Comment

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on November 11, 2010 at 10:19am

John, the information was leaked. The report isn't even out yet, and no, I am not going to play your game cause you are a progressive apparently. I have no intention of supporting Obama or (heaven help us) Pelosi. She enjoys one of the lowest approval rating of anyone, John.

Here is another opinion of the debt commission and one I am more inclined to agree with. And cuts in the federal government are mentioned just as I did earlier........imagine that:
The Debt Commission Report
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Thursday, November 11th at 5:00AM EST

As you wake up this morning, there is a lot of talk about the leaked report of the Debt Commission. Keep in mind that this is not the final report, but a draft passed out by the co-chairs.

What you need to know is pretty straight forward.

Yes, the plan ends the deficit. It does so with lots and lots of spending cuts across the board. There are actually some good suggestions in the plan, but there is one inescapable fact — the proposal has buried in it one trillion dollars in tax increases.

Some of what are defined as tax increases are, in fact, closing loopholes in the tax code that lobbyists have inserted on behalf of clients. But also included is getting rid of the home mortgage deduction. That would amount to a massive, massive tax increase on the middle class.

The reforms suggested for social security are out and out garbage. It is not means tested. It is not “lock boxed”. Payments are cut. Retirement is increased.

This proposal is dead on arrival.

But there is another point that must be made — even were all the proposals, plans, and points adopted it would do no good. Why? Because until Washington admits that it has exceeded the powers given to it under the constitution the same problems will continue to occur over and over.

The Leviathan knows no bounds and, left to itself to check its own growth it will continue growing. Until we are willing to admit that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives limited powers to Congress, we are wasting our time.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on November 11, 2010 at 8:07am

I don't take much Pelosi says very seriously John. Do you? They just took a bath politically, and she was the ring leader for taking money from social security for both the health care bill and to help with the benefits for congress. Now she is concerned (at least verbally). For one, the democrats or progressives or whatever these folks are now calling themselves have done more to hurt the poor and middle class than any other group anywhere. Take a look at the current economic polices, monatary policies, and other programs aimed at killing jobs by hurting job creators (like their health care bill with all it's mandates). Also take a look at any American city where the democrats have been in power for any length of time, and you will see conditions that consistantly get worse, not better, for the working poor and middle class in those cities. These folks, like Pelosi, talk a good game, but it isn't worth much except as talk. And if you are trying to sway people to the democrats John, it won't work. We have been watching them for the last 2 years without a break and know full well what their agenda is.....................

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on November 11, 2010 at 6:28am

Actually John, the very fact that you agree with what has been proposed makes me somewhat concerned as the progressives agree with this as well. The progressives do not want to hurt anyone much but the elderly and those people who are successful and anyone foolish enough to have saved money for a rainy day. Why, one might ask? Because those with the hands out and the young will vote for this wack jobs; it is all political and until it becomes otherwise, we have a problem.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on November 11, 2010 at 6:24am

John, although I agree something must be done with social security and medicare, doing the cutting in conjunction with the Obama/Bernache plan on buying debt in order to cause inflation and throw our country into economic chaos, is not exactly going to fix much, but it will kill off a lot of folks who won't be able to even buy food at the "new" very inflated prices. The thing that I noted in this grand scheme they have come up with is that no where is there any mention of cutting the size of the federal government and eliminating the federal reserve as the handler of our currency. I think along with hurting the elderly which seems of late to be the answer to everything (if they don't have an answer, they want to take from the old folks who are not in a position to recover from their savings being destroyed and the government cutting ss), why not cut other things which would be just as useful. I hold to the point that people paid in huge amounts of money, so ss would be available to them in their old age, and the government gave ss to people who never paid in and spent huge amounts of ss on other things. The elderly are not exactly the villians in this; the government is the villian and until we make significant cuts in the size and scope of government, they will remain the villian and the problem.

Comment by Guy Tate on November 11, 2010 at 5:32am

Ooops. I meant say that allowing our *Debt* to rise to 60% of GDP is criminal.

Comment by Guy Tate on November 11, 2010 at 5:31am

John, I saw that article too but it doesn't solve the problem. This statement alone just highlights it, "The plan would cut the deficit to 2.2 percent of gross domestic product by 2015, from the current 9 percent, exceeding Obama’s goal. It would also reduce debt to 60 percent of GDP by 2024."

It's obvious that they aren't really cutting any Social (justice/redistribution) programs until after most of our population is long dead. To allow our deficit to rise to 60% of GDP is criminal. We need to not only cut the deficit, but go into positive numbers to begin paying the debt down. The only way I see that happening is to freeze SSA and Medicare spending and then gradually phase them out at the federal level. Let the several states decide if they want them for their citizens and implement local versions of them there. Defense budgeting should be done on a year by year basis depending on our defense requirements. After all, of all the big ticket items in the budget, the only one directed specifically by the Constitution is defense.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on November 10, 2010 at 8:13am

Agree Valerie. Donald said repeatedly he wished we could opt out as we could have done much better with the money they took from us by investing it ourselves. Apparently, many of us could have including you. For years, they just let the money sit there and do nothing when they should have invested it. When they finally took note how much money had been amassed, they couldn't wait to start stealing but had to move it to the general fund first, and they did. That day was the beginning of the end for social security, and Obama is not one bit better. The people were promised when tarp passed that when the money was repaid with interest, it would be applied to the deficit, but Obama decided it was free money for him to squander instead. The federal government, at this point, can't even be trusted to do what they are reponsible for, so why on earth would I want them doing things the constitution doesn't specifically mention as a duty of the federal government.

Comment by Valerie Sawyer on November 10, 2010 at 7:33am

Nobody gets "paid back" with SS. If I had been allowed to invest my SS dollars privately instead of giving it to the government, I would retire with around $800,000 which I could use during my retirement years and then bequeath to my children when I die. Not so with SS. When you die, the government keeps your money. It's theft, pure and simple. Same with Medicare. People do not have a choice - the government takes your money to pay for it and then forces you to enroll in the program when you turn 65. You get no choice in the matter. It appears the Democrats are only for "choice" when it comes to abortion.

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on November 10, 2010 at 7:29am

John, I got the "information" from a video a doctor put together. Do I have the address any longer? NO nor do I remember where I posted it. From your comments, you sound like you also favor the health care bill? You think older people are like welfare recipients, but you would allow that people who have paid into the socialist program to get 40 to 50 years worth of stolen money back. You see, John, we didn't make this system up nor did anyone else. A group of politicians made the system and passed the law to put it into effect and then, took money against the will of the people from their pay checks for safe keeping so they would have something when they retired. Then, they spent the money and most recently stole money from the fund to add to the new health care bill and congress even took money from the fund to fix their retirement or medical or something and they have used the money they were safeguarding for all of us as a slush fund. Do you understand or are you capable of understanding that this health care bill is the same thing in a different day and can not under any circumstances be allowed to stand? Do I understand that young people should not be forced to pay for this SS mess? YES. Do you understand there has to be a cutoff date applied to the system and people must start saving their own money (no government access) for their own retirement because the government can not be trusted for SS or health care.

Comment by Guy Tate on November 10, 2010 at 5:21am

There is absolutely NO reason to raise taxes. According to the CBO we can balance the budget in five years if we just freeze spending at its current level. We can even allow COLAs on the various safety nets and balance the budget within ten years is we cap spending in creases at one or two percent annually.

I have a real problem with paying taxes that aren't intended for the normal functions of government; like protecting the borders or delivering the mail. Taxing our producers at higher and higher level has been shown over and over again to actually reduce revenue to the govt. The best way to increase tax revenue is to grow the economy, not grow the tax burden.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page