Guest Post by John Stossel
President Obama sure is consistent. His State of the Union address sounded like his other speeches: What I’ve done is great! America is in a much better position. We’ve created a manufacturing sector that’s adding jobs. More oil is produced at home. I cut deficits in half!
Give me a break. The deficit is lower now not because of any prudence on Obama’s part but merely because the $800 billion stimulus spending blowout didn’t continue. All the president does is increase spending: free community college, free Obamaphones, free birth control, etc. Yes, our annual deficit is lower, but it’s still $488 billion! Our $18 trillion national debt increases by $3 million every minute!
Yes, more oil is produced at home, but that’s in spite of the administration. Oil production is down on public land.
Yes, the manufacturing sector added jobs, but that’s mostly because of cheaper natural gas created by fracking, which Obama’s cronies opposed. Also, America is finally recovering from recession. Obama’s policies probably slowed that recovery.
Does the President delude himself when he takes credit for oil production, lower deficits, etc.? Or does he mislead on purpose? I don’t know.
More recently he bragged, “I created the lowest unemployment rate in years.” He created it? He must know it’s “low” only compared to the 10 percent reached during the recession — and because millions have simply given up looking for work. This recovery is the slowest in 70 years.
If Obama gave the State of the Union address I’d like to hear, he’d say this:
I heard you, voters, in November when you took control of the Senate away from my party. I get it. I overreached. I was arrogant. I imposed Obamacare on a nation that was deeply divided about it. I ruled through executive orders instead of legislation. I threw money at “green” nonsense. I’ll give up the payments to the “green energy” industry if the Republicans stop coddling defense contractors.
I’ve been in government for years now. I know how badly it works. The last thing I should try to do is make it bigger. In fact, with Republicans now in control of Congress, it’s time I worked with them to shrink government. If we shrink it, we might even dig our way out of the debt hole we’re in. Heck, if we just slow the growth of government to 2 percent a year, we’d be in better shape.
But I didn’t even try to accomplish that. I pretended taxing the rich would solve our financial problems. But there aren’t enough rich people to tax. I got drunk on the idea of promising voters “free” stuff such as low down-payment mortgages and guaranteed paid family leave. I told them that all good things come from government. That’s nonsense.
We should put an end to all bailouts. Businesses that screw up should accept the consequences, just like ordinary people who spend recklessly. Main Street should never again be forced to rescue Wall Street.
Instead of expanding government control of health care, we should phase it out. That includes Medicare. I know Medicare is popular, but it is unsustainable. Let current retirees receive their benefits as promised, but younger people should pay for their own health care.
People criticize the economic distortion created by welfare, but Medicare and Social Security are almost as bad. Both redistribute money away from the young and struggling toward those of us who have had decades to invest and save up.
To make these challenges a little easier to deal with, let’s make America richer by abolishing most regulations. They strangle opportunity.
The more I think about it, the more Congress and I could transform America for the better just by getting out of America’s way. The state of our union will be truly strong if the state — by which I mean government — is strictly limited.
If the deficit was only 488B, then how did the debt increase by just shy of a trillion in fiscal year ’14? I’d expect stossel to know better.
I seriously question whether the average American knows the difference between the deficit and the debt. I doubt it. I’ll bet if you told the average liberal that Obama doubled the debt, they would probably disagree with you and tell you “Oh NO Obama said he cut it in half”.
Karl Denninger on the deficit:
“The net increase is $1,086 billion, or $1.086 trillion dollars, not $483 billion.
Why the discrepancy? Because as in the Clinton years the government has been stealing the “excess” from Social Security and Medicare tax receipts and claiming that is a “deficit reduction” — despite the fact that the obligation generated from those programs was not reduced by that same $603 billion!
And oh by the way, that’s not all of it. Even excluding Social Security and Medicare theft the net gain in federal borrowing (that is, the actual deficit) was $809 billion or 67% more than claimed.
In other words, this is a scam and the claim of “reduced deficits” is a damned lie.”
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229762
Agree with most of what he said, but not all.
“But there aren’t enough rich people to tax.”
Come on, how about taxing the few there are just a little bit more. How about increasing the capital gains tax. It wouldn’t take care of the deficit, but it would be a start.
“I got drunk on the idea of promising voters “free” stuff such as low down-payment mortgages and guaranteed paid family leave. I told them that all good things come from government. That’s nonsense.”
Yes, and most “free” stuff was handed out not to help the poor so much, but to help grease the books of the corporations who benefited from all this “free” stuff. Here’s the test: does it help out the people who contributed campaign money? If yes, then pass the f*cking bill! Realtors, contractors, 7-11’s, cell phone companies, hedge funds in the home rental business, blah, blah.
The rest of it I agree with, but he left out one important point: the fact that Obama did not jail one of the corrupt, psychopathic, fraud-infested bankers.
And also re the highly secretive trade deals Obama is working so hard on, which I’m sure are going to really enrich the average American (not):
“…Mr. Obama’s greater betrayal was in reviving the forces of neo-liberalism rather than bringing them to heel. Had ‘market’ forces been allowed to play themselves out, neo-liberalism would most likely have disappeared in a puff of smoke with Wall Street in 2008. […]
Of what value is Mr. Obama’s (nominal) support for raising the minimum wage if the trade deals he is promoting are designed [to] remove the civil capacity for setting a minimum wage? What credibility do Mr. Obama’s environmental policies, such as they are, have when he is actively working to subvert the capacity for civil environmental regulation through trade deals?”
And “let’s make America richer by abolishing most regulations”. Like Glass-Steagall? Banking and financial regulation should be severely tightened up.
“People criticize the economic distortion created by welfare, but Medicare and Social Security are almost as bad. Both redistribute money away from the young and struggling toward those of us who have had decades to invest and save up.”
I’ve gotta jump in here. Where else in this society and economy are you and your employer REQUIRED to pay into an insurance annuity program for 40-50 years, never file a claim during that time because you weren’t allowed to, and then when you get to age 65 and start looking for a payout, you then become a leech and a fucking moocher, sponging off young kids?
DaveL, it’s called a payroll tax. A tax. Not an investment. It’s a tax you pay for being on a payroll, and a tax your employer pays for having you on one. Like the income tax, it’s a tax you pay for having the nerve to earn money.
Another thing, if you receive SS and Medicare benefits, you in fact ARE sponging off young kids. Which is not your fault – you yourself were sponged off of by those older than you, who enjoyed many multiples of what they paid into the system before they died. That (and other spending) drained the “trust fund” (a hilarious oxymoron because there is no trust and there is no fund) so that when you reach retirement age, the only way for you to get benefits is to take it directly from those paying in.
I mean just get a load of this:
“Let current retirees receive their benefits as promised, but younger people should pay for their own health care.”
“Younger people?” Younger than what? Younger people have paid into the system at much higher rates and for the same promises. I’m sick of this whole “pass the trash” game. Of course the alternative is to force everyone to realize that we were forced to pay a lot of money so that a bunch of old people could enjoy luxuries like retirement and medical care that we won’t get.
Maybe some of those old people were our parents and grandparents, and maybe they will leave us something to take the sting out. But that, like any other useful thing, only happens through individual initiative and not through the absurd machinations of Planet Policy. (And if they do leave you something, the government will take a big bite out of that, too.)
At this point I’d accept a government bailout if it meant getting rid of these student loans.
Not to kick a dead horse, but not a day goes by when I don’t regret going to college. For either degree.
Man, the site is full of whiners today.
TPC – you are young. Grow a pair while you still have time.
Plus, we all know you are doing great. Just imagine how great when the loans are finished off.
Arguing over who is or isn’t paying enough taxes is just BULL SHIT! That’s exactly what they want you to do to keep you from thinking about the real problem. And the real problem SHOULD BE OBVIOUS!! It’s the other side of the equation, SPENDING!!. But no one has the guts to deal with it.
You want to fix it here’s how to do it:
1 Right off the bat get rid of this Obamination – Obama care.
2 Cut ALL social spending by 15% – Today! Social Security, Medicare, EBT, Welfare, SSDI, Section 8, ALL OF IT
3 Then over the next ten years cut the remaining 85% equally divided over those ten years.
DONE- That’ll fix it.
And if you think this proposal is too harsh, fine then just do nothing and wait for the SHIT LOAD of consequences that gets dished out when TSHTF I guarantee they will be FAR WORSE.
FUCK OBONGO
[/img]
[img
Pirate Jo;
FICA. The Federal Insurance Contribution Act.
ASIG – I have no basic problem with SS. It is the amount I have a problem with. People are taking out far more than they put in. Cut it back to where it balances, and I have no real issue with it.
SSDI – cut it out entirely.
Medicare and the rest – ditto. Drop it ten per cent a year seems like a pretty good plan, after n initial substantial cut.
EPA – cut
Defense – cut around $500 billion from it yearly
Foreign aid – cut cut cut it all to zero. Tough titty to Israel and everyone else. Charity needs to be a private issue.
It is a spending issue. Stop spending. End of story.
DaveL, if social security is some sort of retirement account, then how much do you have in your account? Answer: zero. How much can you leave to your heirs? Zero. It’s a tax that funds a welfare handout. Your money’s gone. My money’s gone. Maybe they’ll give us some of that Social Security welfare. Maybe they won’t. Maybe they’ll give us $5,000 a month – and bread will be $20 a loaf.
Iska – you are right, the money is gone. An IOU is in its place. As I said, I have no real problem with SS, if it were essentially a savings acct – you get back what you put in.
But at the moment, folks get back multiples of what they put in. And that truly makes it welfare.
Just read ZH article Bill Proposed To Allow Voting Without US Citizenship.We all knew it was coming.Barry is a CIA recruit,and a fraud
Iska: It was an insurance program. What it turned into is not the fault of the people who bought the insurance.
llpoh: Let me ask you. “You insure your house for $400,000. The premium is $500 per year. Six months later, your house burns down. Do you tell the insurance company you only want back what you put in?
DaveL says:
…
“llpoh: Let me ask you. “You insure your house for $400,000. The premium is $500 per year. Six months later, your house burns down. Do you tell the insurance company you only want back what you put in?”
I think what Lloph was referring is that many people end up getting much more out their SS benefits than they paid in, especially with people living into their 80’s now.
I’d be satisfied getting what I paid in, with maybe some interest.
FWIW, here is what the ssa.gov website says is how your benefit is calculated:
“Many people wonder how their benefit is
figured. Social Security benefits are based on
your lifetime earnings. Your actual earnings are
adjusted or “indexed” to account for changes
in average wages since the year the earnings
were received. Then Social Security calculates
your average indexed monthly earnings during
the 35 years in which you earned the most.”
Now don’t get all excited if you made $150k for 35 years. The income calculation is capped at the amount of max SS withholding for each year (see the table on the 2nd page of the link below).
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf