TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
Yes?
No?
No?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is Our Government Out of Control?
- Thread starter TemplarKormac
- Start date
Ravi
Diamond Member
Since you gave them the control I have to say no.
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 69,751
- 34,767
- 2,290
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
We paid nearly 360 BILLION last year for the INTEREST OF THE DEBT.
We have paid 252 BILLION this year already.
The trend over the decades is it is STEADILY GOING UP, as we CONTINUE TO PILE UP MORE DEBT, which is now over 17 TRILLION. We are SPENDING AT 25% of the GDP while the HISTORICAL AVERAGE IS 18.1% of the GDP since WWII. Top Federal Revenues peaking in 2006 at 2.5 TRILLION.
On the ECONOMIC SIDE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF CONTROL.
We paid nearly 360 BILLION last year for the INTEREST OF THE DEBT.
We have paid 252 BILLION this year already.
The trend over the decades is it is STEADILY GOING UP, as we CONTINUE TO PILE UP MORE DEBT, which is now over 17 TRILLION. We are SPENDING AT 25% of the GDP while the HISTORICAL AVERAGE IS 18.1% of the GDP since WWII. Top Federal Revenues peaking in 2006 at 2.5 TRILLION.
On the ECONOMIC SIDE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF CONTROL.
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 69,751
- 34,767
- 2,290
President Obama's Smashing Success Story: Greatly Increasing The Power Of Government - Forbes
Success, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
The traditional measure of the success of an Administrations economic program has been real economic growth, employment growth, the unemployment rate and the like. Based on these criteria, the Obama Administrations economic program has been a dismal failure:
Real economic growth during the recovery now three years old has averaged 2.2%, less than half of the historic average for post recession rebounds.
There are 1.1 million fewer people on non-farm payrolls today than when President Obama took office.
The unemployment rate has been above 8% for 42 consecutive months, the longest period of sustained high unemployment since the Great Depression.
Even against the Obama economic teams own criteria, the results scream failure:
Passage of an $862 billion stimulus was promised to keep the unemployment rate from rising above 8%, compared to a projected 9% peak without the stimulus. Instead, the unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October 2009, and exceeded 9% for more than two years.
Absent the stimulus, the unemployment rate was projected to fall below 7% during 2012. Yet, last month, it rose to 8.3%, in spite of 7.5 million people leaving the labor force, and therefore no longer being counted as unemployed.
If the labor force participation rate had remained unchanged, the unemployment rate would now be above 11%.
Yet, President Obama has not changed course, but rather continues to advocate more spending and higher tax rates.
Why?
Four years ago, then Senator Obama ran for President, promising to fundamentally change America. Based on that goal, his Administrations economic program has been an extraordinary success! The combination of below average economic growth, high unemployment and his Administrations initiatives to expand the number of welfare recipients have produced:
An increase of 18 million people, to 46 million Americans now receiving food stamps;
A 122% increase in food stamp spending to an estimated $89 billion this year from $40 billion in 2008;
An increase of 3.6 million people receiving Social Security disability payments;
A 10 million person increase in the number of individuals receiving welfare, to 107 million, or more than one-third of the U.S. population;
A 34%, $683 billion reduction in the adjusted gross income of the top 1% to $1.3 trillion in 2009 (latest data) from its 2007 peak.
In addition, the President has vastly expanded the power of the Administrative State over the American people, while elevating the power of the President over the other two branches of government.
ObamaCare fundamentally changes the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government. The law creates a 15 member Independent Payment Advisory Board which is vested with the unilateral power to make and enforce laws, including rationing of health care and imposition of new taxes. As reported by a Cato Policy Analysis, under ObamaCare, the IPAB proposals will have the force of law without the approval of Congress or the signature of the President. Congress may only block its edicts if the House and Senate pass, and the President signs, an alternative that achieves the same budgetary result.
After 2020, the law requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement IPABs proposals even if Congress enacts a substitute. Finally, the law gives IPAB and the Secretary the sole authority to judge their own actions by prohibiting administrative or judicial review of the Secretarys implementation of an IPAB proposal.
The Dodd-Frank bill establishes a new regulatory body, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and gave it vast regulatory authority over consumer financial products and services. However, like the IPAB, it is shielded from Congressional oversight and budget control by being located as a unit inside and funded by the Federal Reserve.
The President has established the precedent of making recess appointments when the Senate is technically in session. And, he has established the power of his office to suspend laws he chooses not to implement, such as current Federal immigration laws, by executive order.
These successes in transforming America are just the beginning. Over the next 10 years, President Obamas policies are set to establish a permanently larger, more powerful, and more intrusive Federal government:
Federal expenditures on ObamaCare will total $2.3 trillion, a $1.4 trillion increase from the programs initial estimates;
The combination of budget cuts and sequestration will reduce defense spending by $1 trillion, while total government spending will increase by $1.1 trillion;
Taxes will be increased by $1.8 trillion
Yet, the national debt will increase by another $11 trillion.
The inevitable results will be a massive tax increase on the middle class and a further shift in power to the governing elit
es. Last month, the Washington Post editorial page criticized President Obama for calling for an extension of the Bush tax rates for couples with less than $250,000 in income as grossly inadequate. The reason: its impossible to tackle the federal debt by taxing only the wealthy. As the cost of retirement and health care for an aging population rises, the middle class is going to have to pay more, and federal benefits are going to have to be adjusted.For their part, Senate Democrats voted to extend the Bush tax rates on those with less than $250,000 for only one year, signaling their unwillingness to give up projected revenues from a middle-class tax increase starting in 2014.
President Obama appears more than willing to accept the collateral damage associated with his quest to transform America. In fact, he uses the failure of his economic policies to further his ambition, asserting the massive increases in spending and deficits require job killing tax increases on the successful, even as he rushes to the defense of those loyal constituents who have been harmed by his policies by claiming that any effort to reduce spending will only hurt those most in need.
In the domain of power, the Presidents successes are historic. Given his criteria of success, sacrificing the jobs of several million Americans are of little consequence when compared to this vast and potentially permanent increase in the power of the federal government over the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American people.
COMMENTS
This is an August 2012 article. This is the CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN FROM OBAMA
This article doesn't touch on the IRS SCANDAL (aka TARGETING AMERICANS BECAUSE OF THEIR VIEWS), the Benghazi Coverup (LYING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, aka IT'S A VIDEO), or Holder getting WIRE TAPS ON THE PRESS CORPS.
No DOUBT, GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF CONTROL.
Success, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
The traditional measure of the success of an Administrations economic program has been real economic growth, employment growth, the unemployment rate and the like. Based on these criteria, the Obama Administrations economic program has been a dismal failure:
Real economic growth during the recovery now three years old has averaged 2.2%, less than half of the historic average for post recession rebounds.
There are 1.1 million fewer people on non-farm payrolls today than when President Obama took office.
The unemployment rate has been above 8% for 42 consecutive months, the longest period of sustained high unemployment since the Great Depression.
Even against the Obama economic teams own criteria, the results scream failure:
Passage of an $862 billion stimulus was promised to keep the unemployment rate from rising above 8%, compared to a projected 9% peak without the stimulus. Instead, the unemployment rate peaked at 10% in October 2009, and exceeded 9% for more than two years.
Absent the stimulus, the unemployment rate was projected to fall below 7% during 2012. Yet, last month, it rose to 8.3%, in spite of 7.5 million people leaving the labor force, and therefore no longer being counted as unemployed.
If the labor force participation rate had remained unchanged, the unemployment rate would now be above 11%.
Yet, President Obama has not changed course, but rather continues to advocate more spending and higher tax rates.
Why?
Four years ago, then Senator Obama ran for President, promising to fundamentally change America. Based on that goal, his Administrations economic program has been an extraordinary success! The combination of below average economic growth, high unemployment and his Administrations initiatives to expand the number of welfare recipients have produced:
An increase of 18 million people, to 46 million Americans now receiving food stamps;
A 122% increase in food stamp spending to an estimated $89 billion this year from $40 billion in 2008;
An increase of 3.6 million people receiving Social Security disability payments;
A 10 million person increase in the number of individuals receiving welfare, to 107 million, or more than one-third of the U.S. population;
A 34%, $683 billion reduction in the adjusted gross income of the top 1% to $1.3 trillion in 2009 (latest data) from its 2007 peak.
In addition, the President has vastly expanded the power of the Administrative State over the American people, while elevating the power of the President over the other two branches of government.
ObamaCare fundamentally changes the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government. The law creates a 15 member Independent Payment Advisory Board which is vested with the unilateral power to make and enforce laws, including rationing of health care and imposition of new taxes. As reported by a Cato Policy Analysis, under ObamaCare, the IPAB proposals will have the force of law without the approval of Congress or the signature of the President. Congress may only block its edicts if the House and Senate pass, and the President signs, an alternative that achieves the same budgetary result.
After 2020, the law requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement IPABs proposals even if Congress enacts a substitute. Finally, the law gives IPAB and the Secretary the sole authority to judge their own actions by prohibiting administrative or judicial review of the Secretarys implementation of an IPAB proposal.
The Dodd-Frank bill establishes a new regulatory body, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and gave it vast regulatory authority over consumer financial products and services. However, like the IPAB, it is shielded from Congressional oversight and budget control by being located as a unit inside and funded by the Federal Reserve.
The President has established the precedent of making recess appointments when the Senate is technically in session. And, he has established the power of his office to suspend laws he chooses not to implement, such as current Federal immigration laws, by executive order.
These successes in transforming America are just the beginning. Over the next 10 years, President Obamas policies are set to establish a permanently larger, more powerful, and more intrusive Federal government:
Federal expenditures on ObamaCare will total $2.3 trillion, a $1.4 trillion increase from the programs initial estimates;
The combination of budget cuts and sequestration will reduce defense spending by $1 trillion, while total government spending will increase by $1.1 trillion;
Taxes will be increased by $1.8 trillion
Yet, the national debt will increase by another $11 trillion.
The inevitable results will be a massive tax increase on the middle class and a further shift in power to the governing elit
es. Last month, the Washington Post editorial page criticized President Obama for calling for an extension of the Bush tax rates for couples with less than $250,000 in income as grossly inadequate. The reason: its impossible to tackle the federal debt by taxing only the wealthy. As the cost of retirement and health care for an aging population rises, the middle class is going to have to pay more, and federal benefits are going to have to be adjusted.For their part, Senate Democrats voted to extend the Bush tax rates on those with less than $250,000 for only one year, signaling their unwillingness to give up projected revenues from a middle-class tax increase starting in 2014.
President Obama appears more than willing to accept the collateral damage associated with his quest to transform America. In fact, he uses the failure of his economic policies to further his ambition, asserting the massive increases in spending and deficits require job killing tax increases on the successful, even as he rushes to the defense of those loyal constituents who have been harmed by his policies by claiming that any effort to reduce spending will only hurt those most in need.
In the domain of power, the Presidents successes are historic. Given his criteria of success, sacrificing the jobs of several million Americans are of little consequence when compared to this vast and potentially permanent increase in the power of the federal government over the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the American people.
COMMENTS
This is an August 2012 article. This is the CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN FROM OBAMA
This article doesn't touch on the IRS SCANDAL (aka TARGETING AMERICANS BECAUSE OF THEIR VIEWS), the Benghazi Coverup (LYING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED, aka IT'S A VIDEO), or Holder getting WIRE TAPS ON THE PRESS CORPS.
No DOUBT, GOVERNMENT IS OUT OF CONTROL.
TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
- Thread starter
- #5
Since you gave them the control I have to say no.
You guys are the ones who put them in office! Next.
TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
- Thread starter
- #6
Since you gave them the control I have to say no.
Vote on the poll nitwit, or keep your smart assed comments to yourself.
Yes?
No?
Better watch this friend.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0tkKrMs8Gs]Jon Stewart Rips Fox News Over Benghazi Coverage 'Bullsh-t Mountain Have Cried Wolf Before' - YouTube[/ame]
eagle1462010
Diamond Member
- May 17, 2013
- 69,751
- 34,767
- 2,290
Yes?
No?
Better watch this friend.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0tkKrMs8Gs]Jon Stewart Rips Fox News Over Benghazi Coverage 'Bullsh-t Mountain Have Cried Wolf Before' - YouTube[/ame]
Pravda news release from a LIBERAL HACK who is nothing more than a HYPOCRITE.
1. STATE DEPARTMENT LIED from the Get go, IT'S A VIDEO, IT'S A VIDEO Utter BS statements from the administration.
2. 2 weeks before the attack, BRITAIN PULLED THEIR PEOPLE OUT due to the VIOLENCE IN THE AREA.
3. Knowing the area is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, the SECURITY WASN'T INCREASED.
4. NO PLAN in PLACE for READY REACTION FORCES to ASSIST in the event of an attack.
5. Ready reaction forces deployed to Sicily nearly 9 months after Benghazi, and only after a full investigation is underway.
6. Too long to respond during the attack. A RESPONSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMING MILITARILY during the attack. Whether or not they ARRIVED IN TIME DOESN'T MATTER. There was NO WAY THE ADMIN KNEW THAT THE ATTACK WOULD ONLY LAST 8 HOURS. Had it gone on longer without assistance, MORE COULD HAVE DIED.
AKA Commander N Chief and STANDING ORDERS ASLEEP ON THE JOB.
I answered 'No' because the question is phrased incorrectly. The question should be who controls the government and for whom? Today America is a plutocracy, money controls America, and as the recent bubble demonstrated it does so for those in power and the wealthy. Imagine for a moment if the thousands upon thousands of outsourced jobs came back and supported a vibrant middle class. Look closely at where everything you buy is made, and consider a topic I rarely hear on MSM today, the trade deficit.
As far as the monitoring of subject A calling subject B, that started during Bush and the badly named Patriot Act. One has to laugh at the way 'freedom' is thrown around in America, a wonderful slogan that took a beating after one terrorist attack. If you keep electing corporate bootlickers and chickenhawks stop whining, you get what they are paid for.
As far as the monitoring of subject A calling subject B, that started during Bush and the badly named Patriot Act. One has to laugh at the way 'freedom' is thrown around in America, a wonderful slogan that took a beating after one terrorist attack. If you keep electing corporate bootlickers and chickenhawks stop whining, you get what they are paid for.
Last edited:
TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
- Thread starter
- #10
Yes?
No?
Better watch this friend.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0tkKrMs8Gs]Jon Stewart Rips Fox News Over Benghazi Coverage 'Bullsh-t Mountain Have Cried Wolf Before' - YouTube[/ame]
I'd better not. You weren't interested in my thread, were you?
TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
- Thread starter
- #11
I answered 'No' because the question is phrased incorrectly. The question should be who controls the government and for whom? Today America is a plutocracy, money controls America, and as the recent bubble demonstrated it does so for those in power and the wealthy. Imagine for a moment if the thousands upon thousands of outsourced jobs came back and supported a vibrant middle class. Look closely at where everything you buy is made, and consider a topic I rarely hear on MSM today, the trade deficit.
As far as the monitoring of subject A calling subject B, that started during Bush and the badly named Patriot Act. One has to laugh at the way 'freedom' is thrown around in America, a wonderful slogan that took a beating after one terrorist attack. If you keep electing corporate bootlickers and chickenhawks stop whining, you get what they are paid for.
This goes beyond politics. You must understand that when government is out of control, it hurts everybody. When Republicans do it, it's wrong. When Democrats do it, it's wrong. No left, no right, no middle.
You have to understand as well that government intrusion does not begin with Bush or end with Bush, so your argument that he is purely at fault for this is purely fallacious.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
.
Amazingly, for many, the government isn't powerful enough. They want more authoritarianism, they want more central control, they want more of government picking the winners and losers. FAR more.
Government is like a warm, comfy blanket for many. Regardless of the cost, corruption and sloth -- right in their face -- they're going to forgive it and want more of it. As I've said before, it's like an abused wife who will defend her husband.
Look how often this happens, right on this board.
.
Amazingly, for many, the government isn't powerful enough. They want more authoritarianism, they want more central control, they want more of government picking the winners and losers. FAR more.
Government is like a warm, comfy blanket for many. Regardless of the cost, corruption and sloth -- right in their face -- they're going to forgive it and want more of it. As I've said before, it's like an abused wife who will defend her husband.
Look how often this happens, right on this board.
.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 53
- Views
- 460
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 48
- Replies
- 88
- Views
- 783
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 10K
- Views
- 75K
- Replies
- 155
- Views
- 711
- Replies
- 48
- Views
- 160
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8619
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-