darkzero779Featured By OwnerJan 2, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
something from Face book by Dr.Ron Paul...the one who was knocked away on 12 election unfairly thanks to us Statement on the Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendments to H.R. 8
We Are Already Over the Fiscal Cliff
2 January 2013
Despite claims that the Administration and Congress saved America from the fiscal cliff with an early morning vote today, the fact is that government spending has already pushed Americans over the cliff. Only serious reductions in federal spending will stop the cliff dive from ending in a crash landing, yet the events of this past month show that most elected officials remain committed to expanding the welfare-warfare state.
While there was much hand-wringing over the “draconian” cuts that would be imposed by sequestration, in fact sequestration does not cut spending at all. Under the sequestration plan, government spending will increase by 1.6 trillion over the next eight years. Congress calls this a cut because without sequestration spending will increase by 1.7 trillion over the same time frame. Either way it is an increase in spending.
Yet even these minuscule cuts in the “projected rate of spending” were too much for Washington politicians to bear. The last minute “deal” was the worst of both worlds: higher taxes on nearly all Americans now and a promise to revisit these modest reductions in spending growth two months down the road. We were here before, when in 2011 Republicans demanded these automatic modest decreases in government growth down the road in exchange for a massive increase in the debt ceiling. As the time drew closer, both parties clamored to avoid even these modest moves.
Make no mistake: the spending addiction is a bipartisan problem. It is generally believed that one party refuses to accept any reductions in military spending while the other party refuses to accept any serious reductions in domestic welfare programs. In fact, both parties support increases in both military and domestic welfare spending. The two parties may disagree on some details of what kind of military or domestic welfare spending they favor, but they do agree that they both need to increase. This is what is called “bipartisanship” in Washington.
While the media played up the drama of the down-to-the-wire negotiations, there was never any real chance that a deal would not be worked out. It was just drama. That is how Washington operates. As it happened, a small handful of Congressional and Administration leaders gathered in the dark of the night behind closed doors to hammer out a deal that would be shoved down the throats of Members whose constituents had been told repeatedly that the world would end if this miniscule decrease in the rate of government spending was allowed to go through.
While many on both sides express satisfaction that this deal only increases taxes on the “rich,” most Americans will see more of their paycheck going to Washington because of the deal. The Tax Policy Center has estimated that 77 percent of Americans would see higher taxes because of the elimination of the payroll tax cut.
The arguments against the automatic “cuts” in military spending were particularly dishonest. Hawks on both sides warned of doom and gloom if, as the plan called for, the defense budget would have returned to 2007 levels of spending! Does anybody really believe that our defense spending was woefully inadequate just five years ago? And since 2007 we have been told that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down. According to the Congressional Budget Office, over the next eight years military spending would increase 20 percent without the sequester and would increase 18 percent with the sequester. And this is what is called a dangerous reduction in defense spending?
Ironically, some of the members who are most vocal against tax increases and in favor of cuts to domestic spending are the biggest opponents of cutting a penny from the Pentagon budget. Over and over we were told of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost should military spending be returned to 2007 levels. Is it really healthy to think of our defense budget as a jobs program? Many of these allegedly free-market members sound more Keynesian than Paul Krugman when they praise the economic “stimulus” created by militarism.
As Chris Preble of the Cato Institute wrote recently, “It’s easy to focus exclusively on the companies and individuals hurt by the cuts and forget that the taxed wealth that funded them is being employed elsewhere.”
While Congress ultimately bears responsibility for deficit spending, we must never forget that the Federal Reserve is the chief enabler of deficit spending. Without a central bank eager to monetize the debt, Congress would be unable to fund the welfare-warfare state without imposing unacceptable levels of taxation on the American people. Of course, the Federal Reserve’s policies do impose an “inflation” tax on the American people; however, since this tax is hidden Congress does not fear the same public backlash it would experience if it directly raised income taxes.
I have little hope that a majority of Congress and the President will change their ways and support real spending reductions unless forced to by an economic crisis or by a change in people’s attitudes toward government. Fortunately, increasing numbers of Americans are awakening to the dangers posed by the growth of the welfare-warfare state. Hopefully this movement will continue to grow and force the politicians to reverse course before government spending, taxing, and inflation destroys our economy entirely.
Don't hate your life that is not healthy. Learn to hate your government for they are the oppressive enemies they are doing this to us. Country is being looted by kleptomaniacs. Pray they are brought to justice.
darkzero779Featured By OwnerJan 2, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
i hate them indeed...in fact since the time i never trusted them.... also i really hope we pull through...if things dont get better im having to leave my house... with my grandparents grandma who is type 2 diabetic...weak imune system adn heart and keeps medicine to move on...a grandpa who world everyday...and puts up with out shnanigans,a strong american both near to their 60s i an few years and 10 yrd brother whom dong get along with but do at time...but argue and is a smart kid who is learning and jsut got to 5th grade this semester.. we will be living in a mountians filled with the crazy stuff at stevenson alabama worth 3 arces.. and start building a log cabin using their ~$401k money which i wish for tem to keep for their retirement .....
i cant bare to think...my kid brother is a poicky eater...and wont eat anything normal people eats...he might actually starve himself ....mammy with her weak imune system and diabeties..with no medidcine she might die on one fustration...plus shes bipolar abit...ii got some of it alittle in me not to high like usual people though..
sigh....it just makes me wonder what am i doing livng this life why? i just hope a light of hope od there...also the lawsuit journal i just added a a share on face book
ps sory for all the mis typing...jsut need to get in bed
Consistency my ass. This is the first time you're bringing it up to me, and, I don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail. The last time I was spending much time in here the mods would lock threads with this type of OP. Thats my only point, and, you certainly haven't related to it. Piggyback on someone else's comment. Are you blocked in this thread somehow?
Manchild reaction. I brought it up in another thread. Not to you, but brought up nonetheless. That's consistency. That being said, mods have dropped the ball as far as locking pointless threads anymore. I'm not piggybacking ffs.
That's cute. You're defining consistency for me. Reposting that a perfectly legitimate thread was locked in illegitimate threads over a period of time is consistency. I don't know what point you're trying to argue dude. If you'd been around for more than one day without you not being in politics from your year long absence (or more precisely, when I had posted the John Kerry thread), you'd probably see this. Once again, I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Oh, me, I was just looking for a "manchild" reaction. Your comment to me was rather obtuse, and, seemed to be assuming that I should know about you and your John Kerry thread. Making assumptions and then reacting badly to a lack of familiarity to your assumed infamy isn't going to win you any allies, not that you probably want any in any event.
You aren't a very fun troll. This: [link] is a much better look for what you're looking for. And the caption is really vanilla: "I've got you now America"? It's like something you'd find in one of those Pixar ripoffs that a confused grandmother will buy as a last minute Christmas present at the gas station.
Please tell me: why is Obama bad for America? Why are you scared that he got elected again? It's all well and good to disagree, but if you expect serious discussion (which I somehow doubt), then you have to give your opinion some substance.
Since I'm on Christmas break at home and my house doesn't have internet, I haven't been around. I have noticed the lack of meanus threads today, though, which is oddly chilling. All I see is weird new names.
I'm not going to argue with you people, you're all just a waste of time. All I can say to those who support Obama is look at the REAL facts. Taxes have increased, the unemployment rate is terrible, Americas debt is already ridiculous and Obama still wants to spend more.
But who caused it? The President himself has little actual control over the economy itself; otherwise he's be more of a king. The events that led to the economic meltdown of 2008 were set in motion during Bush's term, and the recession had already hit when Obama took office. If McCain had won, we'd probably be in a similar situation.
I can tell you that the GDP growth rate you provided is incorrect, as well is the unemployment info. You can't believe everything that's on the internet you have to use common knowledge and do your own research to know the true facts.
I never said that it was Bush's fault, just that it started during Bush's term. Although I don't think that Bush was a very good president for various reasons, I doubt that he decided to go out and accidentally the world's largest economy. As I said, presidents don't have a ton of actual power over the economy; if you want someone to blame, go blame Congress. They have the power to legislate laws, and the Republican's economic brinksmanship caused that whole debt ceiling fiasco a couple of years ago and nearly pushed us over the fiscal cliff. They've also used the filibuster a record number of times, and initially boldly claimed that they were aiming to make Obama a "one-term president" in lieu of actually putting on their big boy breeches and compromising on various issues. Meanwhile, several key Republicans made frankly outrageous claims about rape and other things and tried to turn the election year arguments into moral ones; the only problem was that America's morals are becoming more liberal every year and the two candidates I had in mind (Akin and Mourdoch) were defeated soundly and deservedly.
And the economy is improving, albeit more slowly than most would like. We were in a recession but we are not in a recession anymore. Barring any unexpected catastrophes, things are probably going to be back to normal in a couple of years. If you want to blame something for Obama getting re-elected, blame the Republicans for running such a lackluster candidate in such a gaffe-filled campaign. Romney's modus operandi was basically the same as yours: offer no real solutions in favor of just pointing the finger at the other guy.
The economy is improving? How is that? We are still in a recession. No, things won't be back to normal in a couple of years. The republicans did not run a "lackluster, gaffe-filled campaign", Obama's campaigning was full of lies. Romney actually expressed his ideas on how to improve the economy. Most people in America don't even pay attention to politics anymore, it's all just a popularity contest now. That's the only reason Obama was re-elected, because everyone thinks it's "cool" to have a president of another race other than white and they don't care about what happens to America.
"The economy is improving? How is that? We are still in a recession. " Evidence pls
"The republicans did not run a "lackluster, gaffe-filled campaign", Obama's campaigning was full of lies." Ahem... does the phrase "legitimate rape" ring a bell? How about "47 percent"? Obama was certainly not entirely truthful in his campaign (I don't think any politician has been, ever), but Romney's campaign was astounding in it's outright defiance of the truth. Didn't a Romney pollster even say "we aren't going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers?" Just a week or so before the election, the Romney campaign outright lied their asses off when they said that Chrysler was moving Jeep production to Chinese factories, which was so bad a lie that the CEO of Chrysler came out and rebuked him. Politifact named it their "Lie of the Year." Whatever you think of it, it was a huge mistake as it lead to a hornet's nest of negative press in a time where the campaign was close and Romney's momentum had evaporated.
"That's the only reason Obama was re-elected, because everyone thinks it's "cool" to have a president of another race other than white and they don't care about what happens to America." Evidence plz. Maybe that's what shows the problem with you and your brand; you'd rather just say "oh, it's just because he's black" or "he won because he promised free stuff" than actually looking at the cold hard fact that Obama legitimately beat your party for a second time, and then looking to see what you can do to improve your own party so that you don't lose in 2016 when Hillary's running. Introspection is difficult and painful, but if we're all just content to blame other people for our failures then we won't make any progress. I didn't vote for Obama because he's black; that's stupid. I voted for Obama because I liked his ideas for America better than I liked Romney's (which was admittedly not saying much), and I'm proud that the candidate that I liked was elected.
OMG. Again, that's all Obama does, he makes promises he can't keep. Look around,look up videos if you have to, hell, even ask complete strangers on the street why they voted for Obama. It's because they think he's a "cool guy". Obama did not legitimately beat Romney. You really think Hillary will even come close to becoming president in 2016? Not even. Hopefully America will wake up and Obama will be impeached before he causes more damage to America's economy.