By Robert Romano
How hard is it to cut $10 billion out of the $3.6 trillion federal budget? That’s what Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) wanted to know. It’s a good question: Can the U.S. Senate cut anything at all to pay for new spending?
With the national debt now reaching the uncanny heights of $12.4 trillion, soaring towards 100 percent of the GDP within a few short years, it is a question that may come to haunt lawmakers. And sooner rather than later.
Controversy ensued last week when Bunning objected to unanimous consent on H.R. 4691, forcing a floor debate on the issue of whether or not to pay for an unfunded $10 billion extension in unemployment benefits. At first, Bunning proposed paying for it out of a portion of the unspent $787 billion “stimulus.”
Monday, on the floor of the Senate, Bunning explained his stand, “If we can’t find $10 billion to pay for it, we’re not going to pay for anything. We will not pay for anything fully on the floor of the U.S. Senate.” He’s right. If the Senate cannot bring itself to cut $10 billion to pay for unemployment benefits, how will it ever balance a budget that is $1.56 trillion in deficit?
To offer some perspective, that $10 billion less than one percent of the total budget — 0.27 percent to be exact. Congress’ pathetic display in the face of Bunning’s challenge to cut something — anything — to pay for the bill tells the American people everything they need to know about Washington’s commitment to fiscal responsibility.
Instead, the American people will be forced to pay interest on this unemployment extension — and all other deficit-spending. By 2020, interest owed on the national debt will total $840 billion. That’s 38.79 percent of present day revenue, just to pay interest on the debt.
Despite pressure from Democrats, the media, and even members of his own party, Bunning stood his ground, demanding a debate on how to fund the $10 billion without borrowing money from Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia.
Finally, last night, it appeared that Bunning had prevailed when he accepted a deal that would have allowed an up-or-down vote on the amendment that would have funded the deal. In the lead-up, Bunning made the case for the very pay-go rules that had just been enacted into law by the Democrat majorities of Congress.
Bunning relished the opportunity, and in a statement after the deal was reached, he said, “I hope Senate Democrats tonight vote for their own pay-fors and show Americans that they are committed to fiscal discipline. I will be watching them closely and checking off the hypocrites one by one.”
Obviously concerned about the prospects of Bunning’s up-or-down vote actually succeeding, and Bunning walking away victorious, Democrats sought to deny Bunning his opportunity to hold Congress to its word. At the eleventh hour, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) broke the deal, raising a point of order against the consideration of Bunning’s amendment, which would have paid for the unemployment benefits and other programs by repealing a $24 billion “black liquor” tax credit subsidy.
Bunning at first looked like a deer caught in headlights, but quickly recovered, requesting that the Senate waive Boxer’s objection by a Yay or Nay vote. The amendment was then defeated by a vote of 53 to 43, upholding the Boxer objection. Senate Republicans rallied to Bunning’s defense (not one of them voted to uphold the objection), and were joined by Democrat Senators Russ Feingold, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Joe Lieberman.
Even Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who earlier had accused Bunning of “hurting the American people” for his stand voted to waive the objection so that Bunning would get his up-or-down vote on his amendment.
The American people will undoubtedly treat this roll call as an up-or-down vote on the principle of the Bunning Amendment, which is that new government spending should be paid for, and not borrowed.
After being betrayed on the floor of the Senate, Bunning issued a statement, saying, “Democrats tonight showed their true colors by going back on their word on the agreement I had reached with Majority Leader Reid to have an up-or-down vote on my amendment to fully pay for the unemployment extension and other federal programs. Instead, Senate Democrats used a procedural gimmick so they would not have to vote on my pay-for amendment. What are they so afraid of?” Indeed. Probably that his amendment was about to pass.
Bunning continued, “I support the underlying [unemployment extension] legislation and support those who are out of work and need a helping hand. What I do not support is the hypocrisy displayed by Senate Democrats. Just over a month ago Democrats passed pay-go legislation and then turned around and waived it for the next two major pieces of legislation that were considered by the Senate. What was the point of passing pay-go legislation? If Democrats continue to ignore their own rules I will oppose future legislation that is not paid for.”
For his courage in taking a principled stand in defense of American taxpayers, Bunning deserves praise. With the nation’s ability to pay back its debts being diminished by the day by an out-of-control federal Leviathan, now is the time for the GOP to hunker down and oppose deficit-spending on every front.
Congressional Republicans have also learned a lesson that no deal made with the Democrat leadership can now be trusted. The knife in Bunning’s back on the floor of the Senate is ample evidence of that. There can be no compromise where there is no basis for trust.
So, to answer the question: How hard is it to cut $10 billion out of the $3.6 trillion federal budget to pay for new spending? Next to impossible. Ultimately, the unemployment extension did pass 78 to 19. And sadly, it was not paid for.
Robert Romano is ALG News Senior Editor
Hard to understand what makes some of these politicians tick. Here we have Senator Bunning taking a principled stand to either pay for an extension unemployment benefits during hard times or cut off unemployment benefits. Okay, I get it.
But when Defense Secretary Gates wanted to cut funding for the F-22 fighter saving $2 billion, saying buying “only” 187 of the $150 million dollar each planes would be fine – that measure passed in the Senate. Senator Bunning voted no on that. He wanted to spend the extra $2 billion for more of a plane than even the Defense Secretary wanted. Many military experts say the F-22 was way way over budget, way behind schedule, and represented a huge military-industrial overfeed.
So now, when the subject of throwing a bone to unemployed workers comes up, it all about fiscal conservativeness? Did Senator Bunning ever suggest pay-go on anything else ever? Then he picks this to go all super fiscal about? That’s the reason guys like Bunning get dissed. He pitching a knuckle ball.
Has think123 ever met an unfunded social welfare entitlement he didn’t portray as some divine function of our nanny government never to be questioned?
He claims to be a successful capitalist businessman. Where is his philanthropy for the downtrodden? (Please don’t give us some crap about you donate yearly to United Way or other such window dressing. You should be handing over most of what you’ve got before the rest of us should have to live with the scraps your socialist paradise will leave for the rest of us.)
Sure get rid of the F-22. But where’s your outrage that short-term unemployment insurance is being converted into perpetual free money for the jobless?
A friend just conveyed to me a story of a professional couple he knows in NYC. The wife lost her high-paying job last summer and has been collecting unemployment checks ever since. She has been floating around Manhattan pretending to seek work in the fashion business (not her field) and taking loopy night courses. They have plenty of money and savings. They just returned from two weeks skiing in the French Alps!!! Sure it’s anectodal but WTF with a system that can create such outcomes on the backs of people actually working???
I am still bowled over that in another thread think123 actually said “we conservatives” in one of his trademark bloviations .
Dude, get a grip. You are not a conservative. You are not a Republican. You are so far up Obama’s arse you may as well be his adam’s apple.
Anon, slow down. Did I say I love unfunded social welfare? You said that. No. I am talking about hypocrisy. The difference between me and Senator Bunning is, I have been on the fiscal conservative warpath ever since we cut taxes unfunded by spending cuts, voted for unfunded Medicare Part D drugs benefits, unfunded wars that cost a trillion.
Senator Bunning voted for ever single unfunded tax cut, spending program, increase in debt ceiling during his years as a supporter of President Bush. That was the unfunded binge that brings us to today- on our knees in debt. A totally screwed situation where normal fiscal conservative measures are not enough to save us. What part of conservative don’t you understand? If a Republican puts us underwater in debt it’s okay? If a Democrat does it – well then.
I am a conservative, angry Republican. I got suckered. They told me cut taxes, pass the huge medicare D, fight wars and it would all pay for itself. As a matter of fact, my man Dick Cheney, voted for him twice, promised guys like me Iraqi Oil would pay for the war. Remember? All a con. Mr. True Conservative Cheney – made his fortune off of Government contracts. His whole life is government, government contracts, his company KRB Haliburton was picked no bid main supplier for war. He’s real conservative? Guys like me are not “conservative”?
So now Senator Bunning, a guy who voted yes on the way to the unfunded disaster of 2008 – now he steps up to take a stand on President Obama’s $10 billion extension of unemployment benefits? “Conservatives” like you step up to say unemployment insurance is some kind of scam? That’s the current definition of conservative? Two trillion in unfunded military spending, unemployment is a scam?
One more factoid. Here how bad these con men are: Obama proposes getting back to pay-as-you-go. Senator Bunning votes no on Obama’s pay-go proposal. Now he says-pay-as-you-go.
I’m proud of my conservative credentials, my Republican background. My family involvement in Republican politics. My success in business. My love of American opportunity and Capitalism. I think where we differ is my old school conservative roots come from Ayn Rand William F. Buckley. Not a Rush Limbaugh Glen Beck.
The difference being Mr. Buckley did not consider himself infallible.
Wow, it must have been a long time since you read Ayn Rand. I am going to have to pull her book off my shelf. I must have missed the big government welfare state section. As for Buckley, my first introduction was on his PBS program 30 years ago. I was so intrigued when I was ten that I went to the library and picked up Up from Liberalism. I became a long time subscriber to National Review at 13. I some how missed the national health care article, his gay marriage stance, or the abortion rights platform.
I respect your contribution to political thought, but I think that you must have strayed from your roots somehow.
Geez, it is hard to stay on subject here. The point is the Dems violated the PAYGO rules they enacted. Clear and simple.
Of course, no one can stay on that line they have to talk about fighter planes, tax cuts etc. The issue is very simple, are the PAYGO rules real or typical Hope and Change garbage?
I would ask those who pontificate read up on something called sequential thought, it is why children are children-they can’t think past the present.
Mike Protack
So think123′s version of his “conservative” outrage about Bush’s unconservative big government binging is to fall to his knees in worship of Obama’s socialist spending orgy that quadruples Bush’s worst deficits and grows the government beyond Bush’s worst fantasies of dictatorship.
This is the most basic non sequitur of the loony left and their biggest of all lies. Like thinky123 they try to distract people from their messiah’s fiscal insanity by saying Bush was insane too, that his fiscal insanity actually represents conservatism, and therefore conservatism is just a not ambitious enough version of their bankrupting socialism.
We all know who you are think123 and never was a peep heard from you against Bush’s wild deficit government while it was in full swing. Only now you come here and use it as a mindless defense to the Obama orgy underway.
Seriously, dude, embrace your inner leftist. If anything you are just an Obama reconstructed Bush “conservative”.
Mike, go easy on referring to calls for “hope” as garbage. Faith, hope, charity are the cornerstones of Christian Faith. Catholics teach the three theological virtues (faith, hope, and charity) allow man to share in God’s nature.
The PayGo rule was suspended in earnest by my fellow Republicans when we controlled the House Senate White House in 2001. Throwing out PayGo was seen as a way to pay for the war and the tax cuts by borrowing. Eight years this “conservative Republican” policy resulted in $4 trillion in new debt record deficits culminating with President Bush going on TV in October 2008 to declared a national economic emergency.
President Obama did indeed restore PAYGO. The bill passed by the Senate to permit extension of unemployment benefits waived PAYGO calling unemployment benefits an emergency appropriation as permitted by PAYGO. It is interesting to note that 40 Republicans voted against Obama reinstating PAYGO saying it would be used as an excuse to raise taxes.
thin123 wouldn’t have so much ire thrown his way if he were just HONEST about who he is. There’s not a conservative (or moderate) bone in his fragile little body. He’s a statist progressive pretending (poorly) to be somewhere NEAR the center. I really am having trouble understanding why we continue to pay attention to him. If he were honest, said what he meant and meant what he said, and didn’t PRETEND like those of us who are KIND OF conservative didn’t have a clue that would be one thing. His blatant lies and mischaracterization have made him look foolish and invalidated just about every argument he makes. I wish him luck in life and I hope one day he wakes up, wises up and becomes a functioning member of society instead of a teat sucking progressive but I’m not holding my breath on that.
To the subject at hand…Senator Bunning expects Obama and his congressional cronies to PAY AS THEY GO?! Poor guy, the end must be near for him…he’s forgotten that if a lawyer’s (or progressive’s) lips are moving, he or she is lying (lol). The progressives have lied about everything they ever thought up:
1.) Social Security – Started in the 30′s when life expectancies were lower than the threshold age of 65. Roosevelt KNEW that less than half (closer to 1/3) of the nations people at the time would never see a single payout of SSI. It was a ponzi scheme from day one. Had the progressives used their heads, they might have kept the scheme going in the black for longer than Berni Madoff did, by incrementally increasing the age at which one qualified for SSI in order to keep it above the median life expectancy. Unfortunately, (or fortunately if, like me, you see enough people awakened to finally put an end to it) they didn’t do that and we soon (around the mid-late 50′s) saw the life expectancy surpass 65 years and last I looked it was in the 70′s (one of the highest in the world thanks to the healthcare system the progressives want to replace with the kind of program that produces the LOWEST life expectancies). We also have a growing elderly population (thanks boomers!) expecting these checks as their retirement income. In fact, the elderly population in America is set to overtake the working population in the next 5-10 years. PAYGO? Not since the 50′s and no way to PAYGO int he future…not even if think123 raised taxes to 500% of our income.
2.) Medicare/Medicaid – Really? I have to explain this? Subsidizing medical coverage for people who can’t afford private coverage? We simply COULDN’T let the private market create it’s own safety net OR leave it in the hands of the charities could we? Despite the fact that until this was created, charities and hospital safety nets were doing just fine keeping the poor and down trodden healthier than in any other nation. PAYGO? http://www.usdebtclock.org ….. You be the judge\
3.) Public Education – ROFL…Not only is it contributing to our bankruptcy…but it’s a complete failure. Private education and locally controlled education dominated the landscape until Carter created the Dept of Ed in the 70′s. In the 80′s we saw children being resilient to the breakdowns in education but even then, we saw signs that federally consolidated “public education” was going to be a failure. Now, kids are dumber, they know less about civics, history, math, science, english and the arts than any other generation before them. In fact, about the only thing our kids learn plenty of in school is how to complain, take breaks and have an attitude. Students see teachers taking more days off each school year now than they ever have in the past for “professional development” and they do less during the day. Incoming freshman AND seniors in most colleges barely score higher than an F on civic literacy tests and let’s face it, most of the innovation in this country is created by those of us who graduated before the year 2000. PAYGO? It’s in the red…and everytime we throw money at it (RTTT) the bill gets bigger.
These are just a few fabulous progressive ideas of PAYGO in the last hundred years. So why should we think that they would start now?
Anon, google deficits. Look at numbers. Obama did not quadruple the Bush deficit. We are trying to get rid of the phony numbers. That’s what sank our ship. Your number is phony.
I counted fifteen insults in your reply, but not one fact. If your answer to every problem is get rid of looney socialist left messiah fantasy orgy – you really don’t have much to say. Get another hobby.
And you are wrong about my record. I published many of these same opinions – saying conservatives were not being conservative – throughout President Bush’s second term. I published articles critical of neoconservative con games in the News Journal, blogged here and elsewhere in favor of kicking this gang out of Washington. I stated I was voting Democrat for the first time in my life all during and after the 2008 campaign.
All based on old school conservative principles. That Government must be honest. They were not. That Government must prudent with taxpayer money. They were not. That we must maintain a balanced budget. They took a balanced budget and completely trashed it.
The difference between me and you is, you probably voted for McCain-Palin. You were willing to keep this same gang in charge, because they’re “your team”. Loyalty to country and loyalty to Party are two way different things. I choose country first. You choose to call slander the new President because he is not Republican.
I don’t know how long you have been around, but for those of us who worked hard to elect the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress – a movement fueled for the most part by a desire to balance the budget, a balanced budget movement that gave Ross Perot 19% of the vote that same year – we were very serious about a balanced budget. Six years later the budget was balanced. A surplus was registered. The National Debt Clock stopped. We were paying down the National Debt. There was talk of returning Social Security Surpluses to the SS trust fund. Then along came this new brand of “conservatives”. The rest will live in infamy. The people you are defending are of the same ilk as Bernie Madoff. They appeal to your dreams, then betray you. Why you are so loyal to the old, so hostile towards the new President is hard to figure. I can only guess you get it all from one radio station and one TV station.
So you go on mimicking what you hear on corporate talk radio TV – “socialist leftist looney orgy messiah nutty” shit. Meanwhile serious people will study numbers, policy and try to pick up the pieces of a Nation broken by the lies and deceit of politicians calling themselves “conservatives”.
Evan, as usual totally wrong. Loud. Obnoxious. But wrong. Social Security has been running huge surpluses for many year. The worst case scenario for Social Security is benefits reduced by 25% in thirty years if nothing changes.
I take it you are young, your political life began maybe 10-15 years ago, and yet you possess the wisdom of the ages eh? Got it all down pat. What the Constitution really really means. What the Founders really really meant. Still fighting FDR? Glen Beck is your intellectual anchor?
One more time. Let’s compare credentials: I come from a Republican family where my mother ran Republican Headquarters. Back then most of our family political energy went into being anti-communist Cold Warriors. My first vote was for Nixon. Then Ford. Then Reagan. Then Bush. Then Bush. Then after the Collapse of 2008 – Obama. I founded several small businesses. Paid payrolls. Employed people. Manufactured products. Paid for group health insurance. Paid millions of dollars in taxes. Made a small, minor fortune as a start from nothing entrepreneur. All along writing newspaper articles, opinion pieces supporting our efforts in Vietnam, in Iraq, The War On Terror. Working hard to elect the Newt Gingrich Congress, the Contract With America the drive to balance the budget.
Now, some Glen Beck groupie comes along saying he knows who is a true conservative and who is not? I used to go back and forth with members of the Communist party – they were not nearly as self-righteous or hateful as you are.
I googled Bush Deficit….(www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27188415/)
From MSNBC (Your favorite media outlet no doubt):”The federal budget deficit soared to $454.8 billion in 2008 ”
I googles Obama Deficit…
From NYT (another place you can be proud of)(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/politics/27web-budget.html): “Mr. Obama starts off from a stunning deficit for 2009 that is projected to reach $1.75 trillion when the fiscal year ends Sept. 30, or nearly four times last year’s shortfall.”
And USA Today (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/10/620000005/1): “The deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, came in at a record $1.42 trillion, more than triple the record set just last year.
In addition, future deficits are currently projected to total $9.1 trillion in the coming decade.”
Wall Street Journal..(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123564748462081261.html): “His budget plan projects a federal deficit of $1.75 trillion for 2009, or 12.3% of the gross domestic product, a level not seen since 1942 as the U.S. plunged into World War II.”
IF we take $1.42 Trillion it’s more than 3 times (1420/454.8 = 3.122251…)
IF we take $1.75 Trillion it’s just under 4 times (1750/454.80 = 3.847845…)
Congratulations think123…you’re right…it was 3.8 times Bush’s deficit…thank you for being a voice of reason…any other yoda like comments?
And now from a source you HATE: (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/)
B. Hussein Obama, just a few days before Bunnings obstruction, was on the television (where he spends most of his waking life) bragging about PayGo. Yet, the very first bill to come to the floor violates PayGo (accompanied by the usual Socialist-Democrat excuses). Bunning cleverly used a parlamentary device to bring attention to the fact that B. Hussein Obama and the Socialist-Democrats are liars.
Of course, the Socialist-Democrat media apparatus left it to Fox News to even mention BO’s self-congratulatoy PayGo speech and its immediate contradiction by Congress.
There is not now, nor has there ever been a surplus of Social Security Trust Funds except in the minds of Washington propagandists, the media and their brain-washed constituencies. The so-called current “surplus” (more money coming in via the FICA tax than is paid out to beneficiaries) in the Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds is grossly misleading. A review of the facts prove there is an actual “deficit”.
Current OASDI assets (government IOUs) are offset by an equal amount of US Treasury debt. More importantly, the so-called “assets” are accounting deceptions. The OASDI Trust Fund assets and projected surpluses (through 2018) reflect gross amounts of combined Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes reported to the Social Security Administration. These gross amounts have not been adjusted for corporate expensing of FICA taxes that significantly reduce the actual net (cash) revenue received by the U.S. Treasury. This accounting scheme is one of the most disingenuous deceptions ever perpetrated in the history of mankind. That it could occur in the “land of the free” is even more puzzling. The OASDI Trust Fund “Surplus” Myth is just one example of misleading government accounting.
Every dollar of the $1.86 trillion (2005) in proclaimed Social Security accumulated OASDI surpluses generated by the 1983 tax increases has been looted and spent for other purposes, and the looting continues on a daily basis. The government has reportedly replaced the real money it took from the Social Security Trust Fund with non-marketable “special-issue” government securities that are essentially worthless.
Time (home of some of Joel Klein known for saying the public shouldn’t recieve any of the stimulus money) says (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1890542,00.html):”Federal-budget worrywarts (myself included) have been fretting for years about the arrival of the Dread Fiscal Year 2017, when Social Security was projected to start becoming a drag on federal finances.
Well, no need to worry about 2017 anymore. Thanks to the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, the moment of reckoning is already almost here: according to both the budget proposed by the White House in February and projections issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in March, Social Security benefits ($659 billion, according to the CBO) will exceed payroll taxes ($653 billion) in fiscal 2009 for the first time since 1984. Payroll-tax receipts generally hold up much better in recessions than do income taxes, but job losses have been so severe that the CBO expects them to decline slightly from 2008, while benefits rise almost 9% because of cost-of-living adjustments and the beginnings of the baby-boomer retirement wave. (See five reasons for economic optimism.)
If you count the $17 billion in income taxes expected to be paid on Social Security benefits, the system will still manage to provide a slight surplus for federal coffers in fiscal 2009. But from 2010 through 2012, there are small projected deficits, and after heading back into the black from 2013 to 2015, the program will then become a growing drain on federal finances, projects the CBO.
Back in 1983, when Social Security last faced deficits, Congress approved a set of Social Security reforms that included a graduated hike in the payroll tax and an increase in the retirement age. Thanks to those changes, payroll-tax receipts surpassed benefits in 1985, and the system has been operating at a surplus ever since. The money has been invested in Treasury securities that the Social Security system is supposed to live off in the future. In the meantime, it has provided a significant boost to the federal bottom line for almost 25 years. No more. ”
I await your wonderful reason…can’t wait to hear how you spin this to match your progressive agenda.
As you can see…all the financial accounting tricks in the world can’t hide the facts from the public anymore. It must kill you that the progressive era is coming to a FLAMING end.
EvanQ, sorry dude. You are wrong again. The FY2009 budget, the last Bush Budget actually came in at around $1.2 Trillion. The very first ever over a Trillion.
The figure you latched onto was the old projected budget deficit before the shit hit the fan. Before a severe drop in revenue, before Bush’s TARP. TARP alone authorized $700 billion in unfunded spending that was in October 2008.
Always google 3 or 4 independent sources. I wouldn’t count on just MSNBC or FOX as my sole source.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0643708720090107
EvanQ, glad to see you researching Social Security. As I said, Social Security has been taking in more than it pays out. You are correct, the problem is the surplus was sucked in the the General Fund for everyday spending, leaving Social Security a bunch of IOU’s. That says more about poor governance rather than anything wrong with the basic SS set up.
What I don’t understand is the glee, almost happy that something bad might happen to Social Security? What is that about? Look grandma and grandpa have to eat dog food with no heat – yay! If you could connect that Tea Party passion with humanity, spirituality you might have something. The whole purpose of this venture is to make life better.
“What I don’t understand is the glee, almost happy that something bad might happen to Social Security? What is that about? Look grandma and grandpa have to eat dog food with no heat – yay! ” -think123
ROFL…yea and if we don’t pass the stimulus RIGHT NOWWWW!!!! OUR TEACHERS, POLICE OFFICERS AND FIREMEN WILL BE FIRED FIRST!!!
It’s about time we saw SSI for what it is…a ponzi scheme developed by progressives that only worked during their short term sight…and another program they over played into something it could never live up to. SSI wasn’t even intended by FDR to be a primary source of retirement income…it was supposed to be SUPPLEMENTAL to make up for some of the lost wages due to early retirements. Then progressives turned it into grandma and grandpa’s only necessary retirement income. Turns out that quality of life isn’t what they expected. Yes, I’m happy to see that it’s been exposed and it’s now time to seriously talk about how we FIX it by returning retirement savings accounts to the people and allow THEM to create their OWN safety nets instead of relying on the government to do things it wasn’t ever supposed to do.
Am I suggesting we move it all now and screw grandma and grandpa? Nope. We’ve got to do it in increments. I have my own plan ideas on how to do this that have gotten traction whenever I’ve presented them (not going to take up that tremendous space here) but it simply must be done. The alternative is the system goes bankrupt, there’s NO fallback, the people have NOTHING and our entire economic system is destroyed as well.
“The whole purpose of this venture is to make life better.” – think123
THIS is how we know you are a wolf (progressive) in sheeps (conservative) clothing. This is a progressive idea that wasn’t shared by the founders nor is it shared by most Americans. The federal governments job is to keep us safe from invasion, make deals with other nations and ensure the states play nice together. The people and the states have just about all the other rights and responsibilities.
think 123: I stated I was voting Democrat for the first time in my life all during and after the 2008 campaign.
How’s that working out for you Mr. “Conservative”? Where exactly does anything we see happening in Washington represent anything but unhinged fiscal insanity at complete and total odds with conservatism? You should dispense with your constant interjections of team analogies and assumption of partisan motives. No one here is defending Republicans or their decade of selling out to Democrat lite big government. Quite the opposite but you want it all to be nice neat battle lines black and white. Tain’t so, son.
You count no insults in what I write. They are what you perceive as insults from what are dead on balls accurate descriptions of your ideology and your true nature as a quisling “conservative” and troll provocateur here.
If I didn’t know you are a real person I would think you are the clever fabrication of a sock puppeteer looking to chum the waters with living caricatures of pastel conservative concern trolls.
As far as ignoring think123 I disagree with you, Evan. We must pay attention to and constantly rebut and refute the think123 style human trojan horses. Their constant attempts to portray themselves as mild mannered moderates and pure of heart centrists has for decades proven a purposeful adulteration of conservative political coherence the only beneficiary of which is ALWAYS and ONLY statist progressivism.
None of these ‘half a loafers’ like think — who would have us all just split the difference with leftists and call it “conservatism” — should ever go unchallenged especially when they are trying to hijack conservatism just as much as the Bushes tried through their many sellouts to the DC big government forever crowd.
The pay-go issue here is a drop in the bucket when put in context of the total scale and depth of hypocrisy and outright dishonesty working overtime to advance progressive statism as the dominant feature of America.
“dead on balls accurate descriptions” – anon
I was waiting for someone else to use this line lol…great isn’t it?
“As far as ignoring think123 I disagree with you, Evan. We must pay attention to and constantly rebut and refute the think123 style human trojan horses” – anon
Doesn’t that give them credibility they don’t deserve?
“The pay-go issue here is a drop in the bucket when put in context of the total scale and depth of hypocrisy and outright dishonesty working overtime to advance progressive statism as the dominant feature of America.” – anon
Agreed but you gotta start somewhere. I’ve learned from wise (if not sometimes misguided) people in politics that incrementalism works. We’ve got to peel back the onion on spending, peel back the onion on taxes, peel back the onion on Social Security, stop letting them grow the onion on healthcare and restore constitutional values (including a morality tied to a belief in some kind of creator, be it God, Sharyia the Tree God or Allah). If a debate over $10 Billion in PAYGO gets us there..I’m down with the struggle.
Agreed. Every battle will have to be fought tooth and nail. But remember the radicals’ operate by focusing on minor distractions while they drive a truck up to the backdoor. Bunning was a test case that shows they will gladly scream bloody murder about $10BN while they load up the truck out back with trillions.
I think Bunning opened the shutters to expose the men filling the truck at the back door.
You gotta be pretty out there to call making things better a progressive idea. Maybe I should say I believe We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. And I strongly endorse the pursuit of happiness.
A genuine progressive would say things like: “Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan.” (I saw that inscribed on panel three of the Jefferson memorial). That’s in Washington DC where all those big bad buildings filled with government are.
How come you guys never thanked me for correcting your deficit numbers? Gone around spouting Obama deficit 4x Bush. That’s not patriotic. That’s just telling lies. Making stuff up to fool people. And you’re with “the founders”.
Trojan horse liberal conservative progressive leftist Glen Beck lingo theory is cool to a point, sort of like Paris Hilton getting everybody to say “hot”. Now you got our attention. You need some facts. A plan. Being anti-progressive leftist liberal loony socialist is not a grown up plan.
Speaking of Bernie Madoff, his most infamous quote when asked about his trading strategy: “It’s a proprietary strategy. I can’t go into it in great detail.” Sounds like your social security plan. Or for that matter, the crux of the Tea Party. Return America to American for more freedom. We have a plan. Tell you later. Sign here. Here’s your hat and Tea shirt.
Obama deficit 4x Bush? Wrong. Non-citizens don’t get Constitutional protection in the USA. Wrong. The Founders didn’t want foreigners to own property in the USA. Wrong. Now the new Big Lie: Social Security is bankrupt. Wrong.
Actually, the United States Marine Corp is more accurately “bankrupt”. The military does not have the same dedicated funded as Social Security. Let’s say the Marines are bankrupt now. Social Security will need some fixin’ in the years to come.
I have heard UFO believers say they were taken on board the ship, people who hear God head voice in their telling them things, people who know Satan wants them, now we have these lost souls absolutely positive they are speaking for “The Founders”.
Now just remember at you next meeting you tell the folks the government suck and you all are gonna make it un-suck. Step one: No more progressives.
“And I strongly endorse the pursuit of happiness. ” – think123
Madison did too and he would agree with exactly ZERO of your ideas.
“How come you guys never thanked me for correcting your deficit numbers? Gone around spouting Obama deficit 4x Bush.” – think123
I did..I thanked you for correcting us from 4x down to 3.8 times
“Establish a law for educating the common people. This it is the business of the state and on a general plan.” – think123
This isn’t progressive stupid…this is reality. The business of the STATE is to establish a law for educating the common people. This is NOT something to be done at the federal level. The problem is that the founders ideas for the STATES doesn’t translate to the federal level. They’re not SUPPOSED to. Why? Because they wanted the power closer to the people. Progressives like you can only see a top-down structure and must therefore be informed by your infallible leader Barry O before they can “think” for themselves.
You’re actually kind of pathetic…I almost feel sorry for how misinformed, uneducated and overmatched you are. Doesn’t it get boring for you when we post after post squash your progressive ideology like a bug under a work boot?
Hey I have a great idea…why don’t you come to one of our meetings. You can “play” the progressive (instead of having to pretend to be conservative) and I’ll play a “Tea Partier” and we can see what the group thinks of our positions? HEY! Why don’t we hold a 20 minute debate on April 15th, at the Wilmington TEA Party….What do ya say? Stones or pebbles?
Oh goody. Now think123′s pulling the “I’m the grown up in the room” card – another worn out tactic of wishy washy establishment sycophants use to falsely bolster their credibility. Then it’s onto tying in Beck or whoever else is the talk radio/Fox target du jour.
Here’s a fact: “By comparison, from the day Mr. Obama took office last year to the end of the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget, the debt held by the public will grow by $3.3 trillion.
In 20 months, Mr. Obama will add as much debt as Mr. Bush ran up in eight years.”
Source – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704320104575015072822042394.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Our founding documents are about protecting human freedom and limiting power not about advancing whatever so called progressivism says is today’s goodness and truth and sunshine.
Stop reducing your arguments to bland platitudes to which no one objects, as though some here do. Progress and political progressivism are not the same thing try as you might to equate them by blurring terminology (exactly why leftists want to be called “progressives” rather than liberals etc). Some of us believe they are quite opposite in fact.
“Our founding documents are about protecting human freedom and limiting power not about advancing whatever so called progressivism says is today’s goodness and truth and sunshine.” – anon
But…but…but it says pursuit of happiness…and I like lollipops…are you telling me the government shouldn’t provide me with free lollipops so I can freely pursue my happiness!?
Yes….and also….NO SOUP FOR YOU!
LOL @ Seinfeld….but…soup and lollipops make me happy…
I hear lollipop soup with braised unicorn is killer.
…but then the source was think123.
Evan, wrong again on facts. You were totally wrong at 4x 3x or 2x. You used bad numbers. The Bush deficit was NOT $454 billion- it was $1.2 trillion. Do the math. It’s not 4x not 3x not 2x not even 1x. Remember at the meeting: Tell the truth. The founders would want it that way.
Attend a meeting with you? You go one month without the rude crude name calling. Show you can be civil.
One more time where I come from: People calling themselves small government conservatives, backed by all every single small government conservative pundit from Beck to Limbaugh, all running on the Republican small government fiscal conservative ticket in 2000. So of course being a good Republican I voted for them. They did the exact opposite of what they said they stood for.
Maybe you weren’t into politics in 2000. Now I hear the exact same fiscal conservative god loving small government stuff I heard before. I say I won’t be fooled again. That makes me a leftist? Weird.
“Evan, wrong again on facts. You were totally wrong at 4x 3x or 2x. You used bad numbers. The Bush deficit was NOT $454 billion- it was $1.2 trillion. Do the math. It’s not 4x not 3x not 2x not even 1x. Remember at the meeting: Tell the truth. The founders would want it that way. ” – think123
I have a factual link that supports my claim that the budget DEFICIT was $454 billion. Where is yours showing it at $1.2 Trillion? I’ll wait while you scramble for something that says $1.2 Trillion.
Attend a meeting with you? You go one month without the rude crude name calling. Show you can be civil. -think123
Translation: “I can only make Progressive arguments on the computer. I’m frightened to show my face and ideology in public…someone might see me!”
So of course being a good Republican I voted for them. They did the exact opposite of what they said they stood for. – think123
By all means, be a good progressive and vote for a Democrat please. In fact please feel free to switch party affiliation back to where you belong.
For the second time you used the wrong number – - – here is the link to the correct number. You used a projection (a guess) from early October 2008. That was before the $700 billion TARP and the Collapse. The actual deficit is only figured after the fiscal year is over. It’s now recorded at $1.2 TO 1.4 trillion. Bloomberg Financial pegs the final Bush deficit at $1.4 trillion.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aA8lChe4zUQU
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0643708720090107
Speaking of Senators with a pair:
They’re LIVID over at DL: http://www.delawareliberal.net/2010/03/02/kudos-to-senator-kaufman/comment-page-2/#comment-176615
Turns out Carper ain’t caving to the Progressives after all. He’s going to stand with the 75% of Americans who want the who thing scrapped and redone from scratch. They even called him a D.I.N.O. ROFL….I love watching them squirm when the conscience hits one of their guys right in the mouth. Amen Carper…thanks for having some stones.
The final Bush deficit is recorded as $1.2 – $1.4 Trillion, not the $454 billion as Evan stated.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aA8lChe4zUQU
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0643708720090107
Actually, you are incorrect because for the first time, a President rewrote the budget of the current fiscal year adding a trillion in emergency spending. Normally that would be the last Bush budget.
But don’t you see, David. Bush did it so that it makes it ok to do it 4x worse and still blame Bush by the way.
The Obamocrats will never own up to their orgy much less end it. That’s what November will be for.
And, if i remember correctly, Bush didn’t necessarily rewrite the budget because he WANTED to…he did it because Congress was going to pass this trillion dollar aid package with or without him….they can do that since CONGRESS controls the money.
Social Security, as currently consructed, is doomed to fail; dead. Period. Most people with common sense know this; which leaves only delusional Socialist-Democrats to believe otherwise.
“There are lies, damned lies, and statistics”
And yet Rick, we still pay into an insolvent ideological machine. It’s time we address the issue before it’s too late. We should probably diffuse the bomb before it goes off.
EvanQ, the trillion dollar deficit budget was initiated at the request of President Bush. In a Special Presidential Address in October 2008 The President announced an “economic emergency” and used his powers to authorized the Treasury Department to spend up to $700 billion dollars to purchase equity in banks as a way to head off what he described as “a complete collapse of our financial system”. That $700 billion TARP, coupled with a severe drop in tax revenue all came after the projected $454 billion deficit.
Believe it or not, I understand your politics. I respect you being an activist. We should all be careful to use good information. That’s not conservative or progressive.
Regarding Social Security. Study the actuarial tables. All the studies that have been done. Social Security is the least of our troubles. Medicare is a huge problem. Social Security is not. If we did nothing we would have to reduce benefits over the next 40 years. SS is for retired workers, disabled citizens, widows, orphans. When you see those unfortunate mentally disabled people lining up the shopping carts at the supermarket, when you see those poor souls twisted up in wheelchairs going by, that old old hunched over women barely able to maintain herself alone at home – they are all on Social Security.
So when you have your meetings, state your case, bang you fist against the outrages you see around you, but don’t tell people things that are not true. Social Security is not bankrupt. Social Security can last another 100 years without any radical changes. Social Security serves our elders, our disabled, unemployed. Freedom comes in many shapes and forms. An old women able to stay in her home with the heat on surrounded by the life she loves. That is a freedom. The mentally physically disabled empowered to enjoy a measure of independence, that is a freedom. These systems have been carefully crafted over 12 generations. Proceed with care.
David, the January 2009 Congressional Budget Office report issued as President Obama was taking office estimated the FY2009 at $1.2 trillion. Here is one paragraph as well as a link.
(CBO January 2009)
“The Budget Outlook
The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets
has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO
currently projects that the deficit this year will total
$1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. That total, however,
does not include the effects of any future legislation.
Enactment of an economic stimulus package, for example,
would add to the 2009 deficit. In any event, as a percentage
of GDP, the deficit will most likely shatter the
previous post-World War II record high of 6.0 percent . . .”
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/01-07-Outlook.pdf#page=19