GAO Report Says We Are USCWAP.

[FaninAma]

Bet you didn't hear this reported on any of the MSM outlets, either.

http://freebeacon.com/financially-unstable/

[nutinbutdust]

not a big surprise no telling how bad it will be in 4 years. I saw this today and thought you might like this. http://usdebtclock.org/

[FaninAma]

The GAO report disputes Obama's and the democrat's claims that the ACA will be a money saver. After reading this I am now increasing my estimate of the national debt when Obama leaves office to $22 trillion. I actually think the yearly deficits accelerate starting this year and especially when the ACA provisions really kick in in 2014. I also think Bernanke and a lot of the Fed board of governors resign and try to hide from the mess they helped create.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The GAO’s auditors “were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to support the amounts presented in the 2012, 2011, and 2010 Statements of Social Insurance and the 2012 and 2011 Statements of Changes in Social Insurance Amounts,” meaning that the Statement of Social Insurance was underestimating the cost of entitlement programs.

That's shocking. Not.

And it sounds like Obama basically promised a continuing Orgy of borrow and spend in his inaugural address yesterday. Amy right thinking person knows that the ACA has no means for containing health costs. And some of the provisions of the bill, such as cutting doctor payments in Medicare will likely get scaled back in future Congress's making it even more costly.

[cleller]

There's a noticeable lack of defense of the administration on this topic, huh?

Its the same principle as the "expert witness". Each side pays someone to say what they want.

In this case, the Obama administration hires employees who will make up "facts" that are not so, then wait for the media to pick them up as gospel. Something like saying the money we pay welfare recipients magically turns into more money after its spent. Or that paying people not to work creates jobs, increases their self confidence or some other nonsense.

[Midtowner]

And it sounds like Obama basically promised a continuing Orgy of borrow and spend in his inaugural address yesterday.

What's an alternative which won't send us into a depression and further decrease revenue?

[pphilfran]

What's an alternative which won't send us into a depression and further decrease revenue?


We don't care...it is going to happen sooner or later so we might as well go to **** city asap... :)

[Midtowner]

We don't care...it is going to happen sooner or later so we might as well go to **** city asap... :)

Not necessarily. If we'd focus on spending money where the egghead economists say it'll grow the economy the most, let's do that! I don't know whether that's direct investment in business like China does, I don't know whether it's infrastructure or military spending or additional welfare benefits. We can grow past this debt.

The trouble is that if we cut very much at all and enter a depression, the deficit might actually grow at an even faster pace due to a shrinking economy--and then your problems are compounded by vastly increased poverty and income inequality. Big cuts right now is a massively derpolicious way to tank the economy, which is why Republican leadership isn't even proposing anything dramatic enough to put an actual dent in the deficit spending.

[pphilfran]

Not necessarily. If we'd focus on spending money where the egghead economists say it'll grow the economy the most, let's do that! I don't know whether that's direct investment in business like China does, I don't know whether it's infrastructure or military spending or additional welfare benefits. We can grow past this debt.

I was just playin...

IF we cut spending like many suggest we will have a 100% chance of a recession...possibly another deep recession that will cost us a trillion in lost revenue and higher cost welfare programs...

Or..

Like you say, grow the economy...there is a chance of this working...we are not so far under water that we can't save the ship...

[XingTheRubicon]

ok, it's agreed...we grow the economy



nice work everybody, everyone on the floor as well...lot of hustle, really liked it

[Midtowner]

ok, it's agreed...we grow the economy



nice work everybody, everyone on the floor as well...lot of hustle, really liked it

It could happen if Reps and Dems in Congress could stop being partisan, dogmatic asshats and deal with things properly. But where'd be the fun in that?

[pphilfran]

ok, it's agreed...we grow the economy



nice work everybody, everyone on the floor as well...lot of hustle, really liked it

I wish it were that simple...

But we must grow the economy..without that growth you will never cut enough to make up the difference....we can't support 6% unemployment...much less 7, 8 or 10%

There are ways to make future cuts but we don't need any radical surgery at the current time...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

We're not going to grow anytime soon. We're dying a death of a thousand cuts on the current path. Mediocre growth will no real prospects for any real growth anytime soon. A balloning deficit with entitlements on an unsustainable path.

I don't believe you'll see any real growth until there's some sort of grand bargain on the budget. Businesses are not investing due to the uncertainty and consumers are tapped out. You have to increase private sector activity to increase revenues. To increase private sector activity you have to increase business confidence. Showing fiscal responsibility is the only way to restore confidence.

[cleller]

What's an alternative which won't send us into a depression and further decrease revenue?


Not necessarily. If we'd focus on spending money where the egghead economists say it'll grow the economy the most, let's do that! I don't know whether that's direct investment in business like China does, I don't know whether it's infrastructure or military spending or additional welfare benefits. We can grow past this debt.



I'm not endorsing the whole Keynesian agenda, but as I've pointed out before, Obama is failing to follow it. Spending should be mostly directed at building, not feeding and welfare. This is a big complaint of mine, it is eroding the work ethic.

A good place to start would be food stamps. In the last two years unemployment fell from 9.6% to 7.8%, yet during that same period food stamp recipients have grown by 7.2 million.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324461604578193141690993174.html

[pphilfran]

Without growth you will need to cut even more to come close to a balance...how quickly do you propose we make a trillion dollar annual cut?

[sappstuf]

I was just playin...

IF we cut spending like many suggest we will have a 100% chance of a recession...possibly another deep recession that will cost us a trillion in lost revenue and higher cost welfare programs...

Or..

Like you say, grow the economy...there is a chance of this working...we are not so far under water that we can't save the ship...

If we cut a trillion in spending and it costs us a trillion in revenue, then why wouldn't we do it? Even if it costs us $300 billion additional in welfare programs over that we will still be ahead where we are today.

[FaninAma]

What's an alternative which won't send us into a depression and further decrease revenue?

One of these days even the Keynesian retards will discover the ugly fact that the government can't prevent recessions....they can only delay them and turn them into depressions.

[FaninAma]

Without growth you will need to cut even more to come close to a balance...how quickly do you propose we make a trillion dollar annual cut?

If the intent of the Keynesians is to reinflate the economy without regards to inflation rates then just print the money and and give it directly to the population. Quit running it through the government. That is inefficient, wasteful and decreases the velocity of the printed money supply. Either be serious about inflating the economy or get off the pot, cut the budget allow the contraction to take place and get a new start. This BS of kicking the can perpetually down the road is the stupidest thing they could do and the only reason it is being done is so a few elitist can control the purse strings which translates into these same elitists maintaining their power base.

[nutinbutdust]

It could happen if Reps and Dems in Congress could stop being partisan, dogmatic asshats and deal with things properly. But where'd be the fun in that?

there is also an azzhat in the oval office that needs to co-operate, and the senate could make a budget for the first time in 4 years.

[pphilfran]

Cut a trillion a year....how fast?

[nutinbutdust]

Bet you didn't hear this reported on any of the MSM outlets, either.

http://freebeacon.com/financially-unstable/

Hey Fan, you might find this one interesting too. The U.S. Deficit/Debt Problem:
A Longer-Run Perspective (http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/12/11/Thornton.pdf) It is a report from the St. Louis Fed

[nutinbutdust]

whoops douple post

[sappstuf]

Cut a trillion a year....how fast?

After WW2 we cut federal spending 67% in three years(45-48). With today's budget of 3.5 trillion(I think) that would be $2.3 trillion... Nobody is talking about that amount.

One of two things happened though:

1. We went into a depression that lasted decades.
2. We went into a small recession but real GDP grew by 13% in three years (1947-1950), and then accelerated, rising by 22% between 1949 and 1952.

[FaninAma]

After WW2 we cut federal spending 67% in three years(45-48). With today's budget of 3.5 trillion(I think) that would be $2.3 trillion... Nobody is talking about that amount.

One of two things happened though:

1. We went into a depression that lasted decades.
2. We went into a small recession but real GDP grew by 13% in three years (1947-1950), and then accelerated, rising by 22% between 1949 and 1952.

The reason the Keynesian theorists are wrong is because it has been shown over and over again that when investment and debt originate with and are parcelled out by the government the positive effects(money supply velocity) are significantly decreased because of the inherrant inefficiencies of the government. If the stimulus is done directly through the private sector the positive ripple effects(ie. velocity) are much higher.

The beaurocrats and politicians don't use the money to grow the economy because they are too busy passing out goodies to their constituent groups such as entitlements and retirement benefits for government employees. Whereas stimulus given to the private sector is used to grow businesses and production capability. We are at the point that there are so many constituentcy groups dependent on the growth of government spending that it is now impossible to cut the rate of growth without serious budget shortfalls. These are now being called "unfunded mandates" and they require an increase in the budget each and every year above baseline.

It is an unsolveable problem.

[pphilfran]

How quickly do you want to cut a trillion dollars a year?

[FaninAma]

How quickly do you want to cut a trillion dollars a year?

Cut 1/2 trillion a year until the budget is balanced.

[pphilfran]

Two years or thereabouts...

What industries would be negatively impacted by a loss of 1/3 of government spending?

[sappstuf]

Two years or thereabouts...

What industries would be negatively impacted by a loss of 1/3 of government spending?

The same that were negatively impacted by a loss of 2/3 of government spending... ;)

[FaninAma]

Two years or thereabouts...

What industries would be negatively impacted by a loss of 1/3 of government spending?

Temporarily, all of them. But they are all going to be adversely effected sooner or later regardless if the government cuts its budget in the near future voluntarily or is forced to cut it ala Greece, Ireland and Spain in 5 to 10 years. You seem to act like significant budget cuts are optional.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

After WW2 we cut federal spending 67% in three years(45-48). With today's budget of 3.5 trillion(I think) that would be $2.3 trillion... Nobody is talking about that amount.

One of two things happened though:

1. We went into a depression that lasted decades.
2. We went into a small recession but real GDP grew by 13% in three years (1947-1950), and then accelerated, rising by 22% between 1949 and 1952.


The thing about the end of WWII is there was a lot of pent up demand. Nobody bought anything during WWII. Hell pretty much all of the factories were making military goods during WWII, so there was nothing to buy. Right now, there's quite a bit of pent up demand as well (although not on that scale), but nobody has confidence to go out and start spending. A grand bargain on the debt and gov't showing that it can go out and get its house in order, even if it means a short term recession, would go a long way toward improving confidence.

[sappstuf]

The thing about the end of WWII is there was a lot of pent up demand. Nobody bought anything during WWII. Hell pretty much all of the factories were making military goods during WWII, so there was nothing to buy. Right now, there's quite a bit of pent up demand as well (although not on that scale), but nobody has confidence to go out and start spending. A grand bargain on the debt and gov't showing that it can go out and get its house in order, even if it means a short term recession, would go a long way toward improving confidence.

After WWar I, federal spending was cut 84% from 1919 to 1924, during that time GDP increased 19%.

After the Civil War, U.S. federal spending was cut by 79% between 1865 and 1872. Real GDP grew by 21% in that time.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

After WWar I, federal spending was cut 84% from 1919 to 1924, during that time GDP increased 19%.

After the Civil War, U.S. federal spending was cut by 79% between 1865 and 1872. Real GDP grew by 21% in that time.

Don't tell Lid this. He still believes in the keynesian multiplier fairy.

[FaninAma]

Don't tell Lid this. He still believes in the keynesian multiplier fairy.

http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/19/the-myth-of-the-multiplier

Why do you think the government has to use so much deficit spending? Because money spent by the government has little of the effect the Keynesian propagandists claim it does so they have to spend more to get avoid economic contraction. And, as this article points out, the excessive government spending competes for funds and hurts economic expansion in the private sector.

It is funny watching a progressive trying to debate economics. It makes their heads hurt and it disturbs their little emotional happy place they all disappear to in order to avoid making any real, tough decisions about the real causes of poverty and lack of economic opportunity.

[pphilfran]

I don't give a chit about multipliers or how much the spending actually affects the economy...

Truth is, effective or not, the money is in the system...the system has been build around the money...and pulling that money out in massive cuts is going to have a dramatic negative affect on the system...

We are just barely treading water and you want to cut off an arm and a leg...

[FaninAma]

I don't give a chit about multipliers or how much the spending actually affects the economy...

Truth is, effective or not, the money is in the system...the system has been build around the money...and pulling that money out in massive cuts is going to have a dramatic negative affect on the system...

We are just barely treading water and you want to cut off an arm and a leg...

But you are missing the point which is do we correct the problem now or allow the debt bubble to get even bigger while we nuance the issue because our spineless politicians keep kicking the can down the road. I personally don't want my kids asking why my generation was so gutless and allowed most of the economic consequences of the past 30 years to fall on their generation.

There will be a contraction of the debt or a devaluation of our currency. Those are the only 2 ways out of the problem we created by over-spending. Playing footsies with the debt black hole we created won't work.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I don't give a chit about multipliers or how much the spending actually affects the economy...

Truth is, effective or not, the money is in the system...the system has been build around the money...and pulling that money out in massive cuts is going to have a dramatic negative affect on the system...

We are just barely treading water and you want to cut off an arm and a leg...

When you're drunk, the best way to keep from getting a hangover in the short term is to keep drinking.

[pphilfran]

But you are missing the point which is do we correct the problem now or allow the debt bubble to get even bigger while we nuance the issue because our spineless politicians keep kicking the can down the road. I personally don't want my kids asking why my generation was so gutless and allowed most of the economic consequences of the past 30 years to fall on their generation.

There will be a contraction of the debt or a devaluation of our currency. Those are the only 2 ways out of the problem we created by over-spending. Playing footsies with the debt black hole we created won't work.


'No...what you are missing is the thing is salvageable without drastic near term cuts...
Concentrate on growing the economy...we have an energy boom going on that will lower costs, generate high paying jobs, and reduce the trade deficit...this should be a focus item...
Freeze spending for most federal organizations at current levels...
Slow down military spending...first shut down a percentage of overseas bases and bring those people home....spend that money here and it is added stimulus
Raise the age for SS and Medicare benefits...

Focus on those items and we can reduce debt to GDP...and that is the ultimate goal...

[FaninAma]

It is not salvageable. There is no indication that the politicians will be disciplined or principled enough to put a long term plan into place that will take us into a soft landing on balancing the budget. They may pass some cuts and decrease the deficits temporarily but within a few years they will be running huge deficits again. The problem is that unlike the 90's the deficit is already so large that any temporary plan like the one put in by Clinton and the GOP Congress will have little or no effect on slowing down the accelerating accumulation of debt. At some point linear accumulation turns into exponential accumulation.

The only thing that will save the system from collapsing under its own weight is the passage of a balanced budget amendment with automatic spending cuts and reforms built in that can only be overriden by rescinding the amendment or by a vote by 75% of Congress to run a deficit budget in times of national emergency.

[SoonerorLater]

Point is moot. Anybody who thinks we are getting out of this without
(a) a complete collapse of the monetary system or (b) Great Depression II, is just kidding themselves. No amount of organic growth is going to pull us out of this. The chances of this ending anything but badly is zero. Just be prepared for the reset.

[diverdog]

After WW2 we cut federal spending 67% in three years(45-48). With today's budget of 3.5 trillion(I think) that would be $2.3 trillion... Nobody is talking about that amount.

One of two things happened though:

1. We went into a depression that lasted decades.
2. We went into a small recession but real GDP grew by 13% in three years (1947-1950), and then accelerated, rising by 22% between 1949 and 1952.

What were the personal and corporate tax rates back then?

[FaninAma]

What were the personal and corporate tax rates back then?

I would be more interested in what the EFFECTIVE personal and corporate tax rates were back then.

[pphilfran]

It is not salvageable. There is no indication that the politicians will be disciplined or principled enough to put a long term plan into place that will take us into a soft landing on balancing the budget. They may pass some cuts and decrease the deficits temporarily but within a few years they will be running huge deficits again. The problem is that unlike the 90's the deficit is already so large that any temporary plan like the one put in by Clinton and the GOP Congress will have little or no effect on slowing down the accelerating accumulation of debt. At some point linear accumulation turns into exponential accumulation.

The only thing that will save the system from collapsing under its own weight is the passage of a balanced budget amendment with automatic spending cuts and reforms built in that can only be overriden by rescinding the amendment or by a vote by 75% of Congress to run a deficit budget in times of national emergency.

Let's get this straight...you believe the debt and deficit is not salvageable because you have concern that our DC leadership won't make slow and steady cuts moving forward...

But you think they will implement your plan of cutting a trillion dollars a year within two years... or, if that is not correct, you believe they would magically start adhering to self imposed balanced budgets...even though they haven't passed a budget and they fail to heed their own self imposed fiscal cliff...

[FaninAma]

Let's get this straight...you believe the debt and deficit is not salvageable because you have concern that our DC leadership won't make slow and steady cuts moving forward...

But you think they will implement your plan of cutting a trillion dollars a year within two years... or, if that is not correct, you believe they would magically start adhering to self imposed balanced budgets...even though they haven't passed a budget and they fail to heed their own self imposed fiscal cliff...

Respectfully, yes, no and no. I do not think any group of federal politicians will put a plan into place that will: A. Slowly but surely get the budget under control wthout causing a lot of economic pain in terms of a monetary contraction. I don't think they will put a plan in place that would cause a significant amount of pain even if that would get us back to a growing economy the quickest. They will continue to tinker around the edges and give lip service to the deficit. Even if somehow this Congress was magicvaly possessed of a degree of bipartisanship that allowed them to do somerthing like what Clinton and the Gingrich led Congress did in the 90's the next Congress or the Congress after that would weaken, refuse to implement or otherwise negate the plan.

And in reality it isn't even the elected leaders I have no faith in. It is the voters who elect them. They are the ones who refuse to admit we have a problem. They are the ones who want gifts from the public treasury. They are the ones who don't care that we are borrowing from our children and future generations. Not all of the voters but apparently a majority.

So, the dollar will fall. Another currency will rise to take its place but the transition will be painful and the pain is deserved by this and recent past generations.....not future generations.

[pphilfran]

Basically you think the entire mess will never get cleaned up and our leadership will continue to be incompetent...

And if you believe those statements are true then there is no reason to think that future leadership will be any different so in the long run we will always be in the same shape we are today with no chance of improvement...

Needless to say you are a Theory X kind of person....

[FaninAma]

Basically you think the entire mess will never get cleaned up and our leadership will continue to be incompetent...

And if you believe those statements are true then there is no reason to think that future leadership will be any different so in the long run we will always be in the same shape we are today with no chance of improvement...

Needless to say you are a Theory X kind of person....

The mess will clean itself up. Then it will be interesting to see if we the people learned anything from it.

[pphilfran]

I think you are as wrong as wrong can be...the mess would clean itself up after double digit unemployment for many years and a recession at least as deep as the last one...

It would be a complete disaster on the world economy...

[pphilfran]

Double post

[diverdog]

I would be more interested in what the EFFECTIVE personal and corporate tax rates were back then.

Me too.

[LakeRat]

Just spend this year what we spent last year?!? How hard is that? We brought in more in revenues in 2012 than in 2007. We will bring in more in 2013, just quit increasing the budget every year.

[FaninAma]

I think you are as wrong as wrong can be...the mess would clean itself up after double digit unemployment for many years and a recession at least as deep as the last one...

It would be a complete disaster on the world economy...

I like your optimism and altruism but it is misplaced with our current elected leaders.

[diverdog]

I like your optimism and altruism but it is misplaced with our current elected leaders.

Rut roh. Altruism? You an Ayn Rand follower?

[FaninAma]

Rut roh. Altruism? You an Ayn Rand follower?

Follower? I don't think so. Fan? Yes. In fact, I may change my name to Ayn Rand Fan.

Altruistic people are admirable but I find cynacism works much better for me.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

What's an alternative which won't send us into a depression and further decrease revenue?
Nut up, pay our bills and do with less. Thats it! I had to do it, you have to do it, the politicians, we hire have to do it to keep our government safe and solvent.

[pphilfran]

Nut up, pay our bills and do with less. Thats it! I had to do it, you have to do it, the politicians, we hire have to do it to keep our government safe and solvent.

We have always paid our bills...

We are not in as bad a shape as you and FA believe...at the current time we do not need radical cuts to stay solvent..if we don't do anything over the next five years then things get tough...

[FaninAma]

We have always paid our bills...

We are not in as bad a shape as you and FA believe...at the current time we do not need radical cuts to stay solvent..if we don't do anything over the next five years then things get tough...

Technically we do pay our bills but we do it by printing enough money to buy half of our own promissary notes(i.e. US Treasury bonds). If we weren't doing that the interest rate on those bonds would rise to the point that we would go broke much sooner due to the cost of financing our debt.

The big downside of the QE programs is that it represents fake demand for our debt and it is allowing the government to avoid addressing our immense debt accumulation. It is making this country dependent on the printed money and the need to consume more and more debt to just keep entitlements at their current level tells me that the Fed will be printing money and buying our debt for a long, long time.

And you need to remember that Japan just increased their version of QE as have the European Central Banks. We have a lot of entities printing a lot of paper money and those countries buying their own debt will have less ability to buy our debt.

Do you really see this process ending well? How?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

We have always paid our bills...

We are not in as bad a shape as you and FA believe...at the current time we do not need radical cuts to stay solvent..if we don't do anything over the next five years then things get tough...
Nope, every man, woman and child in the US is on for around $54k of new debt. We are beyond not paying our bills. The Socialistcare will nail more debt starting this year, the bill due next... I only see a bleak, debt filled future like Europe. If you don't, can I please have some of what you are smoking...

[TAFBSooner]

Businesses are not investing due to consumers are tapped out.

Fixed and simplified.

[TAFBSooner]

Follower? I don't think so. Fan? Yes. In fact, I may change my name to Ayn Rand Fan.

Altruistic people are admirable but I find cynacism works much better for me.

You're not cynical about babies, over in the abortion thread. At what age do people start making you cynical?

[TAFBSooner]

Nut up, pay our bills and do with less. Thats it! I had to do it, you have to do it, the politicians, we hire have to do it to keep our government safe and solvent.

A person or a family can nut up and do with less.

If the whole population "does with less," then the business community will resume spiralling down. Keynes may be wrong - government spending kept people alive in the 1930's Depression but didn't end it. It took even more government spending, aka WWII, to end it. May God forbid we repeat that part of the lesson, with nukes.

Hayek, though, is definitely wrong. If you take money out of the economy, the economy will shrink. If you continue to take money out of the economy, it will spiral on down.

[FaninAma]

You're not cynical about babies, over in the abortion thread. At what age do people start making you cynical?

Cynicism is the result of not being able to expect an independent emancipated group of people to take the appropriate action in a given situation based on that group's previous history of choices and actions. Babies and kids don't fit that description.

I am cynical of most people over 21. If most people are honest they have the same cynical view of others that I do.

[cleller]

Cynicism is the result of not being able to expect an independent emancipated group of people to take the appropriate action in a given situation based on that group's previous history of choices and actions. Babies and kids don't fit that description.

I am cynical of most people over 21. If most people are honest they have the same cynical view of others that I do.

Let me add a big YA-men to that, brothers and sisters.

There's still opportunity in this country for those with self discipline and drive, if they'll employ it.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

This whole thing is aProgressive grab for your money, and lots of it. They are doing the shim-sham with gun grabbing and illegal alien amnesty while they target what they really want, your money! More for them, means less for you. How often once they have more of yours is it rolled back? Not often. A permanent money grab....

[FaninAma]

THA, the progressives have a well-thought out plan. Encourage dependency on the government thus weakening opposition to the government's civil liberties power grab.

[Midtowner]

This whole thing is aProgressive grab for your money, and lots of it. They are doing the shim-sham with gun grabbing and illegal alien amnesty while they target what they really want, your money! More for them, means less for you. How often once they have more of yours is it rolled back? Not often. A permanent money grab....

1) Gun grabbing-- entirely warranted. Citizens do not need military style guns for self-protection. You've bought the arguments of folks who want to do nothing more than to sell you guns, hook line and sinker. How many home invasions are stopped by pistol gripped assault rifles with 30 round clips?

2) Illegal alien amnesty-- go ahead and fight this and enjoy your permanent irrelevancy. Being xenophobic is like a drug to the Republicans, they're addicted to the short term advantage while ignoring the fact that in the long run, being like the Republican party is now to black folks and stacking the fastest growing minority on top of that will be the death knell for that party. Good luck with that.

3) Taxes-- oh stfu about that one. Obama did the 2% social security cut and now that it has done its thing, he removed it. That's responsible government. Taxing 39.6% on income after $400,000 is responsible government. You can't balance this budget without revenue increases.

[Curly Bill]

1) Gun grabbing-- entirely warranted. Citizens do not need military style guns for self-protection. You've bought the arguments of folks who want to do nothing more than to sell you guns, hook line and sinker. How many home invasions are stopped by pistol gripped assault rifles with 30 round clips?

2) Illegal alien amnesty-- go ahead and fight this and enjoy your permanent irrelevancy. Being xenophobic is like a drug to the Republicans, they're addicted to the short term advantage while ignoring the fact that in the long run, being like the Republican party is now to black folks and stacking the fastest growing minority on top of that will be the death knell for that party. Good luck with that.

3) Taxes-- oh stfu about that one. Obama did the 2% social security cut and now that it has done its thing, he removed it. That's responsible government. Taxing 39.6% on income after $400,000 is responsible government. You can't balance this budget without revenue increases.

The 2nd Amendment isn't in the Constitution just so we can stop home invasions, it is largely there so citizens can stand up to their government should that prove necessary. Just because you folks keep ignoring that doesn't make it less so.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Hey mid, the 2nd amendment is there to protect my representative government from the likes of you.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

1) Gun grabbing-- entirely warranted. Citizens do not need military style guns for self-protection. You've bought the arguments of folks who want to do nothing more than to sell you guns, hook line and sinker. How many home invasions are stopped by pistol gripped assault rifles with 30 round clips?
Spurious argument. I can have it because it is protected by the constitution.
2) Illegal alien amnesty-- go ahead and fight this and enjoy your permanent irrelevancy. Being xenophobic is like a drug to the Republicans, they're addicted to the short term advantage while ignoring the fact that in the long run, being like the Republican party is now to black folks and stacking the fastest growing minority on top of that will be the death knell for that party. Good luck with that.
I do not want to get overwhelmed by people who will drag on the economy and government, already coming out on how expensive the illegals will be if we grant amnesty. Plus the progressives win another entitled class more beholding on the government. Used to be we only allowed the best, brightest to immigrate, i guess that is meaningless now...we dont need to fill up space like we did in the 1850s and 1900s...
3) Taxes-- oh stfu about that one. Obama did the 2% social security cut and now that it has done its thing, he removed it. That's responsible government. Taxing 39.6% on income after $400,000 is responsible government. You can't balance this budget without revenue increases.
buddy it wont end there... More money will be needed to fund more government, more healthcare, etc. gonna happen. It has happened in every society with an entitlement concept, Canada, UK, Greece, France, Spain, etc.

See bold response

[Turd_Ferguson]

See bold response

He don't see **** unless you agree with him. He's the smartest mother ****er in the world...He also earns over 6 figures(yet doesn't provide insurance for his employee's), and his kids are better than yours as well.

[Midtowner]

Spurious argument. I can have it because it is protected by the constitution.

Arguably yes, arguably no. Truth is, no one has challenged such a thing, so it's hard to say where to draw the line. For what it's worth, I would speculate you're wrong since in D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court held that weapons not in common use at the time could be made illegal, and they specifically named the M-16. Of course pistol grips and 30 round clips fall somewhere in between, so you nor I nor anyone knows whether such a ban would be constitutional.


I do not want to get overwhelmed by people who will drag on the economy and government, already coming out on how expensive the illegals will be if we grant amnesty. Plus the progressives win another entitled class more beholding on the government. Used to be we only allowed the best, brightest to immigrate, i guess that is meaningless now...we dont need to fill up space like we did in the 1850s and 1900s...

Immigrants have always driven economic growth in this country. Mexicans will be no different. These are hard working people and we should be doing all we can to welcome them and integrate them. The same was said of the Irish, Eastern Europeans, Germans, etc., and in all cases, the xenophobes turned out to be mistaken.


buddy it wont end there... More money will be needed to fund more government, more healthcare, etc. gonna happen. It has happened in every society with an entitlement concept, Canada, UK, Greece, France, Spain, etc.


I sincerely doubt (Greece and Spain excepted) that many of those countries would trade governments and laws with the U.S.. In fact, polling has been done in the U.K. and Canada in which the citizens roundly rejected any notion whatsoever that they would trade health care systems with the U.S., so there's that.

[okie52]

2) Illegal alien amnesty-- go ahead and fight this and enjoy your permanent irrelevancy. Being xenophobic is like a drug to the Republicans, they're addicted to the short term advantage while ignoring the fact that in the long run, being like the Republican party is now to black folks and stacking the fastest growing minority on top of that will be the death knell for that party. Good luck with that.

Is this another "evolution" on your part there Mid. I thought you were against all of the illegals coming to America and taking jobs away from American labor. Now it's xenophobic to be against illegal immigration? I'm surprised you even phrased the issue as illegal alien amnesty...shouldn't you have just said "undocumented worker" amnesty or "temporarily displaced migrant worker" amnesty?

The only "amnesty" given in the last 100 years was by Reagan 25 years ago for 3,000,000 hispanics. How did that work out? And, to top it off, the hispanics voted over 2-1 against Daddy Bush in the next election to show their gratitude. The real facts are that for the last 30 years the hispanics have voted over 2-1 for dems in spite of pub candidates like McCain and W that tried to pass immigration reform. The hispanics really vote with their pocketbook and since 2/3 of the hispanic population are near the poverty level they like big government and benefits. The pubs would be very foolish to add millions more of government dependent voters to the voting base particularly if they have to trample our laws and sovereignty like the dems in hopes of gaining their support.

Relevancy? If being relevant requires selling the country out then you are on the right team. Might throw in some groveling too.

[Midtowner]

Is this another "evolution" on your part there Mid. I thought you were against all of the illegals coming to America and taking jobs away from American labor. Now it's xenophobic to be against illegal immigration? I'm surprised you even phrased the issue as illegal alien amnesty...shouldn't you have just said "undocumented worker" amnesty or "temporarily displaced migrant worker" amnesty?

It's xenophobic to insist and actually believe that the best solution is mass deportation. Am I against it? Hell yes. We should have and could have much better border security. I'd like to right now close most foreign military bases and set up a huge military presence on the border with Mexico, then start looking at pathways to integrate illegals.

[okie52]

It's xenophobic to insist and actually believe that the best solution is mass deportation. Am I against it? Hell yes. We should have and could have much better border security. I'd like to right now close most foreign military bases and set up a huge military presence on the border with Mexico, then start looking at pathways to integrate illegals.

Xenophobic to enforce the law? The best solution is to remove the opportunities and benefits for illegals and let them "self deport". Punish the employers that hire illegals which would be quite a contradiction to Obama's defending employers that hire illegals.

Securing the border is a must. I've got no problem closing some bases and putting them on the border. My son did border patrol twice in the Army at Ft Bliss. Oddly, they usually were only for observation and called in ICE if illegals were spotted. They were really just trying to get the drug lords but wouldn't fire unless fired upon...

Integrating/rewarding 12,000,000 illegals for their illicit behavior seems counterproductive. That could really be stretched to 36,000,000 under family reunification. We are already immigrating 600,000 legally each year that are culturally diverse, usually well educated and/or skilled labor that speak english and know US history. Quite a difference from the 12,000,000/36,000,000 you want incorporate.

[FaninAma]

It's xenophobic to insist and actually believe that the best solution is mass deportation. Am I against it? Hell yes. We should have and could have much better border security. I'd like to right now close most foreign military bases and set up a huge military presence on the border with Mexico, then start looking at pathways to integrate illegals.
Holy cow. If you say that out loud in fron of your progressive friends they will have you excommunicated from the party. The liberals will never, ever tighten up the borders.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Here is the whole deal as I see it on immigration. We have a process, you follow this process, fill out forms, learn the language - supposedly, learn a little about the country - supposedly, spend some time, don't break the law and then you get to be a citizen...Many spend lots of time and money to do it. Now we are telling people, who by all laws should be deported, that what the hell, it doesn't erally matter that you presented yourself illegally, we will let you in and you don't need to do crap to be a citizen. What does that say to the people, like my sister in law, who paid the money, time and education to become a citizen the right way? Hell, she should have come over on a tourist visa and save my brother a bunch of money... I do not like this one bit, it stinks, because it makes a class of people super legal by being illegal... It is just wrong.

Mid, no doubt many of these people are hard workers, if they can get work. But becuase they will have no english skills and have no work skills, they will be manual labor at best and will not be the "productful" citizens we have tried to focus on in immigration. You will be able to find a few that will find the American dream, but the vast majority will be poor, on assistance, have no healthcare paid for (except by you and me) and be general takers than givers.

I don't like it one bit.

Another card by The Socialist to endear this country to the government and make people who are self supporting and hard workers more and more irrelevant...

Oh, and greetings from Papua New Guinea...

Oh and for total disclosure...My mother's family immigrated from Germany in the 1850s and went to Wisconsin for the free land and farmsteaded. They had a century farm before selling in the 80s. They worked hard, did what the law said, got the land and citizenship. I have worked the farm in my summers.

My fathers family immigrated around the same time from Norway. The chopped down trees in Michigan and Wisconsin. They worked hard, don't know as much about this side of the family, but there must be some drinkers too, becuase there is some Scotch throuwn in there as well...

I just don't see the work to keep all these illegals fat and happy. There is not that much to keep people occupied as you think for the under schooled and under educated non-english speakers. We ain't famrsteading or chopping down first growth forests like back then.