Unemployment Is Freedom. Dependency Is Choice. Numbers Lie.

Loading

Obamacare will reduce American workforce participation by the equivalent of 2 million full-time jobs in 2017, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office. Work hours would be reduced by the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in 2024, a tripling of the previous estimates.

If you believe this report — and I’m not sure why we pay this much attention to CBO projections — you can then believe that Obamacare discourages work, pushes people out of the labor market and, consequently, leads to fewer people having jobs. Certainly, it is well within the parameters of political rhetoric for the opposition to assert that the CBO has found Obamacare is “costing” or “killing” American jobs. It is no more a “lie” to say so than it is to claim Mitt Romney was “shipping jobs overseas” or hear an administration assert that it “created jobs” — or any of the other countless shorthand we use for economic consequences in political debate.

But the only way to blunt the negative force of the CBO findings was to deflect from the numbers and gin up a controversy over semantics. And the synchronicity and speed in which Left punditry accomplished this task was pretty extraordinary. No, absolutely false, the term “killing jobs” implies that the problem is on the labor demand side, but the CBO, as any honest person can see, is talking about the labor supply side. So really, “jobs” aren’t being lost, people just don’t want to work.

More at The Federalist

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
46 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So really, “jobs” aren’t being lost, people just don’t want to work.

The right wipes egg off their faces and creates a new bogus argument of disregarding the “insurance trap” and turning folks who want to voluntarily leave the work force but can’t because of the desperate need for health insurance for them or their love ones as, drum roll please, “takers”.

People work for “compensation” be that food, shelter, money, or whatever is negotiated.

Ya just gotta love the rubber/glue tactics of spinning the spin of the right. At the end of the day, the hatred of ACA has to be justified somehow, regardless of pesky things like reality or facts. Every aspect of the black man’s signature legislation has to be all bad and evil and American transforming and if the right has to manipulate data, out right lie,or distort reality, well, I guess that’s just fair game or, or something.

But the exposure of the right getting their hands caught in the cookie jar is rather telling as news has gone viral, People who don’t pay a great deal of attention to politics, that don’t know where Obama was born, don’t know his faith, don’t know that the Lower Chamber’s almost weekly vote to repeal ACA has to clear the Senate and White House to become law, and hell, maybe thought the CBO was a TV channel competing for a shot at selling duck calls, are now seeing an admission of how blatantly dishonest the GOP and their lapdogs are.

While they may not know the VP’s name or can’t name the 3 branches of government, many are insured by their employer and cannot retire or go to school or start their own business of the fear of not acquiring coverage. It’s not an issue that “people just don’t want to work”.

What the CBO tells us and conservatives unintentionally amplified was that now they can. And while the conservative dishonesty has everyone’s attention, we also learn in the report that ACA will reduce unemployment, raise wages, and insure more Americans.

Had conservatives not been overcome by their festered ODS, not much attention would have been paid to pages 117-127 of the report.

You guys stumped your toe.

@Ronald J. Ward:

While they may not know the VP’s name or can’t name the 3 branches of government, many are insured by their employer and cannot retire or go to school or start their own business of the fear of not acquiring coverage. It’s not an issue that “people just don’t want to work”.

“When the narrator is talking about job losses, the screen shows the big lie about the CBO report. Which, in case you’ve blissfully missed the big media snafu, did not say two million jobs would be lost because of the law, but that two million full-time workers would choose to not work full-time anymore, because now they wouldn’t be trapped in their jobs for the health insurance. Two million workers who can stay at home to raise their young children, or allow their broken bodies to retire early, or maybe even start a new business.

http://www.dailykos.com

Well, there is no doubt now where you glean your information from. What a hack you are, RJW.

The article is very clear:
Work hours would be reduced by the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in 2024, a tripling of the previous estimates.
In other words, the new normal is a non-full-time working American society.
USAToday put is this way:
Of nearly 1 million U.S. jobs created this year, 80% — four of every five — were part time and most had meager or no benefits.
Involuntary part-time workers — those who are seeking full-time work or holding multiple jobs — remain between 19% and 20% of the nation’s workforce.
Economists expect spikes in part-time jobs during recessions.
Historically, they drop off as the overall economy recovers.
Our recovery started in 2009.
It is 5 years now.

Numbers Lie.
It is too bad Obama couldn’t have had a few more years with Common Core before trying to screw with our heads about how we are freer via underemployment.
I understand there is a full credit for 3 times 4 being 11 as long as the student can make his case for it.
😉

@Ronald J. Ward: Well, no one spins like a spinner and leave it to liberals to spin the loss of 2-2.5 million jobs (as opposed to the 4 million Obamacare was supposed to create, a 6 million job spread) as “freedom”… from working. And, leave it to the liberal sycophants to believe and spread such garbage. You can’t convince them that Iraq having WMD’s would have been a threat to the US, but they will happily believe that unemployment is “freedom”. What an amazing world we live in.

Obamacare is a bad law… a VERY bad law. However, one really good thing has been achieved by its enactment. The American citizens have seen, definitively, what liberals and liberalism can do. It has been demonstrated what abject failures liberalism produces. Obamacare is medicinal and it is curing a disease that has been threatening the nation for some time.

@retire05: I’m not precisely sure what you’re arguing other than my analysis is consistent with what most are saying.

FA seems to be regurgitating a meme that the folks leaving the workforce are freeloaders or takers “that just don’t want to work”. That’s just profoundly stupid. Once these 2.5 million people are able to acquire insurance through other than their current employer, they can then pursue the 3 main drivers of their departure: retirement, starting a business, and going to school.

In realty, this opens up 2.5 million jobs for those looking. And as we’ve learned from the report, ACA will reduce unemployment, raise wages, and insure more Americans.

This issue has also raised American’s awareness of the positives of ACA while making conservatives and TeaBirchers look like total dumb asses.

These are just realities that you’re unlikely to become educated on if your only news resource is Hannity, Savage, or Flopping Aces.

@Ronald J. Ward:

rubber/glue tactics

Gee, you forgot your references to Walt’s Dog. You could’ve just cut and pasted your marxist-AFO talking points list and saved time.
So now that Obamacare is killing jobs, the Lib reasoning is now people are free from having to work at a job with insurance and can now buy their own. Of course they’ll have to pay about twice as much for it and have a much higher deductible, but, hey- they don’t have to work for Capitalists anymore….

Which country was that again that is not run by rich people? I think you forgot.

@retire05:

What a hack you are, RJW.

you know of course, that he’s not reading you or me.

@Nanny G:

I understand there is a full credit for 3 times 4 being 11 as long as the student can make his case for it.

And that proof only has to be something like, Well, uh, it must be right, that’s what RJW told me the answer was and he’s a Dimocrat so he must know.

@Ronald J. Ward:

FA seems to be regurgitating a meme that the folks leaving the workforce are freeloaders or takers “that just don’t want to work”. That’s just profoundly stupid.

Your interpretation only reinforces our knowledge of your stupidity(a condition which can’t be fixed). FA is saying that Obamacare is causing the loss of good jobs of people that do want to work and putting them on welfare for insurance and living. The libs are interpreting the job loss as a good thing because it gives the new non-workers the freedom to go on vacation and enjoy the freedom of not having t work to support their families, the guvmint will do it for them. Fffing brilliant.

@Ronald J. Ward:

3 main drivers of their departure: retirement, starting a business, and going to school.

Very good. Now these 30 year old’s are happy to be able to get early retirement, go to school and start a business, which they won’t be able to afford because they can’t pay the insurance rates. I never realized we had so many 30 year olds that were pining for early retirement so they could get retirement benefits, go to school and start a business. My question is, is it really ‘retirement’ if you have to go to school and start a business?
Just can’t beat this Liberal reasoning. I’ll bet Walt’s dog has been whispering to you, right?

@Ronald J. Ward:

while making conservatives and TeaBirchers look like total dumb asses.

TeaBirchers, huh……..Did your boyfriend make you quit demeaning him?

@Ronald J. Ward: “FA seems to be regurgitating a meme that the folks leaving the workforce are freeloaders or takers “that just don’t want to work”. That’s just profoundly stupid. Once these 2.5 million people are able to acquire insurance through other than their current employer, they can then pursue the 3 main drivers of their departure: retirement, starting a business, and going to school.” Ronald, Ronald, Ronald. IF the saving grace of this debacle is this newfound “freedom” to work less than 30 hrs a week and still be able to afford health care, how is anyone going to be able to afford to pursue any “dream” on a part-time salary? People pursue the dreams you dream of by working EXTRA jobs and hours, not cutting back on their income.

“In reality, this opens up 2.5 million jobs for those looking. And as we’ve learned from the report, ACA will reduce unemployment, raise wages, and insure more Americans.” You don’t get it. Companies are cutting back hours to avoid being hit with the Obamacare mandates. Sure, someone cut back to 29 hours MIGHT be able to afford insurance, with subsidies. But, it’s not like they get a choice of full time or part time. Part time is becoming, thanks to Obama, the norm. Of course, at least they won’t be making less than $10 an hour, though, will they?

I previously pointed out the one and only positive of Abysmalcare. Hopefully it can be realized before the entire insuance and health care industries collapse and drag the economy along with it.

@Ronald J. Ward:

Once these 2.5 million people are able to acquire insurance through other than their current employer, they can then pursue the 3 main drivers of their departure: retirement, starting a business, and going to school.

Where is your proof of that? Where is any proof that those who have already lost their jobs have started a business, gone back to school or were retirement age and just decided to retire? Back those claims up, with some hard data. I don’t think you can.

Your twisted (DailyKos) argument is like saying there was a benefit to the guy who lost his legs when he got run over by a drunk because a) he no longer has to buy shoes and socks, consequently he can spend his money on something he wanted more and b) the shoes and socks he no longer has to buy will now be available to someone else.

Twisted, f*cked up example of logic only a leftist could come up with.

@Redteam: Ron is the one being tea bagged by his boy friend.
It’s the prolonged lack of oxygen that leads to inane (attack the messenger) comments like his.

“Arbeit macht frei.” It’s one of the right’s recently resurrected slogans.

Questions for Obama:

1. How can the GDP rise if people opt to work less?
2. If fewer people work, where will the revenue come from that can be used to pay the subsidies to those who choose to work less?

Answer from Obama:

Math is hard.

Obama doesn’t have much of a record working for a living.
Remember what he wrote about his stint as an ice cream store server?
He admitted USING the boss’s inventory to enrich his friends with “free” ice cream treats!
Hmmmmm….
He’s still doing this.
Using other people’s money to give his constituents perks.

But Maggie Thatcher was correct:

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

If Obama gets his way and destroys the middle class, how will he pay for all the subsidized masses?
If you took all the income of all the people making over $200,000, it would only yield about $1.89 trillion.
There isn’t enough rich to soak, and in part because the bill is just too high.
(And you thought ObamaCare was an incentive-killer!)

No wonder there is a trial balloon from an obamaite today to the effect that he might UNILATERALLY allow you to keep your OLD policy for the rest of HIS time in office!
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/admin-said-be-eyeing-insurance-extension

@Greg: Argument lost, unable to defend failure. Time to roll out the Republican/Nazi references.

Perhaps “Obamakare macht frei.” could be posted across the gates of the concentration camps for those who would not buy government-selected insurance or paid their penalties (tax).

From Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go?

According to the White House, in fiscal year 2014 tax breaks are expected to cost the federal government $1.18 trillion – slightly more than all discretionary spending in the same year.

But unlike discretionary spending, which must be approved by lawmakers each year during the appropriations process, tax breaks do not require annual approval. Once written into the tax code, they remain on the books until lawmakers modify them. That means there is minimal oversight to ensure tax breaks actually achieve their intended purpose, even as they can grow in size from year to year as more taxpayers claim them for tax savings.

The total of all fiscal 2014 tax breaks is almost double the amount of the entire projected 2014 federal deficit, which is $514 billion. In other words, if we eliminated slightly more than one-half of all tax breaks currently on the books, the budget would be balanced.

The most obvious solution, of course, isn’t something that anybody wants to talk about.

@Bill Burris, #17:

That’s a logical response to expect when Unemployment Is Freedom is attributed to those on the other side of the discussion. What’s the old saying? Oh, yeah: If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.

@Greg: “In other words, if we eliminated slightly more than one-half of all tax breaks currently on the books, the budget would be balanced.” That logic ranks right up there with “if we tax the wealthy 75%, tax revenues will be greater”. No, the golden geese will be chased out of the country. Likewise, if you eliminate tax cuts (as in, taxes are too high, so they have been reduced), business and industry will be harmed and tax revenues will actually shrink. It is why when Bush cut taxes (not for the rich, which is the common and false liberal mantra, but for everyone) the economy exploded and an additional $750 billion in tax revenues was realized.

Besides, if you handed the government $514 billion, they would simply squander it. If you gave it to this administration, they would dole it out to their campaign supporters so they, in turn, could give some of it back to them in campaign contributions. Just like what happened with the $860 billion “stimulus”.

@Greg: “unemployment is freedom”? Freedom from what? Upward mobility? Economic independence? Apparently this administration actually believes unemployment is freedom, since they have been freeing tens of millions for the past 5 years. But, in reality, it is enslavement and THAT is the goal of the Democrats and liberals.

@Bill Burris, #20:

During the Bush administration nearly $5 trillion was added to the national debt, and its final year brought the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Maybe we could call that an economic explosion. I don’t know what else could have been expected. We gave the wealthiest people in the nation deep tax cuts at a time when we were fighting two foreign wars using borrowed money. The entire economy was being stimulated with a huge infusion of borrowed money. Consumers were being encouraged to spend what they didn’t have. The rich got far richer as the national debt grew correspondingly larger. The whole thing was a scam. It was the latest exercise in Voodoo Economics. Each go, the negative effects have been more obvious.

Apparently this administration actually believes unemployment is freedom, since they have been freeing tens of millions for the past 5 years.

This is largely a lingering effect of the economic downturn, and a matter of Baby Boomers reaching retirement age—an expected demographic phenomenon that economists have been talking about for the past 30 years. If Obama were not in office, that large segment of the population would still be reaching retirement age en masse. The aging of the population would still be resulting in a rising rate of disability. It would still be a problem. It would be interesting to know how a republican administration would be dealing with it.

We’ve certainly seen indications that their approach wouldn’t be rational. For example, they proposed privatizing Social Security, replacing the current system with an investment scheme. Some people thought this seemed like a good idea—even though republicans never explained how they would maintain the system for current retirees as promised without raising taxes, while simultaneously shifting a significant portion of what workers are paying in away from the old system and into investments. Apparently magic money that could be two places at once was somehow involved.

@Greg: I don’t think you will get any argument that the federal government under Bush, Republican and Democrat, have been spending too much. Now, while the liberal-spawned CRA instigated the massive economic crash on ’07, the fact that we had so accumulated debt made the effects more harsh.

Now, since you acknowledge that the accumulation of debt is bad, and you are more than willing to blame the person in the Oval Office for whatever transpires, then you must be absolutely LIVID about the $7 trillion in debt that Obama has accumulated (with nothing but that debt to show for it). Since Obama is at the helm (as Bush was, thus your assignment of blame there), then Obama is solely responsible for the terrible economy, out of control spending and exploding debt… right? Because, those are YOUR rules.

Under Bush, even as we fought two wars, had two recessions (one from Clinton, one from 9/11) and the tax cuts, from 2004 to 2008, deficits were being reduced. And these are not deficits that were blown up to $1.4 trillion, then reduced, either.

Uh, Greg, people retiring opens job opportunities, not reduces them. And, as Obama had promised, there should be no “lingering effect” after 5 years, since he said that if he had not turned the economy around after 3 years, he would not deserve to be reelected. So, it must be (again, by your own criteria) entirely Obama’s fault and responsibility because, well, he’s the guy now, ain’t he? After all, a downturn at the end of a very successful economic run that was actually caused by liberal social engineering going all the way back to the Carter administration and made worse during the Clinton administration is all Bush’s fault, so, in your mind and by your guidelines, 5 long years of high unemployment, stagnant economic growth and job killing regulations is all Obama’s fault.

Am I right?

@Greg:

During the Bush administration nearly $5 trillion was added to the national debt

Stretching a little for effect? when Bush took over it was 5.6 Trillion debt when Zippy took over it was 10.0T a diff of 4.35 Trillion for the 8 years. Zippy has run it up to 16.738 an increase of 6.7 T in 5 years. So Bush raised it about .5 T a year and Zippy has done about 1.34 T per year, more than twice the rate of Bush increase. (Almost 3 times the Bush rate actually)

@Redteam, #23:

When Bush first came into office the national debt was $5.73 trillion. Over eight years it grew to $10.63 trillion. The difference is $4.9 trillion. I stated $5 trillion as a round number.

The $6.7 trillion or so added over the next 5 years wouldn’t have been so high, had Obama not walked into an economic recession that put federal revenue into a steep dive while simultaneously forcing the federal government to spend more to keep people out of bread lines and soup kitchens. Not to mention having to bail out half of the red state governments, who later attacked him for the relief his policies provided to them.

Republican politicians are wonderfully accomplished at favoring the rich, screwing over everybody else to do so, and then exploiting the anger that results after people have been royally screwed over.

@Greg:

When Bush first came into office the national debt was $5.73 trillion. Over eight years it grew to $10.63 trillion. The difference is $4.9 trillion. I stated $5 trillion as a round number.

Not true. The numbers were 5.674 when he come in and 10.025 when he left, a difference of 4.351.

The $6.7 trillion or so added over the next 5 years wouldn’t have been so high, had Obama not walked into an economic recession

You have no problem blaming Bush for the 4.351 so then the blame for the 6.713 is Zippy’s. You can’t blame Bush for his and Zippys. Here is where I got the numbers. Show me the link for yours.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/a/National-Debt-by-Year.htm

@Redteam, #25:

The outstanding national debt on January 20, 2000 was $5,706,174,969,873.
The outstanding national debt on January 20, 2009 was $10,626,877,048,913.
The difference is $4,920,702,079,040.

(As Redteam correctly points out further down the page, I used the wrong beginning date here. See post #37.)

All of the relevant figures can be found on Debt to the Penny, if you want to run them yourself. Here are the results for the dates that I entered. I dropped off the odd cents.

The U.S. Economy numbers are based on fiscal years, so they don’t cover debt accumulated only during the time one particular president was in office. Calculating with those numbers would include part of the Clinton presidency in Bush’s results, and part of Bush’s presidency in Obama’s results.

@Greg:

According to the White House, in fiscal year 2014 tax breaks are expected to cost the federal government $1.18 trillion

Tax breaks cost the federal government money? That’s operating on the Marxist assumption that all income belongs to the federal government.

In other words, if we eliminated slightly more than one-half of all tax breaks currently on the books, the budget would be balanced.

The most obvious solution, of course, isn’t something that anybody wants to talk about.

Fine, let’s talk about it. Where do you want to start in eliminating tax breaks, which are nothing more than deductions a tax filer is allowed to take to reduce their tax liability? Can we start with the mortgage interest deduction? Or how about the child deduction? Or maybe we can end the abomination that is called the Earned Income Tax Credit? I’ll support the elimination of those tax breaks, Greggie. Will you?

As to Bush tax cuts favoring the rich; you obviously can’t do simple math. The tax on the highest income earners went from 39.1% to 35%, for a 4.1% decrease. The tax on the lowest income earners went from 15% to 10%, for a decrease of 5%, more than the 4.1% on the rich. But never fear, Greggie, Obama and his Democratic Party idiots have taken care of that. Now you get penalized for being married. Don’t believe me? Try this:

For the tax year 2012, a married couple, filing jointly, earning together $440, 876 AGI paid 35% in federal income tax. This year, that same couple will pay 39.6% in federal income tax, but if they get a divorce (although still living together and still holding joint property) and their individual AGIs are $220,438.00, they will only pay 33% in federal income tax.

How ironic that all those gay couples that are each earning $220,438 in AGIs, are now going to be on the hook for 6.6% more in income tax or an additional $29,000.00 in federal income tax, just because they are now considered legally married and will be filing “married, filing jointly” tax returns. It’s called the “marriage penalty”.

Bush increased the debt by less than $5 trillion in 8 years.

Obama increased the debt by more than $7 trillion in 5 years.

Yet, you still whine about Bush but don’t whine about Obama. “Useful idiot” doesn’t go far enough to describe you, Greggie.

@Greg: I see the problem, you are giving Bush credit for Clinton’s last year. Contrary to some beliefs, Bush didn’t take over til 01. Need to go to Jan 20, 2001 and start there. Then you can just change the numbers to the ones I used and then you will agree that Bush’s deficit averaged .543 T per year, as I stated. Had you used the numbers for the ends of the fiscal years, the one ended at end of 00 would be the start of Bush, the one that ended at end of 08 would end Bush’s.

@retire05, #27:

Tax breaks cost the federal government money? That’s operating on the Marxist assumption that all income belongs to the federal government.

I’m operating on the assumption that taxes must be collected by the government on behalf of the people to do business on their behalf. Nothing actually belongs to the government.

Income isn’t fully the property of an individual until the legally required taxes have been paid on it. I might not like that either, but that’s how it works. That’s pretty much how it has always worked, for so long as there have been governments. It’s one reason I never have had an I.R.A. I’ve always wanted what is mine to truly be mine.

When people or tax-paying entities get tax breaks, a portion of their tax burden is shifted from them to everyone else. Politicians ostensibly do this for everyone’s collective benefit—to encourage an economic development that benefits the economy as a whole, for example—but they also do it to grant favors. If they grant more such favors than they should, the government can’t pay the bills without borrowing—in everyone’s name. So, the ultimate responsibility for all of those irresponsible tax breaks is loaded onto everyone reading this. Our futures are made less secure.

Yet, you still whine about Bush but don’t whine about Obama. “Useful idiot” doesn’t go far enough to describe you, Greggie.

There’s nothing Marxist about believing that the government should collect enough taxes to pay its bills. I suspect that anyone who argues otherwise might be an idiot.

@Greg:

Because to you leftists, the only “obvious” solution is to raise taxes….

Since spending less money on stupid, harmful, socialist programs cannot even be considered by the left.

@Greg:

So how does a play on the phrase “Freedom is Slavery” from Orwell’s classic 1984 equate to the Nazi slogan over Auschitz? Other than in the deranged essence of leftist ideology?

@Redteam, #28:

Interesting. If we’re consistent, I suppose we’d then have to credit Bush with all debt accumulated up until January 20, 2010, and take away from him 2000, which was arguably a year that the government ran a surplus. I don’t think that’s necessarily going to make him look better.

@Pete, #30:

There we go. We should raise taxes until we can pay the bills. And then, if we think taxes are too high, we should cut spending to lower them.

Doing things the other way around is exactly how we got to where we are now.

@Greg:

Interesting. If we’re consistent, I suppose we’d then have to credit Bush with all debt accumulated up until January 20, 2010, and take away from him 2000,

You must have gone to a school that taught ‘common core’. Bush started 2001(end of 2000) til 2009 that equals 8 years. Zippy started 2009(end of 2008) that is 5 years. If you look at your 26, you’ll see (as I pointed out but you’ve still missed it) that you are using numbers of 9 years total for Bush and 5 for Zippy. Bush only served 8 years. I credited Bush with all of 01 budget through 2008 fiscal year budget. (that’s 8 years).

@Greg:

There we go. We should raise taxes until we can pay the bills. And then, if we think taxes are too high, we should cut spending to lower them.

that’s kinda bass ackwards isn’t it? Shouldn’t we cut spending to match the incoming taxes? If your household bills get higher than your income, is your answer to increase income or lower spending? Unless you have a Ray Stevens Obama Money Printer, you will likely need to lower spending to equal your income.

@Greg:

accumulated up until January 20, 2010, and take away from him 2000,

Just curious, since Bush took office in 2001, how much of the 2000 spending do you think he was responsible for?

@Redteam, #34:

I stand corrected. I used the wrong beginning date in #26. Here are the amounts again, using January 19, 2001 as the beginning date. (That’s the amount as of Inauguration Day, on the 20th.)

The Debt to the Penny page showing the correct dates and amounts can be found here.

The outstanding national debt on January 20, 2009 was $10,626,877,048,913.
The outstanding national debt on January 19, 2001 was $5,727,776,738,304.
The difference is $4,899,100,310,609.

That’s still very close to the $5 trillion mark. The reason my error makes so little difference is that there was minimal growth of the national debt during Clinton’s final year in office.

@Redteam: There was also that little think that originated in the Clinton administration but fell on the Bush administration on 9/11. It took a few bucks to stand up just the air travel security in addition to all of the other issues. I believe that the democrats voted for it too!

@Greg:

I stand corrected.

OK, but as I said, I used the 8 fiscal budget beginning numbers for Bush and 5 for Zippy. the total consumed in the 8 fiscal years that Bush was responsible for was 4.351 Trillion. If you want to add more of Slick Willie’s to Bush and Take some of Zippys and add it to Bush, you can get up to your 4.9 number. But it’s much cleaner staying with each’s actual fiscal budget numbers and you get the 4.3 Tril.

Maggie Thatcher was correct:

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

If Obama gets his way and destroys the middle class, how will he pay for all the subsidized masses?
If you took all the income of all the people making over $200,000, it would only yield about $1.89 trillion.
There isn’t enough rich to soak, and in part because the bill is just too high.
Obama cannot raise taxes enough to ”pay” for all gov’t costs via taxes.
Maybe a tariff to punish all imports so we pay more for imported objects.
Maybe kill off some of those subsidized masses via poor medical care and/or death panel style medical practice.
Whatever his technique, Obama’s policies costs are now too high for the entire nation to cover.
A newborn baby born in the USA today already ”owes” the government over $50,000 for the debt we all bear right now.

@Randy, #38:

You mean that little thing that caught Bush totally flat footed, despite repeated warnings from Clinton that were dismissed as efforts distract attention from the all important national business of Monica Lewinsky?

Jon Stewart had some funny comments regarding distraction accusations just a couple of days ago. (Humor being in the eye of the beholder, I’m sure.)

How did we circle around to Bush again? Oh yeah… Post #20.

I think I’ll call it a night. I think we’ve all seen where the Bush discussions go before.

@Greg:

You mean that little thing that caught Bush totally flat footed, despite repeated warnings from Clinton

Greg, are you saying that Clinton knew 9/11 was gonna happen before he left office and didn’t do anything to prevent it except to leave Bush a note telling him it was gonna happen and that note was thrown into the trash can? It’s good of you to admit that Clinton was aware that 9/11 was gonna happen and didn’t tell the world about it. Kinda flunked that part of American Security 101 didn’t he?

@Greg:Jon Stewart said:

That is quite an accusation… that Fox News unfairly promotes and in some cases creates scandals, for the sole purpose of undermining this president.

Greg, which of those 4 scandals mentioned: IRS, DOJ, NSA and Benghazi, do you claim was created by Fox News?

I seem to recall coordinated cruise missile attacks launched against a number of al Qaeda training camps, one of which missed bin Laden (Ben who?) by a few hours.

But like I said, we’ve all argued about this before.

@Greg: So, he took one shot, missed, and said: well I’ve done all I can. I’ll just let old George take the blame for it.

@Greg: “The $6.7 trillion or so added over the next 5 years wouldn’t have been so high, had Obama not walked into an economic recession that put federal revenue into a steep dive while simultaneously forcing the federal government to spend more to keep people out of bread lines and soup kitchens. ” Bush suffered a recession as soon as he took office. Then another one after 9/11. And had to fight the war on terror. AND and eventually begun paying deficits down while cutting taxes (because lower taxes encourages economic growth which creates MORE tax revenue, but a liberal will never be able to comprehend that) “Republican politicians are wonderfully accomplished at favoring the rich, screwing over everybody else to do so, and then exploiting the anger that results after people have been royally screwed over.?” Why have the wealthy gotten so much more wealthy and the middle class has continued to suffer under Obama? Why are there more in poverty than ever before (despite $17 trillion having been spent to “help” them) under Obama? In addition, you debt-by-Bush numbers include the $785 billion TARP bailout (which Obama also favored) which was PAID BACK…. what Obama did with it is anyone’s guess, but I think some campaign crony probably has it.@Greg: “When people or tax-paying entities get tax breaks, a portion of their tax burden is shifted from them to everyone else. Politicians ostensibly do this for everyone’s collective benefit—to encourage an economic development that benefits the economy as a whole, for example” Odd for you to take that position, here, Greg. Because here, we are discussing the adverse effects of Obamacare on the economy, and effect of reducing full-time, tax-paying employees to part time, subsidy-consuming employees. You see this as a good thing…. “freedom” you call it. However, it is eroding the tax base, something it appears you are against.

As high as taxes are, I would not oppose a tax to pay down the debt. However, I will oppose any tax increases vehemently until this government learns not to waste 50% of what it collects. Each year, about $300 billion is pure, unadulterated waste is identified and THAT can’t even be cut; unless the federal government can cut the waste of the earnings of the 47% that actually work and contribute, they should get no increases. A failing program that increases the number surviving by government subsidies is what I would regard a move in the wrong direction.@Greg: “You mean that little thing that caught Bush totally flat footed, despite repeated warnings from Clinton that were dismissed as efforts distract attention from the all important national business of Monica Lewinsky?” Clinton had at least 4 golden opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden, but was more concerned with getting head and trim to take care of the real business of his job. Yeah, 9/11 caught the entire government flat-footed, which makes it absolutely amazing and even more unforgivable to be caught so flat-footed on 9/11/12 in Benghazi. Now, THAT’s flat-footed. And stupid. Instead of being fixated on his own sexual fulfillment, Obama was obsessed with collecting money to overcome the negative results of his 4 years in office.@Greg: “I seem to recall coordinated cruise missile attacks launched against a number of al Qaeda training camps, one of which missed bin Laden (Ben who?) by a few hours.” Clinton popped a few million dollar caps into an abandoned training camp. Yeah, we remember. It was sort of embarrassing. When we had opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden, Clinton would not approve it because it viewed it as a legal issue, not a national security issue. And, he was busy diddling Monica, so he could not be bothered.