US
Obama Drops Inadvertent ‘S-Bomb’ During Live Presser
- Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:27pm by
Scott Baker
- Print »
- Email »
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 564 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 390 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 381 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 365 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 319 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 381 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 390 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 319 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 381 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (164)
roxee
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:58pmI was just reading that the IRS is a Private Corporation it’s an agency of the IMF which is an agency of the UN. 31 U.S.Code Obama should be telling Americans this fact, instead of what ever made up crap he spews!
Report Post »felina g
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:14pmhttp://duncanofinioan.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/30-little-known-facts-about-america/
Report Post »liberty12
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 2:51pmPlease do research on the definition of US citizen. (You will never find it) We all have been duped into believing that we are one. There are (5) documents by which Our own gov. has enslaved WE the People. 1) birth certificate 2) SS # 3) Drivers Lic. 4) voter registration 5) your signature on Income tax 1040 On All of these documents You must state that you are a US citizen, under penalty of perjury found in the US Code.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 3:50pm@liberty12
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 2:51pm
There are ten states so far that are configuring legislation to require that anyone seeking to be put on that state’s ballot as a candidate for POTUS or Congress must ATTACH certified documented proof of natural-born citizenship.
If enough states pass such legislation as to garner a majority of Electoral College votes, we won’t have to be bothered with Obama in 2012.
Report Post »Salty Dog
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:56pmPlease, in the future, provide transcripts so I don’t have to listen to his voice! I get enough of it every hour, every day when my talk radio is interrupted by news “updates”.
Deaf people might like a transcript too…just a thought.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:39pmI’ll send The Blaze an email and ask them to. I can’t stand to hear his voice, either. I was thinking the same thing. At least give us a cue time.
Report Post »banjarmon
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:56pmThe Brown stuff rolls out of BHO’s mouth everytime he ooens it.
Report Post »RightPolitically
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:54pmThe entire press conference was ONE HUGE S-bomb!
Report Post »hauschild
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:54pmFreudian slip?
Report Post »Ibanez6
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:53pmI’m no fan of Obama, but it didn’t sound like he was saying it on purpose.
Report Post »TENN.REDD
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 2:12pmI agree. As much as I dislike the guy ,this sounds like a simple error of the tounge. However, everything else that rolls off his tounge is in error too !
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:53pmAs Beck would say “the bigger the lie the more believable he makes it.”
Report Post »okiegrama
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:50pmOOPS! My post wasn‘t ’posted.’ I think I used a bad word! Started with an S…
Report Post »okiegrama
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:44pmI really could only listen to the first couple of sentences.
Is he serious??? Can’t put off spending money for house repairs? Kids college? How about just feeding the kids and a roof over their heads after millions have their homes go into foreclosure because they are unemployed! What a dumb azz.
He is probably the most out of touch and doesn‘t give a rat’s azz president in history.
Report Post »Rightsofman
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:41pmSorry – doesn’t rate the headline.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:36pmOH! The new editor of The Blaze!
Report Post »Bet The Blaze would like to know!
tbeachhead
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:41pmNo he didn’t. His tongue got twisted…What he’s doing is far too dangerous that we make news from trivialities.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:37pmThis was not a news post. Obama said nothing significant, so why try to make a big deal of what he said.
“Obama said blah blah blah” MIGHT have been a good headline, except that Obama almost always says that.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:42pmHa ha. My bad. I didn’t hear what he actually said, or mis-said, probably because I expect his speeches to be nothing but sh*t.
Report Post »Logic77
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:37pmHe’s full of what?
Report Post »capitalismrocks
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:37pmYou can’t take ANYTHING he says with any grain of reliability…
One day he says he’s for something, next day he says he’s against it…. His is the model of contradiction…
I also think it is a purposeful ploy of his and his staff… if they are it all, and go in all directions, no one can pin him down and when one thing he says doesn’t work out, then he falls back and says he said the opposite…. unfortunately this cutsy little rules for radicals obfuscation has been all used up and even his own die hard liberal backers no longer even believe him either…
Report Post »cykonas
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:45pmI disagree. He is completely reliable. He lies very very consistently, and looks good doing it! But then they almost all do. They are politicians.
Report Post »liberty12
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:31pmRight on! To add: Listen to CPAC speeches made by Herman Cain & Rep. Col. Allen West, they will tell you the direction that OUR country needs to follow. They are both amazing & influencial Americans that speak the “truth” It should be obvious to All Americans that obama also lied when he gave his Oath of Office to uphold the US Constitution and the integrity of this nation, America.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:37pmThanks for nothing.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:36pm.
Report Post »Big Deal most of us call him a S-Head when we see him on TV………
fixer
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:40pmman,you got that right!
Report Post »brntout
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:35pmCan’t even read from cue cards properly.
Report Post »8jrts
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:15pmWe know that…he needs pronunciation marks on the teleprompter as well…remember the “corpse men”??
Report Post »Whostolemypig
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:35pmHis Soros programming went into a momentary self diagnostic mode.
Report Post »dcwu
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:35pmGet him his teleprompter.
Report Post »Nigel2
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:34pmSlow day at the Blaze?
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:33pmI hope so!
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:33pmThe video doesn’t play.
I guess “Spend” and “Sh##” mean the same thing!
Report Post »Dilbert is Real
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 2:09pmI thought the phase “cut spending” wasn’t allowed. Maybe barry can read the tea leaves.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:31pmNo big deal.
Report Post »TERMLIMITSNOW
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:29pmTifosa needs a man, apply now
Report Post »AmericanSoldier
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:28pmSo?
Report Post »chazman
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 6:57pmThere are some total blowhards here tonight … geez. Get out of the basement, ABC and VRW!
Report Post »chubbzbar
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:28pmWhen the savings are in the trillions then I listen, otherwise forget it, doesn’t mean a thing
Report Post »cnsrvtvj
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:34pmSame with me Chubbzbar, but I almost fell out of my chair when I heard that. I was using the same word to describe his budget myself. The guy promised he was going to cut the deficit in half during his first term. I can’t believe he is doubling down on that promise, even though anyone can see this budget does no such thing. Anyone who still believes a single word this guy says deserves to be called an idiot.
http://www.donsmithshow.com – see the Get Hypocrisy Moving video
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:39pmMan, he’s really trying to push HIS budget “cuts” on us. Freezing a salary is not a cut.
Report Post »Not spending more money is not a cut. Please lead by example, Obama. Stop taking trips and save money by cutting your staff of czars.
@TERMLIMITSNOW
Did TIFOSA diss you or something? Why the attacks?
abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:41pmYou will not find savings in the trillions, since there is not that much waste in the system. The biggest contributor to the deficit are the Bush tax cuts, which caused underpayment versus the services rendered. When people realize that taxes, which are at record lows, do not cover all the legitimate services that the vast majority of Americans want, then we can solve the problem. Sure, you can marginally cut some of the programs in that 12%, and make some bigger cuts in the entitlement and defense programs that our geniuses in Washington refuse to consider. But at the end of the day, you also need to raise taxes. Those who say otherwise are either fools or think you are one yourself.
And anyone who disagrees ought to produce the numbers to show that I am wrong.
I won’t be holding my breath…
By the way, the Blaze does a tremendous disservice to its country by focusing on the silly nonsense that only an 11 year old would find funny. We need to have a serious conversation about the budget, not draw attention to whether the President accidentally used a cuss word. Grow up. You guys look like ignorant school children when you reduce a President’s press conference to this. Be part of the solution rather than part of the problem!!
Muslim in Chief
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:44pmGlitch in the ole telepromptor?
Report Post »solaveritas
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:49pmWhat did he say?
The economy is “s***”?
Finally, some truth.
Report Post »aragona
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:50pmReal savings are found by cutting entitlements, not by raising taxes or because of the Bush tax cuts. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and now the new trillion dollar health care entitlement.
Get real and quit drinking the Kool-aid.
Report Post »expatinontariocanada
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 12:55pm@ ABC
You must have gone to public schools. Your first mistake is talking, like your master, about savings instead of meaningful cuts in budgets, especially entitlements (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, SSI). Think you can find a trillion or two in there? Your second mistake is inferring tax cuts, when across the board (e.g. for all taxpayers), cost with revenue reductions. You don’t EVER have to pay for across the board tax cuts. Tax revenue always INCREASES when taxes are cut this way. Your third mistake is speaking for all Americans by claiming to know what services they WANT. Who gives a flying “F” what people WANT when there’s no money to pay for it, just more debt? Your fourth mistake is trying to claim raising taxes will solve any economic problems. This Keynesian bull crap hasn’t EVER worked as claimed. Wise up, and fast!!!
Report Post »magnum357
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:04pmABC
idiot.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:07pm@ABC – “You will not find savings in the trillions, since there is not that much waste in the system.”
Really?! Not that much waste in the system?!
“Be part of the solution rather than part of the problem!!”
It is people, like yourself, that are the problem! Taxes are raised then people, like yourselft, expect more so politicians spend the tax that was raised. A program, like Social Security, is implementented; a tax put in place for it, and people, like yourself, expect more. What do the politicians do…spend the money from the program on other things because, what….people, like yourself, expect more. A program like Social Security should have been funded for many more years but the money is already gone. Why, PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF.
How bout you being part of the solution and become responsible. Pay for yourself rather than expecting the government to pay for everything and sucking the life out of everyone else! A child expects someone to pay for everything they want and give it to them. Not an adult.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:08pm@expatinontariocanada
The W. tax cuts were followed by the recession and a drop in tax revenue. Economists from both sides have said the tax cuts were ill advised during a time of war and continue to be waste full spending the only benefits thoses at the very top. The W. tax cuts for the wealthy need to end, Becky, 1/2 term Palin and their friends do not need any more handouts at our and our children’s expense.
Report Post »Marcobob69
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:13pmIt‘s what he’s giving the American people, in a “line”! He’s usually feeding us a bunch of “bull”. But if you stop and think about it, he is without a doubt “full of”. That’s right, S-H-I-T!
Report Post »colonial10
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:28pmThis guy has no clue on what he is saying. Trump was correct in what he said. This man has no clue on how to run a business.
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:29pm@ABC
Want to know where government waste is?
Department of Education
Department of Commerce
EPA
Department of Energy
Czars
Parts of Homeland Security
TSA
Michelle’s out of country vacations
Pelosi’s liquor bill
Pelosi’s transportation bill
Government-sponsored universal healthcare
Pelosi’s rats
Florida’s turtle tunnels
Stimulus I
Stimulus II
Bailouts
Government takeover of GM
Bonuses to GM’s auto union workers
Stimulus money that went to Brazil
Stimulus grants for Muslim meeting at White House and access to resources
Earmarks
That should be enough to get you thinking.
Report Post »BMartin1776
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:32pmSo true everything and anything coming out of his mouth should be equated to that of a snake oil or used car salesman. So who will he blame for this slip of his snake tongue? The guy always has someone to blame right?!
http://www.savingtherepublic.com
Report Post »mtnclimberjim
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:33pmThe enemy speaks. He is a liar and a traitor to my country.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:36pmOnly word I heard that was the “truth” … Obama and s-h-i-t …. hand in hand.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:46pmOntario, public schools and private higher education, but what of it?
“Your first mistake is talking, like your master, about savings instead of meaningful cuts in budgets, especially entitlements (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, SSI). Think you can find a trillion or two in there?”
I distinguish savings from waste clean-up from cutting programs, and believe that you cannot find trillions in waste and also cannot find trillions in cutting programs that Americans do not want less than they want higher taxes. You merely pose a rhetorical question. How about showing me polls that prove my argument wrong, or actuarial/accounting/budget data to put some dollars and cents behind the empty rhetoric. There are multiple studies showing that people who say they want less government spending are then asked what specificially they would like to cut, even to avoid higher taxes, they do not find nearly enough spending cuts to avoid those higher taxes. Hence, you need to raise taxes, since you cannot cut enough waste nor unwanted spending to close the gap. Warren Buffett, who was also public-schooled, but who knows more than you, has already repeatedly made this argument.
“Your second mistake is inferring tax cuts, when across the board (e.g. for all taxpayers), cost with revenue reductions. You don’t EVER have to pay for across the board tax cuts. Tax revenue always INCREASES when taxes are cut this way.”
How foolish of you. This idea, the core of supply-side economics, was invented by Arthur Laffer, a very smart Chicago school economist. I happen to have met this man five times and have even been invited to his home near San Diego. I asked him about his Laffer Curve, the one you site to argue that cutting taxes always yields more revenue. Now, what you say is clearly false, since lowering the tax rate from 1% to 0% doesn’t yield more tax revenue, as you say it would, but that is just being cute. The real question is at what point does the impact of a lower tax rate overwhelm the dynamic effect of higher incentives to work (i.e., when does the curve start to slope down toward the origin). I asked Laffer this question, and this is what he said: “The Laffer curve was always meant to be a pneumonic device to remind people of the dynamic effects of altering tax levels, it is not a mathematical theory.” This means that even Laffer would not agree with your statement, and even Laffer cannot tell you whether we are on the side of the curve that implies lower taxes will yield higher revenue or just lower revenue. And if Laffer hasn’t a clue, then you definitely do not have a clue. So you should be careful who you are attacking, lest you look like a moron. You can say unicorns exist all you want, but until you produce a mathematically robust model to support your point, which even the very smart Laffer cannot do, then you are just talking about Big Foot and UFO’s with that nonsense.
“Your third mistake is speaking for all Americans by claiming to know what services they WANT. Who gives a flying “F” what people WANT when there’s no money to pay for it, just more debt?”
I don’t claim to know. I have read multiple polls, which state with statistical certainty what people want, and they want Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and Defense, but they don’t want to pay the full price of these services. And as long as there are politicians who can get elected by LYING to the electorate and saying that you can pey less than full fare and still get it, and there are still moron voters who elect these guys because they believe total nonsense like you do, then this problem will persist. One of the best-performing hedge fund managers around today, David Einhorn, has written about the fatal flaw in a democracy that politicians get elected promising the unpromisable and untrue to gullible voters. This is what is going on. Unfortunately, it is too much to expect everyone to be as smart as Einhorn. In the end, we get the government and budgetary finances that we deserve.
“Your fourth mistake is trying to claim raising taxes will solve any economic problems. This Keynesian bull crap hasn’t EVER worked as claimed. Wise up, and fast!!!”
It is not Keynesian, for the record. He described a special situation when demand collapsed so thoroughly that monetary policy alone was not enough to put demand and the economy back into stable growth mode, so he said in that special case you need to spend money. Even Milton Friedman has agreed with this analysis. During a recession, Keynes also would not advocate tax hikes, which you wrongly say he would. However, any economist who is honest and half-awake would tell you that you need to generate enough taxes to pay for the things that voters are demanding from their government, lest you run a deficit. This accounting, not economics, and it is very basic and easy to understand. I don’t see why you do not.
abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:53pmPaja,
“Really?! Not that much waste in the system?!”
Not enough to close a structural deficit that is more than 7% of GDP. Sorry, but no. If you disagree, then cut the rhetorical flourishes and produce the data. Otherwise, stop being part of the problem.
“It is people, like yourself, that are the problem! Taxes are raised then people, like yourselft, expect more so politicians spend the tax that was raised. A program, like Social Security, is implementented; a tax put in place for it, and people, like yourself, expect more. What do the politicians do…spend the money from the program on other things because, what….people, like yourself, expect more. A program like Social Security should have been funded for many more years but the money is already gone. Why, PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF.”
Actually, not people like myself. I am independently wealthy (self-made) and still young. I count my SS payments as an additional tax that older Americans are not paying. And I vote against nearly all the spending proposals that end up on the CA ballot as a part of citizens’ initiatives. Like most cnoservatives here, you assume way too much about those who are to the left of you. You prefer straw men and funhouse mirror caricatures of us to the reality, which is that we are at least as smart and well informed.
Your point about expansion of spending is valid, but you make it out to be a partisan issue, when BOTH sides do it. The Democrats push entitlement social spending, while the Republicans push unsustainbly low tax rates and defense spending. They both promise more than can be delivered and ignore the long-term consequences which only hit after they have left office. That you only focus on one side means that you are either misinformed or dishonest, and both are not to be tolerated. Focus on problems and solutions rather than partisan narratives, and you will be more of an asset to your country as a voter and commentator.
“How bout you being part of the solution and become responsible. Pay for yourself rather than expecting the government to pay for everything and sucking the life out of everyone else! A child expects someone to pay for everything they want and give it to them. Not an adult.”
As I said, you assume too much. I probably pay far more in taxes than you do, just given where I am on the bell curve of earners in this country. And, to repeat, the childish demand to pay too low a tax rate but to take two expensive wars off balance sheet, as the Republicans did, is at least as childish as anything you accuse the Democrats of . I do not defend the Dems, but it’s time people here start criticizing Republicans, since they have done at least as much to create these deficits.
abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:58pmShowtime, my litmus test for people who are actually serious about the budget issue is that they avoid rhetorical stunts like merely listing a bunch of government agencies in a lame attempt to imply that the waste is obvious. This is not in any way a serious analysis of the problem. The fact is that the many departments and agencies that are cited actually account for a small percentage of the budget, and much of that money is intelligently spent. The real issue is to address Medicare/Medicaid, SS and defense/security, and secondariily, to eliminate waste, although that is far smaller than conservatives claim (as always, without supporting numbers). If you cannot speak to those programs, with empirical data, you are really not worth talking to, since you are part of the problem rather than the solution. I mean you no disrespect, but that is a fact. The problem is that voters want to receive too much from and pay too little to the government, and politicians enable by speaking the lie that this is not what is going on. To the extent that you also enable this lie, you are part of the problem. So please do not take it as an ad hominem attack, which it is not, but as a statement of fact. Kind of like saying that if you are a plumber and you attempt heart surgery, then you are a part of the problem for that patient. Got it?
Rogue
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 1:58pmObama: We had originally planned on spending $7.4 Trillion in 2011, but have decided we will make a 50% cut in that budget immediately. Though our fiscal responsibility, we have reduced the deficit by $3.7 Trillion. Furthermore, our original plan was to levee a 25% Value Added Tax to all goods and services in the USA, but because there is no way anyone would vote for it, we can now declare we have cut your taxes significantly.
Report Post »Think4yourself
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 2:02pmWhat happened to the “Great Orator”..LOL
http://www.unsalvageable.org
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 2:20pm“The real question is at what point does the impact of a lower tax rate overwhelm the dynamic effect of higher incentives to work (i.e., when does the curve start to slope down toward the origin).”
We have already past it!
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 2:27pm@ABC
Thank you for your reply. You were very polite, which I appreciate.
Now. As for the list of departments, my thought is that the Department of Energy has done nothing for which it was created years ago, yet we continue to fund it. That is waste. It’s like hiring a maid to sit and watch her soaps on TV, yet the house is a mess.
The Department of Education should have absolutely no authority over local schools. They are local schools, funded by local people, to educate the children of those people. It’s sort of loike the schools are of the people, for the people, and by the people.
The federal government has swelled by a third in the last two years. Are all those people REALLY necessary? Do we really need “czars,” and of all things to call them! How un-American!
The Stimulus I and II would have had better effects on the economy if the government had just divided that money up and sent every household a check. Or, it coulod have ceased payroll deductions for six months and let the people spend their money to create jobs, instead of taxing the dog crap out of us and having entire malls shut down, chains of stores to close, homes foreclosed on, and small businesses to fail.
When the government does not use the money collected to its best advantage for the people, but has an agenda to stuff the pockets of the likes of GE, it is called WASTE in any language.
I’ve been around a L-O-N-G time, honey. I know what I’m talking about.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 2:28pm“I am independently wealthy (self-made) and still young”
So shut up and give all your wealth to the government and stop telling everyone else that they must give more of what they make.
“I count my SS payments as an additional tax that older Americans are not paying.”
Really? You are also way too smug. Those older Americans have been paying those SS payments most, if not all of their lives.
“Like most cnoservatives here, you assume way too much about those who are to the left of you. You prefer straw men and funhouse mirror caricatures of us to the reality, which is that we are at least as smart and well informed.”
Read my post again. I didn‘t say you weren’t smart. You are constantly telling everyone how smart you are. I posted that you want to take our money and when that is spent you want to take more. etc., etc., etc., How bout for once, liberals like you, agree that the government spends way too much money and agree to cut for a change. Obama’s budget does not cut; it expands.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 2:40pm“I do not defend the Dems…”
Anyone else here feel that ABC is not defending the dems?
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 2:55pmABC – Before you get your nose too far up in the air about what is reported on The Blaze, take a look at some of what The Huffington Post is reporting on…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entertainment/
Or do you consider knowing that Tanya Harding is pregnant important politically?
Report Post »biggreenboo
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 2:56pmNanny nanny boo boo… stick your head in doo doo.
That is for you ABC.
Reverse Trolling is KING!!!!
Report Post »Showtime
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 3:06pm@ABC ~
Just received this from the CATO iInstitute:
THE BUDGET: WHERE TO CUT, AND WHY
The Obama administration will release its budget proposal for fiscal year 2012 today. The plan reportedly offers cuts in many government programs but, as in years past, ignores the largest drivers of the country’s long-term debt: entitlements. With various other budget proposals expected out in the coming days and weeks, the Cato Institute offers a wide array of resources for finding savings on the federal balance sheet.
Report Post »- DownsizingGovernment.org – Cato’s agency-by-agency guide to reducing the size of the federal bureaucracy
- The President Chickens Out on Spending Cuts, by Chris Edwards
- The Pentagon’s Faux Cuts, by Christopher Preble
- High-Speed Pork, by Randal O’Toole
- Obama’s Sea of Red, by Michael Tanner
_____________
So, I don‘t know what I’m talking about, huh?
abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 3:48pmShowtime,
“Thank you for your reply. You were very polite, which I appreciate.”
No problem, and I return the compliment your way.
“Now. As for the list of departments, my thought is that the Department of Energy has done nothing for which it was created years ago, yet we continue to fund it. That is waste. It’s like hiring a maid to sit and watch her soaps on TV, yet the house is a mess.”
I agree to a point. There are important regulatory functions that are required for energy production, both upstream and downstream, as well as interstate transmission of electricity that require this department. I know that this department has been the victim of regulatory capture by large oil companies, which sent drugs and prostitutes to key members of DOE under Bush (and probably under Clinton). This is deplorable, but it doesn’t remove the fact that you need government oversight during energy production, and you need government regulation of transmission pricing for electricity. So you cannot gut the entire department. Also, this is such a small part of the pie, and even taking all the others like this, you still cannot get more than a couple percentage point of the whole budget, which is far less than required. This doesn‘t mean that you don’t go after all waste, but a rational person starts with the low hanging fruit (i.e., the biggest pieces), which this certainly is not an example of.
“The Department of Education should have absolutely no authority over local schools. They are local schools, funded by local people, to educate the children of those people. It’s sort of loike the schools are of the people, for the people, and by the people.”
I agree that this department has grown too large, but I and many left-leaning folks do not like the idea of leaving all educational decisions up to local folks. The problem is that local communities often work against the best interests of the country out of ignorance or partisan crusades. Take the Dover, PA district that sought to undercut science education by adding creationism to the curriculum. Or take the factually incorrect history that is being promoted in TX, where the state and local school boards are politicized. We are losing out by way of standards to Finland, Germany, Korea and China, and only a central power can impose the needed standards. You might say, well, it’s the right of local folks to decide what their kids learn, but if the ignorance propagated by failed schools undermines democracy or competitive advantage of the entire US, then I think we ought to be able to assert some minimum standard using the power of the central government. Now, if Dover, PA is producing strong science students, and they want to hold afterschool religious classes to teach creationism, then liberals ought to let that happen. But no local community has a the right to undermine the health of the entire country’s democracy and economic competitiveness by failing to teach to a high, albeit minimum, standard set by a central authority. That is a highly controversial statement, but I cannot be disabused of that view. And this informs my desire to keep a smaller, more efficient Dept of Education around.
“The federal government has swelled by a third in the last two years. Are all those people REALLY necessary? Do we really need “czars,” and of all things to call them! How un-American!”
Just to be clear, government spending swelled in the last two years because we had a massive financial crisis, which led to massive drops in demand, which required the government to prop up the economy. The CBO estimates more than 3M jobs were saved. NBER and other non-partisan and respected economic think tanks have estimated even higher numbers. To conflate that development with the bureaucratic creep seen since WWII is not an accurate protrayal of what has transpired. Just look at the budget deficits in the last two years under Bush, year 8 was about double year 7. Why? Because the crisis impacted Bush in the same way it impacted Obama–tax receipts went down while spending in the form of unemployment checks and other economic stabilizers kicked in. This is different than setting up an expensive Homeland Security Department or passing Medicare Part D, or doing TARP or passing Obamacare.
“The Stimulus I and II would have had better effects on the economy if the government had just divided that money up and sent every household a check. Or, it coulod have ceased payroll deductions for six months and let the people spend their money to create jobs, instead of taxing the dog crap out of us and having entire malls shut down, chains of stores to close, homes foreclosed on, and small businesses to fail.”
Perhaps writing checks to people would have helped more, but perhaps it would not have. Targeting money through employers can give you more leverage and focus on job preservation than writing checks to people who just put the money in a mattress. Most economists would actually say that targeting the money at employers is more efficient at saving jobs than writing checks to everyone. Also, the tax hikes that closed malls is a new claim that I haven’t heard. Taxes were lowered to record-low levels under Bush in ‘2 and ’03, but it didn’t generate the step-up in demand that supply siders predicted. Job creation under Bush was abysmal, so I don’t see how those record low taxes can now be called high and the argument be made that if only we lower them further, we’ll see job growth and lack of business failure. The narrative of the conservatives unfortunately doesn’t fit the facts. Clinton had higher taxes and higher growth than Bush. Connecting tax levels to job growth cannot be done, mathematically or statistically. So it certainly should not be done in political argument.
“When the government does not use the money collected to its best advantage for the people, but has an agenda to stuff the pockets of the likes of GE, it is called WASTE in any language.”
Right. I agree. But when the President argued against tax subsidies for oil companies, the GOP members of Congress didn’t clap. So what gives? Also, government subsidies to GE for development of green technology, as opposed to the ones given to Exxon, at least has the promise of developing new industries that China is now leading, unlike a decade ago when we led. If you look at nearly every successful company in Asia, that absolute kills its US counterpart, it has benefited from some form of industrial policy–Samsung, Toyota, Haier, Panasonic, etc. You can pretend that we do not live in the world that we do, or you can recognize that if you want to develop industries, then government has to help out, both in terms of supporting basic research that no company can undertake, and in providing teh proper market signals when negative externalities exist, and (yes) in helping respond to nationalistic policies occurring elsewhere in the world. If you want a middle class, then you need manufacturing in this country, and if you want manufacturing, then the government must demand from companies what the market doesn’t–a strategy to maintain good jobs here. And subsidies given with that aim in mind are important. Toyota received tons of help from the Japanese government for decades before it could challenge Detroit. This is a true historical account that conservatives ignore, but should be mindful of. But for those who hate all forms of industrial policy, then you have to have an argument for how you respond when others do it and hurt you with it.
“I’ve been around a L-O-N-G time, honey. I know what I’m talking about.”
We all have our limits, regardless of age. The key is to be mindful that you can be wrong, but to demand solid facts before admitting that you are wrong and changing your mind. Hopefully, I’ve supplied a few hear.
Also, your budget discussion centers on only 12% of spending. What about the bigger pieces? That is where the discussion needs to occur.
VRW Conspirator
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 3:50pm@Showtime
ABC is full of it. Every post contains the same nonsense. The Blaze is a joke…Fox is a joke…if you believe them you are ignorant…if you respond to him you don’t know what you are talking about and a joke…the format is the same even if the content and the words change to a degree.
the easiest thing to point out…if everyone here can’t reason out an argument and discuss logically, if we are a joke and the source of information (Blaze, Fox, articles we cite) are jokes…then why is ABC here to begin with? Now granted, there are plenty of trolls here and plenty of others that simply rant about this or that and offer no real insight or solutions. I will give ABC that fact, but there are also several others, more often than not, that site valid information and contribute with informed opinions to the discussion, which is what the purpose is of the comment section of the website. I will even give ABC that some of the Blaze stories are a bit sensational and not news worthy but then again, every newspaper has an opinion section or a blow off section (like articles about this or that starlet that nobody really cares about).
As to ABC’s comment that we are all just full of it by talking about cutting the government. I know that ABC probably hasn’t heard or watched much…but Glenn did a whole week on this issue with experts from CATO and Heritage…professional economists like Art Laffer…and others. In that week alone, Glenn and his guests cut out 450 BILLION from the budget. Those cuts covered every category and every department, even SS and MC and DoD. The cuts were based on strict interpretation of the Constitution and the powers delegated to Congress and the Federal Government. Couple those 450 BILLION in cuts with a freeze on spending in ALL areas, discretionary or entitlement, reform of the entitlement system and removal of waste (the Healthcare Reform Act claims to be able to REMOVE $500 BILLION in waste from Medicare alone), Tort reform, and DoD reform (seriously, do we need to pay $500 for a $10 hammer – let the quarter masters, mechanics, and engineers shop at Home Depot or Lowes to replace parts and fix equipment).
Congress takes an oath to serve the NATION not their state. Sometimes, and our Founders and those that came after them in those first 50 years or so, knew that sometimes you had to make the hard choice for the sake of the COUNTRY even if it meant being removed from office. We need a Congress that is willing to reform, revamp, and remove all the entitlements period! Privatize Social Security for anyone 40 and under, pro-rate it for 40-50, over 50 gets what they were promised. Privatize Medicare and do away with Medicaid..if states want it..they fund it..if not oh well. Cut services to illegals, in California alone, since ABC says he is here with me…that would save $10 Billion alone off the State budget. Imagine how much the Federal government could save from all 50 states by stopping aid for illegals…some estimates place the number between $50 and $100 Billion a YEAR.
So lets recap for ABC who thinks “well they did it then so we can do it now” is a valid argument or the arguement that “the American people won’t let you cut the big stuff they like” argument.
TOO BAD!! Just do it!! Even if it means you don’t get re-elected… MAN UP.. GROW A PAIR.. AND CUT the Departments, Agencies, Entitlements and bills that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!
GOD – COUNTRY – CORP/FAMILY!! Have some Honor and Integrity, explain to people these programs were illegal and unconstitutional from the start…we have to remove them to save the nation.. it will hurt but we will band together like our forefathers and pull through…
Cut the corporate tax rate to 18% on par with the average in Europe…institute a Flat Tax at 20% with no deductions or exemptions (the average tax paying American already pays 22-24% total in income and all other hidden taxes)…fix capital gains tax at 10% permanently…remove the Estate Death Tax permanently…and watch America EXPLODE with prosperity and wealth the likes of which has not been seen since the 1920′s. Or do as ABC says…”you can‘t do that because the dumb America average guy won’t want it” attitude…and languish in a lost decade like Japan…which actually was almost 2 decades..they are only now getting things moving again and they are using a quasi-socialist model as well….not good for long term sustained growth….
Report Post »GOTT-EM-MAUSER
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 4:00pmTo Whom it may concern,
Pointless to post anything here that remotely resembles REALITY. It will be deleted by the BLAZE PC POLISEI.
GOOD LUCK SHEEPLE.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 4:06pmPajamash,
I’m confused, if we’re already passed that point on the Laffer curve, then we should be RAISING taxes. Thanks for proving my point…
“I am independently wealthy (self-made) and still young”
“So shut up and give all your wealth to the government and stop telling everyone else that they must give more of what they make.”
This is a dumb argument, which essentially says, let’s keep taxes too low to balance the budget and then rely on the good will of others to make voluntary payments. A business that priced too low and relied upon good will of donors could not tap the capital markets, and neither would a government that did the same. This is a fun rhetorical response, but it really is not a valid solutions. Let’s try to be serious when discussing serious problems.
“I count my SS payments as an additional tax that older Americans are not paying.”
“Really? You are also way too smug. Those older Americans have been paying those SS payments most, if not all of their lives. ”
How is it smug to make a comment that implicitly assumes: 1) SS may not be there for the young; 2) SS will be a negative return investment in all likelihood in the best case scenario? This is by no means an attack on older Americans who paid in, but a sober analysis of what could happen to those of us who retire after the massive numbers of Boomers, especially given the poor effort by the Federal Government to make the necessary steps to salvage th system (e.g., raise the retirement age, means test the benefits, etc.).
“Like most cnoservatives here, you assume way too much about those who are to the left of you. You prefer straw men and funhouse mirror caricatures of us to the reality, which is that we are at least as smart and well informed.”
“Read my post again. I didn‘t say you weren’t smart. You are constantly telling everyone how smart you are.”
I am constantly correcting false beliefs and misinformation. In the process of doing that people assume I am smart, well that is one consequence. But I don’t need to anonymously blog here to feel smart. And there is nothing wrong with being smart either.
“I posted that you want to take our money and when that is spent you want to take more. etc., etc., etc., How bout for once, liberals like you, agree that the government spends way too much money and agree to cut for a change. Obama’s budget does not cut; it expands.”
I agree that the government is spending too much money, but estimates of how much is waste are vastly overstated. And claims about what specifically can be cut without offending the vast majority of Americans is similarly overestimated. Now, we need to cut a lot more than what most Americans want, because they have been promised too much and asked to pay for too little. But what is lost in this conservative narrative, is that taxes are too low. They are at record lows and do not cover even what the government would be doing after all the waste and all the programs we cannot afford are gone. You cannot have the same safety net as other advanced economies (e.g., japan, korea, taiwan, germany, france, italy) and also pay for a massive military (which those countries lack) and pay lower taxes than all of those other countries do. Taxes are too low even after conservatives cut everything that they want to cut. The reason that they deny it, is because they overstate the amount of waste involved and they seek to cut what the vast majority of Americans will not live without and which the rest of the developed world will not live without. To argue that we shoudl return to Jacksonian America is naive and dishonest. We cannot go there, and we should tax accordingly. Much smarter people than I have acknowledged that the structural deficit only closes with spending cuts AND tax hikes. You cannot rely on just one or the other. This is the easy part of the analysis, as opposed to forcing through the cuts and figuring out what taxes to hike, so I am always surprised that even this piece is contested by so many.
Finally, you mentioned the nonsense on HuffPo. I agree that there is plenty of distractions over there as well that should be beneath us. I do not believe that liberals or conservatives are privileged in terms of a higher IQ. My concern is to attack the conservative narrative here, while assailing the liberal one over there, which I do under another alias. I favor the promulgation of facts and solid analysis, rather than partisan lies on either side, or partisan distractions on either side. When I invest in a stock, I do not consider a left or right wing argument, but only the numbers, facts and logic of the investment thesis. I try to do this with policy questions as well. Unfortunately, I always encounter mean, highly partisan people on both the left and the right who think it is okay to spout known falsehoods loudly and try to bully me into submission. It will not work. I have professional and educational experiences that make such attempts look like child’s play. Either you produce evidence to make your case or you go away. Sadly, many go away. But a few learn something and their view is forever changed. They become a little less dogmatic and focus on problems and solutions rather than this false left-right dicotomy that makes Beck and Olbermann rich, but undermines the whole country. I’ll step off the soap box now…
Report Post »cece959
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 4:09pm@ABC – “You will not find savings in the trillions, since there is not that much waste in the system.”
I beg to differ. When bills with pork attached to it spend money on preserving a 1 ft. wide stream in CA because there is ONE stinking fish in there that might lose its way while it’s swimming…yes, that’s waste. When we build bridges for turtles…yes, that’s waste. When they give money to a state to fund research on why birds don’t have thumbs…that’s waste. Oh, there’s PLENTY of waste that needs to be cut, starting with ALL of the pork in every stinking bill.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 4:27pmShowtime, I know CATO’s position. But even CATO has yet to produce a credible budget that eliminates spending up to 7-9% of GDP. If I am mistaken, then show it to me.
You also probably understand that CATO is a partisan group, funded heavily by the likes of the Koch Brothers, who also support our dear host Glenn Beck. And while that funding to my mind doesn’t irretrievably bias their analysis–a claim, unfortunately, that Beck makes all the time about equally legitimate think tanks on the left that have received Soros money–it is a bias to be aware of. No politician going into an election year is going to do anything but punt on issues that could hurt reelection chances. Reagan punted on SS until after the election and then hammered out a fix with Tip O’Neil, who’d done the same. The more moderate Republicans (you call them Rino’s) will also punt. This leaves only the Tea-Party backed candidates or politicians in ultra-safe districts to demand more because they know that in doing so they can politically profit. This is all highly problematic for productive discussions on budget, but it is the world we live in.
I say this because you can expect more from both parties after the major 2012 election, when hopefully deeper cuts and higher taxes will both be on the table for serious discussion. In the meantime, there is a lot of political posturing going on…unfortunately.
But please send me the CATO budget that cuts out 7-9% of GDP and that has a snowball’s chance of passing before a round of tax hikes. I’d love to see it.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 4:29pmCeCe,
Anecdotal evidence will not cut it. Show me the empirical data. The entire pork heading to the agricultural industry, which includes the entire Farm Bill, is basically a rounding error on the structural deficit. Go look it up.
Nice try, but we need serious solutions. Not rhetorical and anecdotal nonsense.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 4:42pm“estimates of how much is waste are vastly overstated.”
ABC – Here is a list of the Executive Branch alone. I could easily cut 1/3 of the positions listed:
Executive Branch
Executive Offices
White House Offices
The President of the United States
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff
Deputy Assistant to the President and Secretary to the Cabinet
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President
Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
…and Director of the National Economic Council
Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel
…and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Assistant to the President and White House Press Secretary
Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Assistants to the President and Deputy Chiefs of Staff
Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor
Counsel to the President (White House Counsel)
Senior Advisor to the President
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Cabinet Secretary
Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the First Lady
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Counsel to the President
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy to the Counselor, Communications
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director,
…Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs
Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
…and Deputy Director, National Economic Council
Deputy Assistant to the President for International Economic Affairs
…and Deputy National Security Advisor
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Senior Adviser
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Staff Secretary
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Advance
Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director,
…Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Global Communications
Deputy Assistant to the President for Management, Administration,
…and Oval Office Operations
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Political Affairs
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Public Liaison
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Scheduling
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director,
…Office of Strategic Initiatives
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of
…the White House Military Office
Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs (House)
Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs (Senate)
Deputy Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy Press Secretary
Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Press Secretary
Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Advance
Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director
…of Communications for Planning
Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Political Affairs
Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director
…of Communications for Production
Special Assistants to the President and Deputy Directors
…of Public Liaison for Presidential Personnel (2)
Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Speechwriting
Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Strategic Initiatives
Special Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Correspondence
Special Assistant to the President for White House Management and Administration
Special Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs
Special Assistants to the President for Legislative Affairs (House) (5)
Special Assistants to the President for Legislative Affairs (Senate) (4)
Deputy Assistant to the President and Assistant to the Senior Advisor
Special Assistant to the President and Senior Speechwriter to the President
Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary
Special Assistants to the President and Associate Directors
…for Presidential Personnel
Special Assistant to the President and Associate Counsel to the President
Associate Counsels to the President (9)
Office of Administration
Special Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Administration
Chief Operations Officer
Director for Equal Employment Opportunity
Director for Security
Director, Management Controls and Communication
General Counsel
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Information Officer
White House Fellows
White House Commission on Remembrance
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Director of National Drug Control Policy
Chief of Staff
Executive Secretary
Deputy Director
Deputy Director for Demand Reduction
Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs
Deputy Director for Supply Reduction
Associate Director, Planning and Budget
Associate Director, Legislative Affairs
Associate Director, Management and Administration
Communications Director
General Counsel
Director, Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center
Associate Director, Intelligence
Associate Director, National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
Director, High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Administrator, Drug-Free Communities Support Program
Council of Economic Advisers
Chairman
Members (2)
Chief of Staff
Council on Environmental Quality
Chairman
Chief of Staff
Associate Director for Congressional Affairs
Associate Director for Public Affairs
Associate Director for Agriculture, Public Lands and Coastal Affairs
General Counsel
Deputy General Counsel
Associate Director for NEPA Oversight
Associate Director for Sustainable Development
Associate Director for Natural Resources
Associate Director for Environmental Policy
Associate Director for Global Environmental Affairs
Associate Director for Toxics and Environmental Protection
Office of Policy Development
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
Special Assistants to the President for Domestic Policy (5)
National Economic Council
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
…and Director of the National Economic Council
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director
…of the National Economic Council
Special Assistants to the President for Economic Policy (5)
Domestic Policy Council
National Security Council
Members
The President
The Vice President
The Secretary of State
The Secretary of Defense
Statutory Advisers
Director of Central Intelligence
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
Standing Participants
The Secretary of the Treasury
U.S. Representative to the United Nations
Chief of Staff to the President
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Assistant to the President for Economic Policy
Officials
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
…and Deputy National Security Adviser
Executive Secretary
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
Office of National AIDS Policy
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Director
Associate Director for Science
Associate Director for Technology
Executive Secretary for the National Science and Technology Council
Executive Director for the President’s Committee
…of Advisors on Science and Technology
President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
White House Military Office
Presidential Airlift Group
White House Medical Unit
Camp David
Marine Helicopter Squadron One
Presidential Food Service
White House Transportation Agency
Office of Management and Budget
Director
Deputy Director
Deputy Director for Management
Executive Associate Director
Administrator, Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Assistant Director for Administration
Assistant Director for Budget
Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
Associate Director for Communications
Associate Director for Economic Policy
Associate Director for Human Resource Programs
Associate Director for General Government Programs
Associate Director for Information Technology and E-Government
Associate Director for Legislative Affairs
Associate Director for National Security Programs
Associate Director for Natural Resource Programs
Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management
General Counsel
President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency
Office of the United States Trade Representative
United States Trade Representative
Deputy U.S. Trade Representatives (Washington) (2)
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative (Geneva)
Special Textile Negotiator
General Counsel
Chief Agricultural Negotiator
Associate U.S. Trade Representative
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Administration
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Agricultural Affairs
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Southeast Asia, Pacific,
…and APEC Affairs
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Congressional Affairs
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Economic Affairs
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Environment and Natural Resources
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Europe and the Mediterranean
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Industry, Market Access
…and Telecommunications
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Intergovernmental Affairs
…and Public Liaison
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for North Asian Affairs
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Africa
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Policy Coordination
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Services, Investment,
…and Intellectual Property
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade and Development
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade and Labor
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for World Trade Organization (WTO)
…and Multilateral Affairs
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for the Americas
Press Secretary
Trade Policy Staff Committee
Office of the Vice President of the United States
Assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to the Vice President,
…and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs
Assistant to the President and Counselor to the Vice President
Counsel to the Vice President
Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President
…for National Security Affairs
Deputy Chief of Staff to the Vice President
Assistant to the Vice President for Legislative Affairs
Assistant to the Vice President for Domestic Policy
Executive Director of the National Energy Policy Development Group
Executive Assistant to the Vice President
Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for Operations
Assistant to the Vice President and Chief of Staff to Mrs. Cheney
Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for Scheduling
Director of Correspondence for the Vice President
And that is just one small piece of our government.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 5:04pmVRW,
“ABC is full of it. Every post contains the same nonsense. The Blaze is a joke…Fox is a joke…if you believe them you are ignorant…if you respond to him you don’t know what you are talking about and a joke…the format is the same even if the content and the words change to a degree.”
If the Blaze is wrong or Fox is wrong, and I cite it, why is that nonsense? Do you think that those media outlets are infallible?? Do you think people blogging here are infallible? Let’s stick to specifics, shall we?
“the easiest thing to point out…if everyone here can’t reason out an argument and discuss logically, if we are a joke and the source of information (Blaze, Fox, articles we cite) are jokes…then why is ABC here to begin with? Now granted, there are plenty of trolls here and plenty of others that simply rant about this or that and offer no real insight or solutions. I will give ABC that fact, but there are also several others, more often than not, that site valid information and contribute with informed opinions to the discussion, which is what the purpose is of the comment section of the website. I will even give ABC that some of the Blaze stories are a bit sensational and not news worthy but then again, every newspaper has an opinion section or a blow off section (like articles about this or that starlet that nobody really cares about).”
The Blaze is about ratings, like all profit-driven media, so of course they don’t always tell you what you need to know but rather what you want to hear. Thanks for making the case for responsible oversight and demands for responsibility of and within the media. This is a big reason why you need NPR and PBS, and why we should worry about concentrated ownership of the media.
“As to ABC’s comment that we are all just full of it by talking about cutting the government.”
You misstate what I said. I didn’t say talking about cutting the government to cut the deficit is bogus. Rather, I said that talking ONLY about cutting government to cut the deficit is bogus, and I referenced Warren Buffett, who said the same thing.
“I know that ABC probably hasn’t heard or watched much…but Glenn did a whole week on this issue with experts from CATO and Heritage…professional economists like Art Laffer…and others. In that week alone, Glenn and his guests cut out 450 BILLION from the budget. Those cuts covered every category and every department, even SS and MC and DoD. The cuts were based on strict interpretation of the Constitution and the powers delegated to Congress and the Federal Government. Couple those 450 BILLION in cuts with a freeze on spending in ALL areas, discretionary or entitlement, reform of the entitlement system and removal of waste (the Healthcare Reform Act claims to be able to REMOVE $500 BILLION in waste from Medicare alone), Tort reform, and DoD reform (seriously, do we need to pay $500 for a $10 hammer – let the quarter masters, mechanics, and engineers shop at Home Depot or Lowes to replace parts and fix equipment).”
Thanks for proving my point. Let’s review: you cite Glenn Beck and his esteemed economists like Art Laffer, who is a very nice guy if you have a chance to meet him, who conclude that there are $450B in savings; I noted that we have a structural deficit equal to 7-9% of GDP. GDP, to remind people out there who do not know (but should) is about $13T. Taking the conservative end of my range, 7%, you get a structural deficit equal to $910B. So you found a solution to only HALF OF THE PROBLEM. The other half has to come from tax hikes. By the way, if you let the Bush tax cuts expire, you get most of the way there. But this is exactly what conservatives insist you cannot do. They call them job-killing tax hikes to let them expire, even though Clinton produced more jobs than Reagan or both Bushes combined with a 39% top bracket rate. If we take your facts and combine them with the budget numbers, which are not contested, the lesson is clear: you need to cut spending AND raise taxes. And I am not full of it for insisting that this is true, since Glenn Beck and his guests would have to admit as much as well…assuming they were honest.
By the way, you cannot freeze expenditures forever. There is this thing called inflation, so please try not to ask us to live in a fantasy world that doesn’t exist.
“Congress takes an oath to serve the NATION not their state. Sometimes, and our Founders and those that came after them in those first 50 years or so, knew that sometimes you had to make the hard choice for the sake of the COUNTRY even if it meant being removed from office. We need a Congress that is willing to reform, revamp, and remove all the entitlements period! Privatize Social Security for anyone 40 and under, pro-rate it for 40-50, over 50 gets what they were promised. Privatize Medicare and do away with Medicaid..if states want it..they fund it..if not oh well. Cut services to illegals, in California alone, since ABC says he is here with me…that would save $10 Billion alone off the State budget. Imagine how much the Federal government could save from all 50 states by stopping aid for illegals…some estimates place the number between $50 and $100 Billion a YEAR.”
Was this part of Beck’s analysis? I’ll assume not, for your sake, although I’ve heard him make this point before and should conclude it is already in the $450B savings estimate. So now it’s $525B. You’re still not there, even before I add back the cost of administration to determine who is illegal and who is legal for the purposes of avoiding gov’t payments to illegals.
“So lets recap for ABC who thinks “well they did it then so we can do it now” is a valid argument or the arguement that “the American people won’t let you cut the big stuff they like” argument.”
First, I never said that we can overspend now since the GOP did it then (again, and again, and again…). I said that you will never close the deficit without raising taxes. Second, I never said that Americans will never let you cut the big stuff. They will have to, but only to a point. They will hit a point where they will prefer higher taxes to cutting further, and that is what conservatives miss. Heck, ultra conservatives like the ones you cited on Beck FAILED to close the entire gap, so the remainder must be made up for in taxes. You proved my point for me. Thanks for that!!
“TOO BAD!! Just do it!! Even if it means you don’t get re-elected… MAN UP.. GROW A PAIR.. AND CUT the Departments, Agencies, Entitlements and bills that are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!”
I’ve no problem, obviously, with politicians acting more responsibly. But realistically, they will only do so when they can no longer lie or ignore the truth. And that only happens when the electorate has full command of the facts, which you clearly do not. You are better than most in that you are demanding cuts, but you must be willing to tell those politicians to also man up and force through higher taxes even if they are unpopular with some of their wealthiest donors.
“GOD – COUNTRY – CORP/FAMILY!! Have some Honor and Integrity, explain to people these programs were illegal and unconstitutional from the start…we have to remove them to save the nation.. it will hurt but we will band together like our forefathers and pull through…”
Who can argue with this? Or drug free baseball? Or apple pie? But this is just rhetoric…
“Cut the corporate tax rate to 18% on par with the average in Europe…institute a Flat Tax at 20% with no deductions or exemptions (the average tax paying American already pays 22-24% total in income and all other hidden taxes)…fix capital gains tax at 10% permanently…remove the Estate Death Tax permanently…and watch America EXPLODE with prosperity and wealth the likes of which has not been seen since the 1920′s.”
Here comes the fantasy that our politicians spout and which you just said they ought to man up and stop spouting. The corporate tax rate in the US is the second highest in the world (vs. japan) when you put all the state and city taxes on it. This is true, but the little lie that conservatives and other republicans fail to mention is that the corporate tax receipts as a percentage of GDP have never been lower (they fell from roughly 6% to 3% under Bush alone). Why? Because most US companies do not pay the full rate, since there are loads of loopholes and deductions. Now, if you say that we ought to close all of those loopholes and lower the tax rate, then I say fine. But to argue that we lower the rate without closing the loopholes, which requires your recognizing that no one pays the stated rate that you and others always cite, would put the US into the same pickle that Ireland has faced. That story is important, since Ireland had lower government spending that the rest of the EU by a comfortable margin, but went bankrupt (effectively) anyway. Why? Because taxes were too low. The corporate tax in Ireland was 12.5%, less than half the EU average, with other loopholes to make the effective rate lower. So they couldn‘t even cover the very responsible levels of gov’t spending and were eventually forced into austerity measures (read: tax hikes) by their creditors. Funny, the conservatives never draw that important distinction between Spain and Greece on the one hand, and Ireland on the other, although it serves as a signal warning to those that insist that no tax cut is ever a problem.
“Or do as ABC says…”you can‘t do that because the dumb America average guy won’t want it” attitude…and languish in a lost decade like Japan…which actually was almost 2 decades..they are only now getting things moving again and they are using a quasi-socialist model as well….not good for long term sustained growth….”
Japan is not following a socialist model. China and Vietnam are–and they are the two fastest growing major economies in the world currently. Japan’s problem is that they have a demographic time bomb and have failed to restructure their banks. They also have many more regulations that were imposed by the anti-Socialist LDP party for purposes of protectionism and to benefit the corrupt few. This is hardly analogous to what Democrats in the US seek. And given all the other differences between japan and the uS, it’s hard to generalize…unless you are totally ignorant of those key distinctions. But nice try.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 5:06pmPajamash, you clearly don’t do finance or economics. You’ve shown me a lot of department names, but you have no numbers next to them. How much money do you save if you cut them? You have no idea, but you want to intelligently talk about the budget. How does that work?
Report Post »DisillusionedDaily
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 5:30pm@ABC I’m wondering if you kneel before a small statue of your savior Obama, The Great One every night to say your prayers. Just askin!
For the record, the big “O” has stated that if the congress tries to pass a spending reduction bill he will veto it! Really has our interests at heart, don’t he?
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 5:39pmDisillusion, funny you claim that. The point of today’s press conference was in part to talk about what cuts he is proposing. You are clearly misinformed.
I do not worship Obama, so you must have me confused with a liberal know-nothing. But while we‘re indulging in ad hominems and you too’s, I’d say this: while you are worshipping your little shrine of Teabaggers and other conservatives, please ask yourself where the $100B in savings that they promised has gone? They broke their most important election promise in record time.
We need to raise taxes as well as cut spending. And I’m still waiting for someone to put up the numbers to prove me wrong. I’ve been waiting all day, but no one has succeeded yet. Even Glenn Beck apparently failed, I’m told. So I’m still waiting.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 5:47pmWell ABC I’ve run my own company. Bought it when it was about to go under and turned it around. How did you make your money? I had to make drastic cuts in costs. Just because there are not numbers associated with those jobs doesn’t mean they are necessary jobs.
You asked for it so here it is ABC. The list is just shy of 200. So…lets average it down to 150. 30 percent of that is 50 jobs. The average White House salary is $83,000.00. That would be a cut of $4,150,000.00.
What is your, I’m so smart and your so dumb response gonna be now?
I’ve met some pretty smug liberals in my life but you take the cake.
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 6:53pmPajamash, you must be in a business that doesn’t require much math. You are citing $4.2M in savings, on a budget deficit of $910B. That is .0005% of the budget deficit…or 1/2,000th…a rounding error on a rounding error on a rounding error on a…well, you get the point. Nice try. Can we have a serious conversation now?!?
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 6:55pmGott-Em-Mauser, I know what you mean. The Blaze takes a lot of my posts down when they don’t want people to know the facts. They took down one of my posts today, in fact. Pretty sad to see all that rhetoric around freedom, but then they censor so actively. Pretty embarrassing to see all that rhetoric about how libs live in a fantasy land, but it is the conservatives that block people off their websites, like Malkin and Breitbart and now even Beck. They can’t handle the truth, apparently. Ignorance is bliss.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 7:38pmAdd your comments
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 7:42pmPajamash, you must be in a business that doesn’t require much math. You are citing $4.2M in savings, on a budget deficit of $910B. That is .0005% of the budget deficit…or 1/2,000th…a rounding error on a rounding error on a rounding error on a…well, you get the point. Nice try. Can we have a serious conversation now?!?
Okay smart ass, where would YOU cut?!
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 7:47pmABC, may I ask how you became “self-made” and such and intelligent person?
Report Post »Enuff Zenuff
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 8:00pm.
@ABC
I acknowledge you’re clearly a better writer than the average liberal, so thanks for keeping it interesting and civil. Since “WASTE” seems to be the theme, try this on:
EVERY DOLLAR SPENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS WASTED.
Some of those wasted dollars are “necessary evil” types of waste because we collectively agree that self-defense is important, as are efforts at prosecuting criminals and providing a court system to resolve our differences without bloodshed… These are all a waste of money because they PRODUCE nothing; they are merely preventing losses – which is a different thing than being productive. However, these are all considered LEGITIMATE expenses for government because we agreed we prefer these wasteful costs to anarchy, so we granted the Federal Government its constitutionally limited existence in order to provide these wasteful services.
ALL other monies spent by the Federal Government are ILLEGITIMATE WASTES. The private sector can do every other task far more efficiently that government and with far better service – the Post Office being the most common example. Stossel has yet to pay out on his $10k bet that no one can document anything the Federal Gov’t does better than private industry.
Medicare, Social Security, and all the other “Charitable” services are a waste because the same dollars spent through the private sector would provide far greater returns with less administrative cost and superior quality. I need offer no proof because the evidence is unimpeachable and overwhelming. You only need ask yourself whom you would trust more to provide a good service at a fair price –
1) Someone who must compete in the private sector and has their own money at stake if they fail? or
2) Someone who points a real gun at your head, demands your money, and then decides what level of service they can ‘afford’ to provide you since they need to spend a lot of your money to renew their “gun license” (i.e. to get re-elected).
ABC- I see that you are a stickler for evidence, but you (collectively) on the left NEVER account for how much better all that money could be spent if it were left in the hands of those who earned it. An article I recently read promoted soda pop taxes because “We could use the money to build parks!” – It totally ignored all the things I want to do with my money! I don’t need another park! I’ve got my own yard (park) to maintain – I’ve got grandkids I want to educate, a roof to fix and dependents to feed. I’ve got a million better things to do with my money than hand it over to some liberal to spend it for me. So I’m asking you (ABC) to a show us the evidence that you (and the government) can do a better job of spending our money than we could! WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
Report Post »15thGenerationAmerican
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 8:17pmABC- Wow, I started thinking you were rather intelligent and made good if not long-winded arguments but the more I read the more I realized the delusions you live under. I can get specific with spending cuts and the usefulness of agencies but it will waste much time doing so.
Your argument that most people are being childish is right but that does not make you right. You come from a well educated branch of the left wing and use many sound statements to trick people into believing everything you say is correct. Well my friend that is a matter of opinion. For one you make the insane claim that the Government must control schools because we’re losing out to so many nations on earth. They must because we can’t trust the “backward” thinking communities. That alone is funny. How do you explain the continual decline of scores as the government pumps more and more money into these schools? The decline of our education system has continued to worsen since D.C. got involved. This ridiculous notion of government improving anything is laughable.
How about we talk about SS, medicaid and medicare. What in the world was it like before it existed? Did millions starve? Go untreated? etc, etc? Some did as they do today, but family took care of one another, then neighbors and if that wasn’t enough the local churches and communities did. It worked until entitlements became cool and let people get off easy. The main reason it worked then was families friends and neighbors knew who really needed help. They knew the losers trying to find an easy way out, like so many lazy pigs I see day to day. They stroll to get beer at the corner store while I bust my ass to make a living! Meanwhile these same losers are on welfare, they make a few bucks selling their “foodstamps” at 50 cents on the dollar for their beer and drugs. They get “disabled” and the government or their work to pays for everything, then you see them out playing ball, riding motorcycles or whatever.
Don‘t tell me I don’t pay enough in taxes! When see what we spend on prison inmates per year and I see all these layers of police in one place (town, county and state) all overlapping, the cost per pupil per year, the public employee pension’s. You want to talk about numbers, here’s one public employee pensions are facing over $1 trillion in shortfalls this year!!!! How much have these pension cost the taxpayers in total? I could go on for days but I won’t.
Finally don’t you get all up in arms about GW, I voted for him twice- lesser of two evil’s. He was a clown, as was Clinton and is Obama. He spent like a democrat and millions of conservatives were screaming about that at the time, so don’t be dishonest. That said, you chose his 7th and 8th years with huge spending increases. Who was in control of congress at that time? Bush did what typical RINO’s do and gave in to wild democrat spending to get his wild spending through. You’re right, most of us know both sides are a joke. That’s why the teaparties emerged, regular American’s finally saying enough! You so eloquently use the term teabaggers. What you don’t understand is that this group of Americans is likely the most representative group of average Americans. Don’t think so? Go to a meeting or rally and talk to them. They are democrats, republicans, independents and non voters. They are white, black, Hispanic and Asian. And yes the minorities are a minority in these groups. If you do a little research you will find the percentage by race of the teapartiers -and I know how you like to group people- anyways you will find like I did that the percentage in the different groups mirrors the national percentages. Weird!?
Now I know I am not changing you mind, you are a liberal and convinced your big government idea will work, it will not and never has. You live in a thoretical world. You get some things right and are almost there and I will make the wild prediction that when you get older you will wise up.
God bless.
Report Post »OnToppaThat
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 8:33pmWhat’s amazing is, if we went back to the budget from Obama’s first year it would be a Trillion dollar cut ! Let’s do that. Then shave it 10% a year until we are square……hey….vote for me!
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 9:18pmEnuff,
I agree with the general dichotomy you are going for, although I would take issue with your characterization of it. You argue that there are things that the government must do and things that the government must not do, calling them legitimate and illegitimate waste (actually you only call the latter, but I infer that you would call the former legitimate). I would use different terminology, noting that government’s role should be to take on roles where the market fails or produces outcomes that we have decided democratically that we do not want. All other areas where the government operates, it has no business operating there. The difference between you and me is where we draw that dichotomy, and also how we characterize the areas where gov’t legitimately plays a role. You call that waste and non-productive, but I can point to real production there, and all mainstream economists, who count that productivity in their GDP calculations would agree with me and disagree with you. And, if you disagree, think about whether the work done by Blackwater in Iraq, which you would call productive, would magically become non-productive if a US Marine did it instead… This reveals why you are wrong to call it non-productive.
As for the disagreement over where we draw the line, this is complex and depends on the issue. Just to take one example, you would say that the gov’t has no business in health care delivery at all, so Medicare should be completely removed. I would point to the myriad market failures that plague health care delivery and maintain that only the government can be involved in this area. We could go down the list of many gov’t programs and have disagreement over this. But do not think that I do not have a legitimate, carefully considered response for why the USPS or the EPA should continue to exist. I hate the conservative caricature of people to the left of them as clueless, even as I understand their preference to argue against strawmen than tough, thinking opponents. We can have that discussion if you want, although it likely will take up a lot of time and posts.
The bottom line, however, is that in all areas that we can agree that gov’t plays a legitimate role, whether you want to call it legitimate waste or something else, the actual dollars need to flow there. And even Glenn Beck’s carefully assembled group of like-minded conservatives could not get to $910B in cost savings, so you cannot say that we can only cut our way to a balanced budget. You need to raise taxes. Now, if you want to try to make a deeper set of cuts than Beck did, so be it. But it will likely have to include things that you are calling legitimate waste, which only the gov’t can do. They should not be cut, and doing so will do more damage than simply raising taxes.
Now, you also wrote: “I see that you are a stickler for evidence, but you (collectively) on the left NEVER account for how much better all that money could be spent if it were left in the hands of those who earned it. An article I recently read promoted soda pop taxes because “We could use the money to build parks!” – It totally ignored all the things I want to do with my money! I don’t need another park! I’ve got my own yard (park) to maintain – I’ve got grandkids I want to educate, a roof to fix and dependents to feed. I’ve got a million better things to do with my money than hand it over to some liberal to spend it for me. So I’m asking you (ABC) to a show us the evidence that you (and the government) can do a better job of spending our money than we could! WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?”
I should not have to defend every hair-brained liberal idea, anymore than you should have to defend Hitler or Mubarek. But in light of my theory of where the gov’t belongs, there are clearly cases where the outcome of profit maximization is not what we desire democratically, so demanding that I show a higher ROIC for a gov’t solution than a private one is kind of beside the point. SS is not supposed to produce higher returns than Vanguard. It is designed to be there even if the stock market goes to zero and Vanguard goes bankrupt. You should not impose your own personal metrics on programs that were formulated for totally different reasons.
Report Post »weremoose
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 9:25pmABC, you’ve earned my respect with those replies. Honestly I’m getting concerned about the level.of trolling and misinformed punditry in the comments on the Blaze. I’d be interested in discussing these things more in-depth, economist to economist, if you are. My public email is eyvind59@yahoo.com. Note, it may take a few days for me to respond.
Report Post »Enuff Zenuff
Posted on February 16, 2011 at 12:37am.
@ABC
1) No inferring was needed…In my 3rd paragraph I used the word ‘Legitimate’ to refer to those wastes that the gov’t was created to waste money on (Military for self defense, Police for internal crimes, and courts to resolve legitimate differences between honest men)
2) You say the Federal gov’t has a legitimate role “where the market fails or produces outcomes that we have decided DEMOCRATICALLY that we do not want.” There is so much wrong with this statement I could write a book. The market doesn’t fail – the market follows the law of supply and demand, the market is based on the law of survival of the fittest. Liberals unhappy with losing in the free-market resort to abusing Federal power to force THEIR “desirable” outcomes. Desirable to whom? Relentless liberal meddling with the market has resulted in dumbed down schools, devalued currency, ridiculous pornographic images held up as “art”, huge criminal cartels, huge increases in unwed motherhood & teenage pregnancy rates, unaffordable vehicles & housing, and the utter bankruptcy of our nation – all to protect the clueless from themselves.
I put “Democratically” in all-caps because liberals also make the mistake of assuming we live in a “Democracy” instead of a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED Republic. Can you show me anywhere in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights where the word Democracy appears? It doesn’t even appear in any of the 50 state constitutions… Liberals forget that the only things they can ‘democratically’ vote on are things that are not constitutionally limited. They have crossed that line so many times they don’t even know where the line is anymore… Hence the Tea Party formed to make the line clearer again and demands that laws be grounded in the constitution.
We’re so far over the line with Medicare, Social Security & other entitlements that it will be nearly impossible to return to what works, but return we must! We are broke! Liberalism has been a complete & disastrous failure but liberals will never admit the damage they’ve done. It may require the agony and misery of going through a national bankruptcy to force us to return to a sane system based in reality instead of liberal thinking. Obama’s budget will ensure we go right over the cliff if it passes.
“But!” you say you’re not against reducing spending – you just want to raise taxes! Look, the only thing that generates ANY wealth (anything of value) is people being productive, supplying peoples’ needs and then their wants… but this requires incentives such as free-market capitalism provides. Taxes only put brakes on bad behavior but do nothing for good behavior (i.e., productivity). Productivity is only incentivised by the rewards of productivity. Raising taxes = removing rewards… It’s like sticking the carbon rods into a nuclear pile – taxes absorb all the activity, cooling things off. What we most need now is to stoke the fires of industry, growing businesses here by cutting taxes (which won’t be a problem if we’d cut spending!).
Liberals dearly want to redistribute wealth but there’s no better gift to the masses than a healthy job market! Obama’s policies do the opposite so effectively many question whether it isn’t intentional.
BTW I’m all for cutting spending even on the ‘legitimate’ functions of government too – as long as the basic obligations are met. I’d spend more on defending our Southern border, but less on overseas “peace-keeping” missions. Either nuke’em and come home or let them fight among themselves – but make any attack against the USA an unthinkable proposition that would end very badly and very QUICKLY for them.
3) You assumed wrong. I would not call “Blackwater in Iraq” productive. As long as the government is paying for it, it is wasteful. Blackwater-in-Iraq may happen to be a ‘Legitimate-but-wasteful’ expense, but just because it is private enterprise doesn’t make it productive – (just less wasteful than if the gov’t was doing the same job). I don’t care what mainstream economists call it on their balance sheets – it’s still war! – Nothing is being produced – only consumed! That’s why I still classify it as wasteful.
4) You’re correct that I believe gov’t has no business in health care (other than paying private industry to give our military veterans the best possible care). Yes, Medicare should be completely removed as soon as feasible. You said, “myriad market failures plague health care delivery”, and you maintain that, “only gov’t can be involved” but you give no examples so I’ll assume you mean health care for the uninsured, portability, etc…
The liberals won’t let us pass tort reforms!
Stop incentivising illegal aliens with free health care.
Allow Insurance companies to compete across state lines.
32% of all health care costs are administrative (i.e. unproductive and mostly unnecessary if the gov’t stays out of it)!
Get rid of gov’t interference and the free market could provide much better care. The proof is that we already have the best quality system in the world due to the freeness of our market – but the gov’t involvement is what has made it unnecessarily expensive and will only make it worse (i.e. rationing). Just look at the failures of all the countries with socialized medicine. I’ll bet even Detroit has more MRI machines than all of Canada!
Charities will help the helpless but even the government cannot help the clueless.
5) Thank you for sparing us a “legitimate, carefully considered response for why the USPS or the EPA should continue to exist”… I’ll concede that you think their continued existence is justifiable; but if you believe that, then you forfeit your right to complain as you did in your very next sentence, “I hate the conservative caricature of people to the left of them as clueless.”
You can’t have it both ways.
I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks Hitler and Mubarak weren’t pro-big-government liberals IS clueless! What else can I say?
6) The lack of self-analysis in your own arguments is disappointing for someone so well educated, as you seem to be. You say that Social Security isn’t supposed to out-perform Vanguard, it is just supposed to be there. I don’t demand a higher ROI than private industry but if the gov’t can’t do even remotely as well, then why do they bother?… and don’t give me this “it’s just supposed to be there” crock when everyone knows there’s nothing there but a bunch of I.O.U.’s (hence the “lack of self analysis comment” – I can’t believe you even made that argument!).
7) I will never understand liberals’ preference for government solutions over private industry. There is no omniscient being at the head of government! – It’s just a bunch of people working in offices. At least in private industry there is the absolute requirement that one provide an excellent product at a good price or else you cannot compete. Is that what liberals hate about the free market so much? The gov’t has NO incentive to compete and gets to waste untold Trillions of taxpayer dollars without having to account for it – all while holding a gun to our heads and saying “PAY ME” for lousy service.
It’s not that it wouldn’t be great if there really were someone we could trust to do the right thing – but there just aren’t enough Sarah Palin’s to go around. (She let go of the cook, chauffeur, and private jet she didn’t need as governor). To continue to put your faith in government doing the right thing is akin to a grown adult still believing in Santa Claus…
Of all the things the federal government does that are beyond the constitutional limits, name me one thing that government has done better than private industry could have done!
I’m sure you’re thinking we need gov’t watchdogs like the EPA and SEC to prevent free market abuses. The SEC was supposed to prevent the abuses that resulted in taxpayers bailing out Wall St with a Trillion dollars. What was the SEC doing? Watching taxpayer funded porn – a whole damn’d office full of SEC ‘watchdogs’. BP OIL SPILL? – Another failure of gov’t (EPA?) watchdogs watching porn. Anyone fired? No. Anyone lose his or her jobs? Two took early retirement with full benefits; the rest are still there.
Why not require that all the offshore oil drillers be insured (no more self-insured companies because we need to trust but verify)… Any outside insurer would have never let some of the things happen that happened. That would be the private industry solution.
Similarly with the Wall St. meltdown. Get rid of Fannie & Freddie & go back to requiring that banks retain title to the properties they loan against… then they won’t be so quick to make NINJA loans to deadbeats that the taxpayers had to bail out. Where’s the common sense?
What is the liberal solution to prevent another recurrence? – Another agency to watch over the watchdogs! That spells c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s. Don’t you think?
Report Post »Enuff Zenuff
Posted on February 16, 2011 at 12:46amCORRECTION:
Report Post »I meant to say that:
Liberals forget that the only things they can ‘democratically’ vote on are things that ARE constitutionally limited.
Enuff Zenuff
Posted on February 16, 2011 at 2:18am.
“The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it.”
— Mark R. Levin (Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto)
@ABC
1) I could write a book on all that I disagree with in your statement that the Federal gov’t has a legitimate role “where the market fails or produces outcomes that we have decided democratically that we do not want.”
The free market cannot and does fail when it is based on free choices made between free men. The free market follows the law of supply and demand and also follows the law of “survival of the fittest”.
Liberals who fail in the free-market often resort to abusing Federal power to force THEIR “desirable” outcomes. Desirable to whom? Relentless liberal meddling with the market has dumbed down schools, devalued our currency, funded offensive pornographic images as “art”, created huge criminal cartels, increased unwed motherhood & teenage pregnancy, made vehicles, energy & housing almost unaffordable, and utterly bankrupted our nation – all to protect the clueless from themselves.
Liberals mistakenly assume we live in a “Democracy” instead of a CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED Republic. Show me where the word democracy appears in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights! It doesn’t even appear in any of the 50 state constitutions…
Democratic voting is only legal on matters allowed under the constitution, yet Progressives have crossed that line so many times they don’t even know where the line is anymore… Hence the Tea Party demands that future bills be grounded in the constitution.
We’re so far over that line with Medicare, Social Security & other Progressive entitlements that it will be nearly impossible to return to what works, but return we must! We are broke! Liberalism has been a complete & disastrous failure but liberals never admit the damage they’ve done. It may require the agony and misery of going through a national bankruptcy to force us to return to a sane system based in reality instead of liberal thinking. If Obama’s budget passes, it will ensure we go right over the cliff.
“But!” you say you’re not against reduced spending – you just want to raise taxes! Look, the only thing that generates ANY wealth (anything of value) is people being productive, supplying peoples’ needs and then their wants… but this requires incentives such as free-market capitalism provides. Taxes put brakes on bad behavior but do nothing for good behavior (i.e., productivity). Productivity is only incentivised by keeping the rewards of productivity. Raising taxes = removing rewards… It’s like sticking the carbon rods into a nuclear pile – taxes absorb all the productive activity, cooling things off. What we most need right now is to stoke the fires of industry, growing businesses here by cutting taxes and removing stultifying gov’t regulations.
Liberals dearly want to redistribute wealth. Great! There’s no better gift to the masses than a healthy job market to make everyone wealthy! Obama’s policies do the opposite so effectively that many question whether it isn’t intentional.
BTW, I favor reduced spending even on ‘legitimate’ functions of government – as long as the basic security obligations are met. I’d spend more on defending our Southern border, but less on overseas “peace-keeping” missions. Either win the war quickly and come home or let them fight among themselves – but make any attack against the USA an unthinkable proposition that would end very badly and very QUICKLY for them.
2) You assumed wrong. I do not consider “Blackwater in Iraq” productive. As long as the government is paying for it, the money is non-productive; wasteful. Blackwater-in-Iraq may be a ‘Legitimate-but-wasteful’ expense, but being ‘private enterprise’ doesn’t make it productive, (just less wasteful than if the gov’t was doing the same job). I don’t care what mainstream economists call it on their balance sheets – it’s still war! – Nothing is being produced – only consumed! That’s why I still classify it as wasteful.
3) You’re correct that I believe gov’t has no business in health care (other than paying private industry to give our military veterans the best possible care). Yes, Medicare should be completely removed as soon as feasible. You said, “myriad market failures plague health care delivery”, and you maintain that, “only gov’t can be involved” but you give no examples… so I’ll assume you mean health care for the uninsured, portability, etc… You want better health care for all Americans?
1) Stop opposing badly needed tort reforms.
2) Stop incentivising illegal aliens with free health care – we’re broke!
3) Allow Insurance companies to compete across state lines.
4) Remove gov’t administrative costs that account for 32% of all health care costs
5) Hundreds of $Billions have been wasted on fraud when the gov’t runs it.
Get rid of gov’t interference and the free market will provide much better and more affordable care. The proof is that we already have the best quality system in the world due to the relative freeness of our market – but the gov’t involvement is what has made it unnecessarily expensive and will only make it worse (expect rationing). Just look at the failures of all the countries with socialized medicine. I’ll bet even failed US Cities like Detroit have more MRI machines than all of Canada!
Charities will help the helpless but even the government cannot help the clueless.
4) I’ll concede that you believe you have a “legitimate, carefully considered response for why the USPS or the EPA should continue to exist”; but, if you believe that, then you forfeit your right to complain as you did in your very next sentence, “I hate the conservative caricature of people to the left of them as clueless.”
You can’t have it both ways.
Hitler and Mubarak were pro-big-government liberals so why on earth would you even imply I might have any interest in defending them?
5) You say that Social Security isn’t supposed to out-perform Vanguard… “it is just supposed to be there”. I don’t demand SS provide a higher ROI than private industry but if the gov’t can’t do even remotely as well, then why would they bother?… and you can’t defend big gov’t by saying “it’s just supposed to be there” when everyone knows there’s nothing there but a bunch of empty I.O.U.’s there!
6) I will never understand liberals’ preference for government solutions over private industry. There is no omniscient being at the head of government! – It’s just a bunch of people working in offices.
At least in the free market there is the absolute requirement that you provide a good product at a good price or else you won’t be around long, and if you provide an excellent product at an excellent price you can become extremely well rewarded. The gov’t has NO incentive to compete and gets to waste untold Trillions of taxpayer dollars without having to account for it – all while holding a gun to our heads and saying “PAY ME” for lousy service, but the liberals choose BIG GOV’T every time!
To continue to put your faith in government doing the right thing is akin to a grown adult still believing in Santa Claus…
Of all the things the federal government does that are beyond the constitutional limits, name one thing that government has done better than private industry could do!
I’m sure you’re thinking, “But, we need gov’t watchdogs like the EPA and SEC to prevent free market abuses!” The SEC was supposed to prevent the abuses that resulted in taxpayers bailing out Wall St with a Trillion dollars. What was the SEC doing? Watching taxpayer funded porn – the whole office full of SEC ‘watchdogs’!. BP OIL SPILL? – Another failure of (EPA?) watchdogs watching porn. Anyone fired? No. Anyone lose his or her job? Two took early retirement with full benefits; the rest are still there.
The private industry solution: Why not require that all the offshore oil drillers be insured (no ‘self-insured’ companies) because we need to trust but verify… Any outside insurer would never have let the things happen that contributed to the oil spill.
Similarly with the Wall St. meltdown. Sell off Fannie & Freddie & go back to requiring banks to retain title to the properties they loan against… then they won’t be so quick to make NINJA loans to deadbeats.
What is the liberal solution to prevent another recurrence of these fiascos?
Another agency to watch the watchdogs! That’ll work – Don’t you think?
Report Post »Enuff Zenuff
Posted on February 16, 2011 at 2:30amSorry about reposting something similar… My first post (2/16/2011 12:37 am) disappeared after it said it was awaiting moderating so I assumed the moderator removed it. I made some changes & resubmitted it but by then the first post had reappeared!.
Mr. Moderator – if your’e reading this, feel free to remove the first post plus the ‘correction’ I left at 12:46 am
Report Post »abc
Posted on February 16, 2011 at 2:48pm15th,
“Wow, I started thinking you were rather intelligent and made good if not long-winded arguments but the more I read the more I realized the delusions you live under. I can get specific with spending cuts and the usefulness of agencies but it will waste much time doing so.”
I didn’t realize that making the simple argument that there are not enough acceptable cuts to avoid raising taxes in order to close a structural $910B shortfall was a delusion. The math is simple enough and uncontested. When I think of delusions, I think of pink elephants or the Easter Bunny. Not simple arithmetic. And your punting on specifics is unfortunate, since budget discussions require exactly those details in order to make sense.
“Your argument that most people are being childish is right but that does not make you right. You come from a well educated branch of the left wing and use many sound statements to trick people into believing everything you say is correct. Well my friend that is a matter of opinion.”
No attempt to trick, but to inform. I rely upon uncontested data that is available at the US Treasury website and validated by NBER and many other outside economics groups.
“For one you make the insane claim that the Government must control schools because we’re losing out to so many nations on earth. They must because we can’t trust the “backward” thinking communities. That alone is funny. How do you explain the continual decline of scores as the government pumps more and more money into these schools? The decline of our education system has continued to worsen since D.C. got involved. This ridiculous notion of government improving anything is laughable.”
First, you should distinguish between that comment about education, which clearly was my opinion, from the larger argument that different people will have different views about how much of the Dept of Education to cut, without those people being labeled liars or fools. Also, I am not talking about control, but about minimum standards. I merely am saying that Dover, PA cannot take time away from the teaching of evolution to teach religion during science class, and the federal gov’t must be the safeguard against that. If they want to teach religion outside of class, using the public school, that should be fine. The failure of our education is a complex discussion that you cannot reduce to simply saying the federal gov’t is involved, so it is a failure. Most countries with leading educational systems rely on the central govt rather than local communities to enforce the standards, so I think you are wrong. However, it is a minor opinion you are pointing to within the context of a larger debate over what to cut and by how much.
“How about we talk about SS, medicaid and medicare. What in the world was it like before it existed? Did millions starve? Go untreated? etc, etc? Some did as they do today, but family took care of one another, then neighbors and if that wasn’t enough the local churches and communities did. It worked until entitlements became cool and let people get off easy. The main reason it worked then was families friends and neighbors knew who really needed help. They knew the losers trying to find an easy way out, like so many lazy pigs I see day to day. They stroll to get beer at the corner store while I bust my ass to make a living! Meanwhile these same losers are on welfare, they make a few bucks selling their “foodstamps” at 50 cents on the dollar for their beer and drugs. They get “disabled” and the government or their work to pays for everything, then you see them out playing ball, riding motorcycles or whatever.”
You point to an era (pre-New Deal) when doctors made house calls to the rich and the poor died because TB was being spread through slums. This is hardly included in your account of friends helping friends. And if you think that every neonatal case, which costs on average nearly $1M is going to be covered by local bake sales drives, then you are sorely mistaken. China lacks a medical safety net and look at what occurs. People have dropped off the elderly at morgues still alive…to die. We can return to the pre-New Deal era, but that means adopting China’s living standard (no EPA, no FDA, no safety net), and the vast majority of Americans would not accept this, nor do they need to. I’ve lived in China, so I have seen what pre-New Deal living standards look like.
“Don‘t tell me I don’t pay enough in taxes! When see what we spend on prison inmates per year and I see all these layers of police in one place (town, county and state) all overlapping, the cost per pupil per year, the public employee pension’s. You want to talk about numbers, here’s one public employee pensions are facing over $1 trillion in shortfalls this year!!!! How much have these pension cost the taxpayers in total? I could go on for days but I won’t.”
No one likes to pay taxes, but the numbers do not lie. You cannot find enough cuts–Beck and his conservative experts couldn’t–so the only two options are soak the kids and grandkids and great grandkids by saddling them with debt, or increase taxes on those with an ability to pay, which is the upper middle class, rich and ultra rich. I think the latter option is the more acceptable one, speaking as a member of that group.
“Finally don’t you get all up in arms about GW, I voted for him twice- lesser of two evil’s. He was a clown, as was Clinton and is Obama. He spent like a democrat and millions of conservatives were screaming about that at the time, so don’t be dishonest. That said, you chose his 7th and 8th years with huge spending increases. Who was in control of congress at that time? Bush did what typical RINO’s do and gave in to wild democrat spending to get his wild spending through. You’re right, most of us know both sides are a joke. That’s why the teaparties emerged, regular American’s finally saying enough! You so eloquently use the term teabaggers. What you don’t understand is that this group of Americans is likely the most representative group of average Americans. Don’t think so? Go to a meeting or rally and talk to them. They are democrats, republicans, independents and non voters. They are white, black, Hispanic and Asian. And yes the minorities are a minority in these groups. If you do a little research you will find the percentage by race of the teapartiers -and I know how you like to group people- anyways you will find like I did that the percentage in the different groups mirrors the national percentages. Weird!?”
I didn’t cherry pick the last two years because of a Democratic Congress, but because that is when the severe recession impacted deficit numbers. And if you examine additions to unfunded liabilities, those peaked in ‘03-’05, due to the Iraq War, Medicare Part D, and the tax cuts. Conservatives wrongly focus on the deficit, when the real number to follow is additions to unfunded liabilities in debt projections. This is because the latter number doesn’t hit the accounting until future years although it was added to the debt in that past period. And those numbers are far bigger than the deficit numbers that the Dem Congress and Obama supposedly racked up. Don’t believe me? Just one example: A GOP Congress and GOP President (Bush) passed and signed Medicare Part D to benefit the all-important drug companies that exclusively fund GOP elections. Estimated cost of this program over a 50 year actuarial study undertaken by Pete Petersen (Republican and former Treasury Secy under Nixon): $32 TRILLION. That’s $640B per year, although it ramps up in about 10 years. That is a far bigger hit than anything in TARP or the stimulus that Obama did, which was done in an emergency rather than merely to pay back generous political donors. And yet no one focuses on this on the right side of the aisle. I wonder why…
“Now I know I am not changing you mind, you are a liberal and convinced your big government idea will work, it will not and never has. You live in a thoretical world. You get some things right and are almost there and I will make the wild prediction that when you get older you will wise up. God bless.”
No. You haven’t convinced me, but not because I am blindly holding onto my beliefs, but because your argument lacks important numbers, which should be added. That you lack them undermines the credibility of your case. I hope you will try to present financial data next time, since a budget discussion is meaningless rhetoric without it.
Report Post »