$10 Trillion in Nine Years - New England Patriots Forums

State · 08-22-2009, 01:04 PM

Or is it the other way round?

I'm getting confused.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...amabudget1.php

What are the producers to do? As Pat Buchanan writes:

Quote:

Democrats call Medicare the model of government-run universal health care. But Medicare is a system whereby 140 million working Americans pay 2.9 percent of all wages and salaries into a fund to pay for health care for 42 million mostly older Americans. And Medicare is already going bust.

If Obamacare is passed, the cost of health care for today's 47 million uninsured will also land on those 140 million.

It's all right. All those Mexican illegals who have few skills and less education will help out.

That leaf blowin' will pay for Patters's retirement, just you wait.

Fogbuster · 08-22-2009, 02:48 PM

.

Learn Chinese: less filling and tastes great!!! It's the "other white meat", too.

//

***Patters*** · 08-22-2009, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

Or is it the other way round?

I'm getting confused.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...amabudget1.php

What are the producers to do? As Pat Buchanan writes: It's all right. All those Mexican illegals who have few skills and less education will help out.

That leaf blowin' will pay for Patters's retirement, just you wait.

Reagan and Bush built up their own record deficits and then cut taxes. That was the height of irresponsibility. Obama, like Clinton, is prepared to raise taxes. Both parties spend, but only one party has the guts (to a limited degree) to pay its bills, and it's not the Republicans.

At any rate, there is no economic model that doesn't redistribute wealth through taxation; the only difference is the degree to which it is done. Democrats feel that people are first entitled to basic services (that include school, good roads, health care, safe housing, safe food, safe skies, strong military, etc.), at which point higher taxes should kick in. Since this model generates enormous upside for investors, it follows that those who are wealthiest should pay a higher rate of tax; after all much of that money gets pumped back into the economy, giving the wealthier the chance to increase their wealth.

Republicans also support significant taxation, and only disagree on the degree to which we help the poor, fund education, etc.

State · 08-25-2009, 10:55 AM

This is the lead story on Drudge, which strudel thinks is worthless though I find it's much better than the NYT or WaPo:

Quote:

Figures released by the White House budget office foresee a cumulative $9 trillion deficit from 2010-2019, $2 trillion more than the administration estimated in May. Moreover, the figures show the public debt doubling by 2019 and reaching three-quarters the size of the entire national economy.

link

Michael Barone doesn't seem to think doubling the size of the debt during peacetime is justifiable.

I hated Bush II for this--and I never trusted his dad--but this is on an order of magnitude beyond what the American people were expecting from the nice-sounding, moderate young man they elected.

In reality he or his handlers are Chicago thugs. Start with that Rahm Emmanuel.

State · 08-31-2009, 11:09 AM

The Concord Coalition says this figure is too low, that the total debt is over $14 trillion.

We have a terrible yin-yang future of taxes going higher just to service this debt. And the timing couldn't be any worse with the Baby Boomers retiring and excessively generous public pensions coming due.

Save now. Work harder now. Forget about those 401(k)s--they'll only be raided by tax pirates later.