kind of person who will buckle to pressure to put in place a safty net (which will generally grow).

BD57| 8.19.11 @ 2:50PM

It's not "tough love" to admit "we're broke."

And that's the problem with the left & with the criticism you're offering.

It's "heartless" not to help someone who truly needs it WHEN YOU'RE CAPABLE OF HELPING.

We're not capable anymore.

BD57| 8.19.11 @ 2:50PM

It's not "tough love" to admit "we're broke."

And that's the problem with the left & with the criticism you're offering.

It's "heartless" not to help someone who truly needs it WHEN YOU'RE CAPABLE OF HELPING.

We're not capable anymore.

BD57| 8.19.11 @ 2:50PM

It's not "tough love" to admit "we're broke."

And that's the problem with the left & with the criticism you're offering.

It's "heartless" not to help someone who truly needs it WHEN YOU'RE CAPABLE OF HELPING.

We're not capable anymore.

Margie| 8.19.11 @ 6:37PM

Hey Oldefarte~ I'd say his posts deserved all that white space, wouldn't you?

Well said, BD57.

Trinacria| 8.19.11 @ 2:39PM

No; the question is: what do you do when you run out of other people's money to spend?

Incidently, permit me to note for the record that I am emphatically not a cold hearted "bastered" - I'm a cold hearted BASTARD!

And one more thing - only in America can a guy who forfeits 60% of his income to the grand redistributor be considered a cold hearted bastard...

Simpleton!

Notary Sojac| 8.19.11 @ 10:20AM

This article and some of the comments form a classic example of what I call "Entitlements Dancing with the Stars".

Among the dance steps demonstrated by our self-styled "conservative" contestants:

the “Cutting Waste and Fraud Will Solve The Problem Two-Step”

the “Let’s Eliminate the Mohair Subsidy and NASA So We Can Save My Monthly Check Cha-Cha-Cha”

the “Get Rid of Every Government Program Except The One That Benefits ME Tango”

the “Tax The @#!@!! Out Of My Grandkids, But Keep My Check Coming Waltz”

and that evergreen favorite, the “Kick The Can Down The Alley Until After I’m Dead Fox Trot”

Stefan Stackhouse| 8.19.11 @ 10:56AM

There is only reason why Reagan was not actually able to cut very much besides tax rates, and that reason was Tip O'Neil.

Our big mistake with Social Security and Medicare was not setting the trust funds up as Sovereign Wealth Funds, with the flexibility to invest in things besides just US Treasury bonds. Better yet would have been to have the trustees directly elected by the people who participated in the program, rather than appointed by politicians. Both programs would be in far, far better shape if we had done this. So would have been the federal budget, because it would have removed a very big tool for obfuscation, and forced the White House and Congress to deal truthfully with the real fiscal situation.

All of the means-tested welfare programs cited by the author need to simply be devolved to the states. Ditto with all federal education programs and infrastructure financing. Let the states decide which of these things they want to sustain, and how much they want to raise taxes to pay for them. There is too much on the federal plate, with the result that nothing is being well managed.

While we're at it , eliminate all of the agricultural and other corporate subsidies, too. Establish a level playing field, and let all businesses stand or fall on their own merits.

Mike 3/505| 8.19.11 @ 11:29AM

"Our big mistake with Social Security and Medicare was not setting the trust funds up as Sovereign Wealth Funds, with the flexibility to invest in things besides just US Treasury bonds."

Can somebody with more smarts than me ( just about anybody) confirm or deny that by "investing" social security contributions in interest bearing US Treasuries, have we not actually incurred debt out of thin air...the interest?

Regards,

Mike

simon templar| 8.19.11 @ 11:04AM

As long as the DC establishment can distract, steal from, and politicize social security and medicare, they need not have us look at the rest..the billions spent on ridiculous agencies, programs, pork projects, departments, foreign aid, and the large salaries of hundreds of thousands of federal employees.

The two programs have been so mismanaged by government they could be used as case studies for the argument that government is NOT the solution but the problem.

As far as the welfare programs, conservatives like Milton Friedman and others have been exposing the corruption, waste, and fraud for 40 years.

He and others proposed a postive approach by encouraging parents to stay together, get any work they can, and supplement every dolar they worked for with one to pull them up until they reached a threshold or no longer needed the assistance. So much waste and stupidity.

Derek Leaberry| 8.19.11 @ 11:12AM

Gutting the War on Poverty programs. certainly a worth goal, won't be enough. Road building programs will need to be axed. Defense will hate to be cut. Social Security will have to be streamlined once again. Even Medicare will have to bare some cuts.

Social Security will be easier to trim due to the fact that tens of millions of elderly Americans have some sort of independent retirement account. Medicare will be more difficult to cut back due to the high expense of medical care- the elderly fear getting cleaned out financially by a surgery and long hospital stay. Medicare will have to be cut with care or else the Republicans will risk massive political losses.

Who Knows?| 8.19.11 @ 11:39AM

Got gold?

kurgan| 8.20.11 @ 3:19AM

Great point! I remember some statist politician ridiculing people that were buying gold. Can't remember who it was though, as if the "who" in question was worth remembering in the first place.

Mike McCoy | 8.19.11 @ 12:37PM

It's time for all of us to get real. America is addicted to Socialism. In the 1930's, it began with "Socialism Lite." Forgive the simile, but Socialism is econmic heroin. Now, it's a full blown addiction. If a Republican leader tries to openly undo Socialism, he or she is doomed. A recent Gallup Poll reveals that the American people support tax increases for the "rich" by a margin of 65%. If I were running for president, I'd tell the American people that I support raising taxes on the rich but all the extra revenue would go into into a Federal Trust created for the sole purpose of stabilizing Social Security and Medicare. Older people vote and they would surely vote for that.

Oldefarte| 8.19.11 @ 12:43PM

Robert's outstanding editorial is pure GOLD TRUTH [and correlates to my opinion exactly, and apparently to Reagan's as well]. SS/Medicare are PAID FOR THROUGH ONE'S LIFETIME OF EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS, whereas the Great Society's WELFARE is NOT PAID FOR, NEVER HAS BEEN PAID FOR, AND NEVER WILL BE PAID FOR. Correspondingly, Obama/Democrats' recently legislated WELFARECARE fits this latter description also, and purposely/politically has as its purpose transferring Medicare's PAID trust fund from the taxpaying seniors to the snotnosed/unemployed younger generation of stupids. This is purposed simply because The Democrats want to create/enhance its current group of governmental welfare recipients from becoming dependent upon government for the survival, and thereafter demand/encourage same to vote for Democrats who it will be propagandized PROVIDED THOSE GOVERNMENTAL BENEFITS/WELFARE TO THEM. As Robert said, SS/Medicare definately need to be 'tweaked' [and same can be easily done]; but to buy into the current Democrat BS about the combined ''''entitlement''''' drain on the US treasury is ludicrous, when the one/only culprit of same are the Great Society/Democrats governmental system of welfare payments to their indigent recipients. That, pretel is the problem fiscally with our defecit/debt in a nutshell. It ain't rocket science, but then again apparently it is so, sadly [once again, recall what that philosopher Gump said about 'stupidity']!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

simon templar| 8.19.11 @ 2:17PM

Yes, and the incredible irony is the two programs that we all paid into are the exact same ones that they stole from, mismanaged, and seek to dismantle bringing instead an insane socialized medicine program. It truly is a nutty world we live in.

Oldefarte| 8.19.11 @ 3:31PM

Absolutely, ST! The expropriated figure I saw was $1-trillion from the SS fund in order to fund welfare such as Medicaid. I strenuously object to the lumping of SS/Medicare with true welfare[as defined by this editorial], since these two [which have faults no doubt] represent a repayment to it recipients, not a pure gratuity as with Medicaid etc!!!!!

MyGirlFriday| 8.19.11 @ 1:38PM

I understand that Social Security and Medicare was intended to be pay as you go but it is also my understanding that S.S. and Medicare has for many years now been paying out to elderly family members of legal immigrants who never worked or contributed to either system.

Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 1:54PM

The GOP is foolish in trying to balance a budget by cutting medicare and social security. It will cost them a slew of votes in 2012. Also forget this Fair tax idea as it also will alienate many over 60 who have had to pay into income tax all these years and don't want to again have to pay federal taxes.

There are plenty of other items to go after. For example Obama's 1.5 Trillion in increases. There are the federal pay scales, government insurances that surpass private insurance, government pensions that far surpass social security. The number of federal employees needs to be reduced and the money supporting job killing regulations.
Also their are other ways to get revenue. Leasing of land for coal, oil and natural gas being chief among them.

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 3:14PM

I agree... let's not redo the tax code to help the fugure generations be treated more fairly... no! Let's screw them for those who've already had a wonderful opportunity to build wealth before the government became so rediculous.

And let's not touch SS/Medicare because, by God, someone paid into it! Nevermind that the system now necessitates that someone else comes along and pays for it all over again because the money is gone. And this new person has no hope of getting to argue late, "But I paid into it!"

No! To hell with our future Americans! What did they do for us anyway besides foot the bill! That doesn't justify us making it right by our children and grandchildren!

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 4:40PM

Besides... the welfare typte spending (SS, Medicade/care, welfare, etc.) make up FAR more of the budget than anything else. So why cut there? That's crazy talk!

Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 5:42PM

What's crazy talk, is trying to win an election in 2012 with your attitude. Its a loser. Focus on what Obama has done, don't make it generational warfare.

Oldefarte| 8.19.11 @ 4:13PM

Absolutely, Wayne! If a Republican president is elected next year and thereafter [along with congress] repeals OBAMACARE, how much within the federal budget expense structure would that fact reduce governmental expenses?????????

Kingofthenet| 8.19.11 @ 2:42PM

All you need to know:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/wa.....de-is-over

Boar Hunter| 8.19.11 @ 4:39PM

The daily show really? This is what you link to for serious debate. I'd suggest you go live in another country, but you seem to already be living in your own world. Oh, and by the way, nut is spelled with a "u" not an "e."

skip| 8.20.11 @ 2:39PM

Kingofthenuts | 6.26.11 @ 6:47PM:
"Where in the Constitution do you get the idea that EVERYTHING Congress can do needs to be spelled out?"

Kingofthenuts | 7.28.11 @ 5:34PM:
"I like a Basic Govt. Safety Net, makes me feel I will always have someone who cares."

Kingofthenuts | 6.24.11 @ 7:56PM:
"They like to question 'How something could come from nothing' never asking it about their God."

Kingofthenuts | 6.25.11 @ 12:55PM:
"The biggest murderer of ALL time was God"

Kingofthenuts | 6.24.11 @ 3:12PM:
"There is NO difference between so-called 'Micro' and 'Macro" Evolution, they are the SAME thing"

Kingofthenuts | 6.26.11 @ 7:55PM:
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that pumping HUGE quantities of CO2 into an already over heating Earth isn't going to help anything."

Kingoftheusefulidiots, whether on politics, on religion, on science, whatever the topic, is equal opportunity stupid.

skip| 8.23.11 @ 9:15PM

Kingofthenuts | 8.23.11 @ 1:05PM:

"Hate to tell you this, but there is NO 'true' religion."

skip| 8.30.11 @ 7:08PM

Kingofthenuts | 8.30.11 @ 11:50AM:

"Atheism is no more a 'Religion', than NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

skip| 8.30.11 @ 7:27PM

Kingofthenuts | 8.16.11 @ 8:17PM:

"ALWAYS Remember, if you don't SIN, Jesus died for NOTHING...."

Flee| 8.19.11 @ 3:26PM

That makes it pretty clear. Any department that does not receive inputs from citizens or corporations should be cut to the bone until they dry up and whither away. I believe DOEd and DOEnergy and DOL and EPA are just a few of those that don't pull their own weight. If any of the dozens of depts have to get funds from the general tax receipts then they should be abolished. No more freeloading off the backs of citizens and corporations that have been pestered and hectored beyond annoyance for decades. Maybe then we will see substantial progress made on the debt of the nation. Take a look at the Sinking Fund Act of 1795 to see how the Fed govt was supposed to be run. I'm curious if Obama has ever heard of the Act. I sincerely doubt it.

Kingofthenet| 8.19.11 @ 3:38PM

Face Reality Conservatives,Please?

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

Jeff Perren | 8.19.11 @ 3:38PM

There is no constitutional warrant for ANY Federal welfare program in any form. Phase them ALL out.

They are immoral, impractical, and unconstitutional - not to mention plain idiotic. They all discourage self-reliance and penalize the productive to pay for it.

Slacker| 8.19.11 @ 3:53PM

Baby boomers are passing on a nation in steep decline so what did they expect?

Essentially this dialogue is simply boomers rationalizing their plans to leave gen's x and y holding the bag. This is now so common we should assign a name: Entitlement apologetics. Practiced by liberals and conservatives alike.

Kingofthenet| 8.19.11 @ 3:55PM

Your right, they are going to bankrupt EVERYTHING....than DIE.

Larry| 8.19.11 @ 4:52PM

There is apparently a dearth of facts here. Social Security and Medicare are "self-financed" only in the sense that people such as Mr. Patterson delude themselves into thinking these items are not fungible; in other words, we don't move this money, we dedicate the money solely to the purposes for which it is to be spent.

But the truth is, only some of the money goes to pay benefits. The rest of it is financing the federal budget deficit. We are finding out now that as benefit payments have to increase, this surplus is disappearing rapidly. Patterson himself admits that the surplus declined by $89 billion dollars from FY 2009 to FY 2010. That decline is rapidly getting close to insolvency.

It is disingenuous to assume that programs that constitute almost 60% of the entire Federal budget should be immune from reform, simply because of the lack of wisdom of politicians during the Great Society era (which of course, I agree with, the Great Society has been nothing but a disaster) and burden our finances. Most of the programs Patterson describes do NOT reach the level of finances required by the government for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. In fact, that the funding from these programs is being "stolen" to pay for the rest of the government is simply evidence that the whole system, from the New Deal to the Great Society must be seriously reformed.

The SS/Medicare Board of Trustees is optimistic - the CBO predicts Medicare insolvency by 2020. My own prediction is one year earlier, 2019. I think it foolish to ignore the handwriting on the wall, because it will affect ALL government programs, no matter how foolish or wise.

somnolence| 8.19.11 @ 5:50PM

I voted for him twice, but history shows that Reagan raised the deficit ceiling more than both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama; 18 times for a whopping 186%. That didn't do anything to curb the excesses that have brought us to now.

George S| 8.19.11 @ 6:15PM

You missed the point of the article. Are we in debt because we do not levy enough taxes to pay FBI agents? Or to build consulates? Or run the Post Office and post roads? Or Congress cannot regulate commerce among the several states, foreign nations and Indian tribes with the Treasury's take?

No no no. The debt was created by the Great Society programs; money that kicks in by law. Reagan would have needed a super majority to overturn autopilot spending laws. Since he didn't, we were forced to borrow. And it wasn't to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.

carnot| 8.21.11 @ 6:03PM

The federal deficit fell from 6% of GDP in 1983 to 3.2% in 1987 and 2.9% in his final budget year.

The rate of growth of federal spending fell from 4% under Carter to 2.5% under Reagan.

If you recall...Reagan inherited astronomical interest rates and high unemployment from Jimmeeeee.

somnolence| 8.19.11 @ 5:53PM

A counterargument is that Reagan had a Democratic congress to contend with that made him sign 18 times. He did not have to put his signature down on any of those 18 times.

Kingofthenet| 8.19.11 @ 7:57PM

Maybe we should also look to the revenue side, here is a graph of wealth distribution in America, who do you think can put in a little more?

http://www.businessinsider.com.....e-wealth-2

Boar Hunter| 8.19.11 @ 8:32PM

It will never matter how much anybody puts in. Like fleas on a dog you will never be happy, and will cry while he provides your subsistence about how unfair it is when he scratches. Thankfully, I believe the dogs master is preparing a remedy (The dreaded next election) for the fleas before his dog succumbs to the infestation.

As for who can put in more? Id suggest you try to put something of value into this country, but I doubt you will ever offer much. I don't know if your twisted self destructive philosophy is that of a Communist? Marxist? I do know a lot of good men and women have fought and died for your right to utter the same vapid ideology of those who would have enslaved you. You think Obama is giving you what you want, if his ideas for America come to pass I assure you you will fare no better than his blood relative in Kenya while he amasses and spends wealth beyond your comprehension.

Tommy| 8.20.11 @ 8:46PM

Kingofthenet
I like your name and your comment. Instructive graph.

carnot| 8.21.11 @ 5:57PM

what? the wealthy own more? this is groundbreaking. alert the presses!!!!!

POST American| 8.19.11 @ 10:49PM

--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------

----How about cutting those lavish TAX FREE
subsidies of our ULTRA-RICH, culture and
sovereignty subverting 'charitable' foundations
---ie the world's ever shady, ever sinsister, 'shadow' government.

Dan| 8.19.11 @ 11:20PM

What shadow govt.?

Margie| 8.20.11 @ 1:58AM

I think they're related to the 'shadow' people.
Just ask Art Bell.
LOL.

kurgan| 8.20.11 @ 3:32AM

"Heh heh, heh heh"

"FIRE."

"Heh heh, heh heh."

"Uh..."

"Heh heh, heh heh."

"FIRE... FIRE"

"Uh..."

"Heh heh, heh heh..."

"Uh, cool..."

Walter | 8.20.11 @ 9:42AM

So many good ideas. Does anybody believe any of these departments would be eliminated or even cut with a liberal or moderate (rino) president/congress? I keep hearing (granted from the press) that Obama is vulnerable as long as the candidate isn't too far right. As far as I'm concerned they can't possibly be too far to the right!

Tommy| 8.20.11 @ 8:49PM

Walter
Don't delude yourself. None of those departments will be eliminated, regardless of who is president. Reagan did not eliminate any. The country does not agree with the far right comments made here. This is preaching to the choir.

lrgon| 8.20.11 @ 7:30PM

I heard him tell us that he wanted congress to help him abolish the Departments of Education, Energy and the business harrassing agency OSHA. Why didn't you mention those three huge overhead costs in your article?

POST American| 8.21.11 @ 12:17AM

------------------BOTTOMLESS LINE------------------

---AGAIN---

NOT a word about the KEY, CORE issue of the
TAX FREE status of the ULTRA RICH, 'benny
violent' foundations and their thousands and thousands
of likewise TAX FREE fronts and NGOs.

---------------------------------------SAYS IT ALL

Ross Kaminsky | 8.21.11 @ 9:58AM

Robert,
I think you miss an important point: First, Social Security is now running a deficit. Second, even when it wasn't, the money wasn't going into a "trust fund". It was simply spent, thus masking what would have been even higher reported budget deficits in prior years. Thus, the fact that it's running its first official deficit now is not the right comparison.

W| 8.21.11 @ 10:36AM

The State Dept is spending our tax money to rebuild mosques throught the middle east, especially in Egypt as part of its "outreach to muslims" so they won't attack us. In plain English, they are bowing and kissing ass worse than Neville
Chamberlain.
At home the First Amendment prohibits the government from building churches or mosques or synagogues. But overseas the government does what it wants.
When the politicians, Dems and Reps, say we have to cut SS and Defense to reduce the deficit, that is a scare tactic to have us drop our demand that they reduce the deficit and cut spending. A non politician could go through the budget in one day and eliminate all this waste of which building mosques is a prime example.
The worst part is these mosques, especially in Egypt, will be used to spread the radical muslim beliefs by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the radical mullahs. We are paying to inculcate more terrorrists who hate us.

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 5:12PM

Look at the situation that we're in as one of forrest management. Instead of allowing small beneficial fires to burn periodically and get rid of all the deadfall in the forrest the USA has been acting like the tree huggers running around desperately putting out all the fires till the day comes when there comes a huge catastrophic fire.

This is the legacy that we have inherited. Instead of letting the savages slaughter one another over the years we've been playing missionary trying to teach the savages to play nice. In the end they're still savages and will still act like savages.

Same case here in the US, we have allowed politicians to build political constituencies by pandering to demographic groups with wealth stolen from the people who legitimately created it. In the end all that has been accomplished is to delay the day of reconing. When there is no longer enough wealth available to support the system the system will stop working. When the system stops working the savages, foreign and domestic, will do what savages do.

Have you been reading about the Europeans and the problems that they're having with solvency? Have you read that a lot of states and localities have borrowed money based on the Swiss Franc and that the Swiss Franc being based on gold is getting stronger practically by the minute despite the best efforts of the Swiss to devalue the Franc. There are places in Europe that are looking at potential intrest rates of up to 30%. That's over and above the PIIGS thing. Actually government insolvency based on loans with interest rates tied to the Swiss Franc will probably push the PIIGS over the edge.

All of Western Civilization is on the edge of the abyss. If I were you I'd be looking for a place to hide. The collapse of Western Society will make the final collapse of the Roman Empire look small by comparison.

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 5:15PM

Actually the Swiss Franc is backed by gold. The gold is backed by lead. The only thing worse than trying to get into Switzerland is trying to get out. Alive.

old progrmr| 8.21.11 @ 4:00PM

What! They are heartaching over 1.2 trillion over a decade. That's a measely 120 billion a year is it not! This should be a rather easy task without any serious cuts in entitlements. It appears the only untouchable entitlements in the minds of the Washington Elites are those countless Government Agencies and the hundreds of thousands of parasites now serving the breauacracies (and all those secret Czar Agensies). Just a suggestion, start with the Dept of Ed., the EPA, the gigantic HHS, the DOD and I can get you 75 billion a year in a heartbeat without degrading even Pellgrants or disrupting real federal responsibilites. If the Dems and Obama had ever developed a real Budget the job would be much easier. Go on the Government Web Sites you can find details on all the Bush Year budgets, but nothing of accounting value since Obama, Pelosi and Reid took over. They should all be impeached for serious malfeasence in office. Ever ask yourself why they keep cutting government programs, but we still have record deficits - WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING????? It's a gone somewhere, and without a formal budget there is no way to audit. What did ya say, Union payoffs, ya think!

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 5:30PM

Where did the money all go? That's easy, we've been borrowing money from Socialist Security practically since the system was started up. The Socialist Security trust fund is actually a titanic pile of government issued securities, 30 year bonds and the like. There are a lot of private citizens, banks and lending institutions that own bonds and Treasury Securities, foreign governments and the like that expect to be paid when their security matures. Service all that debt, continue to pay completely useless, uneducated masses here at home to reproduce, not to mention the twelve to twenty million people that are in the country illegally soaking up public services, have a titanic nameless faceless completely unaccountable "public sector," that adds no value to anything, underwrite the UN, NATO, the defense of Japan and South Korea, engage in one practically never ending boondoggle after another boondoggle not to mention fight the war against terror that has no end and that's it. There is no more money. We dropped the bucket down the well again and heard a bang instead of a splash. The show is over folks, go find a hole and stay there till this is over.

adi | 8.21.11 @ 10:10PM

thx for share...nice info

nice Cars and free wallpapers

daanish | 8.21.11 @ 11:11PM

Good post, Mike!

Boston Celtics | 8.21.11 @ 11:49PM

very good

Triana | 8.22.11 @ 4:31AM

i like this post, thanks

android| 8.22.11 @ 2:16PM

"And, I'm not a "Protestant", and couldn't care less what they subscribe to.
I subscribe to the Bible, not Religion or the Religious views of Men."

Margie is a Religion of One. She is Both Leader and Prophet. And idiotic bigot. It's a Package Deal with Mullah Margie!

jgo| 8.26.11 @ 3:06PM

Yep, RWR's failure to eliminate the Socialist Insecurity Abomination, Medicare, Medicaid, the Depatment of Leftist Indoctrination, and the Department of Energy are his most disappointing failures.

Mr. Reagan (Paul, Ryan, Mrs. Bachmann, Palin), eliminate these mill-stones from 'round our necks!

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|37 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|36 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|45 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|67 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|27 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|32 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|15 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|8 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

Romney Donors Targeted by IRS?

Kaylin Bugos | 12:32PM

Apple CEO Faces Down Senators’ Tax Scrutiny, Calls for Reform

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 12:30PM

Even the Courts Are Ruling Against President Obama

Patrick Ryan | 11:39AM

Pot Biscuits for Fido?

Claire Healey | 11:33AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Another Perspective

What Would Reagan Cut?

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (299) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Timothy L. Pennell| 8.19.11 @ 6:57AM

Harry the Horrible| 8.19.11 @ 9:20AM

John Navratil| 8.19.11 @ 10:10AM

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:44AM

Dan Hirsch| 8.19.11 @ 12:15PM

massmile | 8.19.11 @ 12:46PM

lrgon| 8.20.11 @ 7:40PM

Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 1:38PM

Trinacria| 8.19.11 @ 2:09PM

Trinacria| 8.19.11 @ 2:32PM

Mimi| 8.19.11 @ 5:38PM

John Navratil| 8.19.11 @ 7:42PM

Intelligent Design| 8.19.11 @ 10:08AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 10:58AM

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 12:02PM

Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 1:41PM

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 2:51PM

Wayne | 8.19.11 @ 5:38PM

Wade Smith| 8.19.11 @ 8:13PM

Trinacria| 8.19.11 @ 1:53PM

Purpleguy| 8.19.11 @ 6:36PM

chuck| 8.19.11 @ 8:28PM

Tommy| 8.20.11 @ 8:29PM

Alan Brooks| 8.19.11 @ 8:24PM

Alan Brooks| 8.20.11 @ 3:04AM

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 11:03AM

Alan Brooks| 8.20.11 @ 8:49PM

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 10:03PM

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 11:36AM

Alan Brooks| 8.20.11 @ 8:56PM

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 10:10PM

Clint| 8.20.11 @ 10:20PM

Alan Brooks| 8.20.11 @ 11:06PM

Alan Brooks| 8.20.11 @ 11:08PM

Clint| 8.21.11 @ 10:00AM

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 7:26PM

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 8:21PM

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 8:43PM

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 8:48PM

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 5:07AM

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 8:36PM

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 8:39PM

Alan Brooks| 8.21.11 @ 9:20PM

kurgan| 8.22.11 @ 3:57AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 8.19.11 @ 7:15AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 7:29AM

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 8:32AM

BD57| 8.19.11 @ 2:44PM

YeloStalyn| 8.19.11 @ 2:53PM

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 8:42AM

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 8:42AM

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 7:29AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 7:30AM

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 7:41AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 7:50AM

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 7:58AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.19.11 @ 8:03AM

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 8:11AM

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:47AM

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:14PM

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 11:57AM

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:16PM

Occam's Tool| 8.19.11 @ 12:01PM

Al Adab| 8.19.11 @ 12:25PM

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 1:17PM

Purpleguy| 8.19.11 @ 7:31PM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.20.11 @ 12:52AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.20.11 @ 10:12AM

Kilgore Trout| 8.20.11 @ 11:41AM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.22.11 @ 4:55AM

kurgan| 8.21.11 @ 7:27AM

Tommy| 8.20.11 @ 8:28PM

Michael Tomlinson| 8.22.11 @ 4:39AM

carnot| 8.19.11 @ 8:07AM

Clint| 8.19.11 @ 8:14AM