Obama Allows More Debt

Another $14.3 trillion your grandchildren will have to deal with.

Obama has signed legislation lifting the cap on government borrowing to $14.3 trillion.
……The debt limit was increased from $12.4 trillion to keep the U.S. from going into default.

The solution would be to stop pork barrel earmarks and other frivolous, stupid waste.
But the government just can’t get over it’s spending addiction.

Related post:

65 thoughts on “Obama Allows More Debt”

  1. The Center Square

    “Your point has always been to raise taxes in the face of continued wasteful, out-of-control, government spending.”

    No. My point is to raise taxes in the face of severe spending cuts. I’m done debating — Really! I am! — but please do not misconstrue my position.

    1. Steve,

      Really? You done now? For real? I know you can’t resist coming back for one last peek, so here goes:

      We already pay high taxes on everything. Property tax, income tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, gas tax, car tax, “sin tax”, license tax, state tax, city tax, taxes on utilities….I can hardly wait until the IRS shows up at funerals to see what else it can get…oh wait, it already does; in the form of more state, local, and sales taxes. Increased taxes are NOT the answer. The government can save money by cutting spending, and in addition to the many taxes they already collect, both can be used to decrease the debt. Tax reform in the application of a Fair Tax initiative, would be great, across the board.
      You not only want exhorbitant tax increases to pay for the accumulated debt generated by government waste, (which WE are not responsible for) but you’d like us to empty our pockets completely to pay for the looming larger debt which will come at the end of this latest round of bailouts, stimulus, and pork.

      Got it.
      SFC MAC

  2. The Center Square

    I meant, done trying to make you see my point. I realize that’ll never happen.

    I just thought you’d find it interesting to see that even a conservative watchdog group concludes deficits are such a serious problem that additional taxes must be a part of the answer. At the state level in Illinois, at least.

    1. Steve,
      Your point has always been to raise taxes in the face of continued wasteful, out-of-control, government spending. The tactic described in the article is the quintessential reason why we need to force the government to adhere to the limitations proscribed in the Constitution.
      That conservative watchdog group acknowledged the fault of the government. The answer isn’t to impose a 66% tax increase. The citizenry will go bankrupt. And who will be left to gouge?

      SFC MAC

    1. Steve,

      You keep waving goodbye, but ya just can’t tear yourself away. 😉

      Be that as it may, the article supports every single point I’ve made about government fiscal management. Simply more gouging by irresponsible (in this case, local) government. A 66% tax increase is a pretty draconian measure for fiscal waste. The government spends, the people pay.

      Federation President Laurence Msall called the recommendations “painful and distasteful” but said dramatic steps are needed to save the state from years of financial mismanagement that has produced a record $13 billion deficit and threatens funding for an array of vital programs.
      “Illinois’ financial crisis was not created by the great recession,” Msall said. “It is a self-made crisis fed by a lack of responsibility.”

      Wow, what a revelation. Wanna bet they won’t put it on the ballot? Wanna bet they try to ram it through the state/local legislature? Sound familiar?
      The 50% increase they tried before didn’t fly because lawmakers balked at the notion of raising taxes or making more significant spending cuts.
      Stop trying to put a bandaid on a gaping wound. Stop reaching into the taxpayer’s pockets for money they can’t afford to give to feckless government officials.

      Here, for your reading pleasure:
      “Underemployent” rate is now 19.9%

      Check out the rate of spending versus saving/cuts.

      Budget Outlook, Via Congresssional Budget Office

      CBO Estimates a Federal Budget Deficit of $434 Billion in the First Four Months of Fiscal Year 2010

      Obama’s Budget Would Send Debt to Levels Not Seen Since World War II

      Remember, this was all brought about by wild, uncontrolled spending and debt to foreign countries. Enjoy the new depression.

      SFC MAC

  3. The Center Square

    I share your ideology, and I wish with all my heart that would work. But it’s mathematically impossible. I’m sorry you can’t see why we cannot balance the budget through spending cuts alone, and I’m sorry you can’t see why taking in less through taxes means larger deficits, and I’m sorry you can’t see why incurring deficits adds to the debt. I have to give up here. Be well, SFC.

    1. Steve,
      If we saved the amount we overspent, that debt would have disappeared a long time ago.
      The whole trouble is that nothing is being substantially cut. Nothing. Not spending. Not taxes. Nothing. You cannot spend your way out of a deficit, even if you raise taxes. And especially when you outspend all the taxes you collect. They’ve already spent billions of dollars on wasteful crap like ’stimulus’, undeserved bailouts, and pork. If that didn’t solve any problems, what makes them think spending billions more will work?
      It’s tantamount to the definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
      I’m sorry you don’t understand that. You’re in good company, because neither does the government.

      Take care,
      SFC MAC

  4. The Center Square

    I’m not trying to justify anything. I am simply asking you a question about your views. Do you think that, by cutting spending and holding the line on taxes we can AVOID deficits and increasing debt? Or do you think that deficits and increasing debt are a better option than higher taxes?

    1. Steve,

      Third option:
      Cut spending and taxes. The unspent money will go to to shrink the debt.
      Do that instead of crap like this:

      Obama on Monday unveiled a new health care proposal that adds spending provisions and raises taxes without making any real concessions to Republicans ahead of this week’s health care summit.

      Obama’s plan would eliminate the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” and instead raise the Federal government’s Medicaid subsidies to all states; it would close the so-called “donut hole” on Medicare prescription drug benefits by providing more subsidies to seniors; it would increase subsidies for individuals and small businesses to purchase insurance; and it would hike funding for health clinics. To address the controversy surrounding the so-called “Cadillac Tax” on benefit rich health care plans, it essentially gives everybody the deal that unions cut last month, which would delay enactment of the tax until 2018 and raise the value of the health plans that are affected. All of these provisions will make it more costly than the Senate bill.

      Here’s the money quote:

      To finance the changes, Obama proposes raising taxes even more than the Senate plan does. Under Obama’s proposal, higher income workers would see their portion of the Medicare payroll rise even higher. The tax would create a marriage penalty by applying to individuals earning over $200,000 and couples earning over $250,000. When the original version of the Senate health care bill was produced, the Medicare tax on those earning over $200,000 was supposed to be 0.5 percent. In the version that passed in December, the tax had been raised to 0.9 percent. And though it hasn’t even been made law yet, Obama is raising the Medicare tax for the third time, by assessing an additional 2.9 percent tax on income “from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents…” This follows the historical pattern of payroll taxes, which have increased 20 times since first introduced in 1935, going from a combined total of 2 percent (including employer/employee contributions) to 12.4 percent today.

      The Obama proposal would also raise the proposed tax on drug makers by $10 billion, to a combined $33 billion over 10 years, while delaying enactment by a year. It also delays enactment of the tax on medical devices and health insurers.

      Subsidies always come with a price tag: the cost to taxpayers.

      More here: Obama proposes Medicare tax, more Drug maker fees.

      Giving a business tax incentives works wonders; in terms of employment and productivity. They can hire more, raise the living standard of their employees, and still give a reasonable amount of revenue to the infrastructure.
      Any time you increase taxes on a bussiness, it will pass that cost on to consumers.

      This. Is. INSANE. He’s proposing more spending so he can raise taxes; which will decrease neither the deficit nor the debt. Is that what you have in mind?
      SFC MAC

  5. The Center Square

    I’m not arguing, I’m trying to understand. I think you are saying one of the following, and I’m just trying to be clear which it is:

    Possibility A — (1) Cut spending + (2) No new taxes + (3) No new debt.


    Possibility B — (1) Cut spending + (2) No new taxes + (3) Accept the deficits and new debt that will result until the economy grows us out of the hole, because if we raise taxes, surely spending will be increased even more than the new taxes and thus would lead to even bigger deficits and MORE debt.

    Is one of those your position?

    1. Steve,

      I’m stumped. You’re trying to justify tax increases to cover spending that will never abate. Let’s cut spending first. The money saved can go into decreasing the debt. If we keep doing that, there won’t be a deficit. Like I said: There’s a connection between lower taxes and increased job growth.
      Business owners create employment. The more tax penalties you shove onto businesses, the less they will hire. Our unemployment rate is approaching 15%. You’d think the government would have figured this out by now. Keep in mind that 40% of Americans do not pay taxes. So, doubling 0 equals 0, and the 60% of Americans who are productive shoulder the $1 trillion burden. Something’s gotta give, and it ain’t gonna be the taxpayers anymore. They’re fed up.
      Possibility A sounds pretty good to most taxpaying Americans, with CUT TAXES in place of #2.

      The taxpayer base is shrinking. What will they do when they run out of people to gouge?

      SFC MAC

  6. The Center Square

    Well, I’m stumped. I can’t figure out if you think spending can be cut by $1.3 trillion per year, or if you think that we can have deficits without increasing our debt.

  7. The Center Square

    Yes, I know that the deficits will shrink even with no new taxes, just through the natural growth of the economy. Unfortunately, in the meantime, we will add to debt until they shrink all the way to zero. Any year we have a deficit, we add to the debt — we both understand that, right? For example, suppose we enact all the spending cuts we’ve been talking about. The deficit goes from $1.3 trillion to $1.0 trillion. That’s another trillion dollars of federal debt.

    And so on, and so on, for years to come. By the time we’ve grown our way out of the mess, my kids have another $5 trillion or $10 trillion or $20 trillion of debt to deal with. That’s what I cannot abide, not with three kids. It’s just a different choice I make. I’d rather sacrifice than have them suffer.

    1. Steve,
      The debt can be tamed if the government, and those with a sense of entitlement, realize certain things.
      Cut spending and use the savings toward eliminating the debt (and deficit). Maintain a sound, frugal budget. Stop penalizing employers/achievers for success. They’re the ones who create jobs. There’s a connection between lower taxes and increased job growth.

      Sacrifice is when parents work hard, make and save money, and provide for their family so their kids will have it better than they did. Sacrifice shouldn’t include being taxed to death to pay for the debts of others. Which is what will happen to your children and your great grandchildren. Deficit is the difference between what you owe and what you have. If you spend more than you accumulate, the deficit will never dissappear as fast as your money.
      As generous as you want to be, it will never be enough. Check out the debt clock website. See those climbing individual taxpayer numbers? It’s mind boggling. You could empty out your bank account, your IRA, your timeshares, your stocks, bonds, your wallet and your kid’s piggy banks for the rest of your lives, and still not satisfy the gaping maws of the government’s bad spending habits.
      As long as the government spends more than it takes in we will never get out of this mess. We will never get lower taxes, lower deficit, or a lower debt. As it is, your great grandchildren will suffer the effects.
      SFC MAC

  8. The Center Square

    Agreed, with one slight correction: we BOTH choose spending cuts. Cut, cut, cut some more, and then really start cutting. Then cut some more. So, we’re on the same page there.

    But the choice between debt and taxes has nothing to do with spending cuts. Debt and taxes are the only choices left regarding the portion of the deficit that remains AFTER all of the spending cuts. Which, with deficits being this enormous, unfortunately still will be a huge amount. I hate to say it, because you have been very cordial and civil through this whole discussion, but I think that is a point which has escaped you. You can’t cut enough to solve the deficit. I don’t know any other way to make the point.

    Be well, my friend.

    1. Steve,

      Debt and taxes are the only choices the government ever makes. Spending cuts will have to be maintained for a long time, not just for one or two fiscal years. The point you haven’t gotten yet is that with time, spending cuts, and using the savings to help pay off debts, the defict will shrink. At the rate the government spends, there will never be enough taxes to cover the deficit; especially with the high unemployment and the ratio of “wealthy” Americans who already pay the most (1%), to the rest of the social strata. (Upper Middle Class 15%, Middle Class 47% to 49%, and Lower Middle Class 17% to 20%). Any tax increase would hit the Middle Class the most. 40% of Americans don’t pay taxes. Which means those who work foot the bill for those who don’t. Some are disabled, some are retired, but many are content to stay on welfare. The Bush tax cuts expire soon. Enjoy.

      Take care,
      SFC MAC

  9. The Center Square

    I fully accept your no new taxes position — if you are willing to acknowledge that that guarantees deficits and thus an increase in the public debt.

    Only if you wish to posit that we can avoid both more debt and tax increases do we part company. Again, unless there is a plan to cut spending by $1.3 trillion annually, but that appears to be impossible.

    So, I choose more taxes; you choose more debt. Both are perfectly reasonable, rationale and conservative position to take, given the situation our country is in. I wish we had better choices.

    Thank you the lively debate.

    1. Steve,

      You want to increase taxes in spite of the government’s propensity to spend far more than it takes in. You’re chasing your tail, my friend. We can avoid further debt and shrink the deficit with spending cuts. Let the debt come down a bit before the Washington politicians decide to shake us down for more cash. The problem is, the $1.3 trillion cuts won’t happen unless they listen to the American people and actually make the cuts. But you and I both know that isn’t likely to happen.

      Sinking into a never-ending abyss of debt is not sound economics.
      So, you choose more taxes, I choose spending cuts and sound economic choices for where the money goes.

      I wish the elected officials would actually make those choices.

      Your’e welcome.

      SFC MAC

  10. The Center Square

    Yeah, I think we understand each other. To paraphrase you, if you want to borrow more debt to support the welfare state, be my guest. My goal of reducing debt is surely as laudable as your goal of avoiding taxes. The important thing for our generation is to understand that we are choosing between the two. Best wishes, my blog friend.

    1. Steve,

      No. My point was that if you want to increase your taxes to support the welfare state, be my guest. I prefer to lower mine.
      Over-borrowing, over-spending , and wasteful spending is what got us into this mess.

      Future generations will look back on the choices made, while they’re saddled with paying it off, and will likely be very pissed.

      Take care,

      SFC MAC

  11. The Center Square

    I think we finally are on the same page then. We are going to see trillion dollar deficits, and debt is going to increase greatly. Eliminating waste is a good thing, but we can’t cut spending enough, and we won’t tax enough, for any other outcome to be possible. Some of us refuse to become further indebted, and some of us refuse to be taxed any more. Both are worthy objectives, even if contradictory.

    For my part, I refuse to subject my children to further indebtedness, so I would choose to pay more taxes now to avoid that. Here is my overall fiscal recipe:

    (1) Enact the CAWG agenda (thanks again for that excellent source).
    (2) Enact the president’s spending freeze, except enact it immediately, and include entitlement programs and defense in the scope of the freeze.
    (3) Enact a sweeping healthcare bill that provides both universal coverage and radically reshapes the cost structure of government-funded healthcare. The public option should provide catastrophic coverage, be high-deductible (e.g., $10,000 or more) and be heavily means-tested. Eligibility for Medicaid should be radically curtailed, restoring it to a poverty program, not a middle-classs entitlement. Eligibility for Medicare should be moved to age 75 over the next 20 years. The socialist practice of exempting health insurance benefits from personal income taxes should be ended immediately.
    (4) Likewise, move eligibility for Social Security to age 75 over the next 20 years.
    (5) Let the Bush tax cuts expire.
    (6) Create a new, thoughtful tax structure to reduce the federal debt. I’m no expert in tax policy, but surely our tax burdens should shift from taxes on income to taxes on consumption, incrementally at least. I don’t know how this could be engineered exactly, but I would support an arrangement that generates one dollar of consumption taxes for every dollar of spending cuts.

    I’m sure my plan is no more political feasible than anyone else’s. But I can wish.

    1. Steve,
      We’re in agreement up to a point:

      …but we can’t cut spending enough, and we won’t tax enough, for any other outcome to be possible.

      We can’t tax any more. The government is running out of employed and wealthy people to gouge.

      Enact a sweeping healthcare bill that provides both universal coverage and radically reshapes the cost structure of government-funded healthcare.

      No. Government-controlled, socialized medicine is not the answer. It’s a prescription for disaster. The health care system needs an overhaul, but not like that. This is better: (from some of my previous comments on the subject)
      1. Enact tort reform.
      2. Preserve the rights of individuals to choose their own private insurance and negotiate with their employer for programs that fit their needs.
      3. The Republicans submitted several good alternatives to ObamaCare, and every single one was dismissed by the Dems.
      They contain preventive health care, tax credits, reduction of fraud and abuse in existing federal health care programs, and tort reform.

      The Patient’s Choice Act of 2009

      Health Care Freedom Plan, S. 1324

      Empowering Patients First Act, H.R. 3400

      ……Those proposals, including John Mackey’s (http://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/2009/08/14/health-care-reform-full-article/), all have overlapping good points, and are a step in the right direction. I would glean the best, comprehesive parts from each and combine them into one simple bill.

      Social Security should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Disabled people and those deemed too “old” to hire (ageism is a fact), are factors.

      The Bush tax cut expiration will be met with tax increases; another penalty on the Middle Class he promised to help.

      If you want to pay more taxes to support the welfare state, be my guest. Like I said, the rest of us will do what we must to hold onto what we have left.

      SFC MAC

    1. Steve,

      I need to point out that the bulk of that list is comprised of European countries, who are for all intent and purpose, socialist welfare states. Sure, they provide a great public dole for people who don’t want to work—at the expense of the working population. The taxes are incredibly high. Up to 50%—and more— of a wage earner’s income. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe

      Sweden, the country at the top of the list at your link, has a tax rates among the highest in the world. Taxes across Europe are obscenely high in order to create a cradle to grave Nanny State. The Euro, incidentally, is collapsing.
      The last thing any smart American wants is to have anything remotely like the European economic system. If our government keeps up the tax/spend orgy we’ll get there whether we like it or not.

      SFC MAC

  12. The Center Square

    SFC, thanks for the link to CAGW. That is a fantastic site, and I love the detail and precision of their list. It’s fun to peruse the departments and see what’s there. I appreciate that you have shared it. (I’ll even bite my tongue and not say, “Finally!” *lol*). I would vote for any candidate who pledged to enact those reforms en masse.

    The problem is, after we have enacted the entire CAGW list and reduced spending by $350 billion per year, we stil have another $1 trillion or more of annual deficit to deal with. What do we do about that? Find ANOTHER $1 trillion of spending cuts? And if so, cut what? Or raise taxes to balance the budget? Or borrow the money, adding more to the federal debt? Those remain the only possibilities. What do you favor among those options? How would you balance the budget? Or would you let us borrow more?

    1. Steve,

      That’s difficult, given that fact that our deficit is miles ahead of spending cuts and any reasonable tax increase that would help. Another factor is the high unemployment, which adds to the deficit (tax-funded unemployment benefits) and generates no revenue. The answer is not to increase taxes on the very people who would be able to create jobs for these people, to get them off the government dole. Creating jobs, not spending money, is the solution.

      Another thing the government has pulled is the habit of taking money specifically allocated for certain programs and diverting it somewhere else. The Baucus ObamaCare bill proposed more of that: http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzNhMjliMDE4NTNjZGE5MWUwODFiNzMyNzFhOWJlNjM=
      It’s in the habit of playing shell games with our money, which is why Social Security is going bankrupt.

      More borrowing is a no-go. That’s why we’re in deep shit with China. (Oh, by the way, remember when I mentioned China cashing in markers?) Here’s previews of coming attractions: China Starts Dumping U.S. Assets http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/china-starts-dumping-u-s-assets/. We are in way too much debt to the banks of foreign countries. Just a thought: I think it’s time to invest in precious metals and maybe even return to the gold standard.

      My suggestion: Apply the spending cuts I posted. Shrink the size of government at every level. It will take a while to pay off the debt, but it can happen if we get people elected who have the same common sense as CAGW and the average citizen.

      SFC MAC

  13. The Center Square

    I’m not disagreeing. I’m saying, be specific. Let’s make a plan. What else from the 2010 budget should be cut? We’ve got the stimulus out, and we’ve got the pork out. We’re at a $500 billion deficit. What’s next?

    1. Steve,
      Obama’s budget for 2010 comes to $3.8 Trillion.
      Some of what should be cut from the list you provided (breakdown of Obama’s FY2010 budget) is discussed by the CAGW. I read their assessments and agree.

      The group Citizens Against Government Waste points out:

      “Many of the budget-cutting proposals contained in the President’s budget have been talked about year after year and they continue to receive funding from Congress.
      ……But his approach is much too halfhearted. The President’s budget revised the fiscal year 2010 deficit to $1.6 trillion and calls for a deficit of $1.3 trillion in fiscal year 2011.
      The total of $2.9 trillion over two years is equal to 40 percent of the combined $7.3 trillion in spending.
      No family or business can sustain that kind of debt to finance current expenditures. In a disjointed document, he calls for negligible spending cuts on a budget that grew 84 percent larger in FY 2010, proposes new federal spending programs, calls for tax increases of $2 trillion over 10 years, and continues to insist on a massive new healthcare entitlement and a cap-and-trade energy tax.”

      CAGW’s 2010 Prime Cuts list has a total of 763 recommendations that would save $350 billion in one year and $2.2.trillion over five years.
      The first amount is One-year savings ($ in millions). The second amount is Five-year savings ($ in millions).
      Department of Agriculture 17,604/ 93,877
      Department of Commerce 3,369/ 20,848
      Department of Defense 24,173/ 234,900
      Department of Education 24,703/ 111,396
      Department of Energy 1,965/ 18,897
      Department of Health and Human Services 69,509 /609,298
      Department of Homeland Security 5,412 /27,729
      Department of Housing and
      Urban Development 8,537/ 52,286
      Department of the Interior 1,950/ 12,470
      Department of Justice 4,008 /22,980
      Department of Labor 2,494 /23,564
      Department of State 2,936 /15,652
      Department of Transportation 27,509/ 145,123
      Department of the Treasury 37,375 /196,557
      Department of Veterans Affairs 3,715/ 23,433
      Environmental Protection Agency 570/ 5,600
      Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 1,212/ 4,960
      General Services Administration 169/ 2,266
      National Aeronautics and
      Space Administration 7,009 /58,789
      Small Business Administration 261 /2,192
      Social Security Administration 4,120 /75,659
      United States Postal Service 2,200/6,500
      Foreign Aid and Export Financing 4,544/ 18,420
      Other Independent Agencies 8,776 /67,490
      Government-wide and Multi-agency
      Recommendations 85,673/ 319,640
      Legislative Branch 149 /5,545
      Total Savings 349,942 / 2,176,071

      A damned good start….providing spending doesn’t overtake the savings.

      More bad news for taxpayers:

      The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $250,000 a year will expire. He plans on increasing the taxes on those income brackets. This tax increase, which will occur automatically, will, according to the administration, bring in a projected $678 billion over the next decade.

      The trouble is, Obama’s spending far exceeds any actual spending and tax cuts. Who’s going to pay for the bailouts, stimulus, and pork that contributed to the deficit?

      1 step forward, 2 steps back.

      Who exactly do you think should be squeezed for more taxes? The evil wealthy upper 1% who already pay the bulk? The Middle Class (in its entirety)? If so, how far do you think the government should go?

      SFC MAC

  14. The Center Square

    How much does that add up to? Keep in mind, there is nothing in the 2010 budget for bailouts for corporations that fail. That was last year’s news. So even with that reduced to $0 in the current budget, we still have a $1.3 trillion deficit. I looked at your links:

    http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/where-that-stimulus-money-goes/ and http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/13-bucks-of-stimulation/ refer only to the $787 billion of stimulus funding, which is counted in 2009 and doesn’t come into play for the FY2010 deficit. But let’s suppose that did count, and suppose we killed the whole thing. $787 billion saved. Good. Then there is http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/citizens-against-government-waste-2009-pig-book/ has identified $19.6 billion we can save. We are up to $806.6 billion of savings.

    Only another $500 billion in spending cuts to go to balance the budget without raising taxes. You’re on a roll. What else do we cut?

    1. Steve,
      How about cutting the rest of what Obama plans on wasting? How about not spending any more than we can afford? Our debt is growing out of control because of continued SPENDING and all you can do is complain about cuts.

      I don’t know how more simple I can make this: There is no possibility, given the way the government spends, that there will ever be enough taxation to outdo the deficit.

      Go to that Debt Clock website and stare at it for awhile. If that doesn’t drive the point home for you, nothing will.

      That CAGW book gets published every year. Do you expect the published examples of spending waste to shrink? Take a good look at what’s in that annual assessment. The accumulation of shit like that is what resulted in the deficit your great-grandchildren will have.

      Your “roll” stalled a while back.

      Since you’re such a fan of “redistribution of wealth”, how much can I take from your bank account? Give generously. Better yet, write a check in the amount of what you think is “fair” and send it to the IRS. The rest of us will do our damndest to hold on to what little we have left.

      SFC MAC

  15. The Center Square

    And I agree with you. Let’s start with spending cuts. That is the best solution. All I’m saying is, we either have to find $1.3 trillion in spending cuts, or we have to raise taxes, or debt continues to go up. If you can get it done solely through spending cuts, I’ll vote for YOU for president. Just take the list and show me where you’ll do it. I’m with you in principle. I just don’t see where we can cut that much. Do you?

    1. Steve,

      I do:

      How ’bout starting with no bailouts for corporations that fail?
      Let them go bankrupt and liquidate like every one else. That will save billions.

      How about getting rid of pork, earmarks, and “stimulus” like the ones described here:

      Stop paying off unions: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/seiu-big-beneficiary-of-obamas-787-billion-stimulus/

      That’s a damned good start toward the elimination of $1.3 trillion in spending cuts.

      You wouldn’t want ME for President. I’m a fiscal conservative who believes in the Bill Of Rights, the Constitution, and the elimination of wasteful spending. I am also against the “I’m entitled” attitude of lazy people who siphon off the public dole without ever having contributed.

      Taxpayers shouldn’t be penalized because the government spent money we didn’t have.

      SFC MAC

    1. Steve,
      There’s nothing to reconsider. The government spent that money and intends to spend MORE. It’s very relevant to my point.

      SFC MAC

  16. The Center Square

    Actually, no. There’s nothing more to that budget than what’s on that list. That’s everything our government spends money on. That’s it. If we’re going to solve the budget deficit without raising debt and without raising taxes, we have to cut $1.3 trillion per year from that list.

    This is serious stuff. Show me $1.3 trillion per year in spending cuts, and I’ll happily agree with you. Fail to show me that, then, honestly, you should agree with me. This problem cannot be solved be ideology.

    1. Steve,
      Uh, YES.

      What’s missing from your list?:

      New initiatives $172.9 billion
      TARP : $700 billion
      Fed “rescue efforts”: $6.4 trillion
      Stimulus total $1.2 trillion
      AIG total $182 billion
      FDIC bank takeovers: $45.4 billion
      “Other” financial :$1.7 trillion
      Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac: $745 billion
      Total (committed) $11 trillion (invested) $3 trillion

      That’s what’s missing from your list.
      If you don’t consider that part of the government “budget”, of what’s already been spent and what they intend to spend, maybe you ought to speak with the Federal Reserve, Treasury, FDIC, CBO, and the White House. Those are their figures.

      Oh yeah, you may want to take a gander at this:

      Watch the pretty numbers as they climb.
      Guess who foots the bill?
      Show me how your ever going to squeeze enough out of the American taxpayer to eliminate that government spending nightmare.
      The trouble is Steve, you can’t wish it away with an imaginary endless supply of money.
      Show me how you’re going to stop the government from spending us into oblivion.
      “Ideology” has nothing to do with it. It’s reality.

      SFC MAC

  17. The Center Square

    Here is a breakdown of Obama’s FY2010 budget:

    Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%):
    $695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
    $453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
    $290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
    $0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
    $0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts
    $11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
    $571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs
    $164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt

    Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%):
    $663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
    $78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
    $72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
    $52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
    $51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
    $47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
    $46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
    $42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
    $26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
    $26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
    $23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
    $18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    $13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
    $13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
    $13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
    $12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
    $10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
    $9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
    $7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
    $5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
    $5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
    $1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
    $0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
    $0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
    $19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
    $105 billion – Other

    There are only two possibilities, mathematically speaking — either we have a balanced budget, or debt goes up. Can we agree on that? So which will it be…

    (a) …a balanced budget? Okay, how do we accomplish that? There are only two variables in the equation, right? Spending and taxation. But you flatly reject taxation as a solution. So you are suggesting that we balance the budget ENTIRELY through spending cuts? In other words, cutting $1.3 trillion from the above list. I would be curious just what cuts you have in mind of that magnitude. If you cannot cut $1.3 trillion in spending, and if we cannot raise taxes, then how is it mathematically possible to balance the budget?

    or (b) …debt goes up. But I thought we agreed that is intolerable, right? So any solution that fails to balance the budget is unacceptable. Back we go to (a).

    A balanced budget is the necessary condition for our goals to be met; otherwise debt continues to rise. Since we CANNOT balance the budget through spending cuts, there are no variables left except taxes.

    Or we could take your approach, and face continuing vast deficits, and continuing skyrocketing debt.

    It is mathematically inescapable. QED.

    1. Steve,

      There’s more to that budget—including the projected deficit of $20+ trillion— than what’s on that list. And it doesn’t include the money the government has already spent. Be that as it may, we agree that the debt is intolerable and the budget should be balanced; we just differ on how.

      Your mantra is “taxes”. Which, at this rate, will never catch up to spending.
      We ALREADY HAVE continuing vast deficits and skyrocketing debt, thanks to a government that spent (READ: WASTED) more than what it had in the Treasury.

      Again: When will tax increases ever be enough? What happens when the government runs out of OUR money, or more to the point, when American citizens can no longer afford to pay what the government demands for all the pork?

      The government will go broke because it will no longer be able to squeeze money from already overburdened taxpayers.

      Do the math: Nothing from nothing=nothing.

      SFC MAC

  18. The Center Square

    “The weight of government debt is overwhelming. Obama’s plan to expand “mandatory” programs, without major changes in taxing and spending, will lead to deficits that cannot be sustained. Period. Taxes and spending should be cut. If you think the answer to this economic train wreck is MORE taxes, good luck with your increased burden.”

    You and I agree on cutting spending. I’m just saying that if “the weight of government debt is overwhelming” — with which I agree — then let’s not forget that cutting taxes means MORE debt, not less. We must decide to fund our government with debt or taxes. Rejecting both taxes and debt is illogical — the money has to come from SOMEWHERE. Spending cuts alone cannot balance the budget; won’t even come close. Like, won’t even come $1 trillion per year close.

    1. Steve,

      More spending and excessive borrowing means more debt. We shouldn’t be funding our government to such outrageous extent.
      You have the same mentality as the porkers in Congress and Senate: “The money for our bloated system has to come from SOMEWHERE”.
      Margaret Thatcher said it best:

      “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

      Spending cuts are a good start; right along with cutting taxpayer funding for wasteful programs and agencies. Did you know that President Punchdrunk wants to appoint a committee to figure out how to cut waste from the budget? I can hardly wait to see how much it will cost the taxpayers to fund that little group.
      Some more examples of government waste: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm2642.cfm
      The trouble is, there are no spending or tax cuts being planned by the current regime.
      The government got us into this quagmire of debt, not the individual taxpayer. When they spend beyond their means, we pay the price.

      What will Obama do when the debt he’s creating can’t be funded from SOMEWHERE?

      Leave that to your great-grandchildren.

      SFC MAC

      P.S. I’d like you to read this letter. It made the rounds on the internet. I don’t know who wrote it, but it could have been any one of a number of fed-up business owners.

  19. The Center Square

    I need a better source for federal spending data than the US Treasury? Are you REALLY saying that the Treasure spending data is false?

    1. Steve,

      Are you saying the CBO isn’t a reliable source simply because it refutes, quite convincingly I might add, the Geithner-driven trope from the Treasury Department? Are you trying to say that the out-of-control spending isn’t disastrous? I know that’s not what you really think. We just differ on the way to stop the coming abyss of debt. You think raising taxes on already over-burdened taxpayers is the answer. I think putting the brakes on spending and taxes, as well as the elimination of wasteful agencies and programs will give us alot of breathing room.

      SFC MAC

  20. [Ellis is an IRS “Enrolled Agent,” which means he’s worked for the IRS.]

    Ooooh, he worked for the SOBs that take 30% of my income. Now I’m really impressed. 🙂

    1. Ben,

      Hey, like your boy Obama said: “Spread the wealth”. Give generously.

      Hope! Change! Stupidity!

      SFC MAC

  21. [Ellis runs his own tax preparation firm in the Washington, DC area. Ellis is an IRS “Enrolled Agent,” making him one of the nation’s foremost experts on tax law.]

    Oooooh, he runs a tax preparation firm. Impressive. 🙂

    1. Ben,

      Ellis is an IRS “Enrolled Agent,” which means he’s worked for the IRS. He’s also an expert on tax policy issues and is a consultant for entities like the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, and Bloomberg; very respected sources in the business community.
      Keep digging. The more you post, the more foolish you look.

      SFC MAC

    1. Ben,

      A coalition of taxpayer groups, individuals and businesses opposed to higher taxes at the federal, state and local levels.

      Their tax policy director, Ryan Ellis:

      Ellis runs his own tax preparation firm in the Washington, DC area. Ellis is an IRS “Enrolled Agent,” making him one of the nation’s foremost experts on tax law. Ellis has written and spoken on tax policy issues in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Washington Times, Investors Business Daily, Tax Notes, ABC News, MSNBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox Business News, and Fox News.

      More fun coming our way:
      From the Senate Budget Committee:

      The budget forecast a $1.56 trillion deficit in 2010, or 10.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), up from a 9.9 percent share of GDP in 2009.

      Do you have a legitimate brain buried somewhere?

      SFC MAC

  22. [“Taxation commensurate to spending”….that’s got to be one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever read. That’s what the government already does. They spend like crazy and raise taxes to cover it.]

    Oh, I thought you lived in the U.S. Here, the government spends like crazy and cuts taxes at the same time. It’s insanity!

    Where are you from?

  23. The Center Square

    I don’t know who Greg Knapp is, but I do know who the Treasury Department is. See the unfiltered truth for yourself at http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html. The actual recent period-to-period change in federal spending has been:

    +9.5% first half of 2008
    +8.7% second half of 2008
    +9.5% first half of 2009
    -4.1% second half of 2009. Yes, that’s a minus.

    Did you even realize federal spending has been decreasing since mid-year 2009? So maybe your complaint is that it took Obama four months to start reducing federal spending. I don’t know. Anyway, good luck with your tea party.

    1. Steve,

      The unfiltered truth….from a Treasury Department headed by a TAX CHEAT? Dude, you need better references.

      Via the Congressional Budget Office: (You do know who they are, don’t you?)

      In testimony before the House Budget Committee last week, which got scant news media attention, CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf painted a bleak forecast for the nation’s economy under the White House’s no-jobs, no-growth tax and spending policies. It spells even deeper political losses for the Democrats in Congress than are presently forecast.

      Mr. Elmendorf, who was appointed by Democratic congressional leaders, told the committee that economic growth will be painfully slow over the next several years and that will keep the national unemployment rate at an average of 10 percent throughout fiscal 2011, which ends in September of that year.

      Contrary to Mr. Obama’s Herbert Hoover mantra that economic recovery and more jobs are just around the corner, the CBO budget chief said the economy will grow by a weak 1.6 percent this fiscal year and the jobless rate will average 10.2 percent.

      CBO’s outlook for 2011 is just as bleak. The nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth is expected to reach barely 1.8 percent, while unemployment is projected to show scant improvement, averaging 9.8 percent for that fiscal year.

      The administration’s unprecedented budget deficits are expected to be more than $1 trillion this year and next and stay at very high levels for years to come.

      Deficits like these mean the government’s massive debt burden will be at historically dangerous levels that will imperil our country’s future and our economy’s solvency, he said.

      “It is true that as we push [public debt levels] in this country to 60 percent of GDP at the end of this year and beyond that over the next few years, we’re moving into [debt] territory that most developed countries stay out of.”

      If we continue this profligate level of spending, “that raises the risk” of serious economic consequences for our country, he warned. Mr. Elmendorf isn’t the only one sounding the alarm over Obama administration policy.

      “We are presently in a dangerously risky economic environment, more risky than any in memory, and that includes the 1970s,” Stanford economist John F. Cogan told me.

      The weight of government debt is overwhelming. Obama’s plan to expand “mandatory” programs, without major changes in taxing and spending, will lead to deficits that cannot be sustained.


      Taxes and spending should be cut.

      If you think the answer to this economic train wreck is MORE taxes, good luck with your increased burden.

      Count me (and the Tea Party) out.

      SFC MAC

  24. [There is only one solution: taxation commensurate to spending.]

    That’s exactly right. We should elect people to enact programs we want and to eliminate those we don’t want, but those we do want have to be paid for. And we never would have invaded Iraq if it would have meant higher taxes.

    1. Ben,

      Read what I told Steve:

      “Taxation commensurate to spending”….that’s got to be one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever read. That’s what the government already does. They spend like crazy and raise taxes to cover it.

      Understanding waste and abuse of tax dollars isn’t your forte, is it, Ben?

      We would have never invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein wasn’t a threat. We would have never invaded Afghanistan if it wasn’t one of the major safe havens for Al Qaeda. We wouldn’t be in this war had we not been attacked by muslim zealots who are funded, trained, indoctrinated, and supported throughout the Middle East.


      What’s your point, besides the one you’re wearing?

      SFC MAC

  25. The Center Square

    Here’s an interesting pair of questions. (a) Of the $12 trillion of federal debt, how much has come on Obama’s watch? (b) Of the federal debt that arose on Obama’s watch so far, how much has come from additional spending?

    The answers are about $1 trillion and about $250 billion, respectively. In other words, of the $12 trillion of federal debt, about 2% is due to additional spending on Obama’s watch. And the majority of that is one-time spending for economic stimulus, versus expansion of federal programs that leave a perpetual imprint on the budget.

    But I’m not hear to defend Obama, that’s not the point. I am here to express my frustration that you persist in blaming this mess on Obama. If you think the root cause of the fiscal mess is a one-time stimulus in the face of a devastating recession, and not 25 years of reckless fiscal policy, then I can’t help you. If you cannot observe that the US had negligible debt for 200 years, and then suddenly in the 1980s we changed the definition of “conservative” from ‘pay as we go’ to ‘let’s borrow to fund government growth,’ then I can’t help you. If you really think that 2009’s federal ledger was the result of Obama’s political inclinations, and not the aftermath of those decades of mismanagement by both parties, then I can’t help you. If you think that Republicans have ever spent less than Democrats, then I can’t help you.

    I’ll say it again. The problem isn’t liberal Democrats. The problem is the entrenched political class of both parties. The modern political class inherently looks to confer benefits (more spending) while finding ways to disguise the cost of those benefits (borrowing instead of taxing). Reagan innovated the new political magic bullet: Talk about limited government while actually growing it (yes, government expanded under Reagan), and buy voter loyalty by shifting the burden from taxes to debt. And it has taken us to the edge of ruin.

    There is only one solution: taxation commensurate to spending. Spending and the scope of government will never be constrained as long as the big silent majority receives the benefits of that spending without feeling the pain of paying for it. If taxes are not raised, then it is a stone cold lock that massive deficits will persist. If federal spending continues to be funded through debt, it is a stone cold lock that it will continue to increase.

    So, elect all the Jim DeMint’s you guys want. Cut taxes all you want, and convince yourself it’s for the good of the country and not personal greed. Fail to build a broad coalition committed to serious change. Take 20% or 30% or even 50% of the country and try to solve the problem. Good luck with that. See you right back here at the starting line in 2020… and 2030… and 2040…….

    1. Steve,

      How’s these numbers, as discussed by Greg Knapp:

      Federal spending was up 18% in his (Obama’s) first year and the deficit was $1.4 trillion, almost three times greater than it was the previous year. That’s 9.9% of 2009’s GDP, more than three times the post World War II average. (Sorry, Barry, but you can’t blame it all on Bush. That budget was done under a Democrat House and Senate and signed by you. ) Depending on whose numbers you believe federal nondefense discretionary spending will increase another 7-10% for 2010.

      The Congressional Budget Office says we’ll run at least another $1.35 trillion deficit. The average deficit for 2011-2020 will be around $600 billion per year. Even in Washington that’s a lot of money.
      The spending boom has not stimulated the economy and unemployment has climbed to over 10%.

      You said:

      I’ll say it again. The problem isn’t liberal Democrats. The problem is the entrenched political class of both parties.

      I will reiterate: I agree on that point, however, the problem is being driven to new and troubling heights by a socialist Obama regime hellbent on “spreading the wealth” and turning America into a European clone. It’s time to slam on the brakes. We need a spending freeze and tax cuts, neither of which will happen. He’s going to out spend and out deficit any administration up to this point. By trillions.

      And this is just utter nonesense:

      Spending and the scope of government will never be constrained as long as the big silent majority receives the benefits of that spending without feeling the pain of paying for it. If taxes are not raised, then it is a stone cold lock that massive deficits will persist. If federal spending continues to be funded through debt, it is a stone cold lock that it will continue to increase.

      The “big silent majority”??? Who the hell is that? Like the able bodied, lazy demographic that leeches off of welfare, and passes it on to their kids like a family heirloom? That’s the “big silent majority” that comes to mind whenever people bitch about who gets what.

      Spending will never be constrained unless it’s curtailed and managed in a sensible way. Pork barrel spending and earmarks need to be outlawed.
      One of the reasons businesses outsource and/or pick up and leave the country is because they’re getting taxed out of business. People in the upper tax brackets are fleeing states like Massachusetts and towns like New York City because they’re sick of being labeled “evil” and “greedy” by boorish, envious politicians, while being taxed to death.

      40% of all income taxes are paid from the top 1% of income earners, (1.4 million people) while the bottom 95% pay 39.4% (134 million people).

      That means the evil, greedy upper crust are carrying most of the burden.

      “Taxation commensurate to spending”….that’s got to be one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever read. That’s what the government already does.
      They spend like crazy and raise taxes to cover it. ENOUGH. What’s going to happen when they run out of our money, Steve? Print more?

      Cutting taxes is “personal greed”? Are you fucking kidding me Steve? I’m not rich, but I don’t envy the wealthy, nor do I pity the poor. I don’t know about you, but I know how best to spend my money, not the government.
      Obama has already looted the treasury and he’s out to get the rest of what he needs for his “change” by dipping futher into our paychecks and retirement.

      There’s already a broad coalition committed to serious change; it’s called the Tea Party.

      Another group is the Fair Tax coalition.

      The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

      The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 296) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

      The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

      The FairTax:

      Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
      Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
      Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
      Allows American products to compete fairly
      Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
      Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
      Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
      Abolishes the IRS

      The government is the greediest hog in the country. How long do you think they can keep taxing and spending until we collapse under the weight of a mountain of debt and inflation—no make that a new depression.

      Assumption like this don’t help your argument:

      If you think that Republicans have ever spent less than Democrats, then I can’t help you.

      I never said, not even once, that spending was exclusively a Dem trait. What I said was that the current crop of Democrats will tax and spend this country into oblivion.
      I’m sure glad you’re not here to defend Obama. If the anti-capitalist idiot in the White House succeeds in “fundamentally transforming” this country into the socialist dream he has, we’ll see each other alright….in a bread line.

      SFC MAC

    1. Ben,

      Have you taken a look at your own commentary? Kettle, meet Pot. You’re firmly planted in the leftwing part of the political spectrum. Your “analysis” consists of DailyKos talking points. Not much cognitive thinking there, bud.

      I love my party more than my country? I spent 30 years as a United States Soldier. I’m an Iraq War veteran who fought against Islamofascists who would gladly subject the planet, including you little communist radicals, to a Caliphate. I and my fellow troops put our lives on the line so you leftwing ingrates can spew your nonsense.
      Funny how the Left tries to accuse conservatives of “not loving the country”, when it’s you that embodies the very hate of which you speak: http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/patriotism-dissent-and-the-democrats/

      You spit at patriotism, you bad-mouth the military, you elect socialists in local, state, and federal government, and you foisted an Alinskyite into the presidency.

      If that’s the way you express affection for this country, I’d hate to see your idea of treason.

      You’re a piece of work, Hoffman.

      SFC MAC

  26. The Center Square

    On the one hand, I agree that this vast debt IS the greatest long-term threat to our national security.

    On the other hand, don’t blame Obama, in particular. The 2009 deficit was about $1.3 trillion. Of that total, just over $200 billion was increased federal spending. The biggest source was decreased federal revenue, a function of a massive recession that he did not cause.

    Through the Carter years, whether we elected Republicans or Democrats, we at least could say this: we paid for the government we demanded. Beginning 25 years ago, we transitioned from tax-and-spend politics to borrow-and-spend politics. Government spending grows under both parties; there is no statistical difference. Government grew nearly as fast under Reagan as it did under Carter; faster under Bush 43 than it did under Clinton. But always it grew. Historically the only fiscal difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats increase taxes (producing little or no debt) while Republicans since Reagan have decreased taxes (producing big increases in debt).

    Obama didn’t “allow” this debt. You did. I did. We voted for generation of Republicans and Democrats alike who grew our government and reduced our taxes. Now we have debt.

    And “the solution would be to stop pork barrel earmarks, and other frivolous, stupid waste” is absolute nonsense. Do not be duped. Do you think there is $1.4 trillion of such waste in the budget??? If you want to balance the budget through spending cuts, then you are talking about eliminating all of that, plus another TRILLION dollars of federal spending. Spending cuts of that magnitude would mean vast cuts of government muscle after cutting all the fat. (Of course, if we really did that, we will be plunged into an instant mega-depression, so now you’re trying to solve a deficit of $3 trillion or so.)

    So, let’s all stop pretending Obama did this. Let’s all stop pretending that “liberals” did this. Let’s all agree that POLITICIANS did this. And they are feeding us the same box of donuts right now, with the same weight loss promises they’ve always made.

    1. Steve,
      Let’s put it this way: Uh, no I did not. I’m one of those citizens on board with CAGW (Citizens Against Government Waste: http://www.cagw.org/) and the Tea Party movement. I’ve voted against tax levies when state and local governments put increases on the ballot, and I know damned well that they didn’t manage what they took from us in the first place. I also raise hell with members of Congress and Senate via their websites and email. I make no distinction between Parties if the “porker” has it comimg. Trent Lott is an excellent example. Republican constituents were angered over his exhorbitant earmarks, and he was slammed for it.

      “We voted for generation of Republicans and Democrats alike who grew our government and reduced our taxes. Now we have debt.”

      NO. We have debt because of a bloated government and out of control spending. After the Obama-generated $23.7 trillion (and more) deficit hits the next generation, there won’t be enough revenue to pay for it all. If you think government grew under previous administrations, just wait until Obama gets done.
      This is the kind of crap I’m talking about:

      If you want to balance the budget through spending cuts, then you are talking about eliminating all of that, plus another TRILLION dollars of federal spending. Spending cuts of that magnitude would mean vast cuts of government muscle after cutting all the fat. (Of course, if we really did that, we will be plunged into an instant mega-depression, so now you’re trying to solve a deficit of $3 trillion or so.)

      Shit, you don’t think we’re heading for a depression NOW? The current rate of spending/debt is UNSUSTAINABLE. Take a look at the links I provided. Read the reports of where billions of dollars are funneled. It’s absolutely insane. We’re not talking good, sound investment for national security, the military, or the infrastructure (bridges, roads, or public utilities). The ‘fat’ outweighs the ‘muscle’ by a long shot.

      By the way, the real bitch about all of this is our massive debt to communist China. If Bejiing gets a wild hair up its ass and decides to call in markers, we’re screwed. The scary thing is that it already has a lot of influence on the world market and has done arm-twisting to get its way. I’d love to see America get out from under the debt to the Chinese. Thanks to our trade with the malevolent commies, they’ve been working on a build-up of sea and air military power aimed at the United States. http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/chinas-military-buildup/

      Not a pretty prospect.

      I agree that POLITICIANS are responsible for this and no administration is guilt free when it comes to tax and spend, but Obama has taken this tax/spend/bailout orgy to a brand new level.
      Let’s all agree that the brakes need to be applied; cut spending and taxes. You cannot spend your way out of a deficit.
      Free market enterprise thrives and jobs are created when there’s less government and more freedom of individal choice.

      SFC MAC

  27. But it was okay when Bush doubled the federal debt. And when Reagan tripled it. The spending now is justified to try to stimulate the economy. But just blame Obama for everything. It’s easier than thinking.

    1. Ben,

      Here’s a thought: read what I posted to Steve and learn.
      But you won’t do that, because drive-by posting comes easier to you lefties than intellectual discourse.
      Your Obamessiah is an epic fail. It must really suck to find out he can’t walk on water.
      SFC MAC

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial