Budget 2011 - Obama asks for record deficit

outdoor338 wrote: great spin archer :Loco:

Cought you again without a response, whenever conservatives are spanked you whine about spin
Nice try
:thumbsup:

PS, you can't make it any eaiser for these libs, and they still don't get it..what are ya going to do..archer..sure doesn't understand!

archer wrote: Lets see...the average couple receives 2000 in SS and saves about 1500 in health insurance costs...that's 3500/senior couple. If you and your spouse have living parents that's 7 grand you need to replace their SS and Medicare bear .....I'm impressed you have that kind of extra income....many don't.

It doesn't cost $2K a month to feed two more people archer. In many cases, the parents live in a home that is free and clear of mortgages as well, which means that the children who reside in the home with their parents don't have a mortgage their income will need to cover. Day care expenses would not be necessary then either, saving the young family even more money, as the grandparents would be there when the kids get off of school. The children get to see their grandparents everyday, listen to their stories, have another place to acquire the wisdom that comes with living life, and they are there to help with the care of their grandparents, teaching them both the value of, and their personal responsibilities to, the members of their family.

And yes, medical costs go up with age as our bodies begin to fail us, that is true, but I still trust the states more than the federal government to come up with a solution for the care of the elderly that works best for the people in that state.

What you fail to recognize archer, is that I am not saying that some form of pension isn't desirable, or that some means of caring for the elderly shouldn't exist. What I am saying is that putting them in the hands of the federal government was, is, and will continue to be, the worst possible answer to the problem. Consolidating power into one central government is a recipe for disaster. Hasn't the history of nations made that perfectly clear by now? Isn't that what leads to empire building, colonization, and all the rest of the mistakes that end up bankrupting nations and setting them into cycles of perpetual war? Have we truly learned nothing from Rome, or the policies of governments during the period of history when the European nations were involved in colonization of the New World?

That is why those wise and brave men did something different here at the dawn of the 19th Century. That is why they set it up so that the federal government had very limited and well defined powers. That is why many of the original states insisted upon amendments to the Constitution that protected the sovereignty of the states as a condition of agreeing to join the union of states. One large, powerful, central government is a recipe that assures the fall of that government, assures that it will fall from prominence as surely as it once rose to prominence. Can you not see that happening ever faster here the more the power of governance is consolidated at the federal level? When the states were more powerful than the federal government how much debt did the nation carry? How quickly were we able to pay back the debts of our wars in the times before the federal government became involved in the individual welfare of the citizens of the sovereign states? Can you not see and understand the correlation between the increased involvement at the federal level in the individual welfare of the citizens and the increased amount of public debt that is incurred to provide it?

That is why having one power control it all is the worst possible answer to the question. It eliminates the test bed of ideas that would otherwise occur in the 50 sovereign states in finding the best possible solution to the problem and replaces it with the advancement of partisan political power and ideology and the use of force and fraud to achieve it by the very government that was instituted to ensure that individual liberty was protected from being harmed through the use of force and fraud by one central government that held all power of governance. The government of this nation was not supposed to be consolidated and centralized, that was precisely the form of government that men had laid down their lives, abandoned their families to go to war and worked so tirelessly to free themselves from. Look at the history, read the debates, the intent was crystal clear. The federal government was intended to be supreme in only a very few well chosen and well defined areas. The group of men who spent all that time composing and crafting the new manner in which the government of this nation would be organized were not ambivalent in their feelings about one institution of government holding the vast majority of the power, they stated their opposition to it quite clearly.

Does the power of Congress extend beyond what is specifically written down? Of course it does. The EPA and the Air Force are two examples of that that easily come to mind. But they do not extend as far as the individual welfare. The usurpation of power that occurred to bring that within its dominion is why we find ourselves in the situation that we are in today. Of course there were men like Hamilton who wanted to have a president and senators elected for life and who wanted to do nothing more than institute a new monarchy here after winning their independence from the one in Great Britain. That was debated, and rejected, in favor of a central government with very specific powers and a very specific mission and sovereign state governments that would all hold a significant amount of power while acting as laboratories on how man could best achieve self governance while still providing the highest degree of individual liberty. That is why individual welfare of the citizen is rightly a state and not a federal matter. I am not simply a citizen of the United States of America. I am first a citizen of the State of Colorado. My citizenship in the United States comes as a result of my citizenship in Colorado. That citizenship in the union of states is what grants me citizenship in whichever state I reside which also belongs to that union, but should I choose to migrate to another state, I then become a citizen of that sovereign state and am no longer a citizen in the state of Colorado. That is how this form of government works archer, or at least the way it is intended to work. The problems of the citizens of Wyoming, or Florida, or New York are no more my responsibility as a citizen of Colorado to solve than the problems of the citizens of Germany or France. My responsibility is to help solve the problems of the state of Colorado, where I am a citizen, not Florida, where I am not a citizen.

If we return to this fundamental understanding of how it is that our republican form of government is supposed to be working, we have a chance of correcting the course the nation is following and avoiding the worst of the storm that lies ahead of us. We need to return the nation to the tack that Jefferson set for it or we will eventually find ourselves to be just be the latest in the long string of once great nations that were governed by one central and powerful government whose day of reckoning has arrived.

The best way to reduce the federal spending is to reduce the federal power to what it was intended to be. What we no longer expect the federal government to provide is something they will no longer have the need to spend any money on. The state government is the proper place for the individual welfare of a citizen to be addressed by the government, not the federal one.

Conservatives do have a plan archer. The only question that remains is whether or not that plan will have the opportunity to be implemented. You folks have had over 90 years to get your plans to work. Guess what, they don't work. That we have so many seniors living at or below the poverty level, the same percentage of poor people, such large numbers of people who are unable to afford medical care and a $14 Trillion dollar public debt paying for the idea that by consolidating more power at the federal level the problems can be solved should be all the proof anyone needs to come to the conclusion that the progressive plan on how to address the problem is a failure and that it is time to come up with a new plan rather than continuing to increase the money necessary to fund the failed one.

It is now time to get rid of the federal programs, get rid of the federal spending on those programs, and let the states serve as the laboratories on how the problem can best be addressed. It is time to take from the federal government the power it was never intended to have that it usurped for itself and return it to the states from which it was usurped so that they can fulfill their proper role as the governmental entity that is responsible for the welfare of the citizens that live within their sovereign borders. I'm OK with the federal government regulating how things work when a citizen of Colorado becomes a citizen of Wyoming or Florida, but I think any reasonable person can clearly see that allowing the federal government to control these matters is simply an abject failure that has resulted in colossal public debt and needs to be abandoned in favor of attempting to find a new and better solution than the one we currently are flushing so much money down the drain with. The progressive attempts at solving the problem have resulted in a mountain of debt, a weakening of the national currency and has harmed, rather than promoted, the general welfare of the states that joined the union.

Printsmith - you are very good at detailing out all the reasons why the feds should not be involved in maintaining a welfare state - but I think it falls to deaf ears with our liberal friends.

I firmly believe that those programs when created - were unconstitutional. At least one current Supreme Court judge agrees with me - as do many constitutional scholars. Now the problem is - how do we undo it? Well it is a complicated problem, but not as complicated as our liberal senior poster leads us to believe. It's not as complicated as fighting world war 2- or building the panama canal.

The medical welfare state needs to be transitioned over to a private system. I would not advocate- as you do printsmith, that the states should do this. I don't think the government should be in charge of our healthcare on any level. This is a personal responsibility that every citizen needs to address themselves. Only those who are completely unable to handle their responsibility - such as the liberal senior citizen poster- maybe we all do need to carry this person. The problem here is the generations of people who now ignore their responsibility - or just got too lazy depending on the government for their needs.

So what do we do? Well I think it needs to be a combination of things – there will need to be individual cutbacks that will be painful – and maybe even include a partial subsidy until the ones on the system die off - but for sure we need to wean all future generations from getting the idea into their heads that the government is here to take care of them.

After all printsmith - it only took a few generations to create this dependency in the first place. None of this welfare state existed before FDR - as you have pointed out.

As for Social Security – cutbacks need to happen there as well. This system needs to be privatized as well. The system was never intended to provide everything a senior citizen needs – even in FDR’s day. It just that this current generation of old folks failed to provide for themselves – so now they depend on the rest of us. I’m sorry to say it – but that’s not OUR fault!! Some money is coming into the system – and the SS system should not be able to run up a credit card that can not be paid back.

The transition needs to start – and those paying into the system need their money back to invest for their own retirement. The pain needs to start somewhere – we might as well get today’s seniors used to getting less – because what is the alternative? Put it off until those paying into the system now get nothing?

We need to get real – we (America) cannot afford this!
So the senior’s got lazy – they didn’t save any money and they depend on the government to live – that’s too bad. If I were king I’d just cut them all off now and get it over with.

My mother’s side of the family is from Italy – where the old folks are still taken care of by their family - and it works. Yes print- we need to get back to this way of life again – and back to all the other ways that our old folks got along before the creation of the welfare state in the 1940’s.
From listening to some posters on here – you’d wonder how we survived at all in the past without this massive modern welfare state that none of us can afford. You know – most of the rest of the world still operates the old way.

BearMtnHIB wrote: Only those who are completely unable to handle their responsibility - such as the liberal senior citizen poster- maybe we all do need to carry this person.

You know nothing about me BearMtnHIB, I find it so typical of the conservatives here to try and demean a liberal poster every chance they get......not giving a damn if the accusations are true not, just taking the opportunity to slam them. That sure does foster discussion.......

so you think I am unable to handle responsibility....where did you get that idea? Why you made it up in your tiny little mind because that is what you want to think......NOT what is true. I paid into the SS and medicare system.....AND I created my own investments to retire on.....from having my own business....yep, a liberal did that. Not to mention putting 2 kids through college.......I believe in paying it forward as my parents put me through school.

But see...unlike your selfish little self, I understand that not all seniors are as lucky as I have been, unlike you I care about those widows who may never have worked and now live on their husbands social secureity and not much else, I am not willing to see them begging in the streets like you are because they have no family to fall back on.

It is fun, however, to read your and PrintSmith's sanctimonious ramblings about personal responsibility......like anyone who has found themselves unemployed into forced retirement, or lost their life savings, or never was able to save enough is somehow not as good a person as you....not as worthy of living as you, not worth your precious time much less your tax dollars. Sure you would take care of family, but those poor seniors who do not have that safety net should just curl up and die just to make you happy and rich.

I find the both of you disgustingly selfish and very short sighted, but why would I expect anything different, especially from you BearMtnHIB, who thinks it would be in America's best interest to commit genocide against all it's liberals. I take everything you post in light of that one thread, so I already know you are a hateful little person and judge accordingly.

It is fun, however, to read your and PrintSmith's sanctimonious ramblings about personal responsibility......like anyone who has found themselves unemployed into forced retirement, or lost their life savings, or never was able to save enough is somehow not as good a person as you....not as worthy of living as you, not worth your precious time much less your tax dollars. Sure you would take care of family, but those poor seniors who do not have that safety net should just curl up and die just to make you happy and rich.

NOW we're getting somewhere ha? Lost your savings? Never able to save? I don't know if it was people like that living beyond their means, or maybe they took their savings to the blackjack table in Blackhawk - or maybe they just thought that life hunbdy dum would just keep tickin on - and now oh, I don't have any money!

Not my fault. Why are you asking me to pay for this?

I know so many people just like that - and they are not all "old and in the way" like you archer. Here's the problem, there's whole generations now that think uncle sam is gonna be there to fund their old age. I'm here to tell you that sammy is broke, and the rest of us can't put up with the fleecing any more.

The safety net- yes for those who are disabled, or mentally handicapped, but not for the average citizen. Social security was never ment to be your retirement fund - and if we keep letting our seniors run up our credit card, there will be none left for those who are flippin your bills today.

Your generation (those in their late 60's 70's, 80's) were largly responsible for the creation of this mess - you guys need to think of us youngsters too. Fess up - you guys voted for the governments that got us into all this!

So there's a little reality to mix into your liberal pipe dreams. All I know is that this mess is not the younger people's fault yet, unless we let this entitlement system infection fester on.

And yes I agree that cuts need to be made in all other areas too - but SS and medicare are the biggest problems.

I find the both of you disgustingly selfish and very short sighted, but why would I expect anything different

And by the way- since you find this topic so disgustingly selfish - we are not talking about anything different than what several european countries are doing as we speak.

Yes - they are cutting money from old folks, and poor folks today - as we speak.

Greece
France
England
Spain
Ireland

Who's up to bat next?

We are.

Science Chic wrote: Just cuts alone are not the way to go (Hoover tried that from 1929-32), we need cuts AND taxes. But mostly an end to entitlements and a thorough scrub-down of all departments to make them more efficient and less wasteful. Fossil fuel subsidies have got to go - we're either paying more in taxes that gets passed on to the companies (who are making huge profits), or we pay more at the pump - the latter means less corruption and waste by our gov't. Is Obama's deficit really a record, if you factor in the cost of the wars that at first, weren't included in the budget, but ended up "special funding"?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... c=fb&cc=fp
Alan Simpson: Cut Entitlements, Defense; Not Aid To Poor
by Frank James
February 16, 2011

Alan K. Simpson, the wise-cracking, 79-year old, ex- Republican U.S. senator from Wyoming, has been around politics and Washington long enough to harbor few illusions.

Neither does he have much fear of speaking his mind since he left the Senate in 1997.

Most recently, he put his wry, straight-talking approach in the service of President Obama's recently defunct fiscal responsibility commission, which he co-chaired. http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/

Steve Inskeep, co-host of Morning Edition asked Simpson if he thought the president's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 included enough of the commission's recommendations.

A major criticism of the Obama budget submission was that it didn't lean heavily enough on the panel's work, especially its call to rein in entitlements — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — and defense, what Simpson calls the "big four."

Proving how free he is to break with the orthodoxy of his party, Simpson recommended that Obama and Republicans alike leave social safety net spending alone and go after the big four where the real savings are to be had.

The old canard that the oil companies make an obscene profit. It looks huge in dollar terms but percentage wise it is less than many other industries. And where do they get the capital to invest in more exploration or green technologies like BP has done? From those same profits!

How to whack at entitlements? I would suspend COLA's every other year, increase the retirement age an extra year for every five years. And set this up for 20 years so people could actually plan.

Science Chic wrote: Just cuts alone are not the way to go (Hoover tried that from 1929-32), we need cuts AND taxes. But mostly an end to entitlements and a thorough scrub-down of all departments to make them more efficient and less wasteful. Fossil fuel subsidies have got to go - we're either paying more in taxes that gets passed on to the companies (who are making huge profits), or we pay more at the pump - the latter means less corruption and waste by our gov't. Is Obama's deficit really a record, if you factor in the cost of the wars that at first, weren't included in the budget, but ended up "special funding"?

Regardless of whether it was "special funding" or part of the DoD budget, it ended up in the final accounting of the federal deficit spending SC, so yes, the Obama deficit is really a record and he, along with a Congress led by Pelosi and Reid, has had a hand in setting every deficit record the nation has rung up during his first 24 months in office. Pelosi and Reid even had a hand in the record deficits of the previous administration since those records were set in Bush's final 2 years in office after the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress.

And paying higher prices at the pump, to fund the taxes levied against the oil companies, won't reduce the amount of our tax dollars that the federal government gets to control, unless of course, the closing of those tax loopholes is accompanied by a substantial rate reduction in both the corporate and the individual income tax levels, at which point the federal government won't actually realize any additional revenue from closing the loopholes.

I am unsure if you are talking about cuts to both spending and taxes or cuts to spending and increasing taxes in your remarks. I can tell you that the quickest demonstrable recovery from bad economic times occurred when the government drastically cut their spending and also drastically cut the tax rates.

When you look at what happened in the wake of the 1920-21 recession, it clearly illustrates the point I am trying to make. There is a good graph here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015 that shows how high individual tax rates resulted in the top earners paying about 30% of the total burden, which is less than the burden shouldered by the top 1% today (40%), but when that top rate was dropped from 73% to about 25%, the percentage of revenue that those top earners paid went from 30% to nearly 65%. Why? The answer is pretty simple. If you only get to keep 27 cents of the next dollar you earn, you have less incentive to earn that next dollar. If, however, you get to keep 75 cents of the next dollar you earn, you have more incentive to earn that next dollar. Unreasonable tax rates result in tax avoidance behavior SC, it really is just that simple. Let's face it, those millionaires and billionaires the progressives are hoping to soak for more taxes don't really need to work. They are already rich, they don't need to make more money. The economy, however, needs them to invest that capital into it rather than having the capital sit in a bank account. Investing, however, comes with a risk. Is 27 cents enough of a reward to justify the risk that is being taken? Probably not, but 75 cents, 277% more than 27 cents, probably is. Which will benefit the federal coffers more? The 73 cents that isn't remitted because that next dollar wasn't earned, or the 25 cents that is remitted because the next dollar, and quite a few more after that next dollar, was earned.