55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 10:27 am
@ican711nm,
I know what the constitution says, but your logic is flawed.

What you are saying is that if you do something, and then I dont undo it later, its my fault that it was done.

That reasoning is flawed.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 11:20 am
@mysteryman,
I understand your point, mm, but with presidents, they are in fact responsible for not only instituting sound policies, but terminating those that are not. I think it is reasonable to point out that conservatives opposed much of Bush's domestic spending policies, just as they are opposing Obama's, which is light years worse than Bush's. Obama has essentially taken over the wheel of a vehicle that was driving closer to the edge, and has directed the vehicle straight for the edge of the cliff. Meanwhile, Obama continues to blame Bush for our economic and irresponsible woes, while he himself has expanded the economic problems and irresponsible government several times over. Obama's monumental spending and economic disaster makes Bush's look like childs play compared to his.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 11:24 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I understand your point, mm, but with presidents, they are in fact responsible for not only instituting sound policies, but terminating those that are not. I think it is reasonable to point out that conservatives opposed much of Bush's domestic spending policies, just as they are opposing Obama's, which is light years worse than Bush's. Obama has essentially taken over the wheel of a vehicle that was driving closer to the edge, and has directed the vehicle straight for the edge of the cliff. Meanwhile, Obama continues to blame Bush for our economic and irresponsible woes, while he himself has expanded the economic problems and irresponsible government several times over. Obama's monumental spending and economic disaster makes Bush's look like childs play compared to his.


The fact that our economy is beginning to recover is making paragraphs like this look idiotic.

I think you guys have fallen into a trap here; you have predicted so much doom-and-gloom, so many 'headed off a cliff' statements, that when our economy does get better - which it inevitably will - you are left holding on to quite the Chicken Little legacy, and even more evidence that your economic prediction ability is really weak.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 06:56 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
Laughing
The fact that he could propose slashing our tax rates by a gigantic amount and then immediately follow it with the last line is ridiculous. It's as if there is no understanding on their part that this will dramatically reduce federal revenues.

Cycloptichorn

I believe these are the lines to which you refer:
Quote:
The proposal eliminates the alternative minimum tax. It promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends. It eliminates the death tax. It replaces the corporate income tax"currently the second highest in the industrialized world"with a business consumption tax of 8.5%. This new rate is roughly half the average in the industrialized world and will put American companies and workers in a stronger position to compete in a global economy.

Even without the Democratic spending spree, our fiscal outlook is deteriorating. They are only hastening the crisis. It is not too late to take control of our fiscal and economic future. But the longer we wait, the bigger the problem becomes and the more difficult our options for solving it.


Arthur Laffer aside, your reply seems to disregard the whole point of Congressman Ryan's piece:
Quote:
The difference between the Road Map and the Democrats' approach could not be more clear. From the enactment of a $1 trillion "stimulus" last February to the current pass-at-all costs government takeover of health care, the Democratic leadership has followed a "progressive" strategy that will take us closer to a tipping point past which most Americans receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes"a European-style welfare state where double-digit unemployment becomes a way of life.

Americans don't have to settle for this path of decline. There's still time to choose a different future. That is what the Road Map offers. It is based on a fundamentally different vision from the one now prevailing in Washington. It focuses the government on its proper role. It restrains government spending, and hence limits the size of government itself. It rejuvenates the vibrant market economy that made America the envy of the world. And it restores an American character rooted in individual initiative, entrepreneurship and opportunity.

Thus a smaller government allows more efficient use of the capital in our economic system. People determine where they feel their money will best meet their needs and goals (pursuit of happiness). More economic freedom also promotes individual freedoms. But your argument that Ryan's tax reductions work against a needed increase (or even stasis) in government revenues fails to address Ryan's (and Conservative's overall) greater concern of an ever increasing larger government itself. A smaller government, focused only on those constitutionally enumerated (and therefore numerically small) and legitimate government responsibilities is Ryan's (and Conservative's) ultimate goal. In this context less (federal in this case) government revenues forces a concerned citizenship and leadership to focus only on those enumerated responsibilities. The rest is left to the states and ultimately the people themselves. The result is more freedom for individuals, the main purpose of our constitution and the main intent of the founding fathers. Every institution that they created works towards this while trying to balance the concurrent goal of a just government. Government was a necessary evil that had to be constantly reigned in. The goal of government is to protect the governed. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the governed from (those in) the government itself.

If one truly believes that government revenues must be kept up then this must be supported only by pointing to those constitutional responsibilities of government and is not to be justified by some personal or communal "right" towards an object such as health care, a good job, or some tax credit or 'cash for clunkers' or, even, education. Our Constitution provides only that individuals have equal rights regarding those actions that work towards such pursuits. The Constitution guarantees not happiness itself, but only its individual pursuit.
To those who feel that government should provide more and more objects such as health care, a decent wage, etc and that it must pass more laws to "level the playing field", such arguments for smaller government will seem irrelevant and, indeed, are. But that goal is incompatible with an America envisioned by the founders. Given such ideology, what would result truly is Ryan's "European-style welfare state where double-digit unemployment becomes a way of life".

JM
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Jan, 2010 09:04 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Wow, you sure wrote a lot without addressing the real point, either.

We have not only a gigantic deficit at the moment, we have a gigantic national debt. We can only address the debt if we can first address the deficit; otherwise we'll never catch up.

Closing the gap on our deficit either means raising taxes or huge cuts in a variety of different programs. You and the Republicans have taken any and all tax raises off the table, so that only leaves giant cuts.

Let's say that we make giant cuts. Now, how much do we have to make - EXTRA - to pay off trillions of dollars of debt? Which is gaining interest every year, so we have to pay many billions just to keep up?

How much do you honestly think can be cut from the federal budget in order to service the debt? I have yet to hear specifics about how 2/3rds of our current budget will be cut from any Republican.

The truth is that balancing the budget, getting rid of the deficit and servicing down the debt will take both cuts AND tax increases. The last president to do this was Clinton and the Republican Congress helped him. They had budget surpluses and huge projected future surpluses by the end of it - the kind of surpluses that could have helped us pay the national debt down to nothing.

Bush proceeded to axe the revenues which lead to the surpluses immediately upon taking office, and added roughly 5 trillion dollars of debt over the next 7 years.

To say that cutting taxes and gov't programs will get us into fiscal stability is foolish in the extreme. The truth is that it will take tax increases. Anyone who was serious about America and taking care of the future would agree with this point.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 12:47 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

To say that cutting taxes and gov't programs will get us into fiscal stability is foolish in the extreme. The truth is that it will take tax increases. Anyone who was serious about America and taking care of the future would agree with this point.

Cycloptichorn

A healthy stream of tax revenue depends largely upon a healthy economy, more than it does tax rates. And raising tax rates is counter to stimulating and maintaing a healthy economy, so cyclops, your conclusion is totally flawed.

A good example of how the government must balance the budget might be our own personal budgets. Spending less money is of course the very first logical policy to balance our own budgets, and that is of course just as true for government. Similarly, if a person owns a business to make a living, simply raising his rates will just as likely reduce his revenues as it will increase them, in fact it could be a huge factor in running his business into the ground, if his rates are already about as much as the market will bear.

Democrats historically favor both raising taxes and raising spending, while conservatives favor cutting spending and cutting tax rates. Working these two policies in tandem, cutting tax rates helps maintain the economy and economic growth, while cutting spending makes it easier to balance the budget, an absolute necessity as a first step toward long term stability.

Cyclops, I don't know if you have ever run a business, but I certainly would not advise anyone to follow your advice for running one, which seems to be raise rates for the same lousy service that is offered by a business that is already losing money, while you would also spend more money in your business, buy newer vehicles, pay uncompetitively high wages, and buy office supplies at the most expensive place in town, rent more office space than you need, and so on and so forth. That is a perfect recipe for going bankrupt.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 01:38 am
@okie,
Forget your tired analogies. Let's talk about the actual situation.

We have a big deficit and a huge debt. How do you think we are going to pay down the debt without raising taxes? I'd like to hear you explain how much money you would cut from government spending, and where. And how much you would be putting towards the debt each year to pay it off, and where that money would come from.

I don't think you've put even a seconds thought into the realities of what you propose. So, show us.

Quote:
Democrats historically favor both raising taxes and raising spending, while conservatives favor cutting spending and cutting tax rates. Working these two policies in tandem, cutting tax rates helps maintain the economy and economic growth, while cutting spending makes it easier to balance the budget, an absolute necessity as a first step toward long term stability.


Your purposes are contradictory. You are taking an action which makes it easier to balance the budget (cutting spending) and combining it with an action which makes it harder to balance the budget (cutting taxes). This doesn't solve your problem, especially when you have to pay down trillions of dollars of debt as well.

I also challenge your assertion that 'cutting tax rates' helps maintain the economy and economic growth. If you bother to think about your statement for a second, you will see why it is clearly untrue.

Cycloptichorn
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 09:27 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
How do you think we are going to pay down the debt without raising taxes?


How interesting that your question assumes only one side of the ledger...the raising revenue side...without addressing the fact that there is an equal and opposite side...the spending side.

It's called debits and credits in accounting.

Let's ask the question this way---

How do you think we are going to pay down the debt without drastically cutting spending?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 10:54 am
@BigTexN,
BigTexN wrote:

Quote:
How do you think we are going to pay down the debt without raising taxes?


How interesting that your question assumes only one side of the ledger...the raising revenue side...without addressing the fact that there is an equal and opposite side...the spending side.

It's called debits and credits in accounting.

Let's ask the question this way---

How do you think we are going to pay down the debt without drastically cutting spending?


Did you even read my posts above?

Here's my conclusion, from two posts above:

Quote:

The truth is that balancing the budget, getting rid of the deficit and servicing down the debt will take both cuts AND tax increases.


I have consistently argued that spending cuts and tax increases are the only path to fiscal solvency. I don't know of any economist who disagrees with this, but I know plenty of politicians who do - because they haven't put any serious thought into it.

We have a model; the end of the Clinton era, in which we were actually running surpluses. It can be done. But it takes action on both sides of the fence to make it happen.

Cycloptichorn
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 11:24 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
I know what the constitution says, but your logic is flawed.

What you are saying is that if you do something, and then I dont undo it later, its my fault that it was done.

That reasoning is flawed.

I am not saying: "that if you do something, and then I dont undo it later, its my fault that it was done."

I am saying, that if A FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION ENACTS something THAT IS HARMFUL, AND A SUBSEQUENT FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT RESCIND IT, THEN THAT SUBSEQUENT FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING THAT something THAT IS HARMFUL TO CONTINUE.

I'd like to add, that ANY subsequent federal administration that allows a harmful thing to continue, is responsible for allowing that harmful thing to continue. So all federal administrations that allow a harmful thing to continue, are as responsible for that harmful thing continuing as the originator of that harmful thing was for creating that harmful thing.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 11:40 am
John Kennedy: "Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary."

Scott Brown: "That’s what we need now, across the board tax cuts. A payroll tax cut would have been better than any government stimulus. "

Ican: "Reducing the tax rate on the wealthy allows the wealthy to invest or spend more of their money. When the wealthy spend or invest more of their money, they make all of us who pay taxes more wealthy by providing us more opportunities to earn more, and provide the government more income (i.e., receipts)."

Reagan in 1982 cut Carter's maximum income tax rate from 70% to 50% and then to 38.5% and then to 33%. Since then, the maximum tax rate has remained below 40%. Since 1982, total jobs grew from less than an annual average of 100 million to more than an annual average of 145 million in 2008. In 2009, jobs decreased to an annual average below 140 million because of excessive government borrowing from the private sector. Since 1987 to the present the maximum tax rate has remained below 40%, BUT federal tax receipts have increased annually since 1987 to the present"except for the years 2001 to 2004. Furthermore, GDP has increased annually up to and including 2008.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 12:01 pm
Quote:
Joseph Farah found his calling in Obama-bashing
(By Peter Wallsten and Faye Fiore, The Los Angeles Times, January 27, 2010)

Sipping coffee in a strip mall, Joseph Farah looks like something out of a spy novel -- suave, mysterious, bushy black mustache. He's surprisingly relaxed, considering he believes his life is in danger because of his occupation. He runs a must-read website for anyone who hates Barack Obama.

Once a little-known Los Angeles newspaper editor, Farah has become a leading impresario of America's disaffected right, serving up a mix of reporting and wild speculation to an audience eager to think the worst of the president.

"Minister: Obamacare kills African-American babies . . . Sign at homeless camp: Welcome to Obamaville," the headlines holler at WorldNetDaily.com, an online tabloid that relentlessly skewers the administration and its every move.

The topic it pursues with tireless zeal, though, is the claim that Obama was born not in Honolulu but in Africa, and is therefore ineligible to be president. Farah has used his widely followed website to launch an electronic petition demanding proof of Obama's birthplace, a national billboard campaign ("WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?") and more than 400 articles suggesting America's first black president might not be a "natural born" citizen.

If Farah believes Obama is bad for the country, the president has been indisputably good for Farah's business.

WorldNetDaily's unique visitors nearly doubled to 2 million a month after Obama took office, according to Nielsen's ratings. Farah says his traffic is at least twice that, citing private data from Google Analytics, a traffic-counting service. By either count, that's higher than the online readership of the conservative mainstay National Review, not to mention many of the nation's regional newspapers.

Revenue is on track to hit $10 million annually, Farah says. (That figure could not be independently verified.) His success comes in no small part from the storehouse of "birther" T-shirts, books, DVDs and postcards for sale in his virtual "superstore."

WorldNetDaily's book division publishes titles from high-profile conservatives such as former Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, a leader in the anti-illegal-immigration movement, and former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, whose role in George W. Bush's disputed 2000 presidential victory made her a conservative heroine. Perhaps one of Farah's greatest assets is the WorldNetDaily mailing list, recently rented by the Republican National Committee for a fundraising appeal.

Some Republicans wish Farah would abandon the birther issue, fearing his work makes the entire conservative movement seem wacky.

"The fever swamps can be a very profitable market," said Jon Henke, a Republican strategist who, through his blog, thenextright.com, has called on GOP groups to boycott Farah's website and mailing list. "There is a business model in that, but it doesn't make it good politics."

Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, a pull-no-punches critic who once lumped Obama and Hitler in the same sentence, called the continuing citizenship crusade "the dumbest thing I've ever heard," predicting earlier this month that it would backfire in a "dream come true" for the president. (Farah, for his part, said Beck often used WorldNetDaily scoops without attribution, something a Beck spokesman denied.)

Farah has won fans in unexpected corners. In a 2008 testimonial, "Why a Liberal Jewish Feminist Likes WND," college journalism instructor Donna Halper praised Farah's "interesting and honest writing" and his reluctance to "blindly follow the 'party line.' " She makes the site required reading for her students at Lesley University in Cambridge, Mass.

But Halper was puzzled by Farah's dogged quest for documentation of Obama's birth, which she considers "so documented and so proven."

"I really wonder how much of what's in WorldNetDaily is just 'Let's be provocative,' " she said.

The site has the feel of a scandal sheet ("Companies get even gayer as U.S. economy plummets") and an infomercial ("How to hide your guns from criminals"). Faith and survival are regular themes. There are tips on how to grow a "crisis garden" and tallies of "2009's worst attacks on Christianity."

Farah, 55, is an evangelical Christian whose politics would be called conservative by any measure. But he resents the label -- noting that he is devoted to muckraking journalism no matter which party is in charge -- and likes to think of himself as a lone wolf in a pack of complacent reporters, particularly where Obama is concerned.

"I'm going to go where I feel I've got to go as a newsman to uncover the truth," he said, nursing his iced coffee. The secretive Farah declined to meet at his home or office but agreed to sit down at a Starbucks in northern Virginia as long as the name of the town wasn't given.

"Just because one newsman or one news agency decides to pursue a story that nobody believes doesn't mean we're fringe," he said. "When Woodward and Bernstein started pursuing Watergate, had no one else gotten on the story. . . . Woodward and Bernstein would probably be viewed today as some kind of fringe characters."

Farah was born in Paterson, N.J., and grew up in a middle-class home with parents of Syrian and Lebanese descent. His father was a teacher. Farah studied communications at a local university, then honed his skills as a newsman working from one end of California to the other.

The liberal-leaning Herald Examiner, an irreverent competitor to the Los Angeles Times, was an improbable launch pad for a man who would go on to make his fortune giving voice to conservative fury. Back then, Farah was executive news editor and about the only thing that agitated him was being interrupted while watching "Miami Vice," his colleagues recollect.

"I had no idea when he was working for me that he was so right-wing," said John Lindsay, a former Herald-Examiner editor who later became a top editor at The Times. He recalled Farah complaining occasionally about liberal bias in the media, but never with much zeal.

In 1990, Farah moved upstate to become editor of the Sacramento Union, which was losing money. "We just thought the way to go was to be unabashedly conservative in our approach," Farah said at the time. His political leanings flourished. Rush Limbaugh, a relatively unknown local radio host, caught Farah's ear, and Farah persuaded him to write a daily political column, which he put on Page 1.

A little more than a year later, Farah dived headlong into political advocacy, co-founding the Western Center for Journalism, which promotes and funds conservative causes. Bankrolled by like-minded investors, the center quickly made its mark raising questions about investigations into the death of Vincent Foster, President Clinton's deputy counsel. The reporting fueled conspiracy theories that Foster was murdered and the White House was involved. The police and an independent counsel determined that the clinically depressed Foster committed suicide.

When Hillary Rodham Clinton asserted as first lady that a "vast right-wing conspiracy" had been working to destroy her husband's presidency, many assumed one of the "conspirators" she had in mind was Farah.

He embraced the assertion as an honor and came away with a lucrative business model: Hire reporters to develop explosive headlines that draw a motivated audience, then sell those readers merchandise that capitalizes on their anger and suspicion.

As Farah puts it: "We're about news and marketing the news."

Founded 12 years ago by Farah and his wife, Elizabeth, WorldNetDaily operates with a small but far-reaching crew -- a dozen reporters and editors stationed in Jerusalem, New York and around the U.S.

Some of the most notable contributors cut their teeth in partisan warfare. Jerome Corsi, one of the site's most prolific staffers, helped lead the Swift boat attacks on 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and also wrote "The Obama Nation," a scathing swipe at the 2008 candidate.

The site is papered with advertising (a feat most mainstream newspapers have yet to master) and filled with often sensational content. It was WorldNetDaily writers who suggested that congressional Democrats sought to build disaster-relief centers that could be used as Nazi-style concentration camps for political dissidents, and that Obama aims to build his own personal totalitarian civilian security force.

Its reportage has been known to rattle careers.

Van Jones, a mid-level White House official admired by the president's closest advisors, resigned last year after Farah's team reported that he had once declared himself a communist and a radical.

When Cass Sunstein, now Obama's top regulatory official, came up for a Senate vote,several Republicans who opposed him cited his views on animal rights and hunting gleaned from WorldNetDaily. (Sunstein was confirmed anyway.)

If Farah has a playbook, its first rule is persistence. The rumor of Obama's foreign origins surfaced in summer 2008 and was soon discredited. The Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate showing he was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. The Hawaii Department of Health confirmed its authenticity.

Hawaii's records, like those of many states, have gone electronic, and the digital versions are accepted by the state and national governments as proof of citizenship. To insist otherwise is to believe that thousands of Hawaiians who have obtained U.S. passports using similar documents have committed fraud.

Original birth certificates are not public documents, but the Obama campaign allowed FactCheck.org to examine his shortly after the allegation arose. The nonpartisan organization reported that it had "seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate." The Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging Obama's eligibility to hold office.

The mainstream media were satisfied. But Farah pressed on, vowing a month before Obama took office: "It'll plague Obama throughout his presidency. It'll be a nagging issue and a sore on his administration. . . . It's not going to go away."

Chris Lehane, a former Clinton White House aide who wrote an exhaustive report on WorldNetDaily's place in a "communication stream of conspiracy commerce," called Farah's operation "a moneymaking scheme."

"You've got a built-in audience, and given that there is a dearth of real reporting, there is probably very little overhead," Lehane said.

Farah insists his editorial staff is insulated from the website's profit side, and sees the investigation of Obama's origins as a legitimate journalistic enterprise only he and his team have the guts to chase.

"To us, it's a no-lose proposition. If he turns in his birth certificate, or releases it, great. That's what we want him to do. And, frankly, if he does that, it's going to be because of our pursuit of the document," Farah said of the president. "If he doesn't, we know he's hiding something. And I'm absolutely persuaded that he's hiding something."

As the new year dawned, WorldNetDaily was populated with birth certificate stories. A routine account of the Hawaii Legislature's plans to honor its native son served as a vehicle to raise the issue anew: "Guess how 'the One' will be honored next: Obama Day, Park, High School, Birthplace -- if only they can figure exactly where that is."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 12:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I have consistently argued that spending cuts and tax increases are the only path to fiscal solvency. I don't know of any economist who disagrees with this, but I know plenty of politicians who do - because they haven't put any serious thought into it.

We have a model; the end of the Clinton era, in which we were actually running surpluses. It can be done. But it takes action on both sides of the fence to make it happen.

Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams are two among many well know economists who recommend that not only should spending be cut, taxes should also be cut.

CLINTON INCREASED BOTH SPENDING AND TAXES.
Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf
Year…….$Outlays
1992..1,381,649,000 [BUSH 41 1989-1993]
1993..1,409,522,000 [CLINTON 1993-2001]
1994..1,461,907,000
1995..1,515,894,000
1996..1,560,608,000
1997..1,601,307,000
1998..1,652,685,000
1999..1,702,035,000
2000..1,789,216,000

2001..1,863,190,000 [BUSH 43 2001-2009]

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2051527/posts
1991-1992: minimum = 15%; maximum = 31%[BUSH 41 1989-1993]
1993-2000: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.6% [CLINTON 1993-2001]
2001-2001: minimum = 15%; maximum = 39.1% [BUSH 43 2001-2009]

It's your turn to post your correction!
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 12:27 pm
I am wondering whether any of yall are planning to attend the National Teaparty Convention next week in Nashville?
Everyone who is anyone in the movement will be there...except for the 2 conservative members of the House who have quietly dropped out.
The registration fee to attend is a paltry $549 but if you want to listen to Sarah Palin deliver the keynote address, that is another $349. Ms Palin may or may be not be getting a $100K speaker's fee.
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 06:18 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote
Quote:
I am wondering whether any of yall are planning to attend the National Teaparty Convention next week in Nashville?

N0.
Quote:
The registration fee to attend is a paltry $549 but if you want to listen to Sarah Palin deliver the keynote address, that is another $349.

We can assume these fees (unlike Obamacare's mandatory taxes, fees, and [even] participation) are voluntary.

This Bottom Story of The Day just in:
Quote:
"Ms Palin may or may be not be getting a $100K speaker's fee."


Wink JM
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 07:32 pm
Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18925&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Federal Spending & Budget Issues
January 29, 2010

ESTIMATING THE FISCAL GAP USING GENERATIONAL ACCOUNTING
Generational accounting is a well-established methodology to measure the burden of government, says Laurence J. Kotlikoff, a professor of economics at Boston University and a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. For example, a generational account for any given generation measures the generation's remaining lifetime net tax bill as a present value -- what the generation will pay net of what it will receive, all valued as of today.

If the generational accounts of all current and future generations are added together, assuming no change in fiscal policy, the sum amounts to what all current and future citizens are going to pay, on net, in taxes to the government (measured as a present value). This amount has to cover the government's official debt plus the present value of all future government purchases of goods and services (discretionary spending), explains Kotlikoff:

The fiscal gap is the difference between the government's official debt plus discretionary spending and the amount of taxes current and future citizens will pay.

It incorporates all of the government's fiscal activities - including its financial obligations under Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare, unemployment, and interest and principal on government debt.

Taking into consideration all of the government's financial liabilities and projected future tax receipts, the current fiscal gap in the United States is estimated by Jagadeesh Gokhale of the Cato Institute and Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania at $77 trillion -- more than five times the United States' present gross domestic product (GDP). In order to close a gap of this size, the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) payroll tax -- currently 15.3 percent -- would need to be more than doubled immediately and permanently.

To understand how this figure can be so large, consider:

There are now roughly 33 million adults in the United States receiving retirement benefits.

When the 78 million baby boomers retire, there will be more than twice the number of retirees receiving benefits than there are currently.

While there will be a significant increase in those dependent on government programs like Social Security and Medicare when the boomers retire, there will only be about 2.7 workers per retiree to help pay the benefits -- down from 3.28 workers per retiree in 1985 and 3.43 in 2000.

Source: Laurence J. Kotlikoff, "Is Uncle Sam Bankrupt?"National Center for Policy Analysis, Brief Analysis No. 689, January 29, 2010.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 08:51 pm
@ican711nm,
ican,
I am curious how you can claim Clinton is responsible for spending in 2001 at the same time you claim Obama is responsible for 2009

Was Bush only President for 7 years?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 09:24 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
When the 78 million baby boomers retire, there will be more than twice the number of retirees receiving benefits than there are currently.


This is all part of god's plan, to make the USA pay for that profligate sexual binge. [Pat Robertson]
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 01:39 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
ican,
I am curious how you can claim Clinton is responsible for spending in 2001 at the same time you claim Obama is responsible for 2009

I do not claim that Clinton is responsible for spending in 2001!

I am curious why you think I claim that Clinton is responsible for spending in 2001. Please tell me why you think that!
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 08:16 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

I am wondering whether any of yall are planning to attend the National Teaparty Convention next week in Nashville?

No, I don't need to go there to find out something that I already know, that liberalism does not work, and that we need to elect conservatives - as many of them as we can possibly elect in all upcoming elections. That is the only hope for our country.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.44 seconds on 11/20/2024 at 08:30:12