The fundamental transformation of America is advancing

Dr. Paul Kengor's picture

Timing is everything in politics. For four years, I angered conservatives by insisting Barack Obama would get reelected. I figured that an electorate willing to elect a man with ideas and a record that far to the left in 2008 would do so again. I began changing my view, however, after the first presidential debate. Over the last three or four weeks, I became confident that Mitt Romney would defeat Obama.

Fortunately for Obama, two forces intervened to rescue him. One was the mainstream media, which ensured that Benghazi, Hurricane Sandy, and the increase in the unemployment rate wouldn’t be used to undermine Obama. As for Hurricane Sandy, Obama flew in for a photo-op and then immediately returned to campaigning. If George W. Bush were president, a relentless media would have ensured that Bush didn’t return to the campaign trail.

The second force was David Axelrod and the campaign machine. I stand in awe at what they pulled off. They managed to push considerably more Democrats than Republicans to the polls (38-32 percent margin), closer to the 2008 turnout that favored Obama than the 2010 mid-term turnout that favored Republicans. Because they did, the predictions of an easy Romney victory by the likes of Dick Morris, Michael Barone, George Will, and Newt Gingrich (and myself) were dead wrong.

We were certain that pollsters were oversampling Democrats. The pro-Republican, pro-Romney, and anti-Obama enthusiasm we were seeing was extremely intense. It was inconceivable to us that it could be overcome by a higher Democrat turnout.

Somehow, however, it was, obliterating Romney’s five-point victory among independents. It erased Romney’s 50-49 percent edge in the final polls by Gallup and Rasmussen.

I stand in stunned disbelief. David Axelrod, you are a miracle worker.

How much of a miracle worker? Consider:

The American people reelected a man who presided over one of the worst four-year economic records in American history.

By every objective measurement, the economy is far worse than four years ago: 47 million on food stamps (up from 32 million); all-time record deficits and debit (dwarfing the Bush numbers); chronic unemployment; a prolonged non-recovering recovery; 636,000 homeless; a doubling of gas prices; and on and on.

For historical perspective, consider this: No president since FDR in 1940 won reelection with an unemployment rate above 7.1 percent. And for FDR, that number was a huge improvement from four years earlier.

How did Obama and his team overcome this? The answer: they successfully blamed it on George W. Bush, with Bill Clinton aiding and abetting the process. There were no limits to how much they blamed Bush, and how much it worked. The Democratic base swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

Sadly, other things worked as well, and none are good for this country. The framing of Republicans as conducting a “war on women” because they don’t favor forced taxpayer funding of abortion, Planned Parenthood, and contraception worked. The insistence that government-provided contraception is a new “entitlement” worked. The demonization of the Tea Party — a movement spontaneously created by Obama’s wild spending — worked.

For that matter, Obama got away with the extraordinarily wasteful $800 billon “stimulus” package that didn’t stimulate and buried us fiscally. He even got away with the HHS mandate that constitutes the greatest threat to religious liberty (particularly against the Catholic Church) in at least a century.

In terms of social policy, the electorate has given the green light to a president who is redefining marriage and promoting forced funding of abortion and contraception and embryo destruction — at the expense of religious liberty.

Moreover, the president’s unceasing class-warfare rhetoric was rewarded by the electorate, as were his attacks on profits, the private sector, the wealthy, banking and investment, and the oil and natural gas industry.

The Obama energy policy is advanced. Mitt Romney would have unleashed a boom for America’s domestic energy industry. That is now gone. That is a tragedy, the levels of which we will not be able to appreciate.

And what about Romney? I had my reservations, but America rejected a genuinely decent man who had the best business background of anyone who would have ever assumed the Oval Office. He was the perfect person for the perfect time.

In short, what we saw on Nov. 6, 2012 was a breathtaking display of political survival by Barack Obama, the first president to be re-elected with a lower number of Electoral College votes and popular vote.

What we also witnessed was the final step in the fundamental transformation of America that Barack Obama promised four years ago.

[Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City (Penn.) College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and author of the book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His other books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”] © 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
obama is turning America into a ghetto

It's okay folks!! Barack O'Clause is going to be leaving EBT cards under the pillows of all the good little Democrats this Christmas.

And for those of you who have been especially good (by voting more than once), you might even find some Food Stamps, WIC Payments, SSI Payments some HUD Housing Allowances AND an Obamaphone under there too!

Like Barack O'Clause and the Democrats say: "We don't need no stinken` budgets! It's way too much fun playing Santa with other people's money".

Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho.... Merry Christmas to all!

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
Hey Joe, Mitt Romney got his ‘free lunch’

at the White House yesterday. He dinned on Southwestern grilled chicken salad and white turkey chili. I bet it tasted a lot like crow to Mitt, eh? When he was done feasting at the public expense, he washed it down with some bitter tea!

Ha! Ha! Get it? “Bitter Tea” as in “Bitter TeaParty!” Ha!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - You

well know there is no such thing as a free lunch......especially in this case.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, you’re not just a

PTC_0, you’re not just a whistling Dixie, check out the numbers on what was spent on this Presidential election!

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - I know

They bought this election fair and square, with our money.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, that’s exactly what I

PTC_0, that’s exactly what I would have said if Mitt Romney won!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - for

Sure, only Mr. Obama had much deeper pockets....ours.

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, well, if that

PTC_0, well, if that sentiment brings you comfort, you stick with it.

Help is on the way. Grover Norquist announced TeaParty 2, on Meet the Press, Sunday. Did you see it?

Grover started talking like “Dr. Strangelove” about the ‘fiscal cliff ‘ and, for a few seconds, I thought Jim Cramer was going to jump over the table on top of him!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiRWM0i2rLQ

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Gort - No

It doesn't bring me comfort at all, as for Mr. Norquist, what's he done that's so spectacular?

In fact the government keeps growing and it would do so with or without Mr. Norquist. It has been out of total control for decades.

Btw, I welcome the fiscal cliff, the faster we can get this over with the better off we we will be. If the compromise they created this "event" was acceptable in 2011, why not now?

Gort
Gort's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2009
PTC_0, Going over the cliff

PTC_0, Going over the cliff don’t scare me, it’s the landing I’m worried about!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Libya - CIA

Wow - what a story. This is just a scenario out of the blue.

The CIA has an operation going on in Benghazi. There were Americans and Libyans involved. The consulate was attacked by terrorists. (Four Americans were killed) A number of Americans were saved - placed in safe houses and were removed safely before it was acknowledged that a terrorist group had killed American citizens. Susan Rice was given intelligence information that was incorrect - but may have possibly made it safer for the remaining Americans who remained in harms way in Libya - and also to protect those Libyans who were helping those Americans.

What a plot!! Wish I had the skill to write a story!!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Most fiction usually has fantastical plots...

Rice lied 5 times.

The question is who gave her the story to lie about?

But then the larger question is why then did Obama lie 2 weeks later at the UN..he too blamed a video.. So DM were those Americans still in hiding?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

Your questions have been discussed all day! Check your talking points again. I haven't finished my fictional story yet - I may get a movie offer!!!! Stay tuned.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM

She came out with her "story" 5 Days LATER, however General Patreus stated the "Intelligence" Community KNEW in 24 hours after the event it was a Terrorist attack... Yet Obama 2 weeks later still shoveled the same ole BS.

A story is being told DM.. just not a truthful one. Yet you could not care less could you?

Your Government is lying to you and as long as it is your party that is telling the lies you are ok with that.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Who is lying?

You who have faithfully counted on Fox News for your source of the truth - were shocked on November 6. Was Fox News lying to you? The truth: The Republicans lost the presidential election, At this time, throughout the country, Republicans and Democrats are researching the pros and cons of the election results.

And now two famous Senators (R) are blaming the US Ambassador to the United Nations for 'lying' about Benghazi to the American people. .and are challenging the President of the United States if he nominates her for Secretary of State.

The country still mourns the death of the Americans in Libya - and we still mourn the deaths of the citizens of the world in New York, the Pentagon, and those brave Americans who caused the crash of the plane in order to save other Americans in the United States. We also mourn those brave men and women that were lost in Iraq - defending those citizens of Iraq and the world from WMD's. (Which were never found - although we were assured that they were there by a Republican administration) We will see who is 'lying' - as the TRUTH always seems to surface at one point or another.

At this point - the electorate is awaiting to see what the Congress and the White House are going to do about this 'fiscal cliff'. All members of Congress should be hard at work looking for a way to come to a consensus so that the American people have some knowledge about what will happen to them if and when the Bush tax situation is not extended. I guess the Republicans are getting more attention by meeting with Ambassador Rice then meeting with their counterparts. They have leverage to block the nomination of Senator Rice - but if they don't take steps to assist with this 'fiscal crisis' - according to the 'polls', the Republicans will be blamed for a negative fiscal situation beginning in 2013. Have a nice day.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM..did she or did she not speak untruthfully?

I don't have to go to Fox News Dm to know that she went out 5 DAYS after the event and tried to tell US this was a protest gone wild over a video, then the President does the exact same thing 2 WEEKS later at the UN even though Intelligence Reports NOW show they knew within 24 hours.

Do you deny this?

Personally I don't blame you for trying to change the subject... if I backed an Administration that lies to the American People as much as this one does I wouldn't want to discuss it either...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

She spoke as truthfully as General Powell did regarding the WMD. Hey - are your guys working with their colleagues in Congress to get us through this fiscal crisis? Not changing the subject, but like Watergate, we will find out the truth of this situation - which is a tragedy. - - not a political football. Your man lost!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Wow that's a hedge

That's like saying she spoke as truthfully as a Politician. A 50/50 bet at best.

Oh and that cheap shot about "Your Man Lost"... I thought Obama was the President of the United States that means all of us DM not just certain Groups, but then again I wasn't in the hand-out demographic then was I.

DM just remember that old Country saying.. "The Sun don't shine on the same dogs butt all of the time" Governments change DM be careful what excesses you approve of just because "Your Man Won".. because the next time you might not like the changes made then what will you do?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

VOTE!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Deleted by poster

.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Fiscal crisis

The "fiscal crisis" we are witnessing in Washington is really very simple to explain.

Reasonable solutions are being held up by the Republicans who believe the rich do not have enough money and that the poor and middle class have too much. See, it is not complicated.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Lion and the "Tax the Rich" Straw Man

Lion, if Obama gets the tax the rich scam through, you do realize the added taxes will only run the country for....... 8 days!

This is not even considering the consequences of raising taxes in a very weak recovery. Lion, have you ever heard of a LLC? Many small businesses that we are hoping will hire are going to be hit hard and my guess is the hiring will cease.

The ability to borrow which led to Excessive Government Spending got us into this mess, not a lack of tax revenue.

Personally my "Fair Share" portion was exceeded years ago, I am Taxed Enough Already. -GP

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Lion & The Fiscal Crisis

The Fiscal Crisis is a hell of a lot easier to understand than your purported logic!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
lion what "Reasonable Solutions" are being held up...

...by the Republicans.. Your just full of.....well...Talking Points aren't you.

Ridges23
Ridges23's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/12/2012
Please speak to the whole story and not to your point

I read this site all the time and except for a few people, there are so many people that state their position as the gospel and then quote a newspaper site as their source. Opinions are great! and I have one also but stating your opinion then using a newspaper as your source is really nothing more than their opinion.

This is in reference to the poster saying that spending is not being talked about. I have heard both side consistently say that entitlement as well as defense spending is on the table. Forgive me if that was not said but I am sure that's what I heard. Lastly, both parties have constituents that they try to keep happy and as soon as they realize that the most vocal of those people are on the extremes of the party and the majority is in the middle, to one extent or the other, then nothing will get fixed.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Practical "Gospel" and Spending

Deficit spending is the problem, what Washington is debating can not and will not solve the problem they have created.

Buzz words like "A Balanced Approach" and the "Pay Their Fair Share" used to create a "Straw Man" to blame while ignoring the facts!

We have dug a hole, we are still digging, what we are debating now is the size of the shovel we should use to continue digging!!!!

It's all Wall Street's fault, or the rich, or whatever, all of this is just a diversion!

How about some facts, look at these numbers.....

Current National Debt: 16 Trillion
Additional Unfunded liabilities: $60 Trillion (SS & Medicare for Baby Boomers), not including the Obamacare shortfall.

Current Annual Deficit: 1.3 Trillion
Actual annual debt with future liabilities factored in: 5 Trillion

Current income tax revenue: $1.1 Trillion

Income taxes paid by those earning $250,000 and up: $500 Billion

Extra taxes to collected by Obama's "tax the rich" proposal: $50 Billion

Assuming no adverse impact on the economy (punishing the producers will cause LESS revenue)....and assuming every penny of the new revenue goes towards deficit reduction instead of new spending(ROFLMAO if you believe that!!!!)....then....

Our 1.3 trillion dollar annual deficit becomes a 1.25 trillion dollar deficit.....Our annual deficit with unfunded liabilities averaged in goes from 5 Trillion to 4.95 Trillion.

These are huge numbers that are beyond comprehension to most.

Now show me the answer...., we certainly have not heard one from either party, Ron Paul is the ONLY one who even attempted to address the facts and now he is gone. Good luck. GP

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Deficit and GP

The right wing has been screaming that the deficit is the BIG problem facing the nation. And the right wing also argues dogmatically that the only solution is to cut spending--meaning "entitlement" spending.

However, deficit spending has not brought about the end of the world since the the tea party, right wing began singing this tune four years ago (when Obama was elected President).

Problems....SS does not contribute to the deficit. It is self-funding despite what the right wing claims.

If the right wing was serious about the deficit, it would argue for tax increases on all Americans to reduce that terrible deficit. Instead it whines about too much Federal spending which I guess does not include VA benefits, Medicare or those other benefits that Fayette County senior citizens enjoy.

And Ron Paul is a nut case that no reasonable person (the majority of the electorate) would take seriously.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Lion please get some actual facts...
lion wrote:

Problems....SS does not contribute to the deficit. It is self-funding despite what the right wing claims.

Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

"This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

If it pays out more then it takes in how is it therefore self funding? This is not the first time you have made this BoguS argument

lion wrote:

The right wing has been screaming that the deficit is the BIG problem facing the nation. And the right wing also argues dogmatically that the only solution is to cut spending--meaning "entitlement" spending.

Lion...I admit arguing with someone like you is a bit like arguing with the old proverbial lamppost. Like you it is incapable of understanding even the basics of speech much less facts.
We are $16+ TRILLION in debt and like your brother Gort you believe we can just keep spending and racking up debt with no consequences. I honestly don't even know how to begin an argument on that premise if the person you are debating doesn't even have the basic understanding of economics. But here goes the old College try in under 20 paragraphs..

Money/Credit is used to move business and to buy goods ie.. oil from other parts of the World. Since we do not have a surplus of cash we now have to borrow ie..use our CREDIT to accomplish this. If we cannot get credit from other Country's then we have two choice and only TWO choices.

Stop spending or print money. If we stop spending yes Entitlements takes the first hit but they won't be the last. If we print money we all take the hit with inflation. Print enough money and voila you get the Wiemar Republic.

lion wrote:

However, deficit spending has not brought about the end of the world since the the tea party, right wing began singing this tune four years ago (when Obama was elected President).

Much like Global Warming, something I am sure you believe in has not brought about the end of the World, deficit spending takes time to really hurt. The simple question...one that I put to Gort is, can we continue to spend in perpetuity with no consequence to that spending? Now if you believe like Gort, which I assume you do, you will answer YES.
Again here comes that lamppost thingy.

This vision and practice only ends in one of two ways... Greece or Wiemar.. Pick one.

lion wrote:

If the right wing was serious about the deficit, it would argue for tax increases on all Americans to reduce that terrible deficit. Instead it whines about too much Federal spending which I guess does not include VA benefits, Medicare or those other benefits that Fayette County senior citizens enjoy.

In this you are partly correct. However the Right has been promised time and time again.. ala Reagan and Oneal.. Bush and Kennedy that if they will just go for more tax increases the Left will go for a few spending cuts. Tha all too predictable results are taxes go up under a Republican President and the PROMISED spending never happens.

You see Lion there is an old saying that most know instinctively... Fool me once shame on you.. Fool me twice shame on me...

...and yet again that Whimpy plan is being made if you will vote for taxes today I will gladly cut spending someday.

Lion the problem not the solution is Government.It's the way Government has devolved/evolved into a spending entity.

We are, well we were, a Republic not a Social Democracy.

We are now a failed Republic and a fallen Democracy. Socialism is the next step. With Government taking care of us and governing business if not outright controlling them. ACA, GM anyone?

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Lion and Social Security

Lion, all government spending contributes to the deficit, entitlements have grown enormously in the last 12 years, they are a big part of the problem but will continue to grow as the people have learned how to vote themselves money.

The Social Security trust fund contains nothing more than IOUs that have no value beyond a promise to impose higher taxes on future workers.

The annual surpluses that many thought were being used to build up a reserve for Baby Boomers have been spent on other government programs or to reduce government debt.

Here is a short video that may make it easier for you to understand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GSXbgfKFWg

Massive government spending, borrowing and spending money that we do not have is the problem. Raising taxes on businesses in this economy is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do. -GP

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lion - Tax the Rich

It is estimated that if you taxed everyone that makes $250K and above at 100%, that is you took all the wealth they create in one year. The government would raise $1.2 trillion in revenue. So, we could balance the budget for one year.

Want to go for 100% in 2013? Then what? Back to square one I suppose.

The problem Lion is the deficit from past years not just this year. By the end of this year, CBO projects that the federal debt will reach roughly 70 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the highest percentage since shortly after World War II. Our current government is simply piling more on top of a bad situation.

All the tax increases in the world will not help, the math doesn't work.

Just prepare yourself for being much poorer in the future Lion if things don't change and change fast, everyone will be right there with you, rich and poor.

There are no good answers since we have painted ourselves into a corner.

Our growing national debt reduces national savings as people begin to live off their savings and paying higher personal interest rates for credit. There will be more borrowing from China and less domestic investments, thus lowering the growth rate of the economy. A very viscous cycle.

Our continued fiscal deterioration, reflected in credit ratings will result in higher interest payments on our debt. Thus, interest payments will become a larger and larger percentage of our budget. Look at Spain and Greece, they pay up to 8% on their debt issuance. It will go higher to be sure.

Being financially and politically broke means that it gives us fewer and fewer options to respond to future financial crisis. Just look at what the FED is doing now and the economy is likely to get worse not better. The economy is out of the FED's hands and always has been. For that matter, just look at how effect government is right now. Think it will get any better?

If things get really bad, and I expect they will, the government could lose its ability to borrow entirely. No one will want to touch us.

So Lion, you can whine that the issue of the deficit is just a "made up" right wing thing if you want but it's deadly serious and it will impact you and your family. Count on it, or not, it's up to you.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Lion and the Deficit

So what Demo said the following?

8/9/08 Democratic Radio Address

First, we learned that the federal budget deficit could reach nearly half a trillion dollars next year. Eight years after we had a record surplus, we’re now faced with record deficits. This mortgaging of our children’s future is a direct result of the Bush Administration’s dangerously failed fiscal policies.

9/3/08 New Philadelphia, Ohio

And, you know, frankly, the last eight years what we’ve seen is moving in reverse. We’ve been moving in reverse. When Bill Clinton was president, the average family income went up $7,500; $7,500. Since George Bush has been president, you know what it’s done? It’s gone down $2,000. Think about that. That’s a $9,500 swing; $9,500. That’s money out of your pocket. That’s money going out of this country because we’re borrowing it from China to send to Saudi Arabia to buy oil. That’s what’s added $4 trillion to our deficit. I mean, think about that. You know, so we’ve created a mountain of debt for the next generation that they’re going to have to pay off. This little guy, he’s not too worried about it right now, but, you know, we’ve created $30,000 worth of debt for every man, woman and child in America. That’s going to have to be paid back.

2008

The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.

I can go on but I suspect that that you know who stated the above.

Oh, the national debt is north of $16 trillion. Care to explain how we went from $9 to $16 trillion.

BTW, please don't bore us with the same old worn-out cry of, it's Bush's fault.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
Cyclist: Why bother?

You're arguing with someone that is completely oblivious and claims over and over that SS is "self-funded," something that is completely ridiculous and shows no math aptitude whatsoever. If the "self funding" claim were true, SS withholding could be stopped on all present workers and all presently on SS would still get their SS in the future. Maybe so as long as they all die very quickly.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Let's look at this SS self-funded issue

Despite the tension between these opposing viewpoints, most observers seem to agree on these facts:

• Social Security is required by law to be self-financing
 • Payroll taxes exceeded benefit payments regularly until 2010
 • This generated a surplus of $2.5 trillion in the Social Security Trust Funds
 • There is now a net shortfall which is expected to deplete the surplus by 2037
 • Treasury borrowed from the surplus in the Trust Funds to pay for other programs
 • The government is now having to borrow money to pay its Social Security obligations

It's a mess - true. But worth saving. We know what using surplus unwisely can lead to.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - There

is no security in SS, only poverty and destitution. None of these socialist schemes are "worth saving". None.....

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
THERE IS NO SURPLUS....

How many freaken times does it take to tll you guys this simple fact for you to get it!!!!!!!

The Pay out EXCEEDED the pay in March 2010 6 YEARS ahead of schedule.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20001135-503983.html

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36033318/Social_Security_to_See_Payout_Exceed_Pay...

All say the same thing DM. There is no longer a surplus it is in deficit spending and part of the National Debt by 4 TRILLION dollars DM. Let's quit perpetrating that old lie DM and understand SS is a Ponzi scheme and always was.

Government did as Government always does... they saw a source of revenue and TOOK it and left us a IOU note in that "Lockbox" that our SOC is supposed to be attached to. They thought that the Economy would just keep chugging along so they had until 2037 to face this issue.

Surprise....

This is why those like me get so upset with those like you that think Government is the solution to our problems. They can't help themselves but to raid our funds and give it away. You don't care because you are secure in your pension..but I bet David does.

That's why there will NEVER be any meaningful spending cuts..they can't help spending our money to buy votes...it's addictive.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
sL

[QuoteTHERE IS NO SURPLUS[/quote]

But there are funds that can be salvaged from programs/burearacracys that are wasteful! IMO. Congress has the staff to work/research this. . .if they were interested in solutions

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
SS and spending

Lindsey: You and the extreme right wing see Federal spending as buying votes. To the contrary, Federal spending on social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are positive programs to help support America's poor and middle class. I have relatives who depend upon those programs. My parents who survived the Great Depression and WWII depended on Medicare and Social Security for a minimal decent life in their old age.

Your anti-government noise is just that--ideological noise without any concern for the real American citizens impacted by these social programs.

By the way, Social Security funds are required by LAW to be invested in special issue Government securities. The SS Trust Fund earns interest on these investments. This is how the SS Trust Fund earns additional money and grows. The Federal Government repays these loans as it does all those who invest in Government Bonds. Would you prefer the SS Trust Fund just put their excess funds under a mattress? This nonsense about "just IOUs" is just right wing, stupid stuff intended to confuse the public.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
SIgh...more SS
lion wrote:

By the way, Social Security funds are required by LAW to be invested in special issue Government securities. The SS Trust Fund earns interest on these investments.

Yes, isn't magical how the government can issue "special issue securities" and earn interest on them(as long as someone else will buy them) and yet be completely upside-down in terms of incoming money and outgoing liabilities? I thought this kind of financial condition was considered to be the downfall of the country? Borrowing money you cannot pay back? Does this sound familiar?

I guess your point is that the average American is an idiot that couldn't invest their own money and instead needs the government to take it away from them and invest it in their magical "special issue securities." Do you have any idea what you are talking about or are you hopelessly addicted to the idea that people need big gov to take care of them? You have shown over and over you have no idea about what SS is or how it is funded.

Quote:

This is how the SS Trust Fund earns additional money and grows. The Federal Government repays these loans as it does all those who invest in Government Bonds. Would you prefer the SS Trust Fund just put their excess funds under a mattress? This nonsense about "just IOUs" is just right wing, stupid stuff intended to confuse the public.

Confuse the public? You're part of the public that has no math knowledge whatsoever and thinks SS is "self-funded." You don't have any idea at all that the minute that SS passed decades ago it was ALREADY RUNNING A DEFICIT. Everyone qualified for it and started receiving SS benefits even though no one had put a dime into it. Since then, benefits have been expanded to others that NEVER PUT A DIME INTO IT EITHER. Yet, you cannot fathom how this program isn't self-funded but is instead a forced ponzi scheme where the new workers pay the old workers. When you start to run out of "new workers" and have too many "old workers," it goes completely bust. Gosh, that's happening now! Why is that? Oh yeah, it's that "math" thing again.

The easiest cure is to eliminate the SS Trust Fund tomorrow and put SS into the general budget. That ends the insolvency problem of the SS Trust Fund immediately and into the future. Now, it becomes just another budgetary item that has to be funded and can be based around reality. Then you start letting people opt-out that you think hate the federal government and would rather decide what to do with their own money than someone else. With SS in the general budget, it won't collapse once people start getting the hell out of the ponzi scam it is so you foggy progressives that love SS so much are taken care of and the future generations can either participate or say hell no.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Have to laugh, NUK...

"I guess your point is that the average American is an idiot that couldn't invest their own money and instead needs the government to take it away from them and invest it in their magical "special issue securities."

You HAVE seen how many foreclosures there have been lately, right?? Many are from those who didn't/don't have the vocabulary to understand what 'VARIABLE' means, and mean 'ol 'predators' took advantage of them! 'Hmmm, I'm a laborer for (X) company/city/state, etc...and I make (X); heck, I can afford that payment on a $400,000 house; I can buy a new car now, too!!' Fast-forward 4 years: 'What do you mean my house payment is DOUBLED now??!'

So, yes, these people DO need the government to help them....sigh.... Too bad those who were truly hurt due to the economy & job losses get lumped in the same mess as these type of dummies.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
C'mon kcchief!

If I SAY I make XXX,XXX a year, that should be good enough to get me into a 400K house even though I actually make 20K/year. As stupid as a lot of people are, there are plenty of other stupid and-uh-oh-actually GREEDY people that were ready to make sure they got loans and because the government and our asinine "ownership society" guaranteed these loans that in turned got bundled into worthless investments. How could all of this end badly? I see no points of failure or common sense involved, so it should have worked forever! Geez...stop being so cynical and a HATER!

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
I would, NUK...

...but too old & jaded now. Yes, I agree there were many a mortgage lender that turned their heads as the dotted lines were signed. Here's hoping medical researchers & developers come up with a personal responsibility gene in the near future...and an honesty pill for politicians...

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
kc: If only....

Sorry, I'm tool old and cynical myself to expect that to happen either.

EDIT: Yeah, the average American may not be an idiot, but is getting pretty close to it these days.

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
I realized a few years back...

...about 'credit scores', that if you'd paid your bills, etc...you can have all the credit you want. Given such, I went out and bought what I could afford, not what I could get. Maybe I'm just crazy...

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Lion I am amazed...

.. with your lack of understanding and your trust of Government.

I understand what Government was SUPPOSED to do with the SS Funds..however that is NOT what was done with it.. I gave you absolute incontrovertible PROOF of this and yet you still blather on about Government trust funds and money growing and other such nonsense.

None of what you stated is the reality of today. A simple google search would show you page after page after page of story's where Government has raided the funds and placed them into the General Budget. $4-5 Trillion of the $16+Trillion dollar debt are those missing funds Lion.

Lion you have a vested interest in keeping those programs going OK I get it I too have parents on them and don't want to see them lose it...BUT... the fund is depleted and we are now in deficit spending for the program.. THAT IS A FACT YOU CAN'T CHANGE. You can ignore it..You can even deny it but you can't prove otherwise.

Politicians make Federal Spending a political issue Lion not me or anyone like me. When a Candidate PROMISES more free programs ie.. College Reimbursement Initiative, Affordable Healthcare Act, Medicaid/Medicare Expansion, SSI Disability expansion et. al.. then uses this promise if they would just vote for them they would get the free stuff... that makes it vote buying Lion. You are the blame the messenger type aren't you.

Lion just about every assumption on this issue you have been wrong, provably wrong. You might want to take a deep breath and smell the coffee.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lindsey & NUK_1

I am afraid you have been had by Bonkers, or his brother.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Lindsey and SS

S.L.: With all do respect, I think it is you who needs to disengage for a while from Fox News and AM right wing radio and smell the coffee--the strong kind.

When the SS Trust Fund invests money in special issue Government bonds, what do you expect the Government to do with that money? Of course that money goes into the general fund of the Treasury.

What would you like the Federal Government to do with those funds? Oh, I know, put them in banks in the Cayman Islands. That has worked for Romney so why not for the Federal Government.

We live in a rich nation which can afford Social Security for Americans in their retirement years and Medicare for seniors also. And Medicaid for the most needy.

And yes I trust the Federal Government more than Fax News and the Governor and legislature of the State of Georgia

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Lion...

I don't have to defend Fox News... You know why? Two things.. First they have the highest viewership of all networks combined, of those people that actually watch news and not comedians it is the most trusted.

Second it actually does not disguise it's commentary from it news. In other words that have biased segments in their COMMENTARY sections just like CNN does. Want to tell me CNN is NOT a News Agency? Want to tell me Ed Shultz Rachael Maddow, Al Sharpton are NOT biased?

So using your standards... CNN is no better then FOX. But both have NEWS and both have COMMENTATORS. Where are the "Commentators on ABC, CBS or NBS.. oh that's right they are News ANCHORS.

How is your bank account Lion..? IF you have no savings.. your Credit Cards where MAXED out and no bank will loan you another dime.. can you afford to help out your next door neighbor with a loan?

Because that is where America is at Lion. Your views are based in Utopian fantasy's that are not based in any type of factual logic.

You should really take a look at this Lion maybe you might one day get a clue.
This is YOUR DEBT

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
DM SS Self Funded?
Davids mom wrote:

Despite the tension between these opposing viewpoints, most observers seem to agree on these facts:

• Social Security is required by law to be self-financing
 • Payroll taxes exceeded benefit payments regularly until 2010
 • This generated a surplus of $2.5 trillion in the Social Security Trust Funds
 • There is now a net shortfall which is expected to deplete the surplus by 2037
 • Treasury borrowed from the surplus in the Trust Funds to pay for other programs
 • The government is now having to borrow money to pay its Social Security obligations

It's a mess - true. But worth saving. We know what using surplus unwisely can lead to.

You are missing one important fact, Treasury has borrowed apprx 5 TRILLION DOLLARS from SS, that amount is listed as part of the 16 Trillion debt and IMHO that money is gone. Future Projections are assuming a 4.4% interest rate and worker contributions that are unrealistic. When program revenues exceed payments (i.e., the program is in surplus) these extra funds are borrowed and used by the government for other purposes. How will the borrowed money EVER be paid back? SS is in trouble and neither party will address this issue. -GP

From Wikipedia:
n the United States, the Social Security Trust Fund is a fund operated by the Social Security Administration into which are paid payroll tax contributions from workers and employers under the Social Security system and out of which benefit payments are made to retirees, survivors, and the disabled, and for general administrative expenses. The fund also earns interest. There technically are two component funds, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds, referred to collectively as the OASDI funds.

When program revenues exceed payments (i.e., the program is in surplus) the extra funds are borrowed and used by the government for other purposes, but a legal obligation to program recipients is created to the extent this occurs. These surpluses add to the Trust Fund. At the end of 2011, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010.[1] The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government.

The trust fund represents a legal obligation to Social Security program recipients and is considered "intra-governmental" debt, a component of the "public" or "national" debt. As of April 2012, the intragovernmental debt was $4.8 trillion of the $15.7 trillion national debt.[2]

According to the Social Security Trustees, who oversee the program and report on its financial condition, program costs are expected to exceed non-interest income from 2011 onward. However, due to interest (earned at a 4.4% rate in 2011) the program will run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2021. Under current law, the securities in the fund represent a legal obligation the government must honor when program revenues are no longer sufficient to fully fund benefit payments. However, when the trust fund is used to cover program deficits in a given year, the Trust Fund balance is reduced. By 2033, the fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 75% of program obligations.[3]

There is controversy regarding whether the U.S. government will be able to borrow sufficient amounts to honor its obligations fully to recipients or whether program modifications are required. This is a challenge for the Federal government overall, not just the Social Security program.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
GP

I shared:

Quote:

Treasury borrowed from the surplus in the Trust Funds to pay for other programs
 • The government is now having to borrow money to pay its Social Security obligations

I think you like to argue . Has anyone suggested solutions for getting us out of this mess? (other than stopping SS)

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
DM Solutions Part Deux

Almost forgot a big one, TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS.

How about stricter limits on making money off special interests, influence peddling is also a major problem.

Here is an interesting fact, 7 of the 10 richest members of Congress are Democrats!
For the second year in a row, Republican Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas is the richest member of Congress, with a reported net worth of $305 million — the first time a Washington lawmaker has surpassed the $300 million mark.

Roll Call’s annual list of the 50 richest members of Congress reveals that seven of the top 10 are Democrats — and four of the 10 owe their fortunes to wealthy spouses.

McCaul, a former federal prosecutor, reported in 2010 that his wife had received assets as gifts from her parents, boosting his net worth from some $73 million to at least $294 million that year. His wife Linda is the daughter of Clear Channel Communications Inc. CEO and founder Lowry Mays.

Roll Call determines the minimum net worth of members by subtracting the total minimum value of all liabilities from the total minimum value of all assets. Lawmakers do not have to report the value of personal residences as an asset.

The assets and liabilities are listed in broad ranges, making it difficult to calculate a lawmaker’s exact minimum net worth, Roll Call pointed out.

Second on the 2012 list of richest members of Congress is Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., up from No. 3 last year with a net worth of $199 million. His wife Teresa Heinz Kerry is the widow of the late Sen. H. John Heinz III of the Heinz ketchup fortune.

At No. 3, down one place this year, is Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., at $141 million. Issa is the founder of Directed Electronics Inc., which makes car alarms.

Next on the list is Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., at $86 million. He made his fortune as co-founder of Nextel Communications Inc.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., is No. 5, with $83 million. He is the great-grandson of Standard Oil Co. founder John D. Rockefeller.

He is followed by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., at $79 million. His wife Cynthia Blumenthal is the daughter of New York real estate mogul Peter Malkin.

Another Democrat, Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado, is No. 7 with a net worth of $72 million. Much of his wealth comes from Blue Mountain Arts, his family’s greeting card and publishing business.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, yet another Democrat, is No. 8 at $57 million. He is co-founder of Automatic Data Processing, a payroll processing company.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., No. 9 on the list, owes her fortune to her husband Richard Blum, president and CEO of the private equity firm Blum Capital Partners LP. Her net worth is estimated at $42 million.

Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, is No. 10 with a net worth of $37 million. He has significant investments in fast-food chains, electronics companies, pharmaceutical companies, and oil giants, according to Roll Call.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California is at No. 13, with a net worth of $26 million, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is at No. 37 with $9 million.

The “poorest” member on the list is Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., with a net worth of $6.28 million. GP

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
DM Solutions

How about these 10 to start with:

1. Rights belong to individuals, not groups; they derive from our nature and can neither be granted nor taken away by government.

2. All peaceful, voluntary economic and social associations are permitted; consent is the basis of the social and economic order.

3. Justly acquired property is privately owned by individuals and voluntary groups, and this ownership cannot be arbitrarily voided by governments.

4. Government may not redistribute private wealth or grant special privileges to any individual or group.

5. Individuals are responsible for their own actions; government cannot and should not protect us from ourselves.

6. Government may not claim the monopoly over a people's money and governments must never engage in official counterfeiting, even in the name of macroeconomic stability.

7. Aggressive wars, even when called preventative, and even when they pertain only to trade relations, are forbidden.

8. Jury nullification, that is, the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, is a right of the people and the courtroom norm.

9. All forms of involuntary servitude are prohibited, not only slavery but also conscription, forced association, and forced welfare distribution.

10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
GP

Your solutions read: No government imposed Civil Rights. I hope the Republicans offer those solutions for 2013. The 2014 elections will be interesting. Gosh, even the Democrats (rich) are for the Presidents proposal. Thanks for sharing.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
DM Where Do Our Rights Come From?
Davids mom wrote:

Your solutions read: No government imposed Civil Rights. I hope the Republicans offer those solutions for 2013. The 2014 elections will be interesting. Gosh, even the Democrats (rich) are for the Presidents proposal. Thanks for sharing.

I believe our rights come from GOD, we ARE ALL BORN WITH THEM, they DO NOT come from government!!! -GP

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
GP

I do believe as you do in our God- given rights. It's just been my experience that there are some mortals who try to limit those rights. Today, a Republican leader stated that it was the American citizens of the urban underclass who voted for Obama . Now that really endures women, minorities, and our youth who are not of the urban underclass to the Republican Party. I have always acknowledged that too large a percentage of some minorities are on welfare - but the majority of welfare recipients in our country are not minorities.

Note: is the Republican Party to be considered astute when this 'urban underclass' was not considered as part of the electorate-therefore their votes were not considered in the polls? Hmmmm. It appears that some leaders owe more to Rove and Notquist than to the American people. It is not true conservative Americans who are running the Republican Party - but IMO, a radical, stubborn group of clueless men/women who are too insecure to buck Rove or Norquist. I may be wrong, we'll see in 2014.

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
DM More Governent is NOT the Answer,

Government is the Problem.

Freedom and Liberty are the Solution to Government Tyranny. -GP

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
They do...

...in DM's World..come from Government that is.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
NUK_1 - SS Self-funding
NUK_1 wrote:

Maybe so as long as they all die very quickly.

Thus, the Affordable Health Care Act!

Unintended consequence? Or is it a plot to actually make SS solvent?

Pretty Machiavellian.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
Nuk

I know, I know. I just couldn't help myself.

ptc87
ptc87's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2011
The economy and President Obama

Let us look at facts not fiction and rhetoric. Now if the Democrats can win back the House in 2014 we could end up with a great economy a la President Clinton http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/repeat-after-me-obama-cut_b_1955...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Obama Spending

Consequently, the president is responsible for the lowest government spending growth in 60 years, according to the Wall Street Journal's Market Watch.

Facts that some just don't want to deal with. (But evidently the voters on November 6 got the message)

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Some more facts that some don't want to deal with..

In an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes that aired on Sept. 23, 2012, President Barack Obama blamed the Bush administration for much of the nation's recent debt.

"Obama said that "over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of" President George W. Bush’s policies and the effects of the recession.

But Obama misstated his own documentation by using four years rather than the 10 that were included in the analysis. At a minimum, that makes him responsible for at least 17 percent. But more importantly, he engages in significant cherry-picking by assigning pricey programs to Bush’s column while ignoring the fact that he supported, or supports, many of them. We rate the statement False."

Politifact.. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/27/barack-ob...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

Thanks for the history. There was an election on Tuesday, Nov. 6,2012. The Politi/Fact article was correct - Sept. 27, 2012. His (POTOUS) statement was judged 'false'. However - he still is responsible for LOWEST GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN 60 YEARS. We're now hoping that our leaders can continue this trend - and use the common sense that each of us use when trying to balance our own budgets. It's either get another job - more revenue - and cut spending, without losing our home, our savings, our way of life. A percentage of sacrifice from all citizens would help towards this solution. I know, I know - too simplistic.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Link the article please DM..

Please show the source of that statement DM.

How about this one... Others say differently.

"But in fiscal 2010, 2011 and 2012, spending as a percentage of GDP did not drop down to anywhere near the 20.8 percent level of fiscal 2008. Instead, it hit 24.1 percent in 2010, 24.1 percent in 2011, and, according to OMB, it will hit 24.3 percent this year—the same percentage the government spent in fiscal 1942 as it entered World War II."

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-i-ve-been-president-federal-spendi...

Bet yours came from the Huff and Puff didn't DM?

Spending and Debt DM are two different animals. Do you deny that Obama has increased the National Debt by $5 Trillion in 4 years?

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Barry Obama IS the biggest spender in history

barry hussein sotero obama and the idiot minions that vote and worship him are liars.

Rick Ungar Is Wrong: Obama Is The Biggest Spender In World History

In sharp contrast to Reagan, Obama’s first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive single piece of legislation in history up to that point. This record shattering spending bill only stimulated government spending, deficits and debt. Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.

But this was just a warm up for Obama’s Swedish socialism. Obama worked with Pelosi’s Democrat Congress to pass an additional, $410 billion, supplemental spending bill for fiscal year 2009, which was too much even for big spending President Bush, who had specifically rejected it in 2008. Next in 2009 came a $40 billion expansion in the SCHIP entitlement program, as if we didn’t already have way more than too much entitlement spending. Ungar’s analysis proceeds by not counting as part of Obama’s record all this precedent shattering fiscal 2009 spending, attributing that instead to Bush. But as I have just shown, Barack Obama was directly and personally responsible for the 2009 spending explosion. Of course from those stratospheric heights, the pace of further spending increases may seem slower, just like if Jack in the Beanstalk and the Jolly Green Giant both eat the same feast, the percentage weight gain for the Giant will be so much smaller than for Jack.

Don't be fooled. Obama isn't interested in solving the fiscal crisis that he and the demorcrats created. He is out for himself and special interests only.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL -Here's the link - do your own research

It can be fun looking at other reports other than 'conservative' interpretation of FACTS.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-gov...

EVIDENTLY THE EFFORT OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO DENOUNCE THIS FACT DIDN'T WORK ON NOVEMBER 6.

The youth of America got the word out!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Debt and spending DM...

A BLOGGER DM really..funny how even the Mainstream Media won't report what Huffington reported.

It is easy to show FEDERAL Government spending is not the same as FEDERAL Government DEBT.
http://www.federalbudget.com/

One thing you want us all to forget is the WARS are Federal Spending and the spin up, mobilization and the cost where all under Bush.
Additionally the Housing Bubble burst snd stim 1 was under Bush so.....

Federal Spending is up under Obama higher then Bushes level in 2007...but has not risen at the same rate.. HE has NOT had a Bubble not started a full scale War has it...

Government programs do not count as Government spending thus the 2.6 TRILLION dollar ACA does not count as spending.

DM a very weak attempt to find a purse in the sow.

btw- The youth of America is stupid..you should know you helped "educate" them.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

You consider Forbes a blogger?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM

If you would look at the disclaimer on the bloggers sites you would see he is a contributor for Forbes.. Forbes does not endorse his views. He is the "Balance". Much like Sally Kohn is for Fox.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

If you would carefully read, you will note that the admittedly left contributor was quoting from Dow Jones. Now I think that even 'conservatives ' respect their research. Believe it or not, I do watch Fox News. Interesting:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-fox-news-be...

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
See comment #72

nuff said...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Ridge is right

Thanks for your input.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dm...

...I wanted to re-visit this one ..one more time.

Your position is that according to the Huffington and a blogger that Obama is the lowest spender of Federal funds, then well, ever.

I am going to try and explain why this cannot be true in under a few paragraphs.

First let's stipulate that Government manipulates numbers as they see fit.. To prove this all you have to do in look at the unemployment numbers. They changed the way they counted people since 07-08 and then again in 2012. All to make the number look better then it really is.

Spending is money leaving to a recipient of those funds. So by that very definition it lowers surplus revenue.

Let me explain it this way.. You have a Monthly income of $5000.00 you have an outflow of $6000.00. Thus you are deficit spending of $1000.00.

Now let's say you have a accountant provided by the Courts to manage your funds. They tell you you must cut at least $1000.00 out of your spending. So to satisfy them you take that $1000.00 and give it to David as a "loan" who then gives it back to you.

That $1000.00 is not counted as spending it's an invested loan.

Government is doing the same thing. Loans to Green Industries, loans to failed businesses, loans to banks et.al..

Our Revenue into Government is somewhat static and has been for some time. So if spending was truly down our yearly deficit spending would have also decreased. Instead this years deficit is higher then last years deficit which in turn was higher then the year before.

So you see DM it simply can not be true.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - Helping you
S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM non-answer...

But yet not surprised..

btw-have you linked the article yet?

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
SL, DM will...

...deny the Obama administration and its actions the day she denies Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, just as the name 'Bush' substitutes as 'Satan' for her & those of her ilk. You must have quite a knot on your forehead by now...

IRISH WIN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP 16-13 OVER 'BAMA ON JAN. 7TH (oh, btw, they've already won the NCAA Football Graduation Success Rate for this year, the true mark of a scholar-athletic program; doubt you'll see 'Bama or UGA there anytime soon)!!!!!

http://www.und.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/112012aaa.html

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I know KC I know....

I just love to back her in a corner and watch her go all kumbahyah on me...

Bama beats Notre Dame by 10...

GOBAMA

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Saxby "Let's Raise Taxes" Chambliss

No one in Washington is talking about the real deficit problem which is spending, it seems even the Republicans are giving in and want to raise taxes, now Saxby Chambliss is canceling his pledge to not raise taxes. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/top_republican_senator_ditching_Ci...

Remember this "Gang of Six" RINO when he is up for reelection in 2014. -GP

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
GP, Chambliss & taxes

It was a dumb pledge anyway. Fixing the deficit will necessarily be a multi-faceted program (if it happens at all) that will most likely include a tax increase for a majority of the population (at least those who pay ANY taxes at all).

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
AHG

Careful - thoughtful expressions like the above may get you the RINO badge!

Georgia Patriot
Georgia Patriot's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Obama's Tax the Rich Scam

Divide, divide, divide, eat the rich! More BS from the biggest scam artist of all time!

Tax the rich sounds good right? Where will it actually get us? Let's look at the tax the rich lie. Think it will solve our debt problem?

How about some facts, look at these numbers.....

Current National Debt: 16 Trillion
Additional Unfunded liabilities: $60 Trillion (SS & Medicare for Baby Boomers), not including the Obamacare shortfall.

Current Annual Deficit: 1.3 Trillion
Actual annual debt with future liabilities factored in: 5 Trillion

Current income tax revenue: $1.1 Trillion

Income taxes paid by those earning $250,000 and up: $500 Billion

Extra taxes to collected by Obama's "tax the rich" proposal: $50 Billion

Assuming no adverse impact on the economy (punishing the producers will cause LESS revenue)....and assuming every penny of the new revenue goes towards deficit reduction instead of new spending(ROFLMAO if you believe that!!!!)....then....

Our 1.3 trillion dollar annual deficit becomes a (drum roll please....) a 1.25 trillion dollar deficit.....Our annual deficit with unfunded liabilities averaged in goes from 5 Trillion to 4.95 Trillion.

THEN WHAT????!!!!!!!!!!!

This scheme may go over well with the mindless, envious losers who worship at the alter Obama.....but the math simply does not add up! THERE IS NOT EVEN ENOUGH MONEY IN CIRCULATION TO COVER THE NATIONAL DEBT!

Spending by Washington caused this mess, SPENDING MORE THAN YOU TAKE IN was/is the problem, robbing the American producers is not the answer, all that will do is hasten the collapse. -GP

rmoc
rmoc's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2006
Tax the rich only works without loop holes

The problem is loop holes...unless the tax code is fixed we can tax and tax with no resolution to the deficit issue