http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/unions_get_pecial_treatment_in_health_AB053CwqPIJlIxXAm37DOM
Unions will dodge O’s health tax
By CARL CAMPANILE NY Post
Last Updated: 10:55 AM, January 15, 2010
Posted: 2:49 AM, January 15, 2010
Big Labor got some big love from President Obama and congressional Democrats yesterday after they agreed to exempt union workers from the whopping “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health-care plans until 2018.
The sweetheart deal, hammered out behind closed doors, will save union employees at least $60 billion over the years involved, while others won’t be as lucky — they’ll have to cough up almost $90 billion.
Amazing how Unions rate more than we do. But this whole Healthscare deal, has been Let’s Make A Deal. The $300M Louisiana Purchase, The $100M Cornhusker Kickback (Nelson was booed out of restaurant the other night in his home town) Sweetheart deals for Big Medicine, New taxes, and control of healthcare by the Feds. And where is that in the Constitution?
New York labor leaders — who had initially campaigned against the Cadillac tax, favoring instead a surcharge on the wealthy — said they are thrilled.
“We can live with it. We have an agreement that nothing will be taxed until 2018,” crowed George Boncoraglio, regional president of the Civil Service Employees Association.
Officials said the deal was thrashed out over more than 15 hours of negotiating at the White House that ended after midnight Wednesday.
Powerful unions were well-represented around the bargaining table.
Participants included AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Andy Stern, head of Service Employees International Union; Anna Burger, head of Change to Win; and the leaders of unions representing teachers, government workers, food and commercial workers, and electricians.
Stern has been among the most frequent visitors to the White House over the last year, showing up more than 20 times, according to logs.
Tell me when you’re still happy with BO after a year
Democrats are determined to be the minority again:
Senate Can Pass Health With 51 Votes, Van Hollen Says (Update1)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPg2UfFaCh9c&pos=9
Looks like Ben Nelson is running for his political life.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/15/nelson-asks-senate-withdraw-nebraska-medicaid-deal/
DNW commented awhile back about people acting surprised about things like this and I have to agree. Like walking into a homicide scene, with blood everywhere, eveything out of place, and the victim laying there with butcher knife sticking out of chest, nobody has to ask if a murder took place; it’s a foregone conclusion. The last year of this dismal presidency is much the same. The evidence is all there. It’s everywhere you look. From the $670B slush fund, to SEIU goons, to Acorn, to countless czar appointments, goverment takeover of the private sector, the demonization of banks, Wall Street, the 2009 Presidential Apology Tour, $10k/person Congressional boondoggles to Copenhagen, the Healthcare bill that’s not really about health, and on and on and on.
Then to watch conservatives give this jackass a free pass by saying, well maybe he’s just inexperienced. Maybe he doesn’t really mean to be F-ing up everything he lays his hands on. Maybe all of this is just by accident.
If you’re one of those types, you need to wake up and quit kidding yourself. This sad excuse for an American president knows exactly what he’s doing. It’s all in his mentor’s playbook, Rules For Radicals. None of this is an accident. It’s all part of the grand plan to shift from Free Market Capitalism to one of Statist Controlled Socialism. And if you think things are in the crapper now, wait until he’s had another three years doing everything he can to defile our Constitution, ruin the economy, rob us of more of our property and rights to feed his quest for power and control.
What should be happening is his upcoming impeachment for failure to fulfill the oath he took to support and defend the Constitution against all enemy’s foreign and domestic. For it is now apparent, through his actions, that he can be classified as a Domestic Enemy of the Constitution. The evidence is all there for everyone to see if they choose to admit it to themselves. But that might require one of the hardest things of all – the admission and acceptance they allowed themselves to be gullible enough to drink the Kool Aid and get sucked in. That’s right Obama voters, you got suckered. The joke’s now on you. The only problem is the rest of have to suffer for your ignorance.
Joe Shallenberger:
For it is now apparent, through his actions, that he can be classified as a Domestic Enemy of the Constitution. The evidence is all there for everyone to see if they choose to admit it to themselves. But that might require one of the hardest things of all – the admission and acceptance they allowed themselves to be gullible enough to drink the Kool Aid and get sucked in. That’s right Obama voters, you got suckered. The joke’s now on you. The only problem is the rest of have to suffer for your ignorance.
You will have a next to impossible time getting the sycophants who suck on the teat of the Government to believe that of this narcissist.
Know exactly what you are dealing with Stern and BO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzG0xpkjWrA
BO said to the SEIU Convention – “Your Agenda, is My Agenda”
With Andy Stern as President of SEIU, then I suppose BO agrees with this?
From Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ, February 20, 2007:
NARRATOR: It started last summer with the so-called Big Box Ordinance. Labor wanted it. Business didn’t.
STERN: We took names. We watched how they voted. We know where they live.
NARRATOR: In October, Andy Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union:
STERN: There are opportunities in America to share better in the wealth, to rebalance the power. And unions and government are part of the solution.
~~~~~~~~~~
That little slogan “Workers of the world, unite!” comes from The Communist Manifesto. Stern is a fan.
STERN: We’re trying to use the power of persuasion. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to use the persuasion of power because there are governments and there are opportunities to change laws that affect these companies. And I’m not naive. We’re ready to strike.
One is known by the company they keep.
A don’t forget the hadicapped guy in St. Louis trying to make a buck.
Don’t forget the older gentleman in CA, I believe, who got his finger bitten off.
Oh, and then there’s this:
Don’t y’all understand; it’s for our own good, doncha know?
The proposed tax on high-end health insurance would make me laugh, if it wasn’t so rotten. President Obama wants to make sure that every American has health care coverage, so one of the things he wants to do is put further taxes on better health care coverage. He wants to make sure that Americans never have to worry about catastrophic health care costs throwing people into bankruptcy, yet he wants to impose a tax on the plans which give the most protection from a medically-induced bankruptcy.
The Levellers were not really interested in “leveling” English life to the lowest common denominator — they got heir name from “leveling” the hedges enclosing public lands — and rather disliked the name, because it led many to the impression that such was their goal, but it seems that many of our friends on the left would be drawn to the notions the Levellers’ name implied; if someone has something that’s just too good, he must be brought down to the level of the common people.
Dana: “.., if someone has something that’s just too good, he must be brought down to the level of the common people.”
I don’t think this is the idea at all, Dana. You give no evidence to support this. But the wealthy must be willing, or forced, to contribute their fair share to their country.
Our system has worked the other way for several decades, producing a wealth disparity which is unsustainable because it is reducing the middle class, thus promoting a two class society made up of a wealthy minority at the top with most of the political power, and a poor majority at the bottom with little political power. Don’t you understand that this is happening?
Moreover, I’m not happy with some of the compromises occurring to get this bill passed. At least Senator Ben Nelson has withdrawn his deal regarding Medecaid payments for Nebraska.
But now we have a two tiered tax on ‘cadillac’ insurance plans in the offing to keep this health care bill revenue neutral: no tax on union members, tax all the rest, which will hit the middle class who have good insurance plans from their employers. In principle, it is fair to tax employee sponsored health insurance, because it really is income, but the idea is counterproductive to encouraging health insurance coverage. This is the Senate Bill; I like the House Bill approach better, to tax all those making over a million (I think), thus serving the dual purpose of having the wealthy pay back for our providing the context for their successes, while striving for revenue neutrality.
Conservatives should support this approach, I would think, due to their desire for revenue neutrality. Oh, nevermind; I understand that Conservatives, as usual, stand for the status quo, meaning no health insurance reform whatsoever. Let’s see if that approach gets your folks elected!
Perry wrote:
As far as I am concerned, the “fair share” of every American is exactly equal: Bill Gates and Perry and I ought to all be taxed exactly the same.
But even if I accepted the strange notion that income should be taxed, I see no reason why Bill Gates should be required to pay a higher percentage of his income in taxes than you do. What you seem to see as their “fair share,” I see as envy and class warfare and wholly unfair.
Even if I did agree that it was happening — and I don’t — I wouldn’t see it as the proper province of the government to try to institute social and economic changes. The proper function of government is to provide services for the public and to protect us from those who would violate our rights. To use the power of government to institute social and economic changes is to use the power of government to put into place things that some people want at the expense of those who do not want such changes.
“But the wealthy must be willing, or forced, to contribute their fair share to their country.”
Perry, the top 1% pay about 40% of the tax revenue. The top 5% pay about 70% of all tax revenue. That’s not “contributing” their fair share?
Furthermore, I resent the idea of targeting certain citizens because of “our providing the context for their successes”. We all enjoy the same “context” some are more successful than others, sorry bout that. You will never convince me on the basis of envy.
The super rich (Oprah: 120 million in 2009, Tiger:70 million in 2009, Jolie: 58 million in 2009) never seem to be the “target”, do they? The people hit with these taxes are usually those in the process of becoming wealthy. These type of taxes in reality become a “if you want to make money, do it off shore” tax. Not good for business, employment or the nation as a whole.
I keep hearing about the shrinking middle class but see no evidence thereof. More Americans own homes, cars, TV’s, computers, cell phones etc. than any time in history. I think the shrinking middle class is an urban legend. Now there well my be an expanding lower class. Primarily made up of uneducated urban minorities and non-English speaking illegal aliens. There may also be an expanding upper class made up of those taking advantage on new technology and wider markets. Is there really any reason for a guy who plays a freekin golf game to earn almost a billion dollars? No, but he did. Perhaps we should take his clubs away and break his wrists since he’s fulfilled the “context” of his success?
“But the wealthy must be willing, or forced, to contribute their fair share to their country.”
Again with the FORCE. What is it with you libs that everything is always FORCE? Who, exactly, do you think endows colleges? Builds hospitals? Supports all kinds of charities? Donates billions to educational funds? The wealty, that’s who. And nobody had to FORCE them.
Who just gave a million to help Haiti? Bill Gates did, Angelina Jolie did. Again, no FORCE involved. Did you donate your “fair share” to aide Haiti? Or are you like the other liberals (like Danny Glover) too busy blaming the earthquake on Bush or global warming to cut a check?
You libs crack me up. You sit there typing away on you $2000 laptop, one eye on your 65″ flat screen and tell us that you know exactly what 300 million of your fellow citizens needs are. Then, with sheer audacity, as if bestowed with the power of He Himself, you want to FORCE everyone else to finacilly support those percieved needs. I’d like to know what you libs intend on doing when you run out of other people’s money?
Sorry, you’ve already shown us. You just start working on third and fourth generations of other people’s money.
Perry:
Dana: “.., if someone has something that’s just too good, he must be brought down to the level of the common people.”
I don’t think this is the idea at all, Dana. You give no evidence to support this. But the wealthy must be willing, or forced, to contribute their fair share to their country.
So mark Perry down for confiscation without due process. So, just make a law to take everything away from those you deem rich. Let’s start with half of Hollyweed, then move to Sen. Reid.
Yorkshire exaggerates: “So mark Perry down for confiscation without due process. So, just make a law to take everything away from those you deem rich.”
Nobody has said anything at all about taking “everything away”. Why must you talk like this, Yorkshire?
Moreover, you very easily forgot about the laws that the Repubs passed and W signed giving preferential tax breaks to the rich. I am just suggesting reversing these laws.
To follow your (the Repub) approach, Yorkshire, you might find yourself being a victim not very far down the line. Think about that!
JohnC: The same comment applies to your bologna! “Perry, the top 1% pay about 40% of the tax revenue. The top 5% pay about 70% of all tax revenue. That’s not “contributing” their fair share?” I’ve heard this argument a million times. If you think several seconds about it, these statistics are indicative of how skewed the wealth distribution is in our country, like, 5% of the people own 85% of the nations’ wealth. Now chew on that statistic, and swallow it. Then factor that in to the power these folks have in Congress, and you have a society sinking into chaos as the middle class continues to grow more poor. If we stay on this track, it is only a matter of time. Obama understands this, you Conservative tyrants do not!
Perry:
Yorkshire exaggerates: “So mark Perry down for confiscation without due process. So, just make a law to take everything away from those you deem rich.”
Nobody has said anything at all about taking “everything away”. Why must you talk like this, Yorkshire?
Perry, it’s simple. Read all the comments above and they dwell on the fact that you say the rich should be “forced”. Your term, not mine or theirs. The only form of Government on earth that Forces anything form their citizens is communist in nature. I’m sure you’re not suggesting we go that route. But when people like Andy Stern who believes like a communist in force, and BO are best of buds. And when BO supports SEIU and Andy Stern 100%. And when BO hammered out a sweetheart deal with Andy Stern on at least his 23rd visit to the WH in less than a year, one wonders what you support when you say FORCED.
Help me understand. If the bottom third income earners pay zero federal income tax (and I’ve heard as much as the bottom half fit this category) and the top third income earners pay 90 percent of the collected federal income tax, when is a tax cut not more directly beneficial to the wealthy? And I’m tired of this idea that the bottom third gets more money back than they put in. That’s not a tax break, that’s welfare.
If we have an income tax, and we do, everyone with an income should have to pay that tax. Earn a whole dollar in a year? It gets taxed. Earn 100 dollars every second? It gets taxed. And it should be at the same rate. And I’m tired of taxing money that came from taxed money that came from taxed money that came from …
And this whole idea of specifically targeting non-union employees for a confiscatory tax on their benefits is unAmerican and unconstitutional on the face of it.
Yorkshire continues: “The only form of Government on earth that Forces anything form their citizens is communist in nature.”
Yorkshire, on what planet do you reside, seriously?
It’s quite clear, you folks are all in favor of big government and ‘forcing’, as long as it suits your ideology. The Bush tax cuts ‘forced’ the middle Americans to accept smaller cuts than the wealthy. That’s an indisputable fact! You people want to force a pregnant women to carry to term, taking choice away from her. That’s an indisputable fact! Your leaders forced our nation to attack Iraq. That is a fact! Your side wants to have prayer in schools in direct violation of the Constitution. That is a fact! In similar manner, both sides force, when they have the power to do so, according to their ideology. To single out the Dems like you are doing is just hilariously laughable.
So please, Yorkshire, don’t lecture me about forcing. You are not convincing at all, except of your hypocrisy!
How is that direct violation of the Constitution when the very writers and their immediate ratifiers supported prayer in school?
You have obviously not been listening for you to write that phrase in any honesty.
The right to life rises above a person’s desire to choose otherwise.
John H.:“If we have an income tax, and we do, everyone with an income should have to pay that tax.”
Everyone does, John; it’s known as the FICA tax, 7.5% of earnings. This is an imcome tax, because it is based on imcome, up to about $100k. Since it is a flat tax, it impacts the poor much more than it does the wealthy. You Conservatives don’t think about these inequities.
And on the topic of welfare, you said you now earn $10k per year. How can you live on that? Are you on unemployment? Food stamps? Medicaid? Handouts? Dependent on family? On welfare of any kind? I don’t know how anyone can live on $10k per year without some help.
I think when you start talking about “Force”, people start to get nervous, no matter how well intentioned your ideas might happen to be.
At any rate, in case you haven’t noticed, the people are starting to rebel against all of this. In addition to the Tea Party movement, there’s the Senate race in Mass, where the Dem (who should be a shoo-in) is in deep trouble. Obama’s poll numbers are down, with ObamaCare itself proving even less popular. Indeed, as I mentioned to some friends just this morning – There really does seem to be a New American Revolution in play, and Obama gets to play the role of King George.
Thanks John, your last post with your rationalizations and fibs proves my point very well, that you are in favor of big government and forcings if it meets your ideological yearnings. That’s OK, your choice, but it is also gross hypocrisy!
Eric: In response to your point about a New Revolution, I doubt it. The tea party movement is about minimal governance. Most people are well aware of the dangers of that, as we’ve seen plenty of it recently, producing humongous problems that have this whole nation suffering, except for Wall Street. I have to believe that Americans are smarter than this. I also think that come election time, the majority of Americans will appreciate what Obama is trying to do to put us back on the right track for America.
Incidentally, on the poll numbers being down, yes, true, but they are not as low as Reagan sunk early in his first term. Low poll numbers do not necessarily predict the future, is my point.
Are you sure about that one? Got any facts to back it up? As I understand it, the Bush tax cuts actually were greater, in terms of percentage of income, on the middle class than the rich. Dana has posted to the effect that the Bush tax cuts saved him, a solidly middle class person, a solid chunk of change.
Of course, Dems don’t think the middle class deserves tax cuts, either. Why let them keep more of their own money, when the government knows best how to spend it?
FICA tax is SocSec and not Federal income tax. And, even then, the Federal income tax return for a certain group of folks exceeds the Federal income tax PLUS the FICA tax paid in. And that’s called welfare; living off other people’s money, forced on the other people by government.
As for my situation, I had zero dollars coming in from Thanksgiving 2008 to mid-June 2009. No unemployment, no government money, no government hand-outs. I had family members feeding me and giving me small amounts of money. Three neighbors also gave me food on rare occasions. That’s called charity. And it wasn’t forced on them. And, quite frankly, it would be possible for me to live on 12k if it was spread out evenly through the year, if not for my other debts.
I never earned more than 35k. And my debt load was based on a number approaching that. Prior to 2005, I never earned 30k in a year. And I was still financially able to take my daughter to Hawaii in the spring of 2005, and to pay good money on homeschooling her in the 1990s when I was under 25k. It is very easy to live on 24k and have extra money if the debt load is based on a percentage of current income.
Actually, no, it isn’t. Bush got the approval of Congress, including a great many Dems, before he moved to liberate Iraq.
Of course, a lot of those Dems were acting out of political expediency, as opposed to principle, but they gave their support all the same. That is a fact.
Perry, I spoke in facts when I deconstructed your rant. No rationalization there. And you continue with calling me a liar as if repeating your (and Pooter’s) falsehood enough will suddenly make it true.
No, it’s about limited government, and a return to the basic Constitutional principles this country was founded on. I don’t think that sentiment is a mere passing fad, and the Dems would be foolish to dismiss it as such. Look at what’s happening in Mass. The GOP candidate is explicitly running in opposition to ObamaCare, and his polls numbers are up. And that’s in Ted Kennedy’s home state!
But “Smarter” doesn’t mean they want more Big Government, which is what Obama is trying to sell, and the public isn’t buying.
What is really meant by “Fair Share” as the libs and progressives keep talking about? Let’s crack that code. My guess at the Progressive’s meaning it is you have more, the government will redistribute it as BO and Andy Stern want to do.
Perry wrote:
Yup! And President Reagan was mired in a recession, with unemployment as high as it is now. And in President Reagan’s first midterm election, 1982, the Republicans lost 26 seats in the House of Representatives, seven gubernatorial seats; the Senate was unchanged.
Perry:
Yorkshire continues: “The only form of Government on earth that Forces anything form their citizens is communist in nature.”
Yorkshire, on what planet do you reside, seriously?
I’m apparently on your planet where class envy is being forced on us by Libs and Progressives. On that planet, the ruling class is upset with Rich people saying they do not contribute their “Fair Share”.
Not mention it’s a planet where Free Market Capitalism with Limited Government gave rise to the most powerful and successful nation in the history of mankind. A nation that once prospered to the point where it was able to provide more assistance and technology to other nations than the rest of the nations combined. A nation able to defeat the collective will of evil dictators, Communists, and Totalitararianists who thirsted for power and control over their citizenry. A good, rather than evil, nation that sacrificed much blood and treasure in the cause for individual freedom and liberty.
It has to be diificult for Liberals, believing America to be the nation guilty for the world’s ills. But you should be happy now that you’ve got someone that can travel around and apologize for all that and take this evil country down a couple notches to make it as mediocre as other third world nations. With Obama, you’ve never came so close. Gee – lucky you! You should be getting happier by the day.
Joe, you are making a lot of stuff up.
For example, give me just one quote that states that “America [is] the nation guilty for the world’s ills”. You know that you made that up, don’t you?
Nevertheless, we certainly have made a number of serious mistakes. Do you want me to enumerate some of them? I actually think it is a strength to admit mistakes and try to rectify those that can be rectified, even somewhat rectified. That attitude indicates strength of character, whether it be an individual or a nation.
And for your information, “free market capitalism with limited government” has just got finished nearly causing a global depression! Obama et al are attempting to define a new balance position to enable a reasonable recovery process, as I see it. Mistakes have been made and will yet be, as might be expected when in precarious times of somewhat uncharted territory.
Since you did not mention it, I presume you are not worried about our skewed distribution of wealth that is knocking down our middle class, nor are you concerned about the influence of wealth on the operation of our government, the latter being seen on a daily basis as this health insurance reform bill goes through the preparation process for a final floor vote in both houses.
And finally, you blatantly question the patriotism of Liberals. We who opposed the Iraq War heard the same howl from you super patriots that cost us so much for almost nothing gained and a tremendous amount lost. So I ask you then, who are the patriots? Oh I know: If one agrees with your ilk, by your definition, he/she is a patriot. You have got to be kidding, Joe!
For Perry:
Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the U.S. had “used a nuclear weapon.” In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by “just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy” — as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not “pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors” because we “failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas.”
By confessing our nation’s sins, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that Mr. Obama has “changed the image of America around the world” and made the U.S. “safer and stronger.” As evidence, Mr. Gibbs pointed to the absence of protesters during the Summit of the Americas this past weekend.
Find it all here Perry:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044156269345357.html
Thank you for saving me the trouble York. I rest my case.
Thank you Joe Shallenberger for stating the obvious. Thank you Yorkshire for rubbing their noses in it. God, I love when a thred comes together! Bye, Bye Perry.
First of all, not a one of you folks have stepped up to my request: “For example, give me just one quote [from Obama] that states that “America [is] the nation guilty for the world’s ills”.”
Joe did not find the quote, none of you did, it isn’t in the WSJ editorial cited by Yorkshire, because there is none, therefore Joe made that up, which was one of my points. Moreover, I stand behind every word of my post, none of which any of you contested.
Be honest, the WSJ is no friend of Main Street, nor of Obama, therefore I am not surprised at their right wing attack against Obama, totally ignoring the positives of Obama’s foreign policy engagements already beginning to bear fruit, like in the Middle East.
To me, positive American exceptionalism is the Marshall Plan in Europe, MacArthur in Japan, cultural and racial diversity in our population, innocent until proven guilty, Miranda rights, willingness to step in anywhere in the world when tragedy strikes, …., there are countless examples.
Unfortunately, we have areas where we are exceptional in a negative sense, such as racial segregation, the glass ceiling, breaking treaties with native Americans, wars of aggression, the military industrial complex, plus the short list that Obama has generated, every item with which I agree.
Why is it so disturbing to you folks for us to acknowledge our missteps and attempt to rectify them? I don’t understand it! Well actually I do: arrogance!
“And for your information, “free market capitalism with limited government” has just got finished nearly causing a global depression!”
This is a ridiculous statement, Perry. Limited government. Hardly. The government had their hands all over this meltdown.
If “free market capitalism with limited government” has just got finished nearly causing a global depression, at least it would mean that free market capitalism with limited government produced prosperity to begin with. I’ll happily accept the highs and lows of the business cycle of the only economic system which has ever lifted more than a small minority above subsistence-level lifestyles.
Perhaps when poverty is universal, as socialism has inevitably produced, there are no recessions or depressions, but that hardly seems to me to be an argument in theur favor.
Dana chortles: “I’ll happily accept the highs and lows of the business cycle of the only economic system which has ever lifted more than a small minority above subsistence-level lifestyles.”
Due to Reagan/Bush-43 policies, we are, I’m afraid, headed to a new low, putting that elevated “small minority above subsistence-level” right back there very quickly, plus many more as well!
This is called the demise of the American middle class, started by Reagan and continued by Bush-43, and yes, with Clinton in the mix as well, making taxes the third rail of American politics, championing deregulation and unfettered free markets, resulting in the deindustrialization of America, an unprecedented decade (the 2000′s) of zero job growth, and a skewed distribution of wealth heading us toward another third world country.
Right, and the only use for government is to build a huge military-industrial complex.
We are indeed a failing nation, following up on a glorious history of social and economic reform and growth.
Those are the facts, folks; here are a few more, which you can see right here:
Reagan and Bush-43 were Neocons, both wrt domestic and foreign policies. Isn’t this crystal clear to you who claim to be Conservatives, or are now Neocons? If so, don’t you think it is time to reassess, based on the the reality of what has and is happening to us? Note: All of these policies predate Obama, so you surely cannot blame him for our demise!!!
Perry, look at the unemployment rates under most of Bush’s two terms. They were around 5%, so obviously people had jobs, thus belying your claim above. As for:
Again, not based on facts. What percent of the total Federal government goes to defense? Maybe 20% tops? That means about 80% of government is going for something else.
Eric, I’ve heard 1/3 of government funds go/went to defense. But that doesn’t change the thrust of your argument. Most of the fed money goes to something that isn’t defense.
Eric: “Perry, look at the unemployment rates under most of Bush’s two terms. They were around 5%, so obviously people had jobs, thus belying your claim above.”
I will repeat the fact for you: There were no net jobs created in the decade 2000 to 2009, compared to 20% or more in the post WWII decades!!! This is the mark of a declining nation economically, whether you want to believe it or not.
What ever gains Bush achieved in the early part of his time in office have been wiped out completely by his flawed economic policies of tax cuts, spending increases, and deregulation. I will grant you, some of the deregulation started in the Clinton term, nevertheless, the fact of no job creation remains, whether you agree or not.
Regarding our outlay in support of the military industrial complex, we have by far the largest of any nation on earth, so the %age of our budget, even though huge, is not the key statistic.
Here is the latest data, in which you will note that we spend more than half of all the defense expenditures world wide, and about ten times the nearest nation, China. In the meantime, our own citizens suffer, as in poor health care, as in disintegrating infra-structure, as in underperforming education systems, as in outrageous college tuitions, as in an overwhelming national debt.
I simply don’t understand our fiscal priorities, now supported by dangerous monetary fixes. It is absolutely insane, literally.
Who owned Congress in 2007? Who publicly said FM2 was a serious issue? And who denied FM2 was a serious issue? Who demanded lenders give a certain percentage of their mortgage loans to low-income people (where sub-prime worked)? When was the last time Republicans had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? When was the last time the political make-up of journalists reflected the political make-up of the nation?
Perry in High Dudgeon roars:
Here is the latest data, in which you will note that we spend more than half of all the defense expenditures world wide, and about ten times the nearest nation, China.
About 5 years ago Germany was making a lot of noises about our bases there. So, we took some troops and forward based them in Hungary and a few other former Soviet satellites. Germany screamed then about the lack of US $$$’s coming in. Hungary greeted the troops with open arms.
Perry screams:
What ever gains Bush achieved in the early part of his time in office have been wiped out completely by his flawed economic policies of tax cuts, spending increases, and deregulation. I will grant you, some of the deregulation started in the Clinton term, nevertheless, the fact of no job creation remains, whether you agree or not.
You haven’t figured it out yet, have you? For every Dollar of tax increase on an individual, that is a dollar less they have to spend. When the dollars are less to spend, well, you can figure it out.
Regulations are a jekyll and hyde creature. Some regulations are needed for the sake of safety, but other regulations just strangle industry. Those that strangle industry are just a hidden tax that raises the costs of things. And when costs go up, it is the consumer who pays in the end.
Well, last I heard, defense spending was about $600 billion, and the total Federal budget more like $3 trillion (probably more, with Obama’s Stimulus), so my figure was certainly in the ballpark.
Anyway, it still refutes Perry’s claims about military spending.
You’re arguing semantics. If unemployment is 5%, that’s a good thing. in that context, “Job growth” is irrelevant.
Eric, you also note the trick Perry used. The job-losses during the recession are taken into account. And 2007, 2008, 2009 were Democrat-controlled Congresses. And as Republicans were trying to reign in FM2 while Republicans had Congress (without a filibuster-proof majority), the Democrats were screaming “racism!”
Well, last I heard, defense spending was about $600 billion, and the total Federal budget more like $3 trillion (probably more, with Obama’s Stimulus), so my figure was certainly in the ballpark.
Nope.
DOD spending is $663 billion. With other military expenditures, this rises to $880-$1025 billion.
And from here:
Perry is right.
If “free market capitalism with limited government” has just got finished nearly causing a global depression, at least it would mean that free market capitalism with limited government produced prosperity to begin with.
Gee – before 1933, Great Depression. With 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, recovery and prosperity. After the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act by Republicans in 1999 – 8 years of bubbles followed by, yup, another great depression.
Hmmm.
Face facts – Bush Jr was not a liberal. The Conservatives got what they wanted economically during the Bush years – and the mess your country is in now is the result.
“Gee – before 1933, Great Depression. With 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, recovery and prosperity. After the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act by Republicans in 1999 – 8 years of bubbles followed by, yup, another great depression.”
You’ve outdone yourself, here, Pho. You like to ask questions so here’s a couple for you
1) How much prosperity did the Glass Steagall Act contribute? Was there ever prosperity before Glass-Steagall?
2) Who was the President in 1999? Could this President have vetoed the legislation that repealed Glass Steagall? And if not, why not?
Believe it or not, Pho, I agree with something you said recently. The US should look at monetary policy before fiscal policy to begin to correct its current woes.
Yeah, the Thirties really were a decade of prosperity in America [eye roll]
Sen. Webb of VA has called for a halt to healthcare until Sen. Brown is seated. Seems like the Dems have gotten a good scare in the last 3 months in NJ, VA, and now MA.