The True Price Of The Theft Act


And the true price of the Generational Theft Act is now known:

All of the major news outlets are reporting that the stimulus bill voted out of conference committee last night has a meager $789 billion price tag. This number is pure fantasy. No one believes that the increased funding for programs the left loves like Head Start, Medicaid, COBRA, and the Earned Income Tax Credit is in anyway temporary. No Congress under control of the left will ever cut funding for these programs. So what is the true cost of the stimulus if these spending increases are made permanent?

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the impact of permanently extending the 20 most popular provisions of the stimulus bill. What did the COB find? As you can see from the table below, the true 10 year cost of the stimulus bill $2.527 trillion in in spending with another $744 billion cost in debt servicing. Total bill for the Generational Theft Act: $3.27 Trillion.

The Heritage Report has the breakdown.

Spend, spend, spending our way into even bigger hole.

But hey, he’s the messiah, he know’s better then us little folks.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Obamanomics is going to bring us something much worse than the “Great Depression.” $3.27 trillon is so large that NO ONE can truly precieve that amount and it isn’t going to solve anything but create more debt. Debt is what got us here in the first place!

Absolutely mind-boggling. And I would wager that most of those fools will get re-elected in 2010. Heart breaking

If you took your vehicle to the local garage and they gave you a repair estimate of $744 and charged you $3,700 when you picked it up congress would want to jail the garage owner. They do it to the American people and think it’s they’re right. The only sure fire investment of today is in rope suitable for hanging.
A shooting/hanging revolution is only waiting for a leader to stand up and speak up.

Scrapiron: My husband is in the mood for a shooting/hanging revolution. So am I for that matter. And what will happen. If we do not have the support of the entire conservative community, my cats will be left homelesss because my hubby and I will be going to jail. I repeat: We will need the entire support of the conservative community. Is it out there. Or is it just starting to be out there. I don’t know. But I do know one thing.
We do need a revolution. I am ready.

We shouldn’t hold Congress Critters responsible for this mess! I doubt that any of them have even read the bill!
Just sign the blank check right…here!


You don’t have my support, but I might take in your cats if needed.

@proof: if they are to lazy to do their job and read the bill, or not vote on the bill until it has been read then they need to go. how hard is it for you to read your insurance policy, instructions for a computer desk? seriously, these people do not deserve to be there. they are playing craps with my money. if i wnated to pay for welfare sluts and illegal aliens then maybe i would give them tents in my back yard, but i think you should kill what you eat so to speak, if you won’t provide for yourself then you dont deserve it. i realize that their are disabled who need the help i am not talking about them, i am talking about the brood mares who keep having kids to get bigger welfare benefits.

You want to talk

generational theft


The Obama stimulus isn’t generational theft, as it is for programs which benefit Americans of all ages.

You want to talk REAL “generational theft?”

Cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the same 10 year period = $4.4 trillion !!!

And this is TRUE generational theft, because it is today’s taxpayers having their government borrow money to spare them the unpleasant necessity of paying for the government which Bush bequeathed to Obama.

Don’t you understand that Bush’s “stimulus package” of tax cuts with spending increases, culminating in the $700 billion bailout to Wall Street utterly dwarfs the Obama “stimulus,” in terms of “generational theft?”

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

36% of the bill is tax cuts. These “costs” are based on projections. Who knows how many people will actually take advantage of incentives to buy homes or how many people will qualify for the AMT breaks (70 billion projected) next year… these costs could go up or could go down, depending on how they get claimed.

Right on cue Larry dashes in whining, crying, and complaining about the cost of the Bush tax cuts.

Hey Larry, have you mailed your Bush tax cut windfall back in to the IRS yet?

Have you stood on your personal principles and refused to take money that you feel should not have been returned to the hands of the taxpayers who earned it?


Oh, that’s right. You’re not in to “meaningless personal gestures”.

I wonder what things would be like in the US if Ronald Martin, Robert Patterson, and Mark Martin didn’t believe in “meaningless personal gestures.”

It’s a shame that Rosa Parks and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. are not still alive so that you could speak with them about how one person’s efforts and living by example can make a huge difference.

The world would sure be a much sorrier place if everyone adopted your viewpoint.

Larry, you really have no place to gripe about the Bush tax cuts after all these years of enjoying the benefits thereof.

Classic hypocrisy Larry.

Classic hypocrisy.

Hey, there is another plan, I know Pelosi is now stamping her little foot demanding the House dems pledge their vote before they read the damn thing. What’s she afraid of? Here we have one democrat that did some prep work in case the theft act stalls.

My kind of dem, Rep. Walt Minnick. His plan is called the Strategic Targeted American Recovery and Transition, START.

Cost: $170 billion. Monies not spent by 2010 go back to the Treasury.

His web address:

now the state of washington wants to put a 19% tax on porn, all types of porn, they also want to tax you on the size of your engine. now washington is liberal, wait until congress sees this, they will try that also.
this is theft, this is something we should, as taxpayers, have a say in. we should have a voice. yeah i know the song about our reps being elected and goijng there. well if you polled every taxpayer in this nation i would bet that 3/4’s would be against all of this. there are so many taxpayers that have called their rep’s and senators in washington and got rude response’s, aren’t they there to represent us? aren’t they there to do their level best to do what their voters want them to do? they are not there to further their own agenda. they all need ot go down.

Chihuahua – your reasoning doesn’t make much sense. It’s possible to benefit from a government action while noting that it’s a crappy idea. Even if some programs would be so objectionable that some sort of gesture of civil disobedience would be appropriate, government misallocation of resources rarely rises to that level.
For example, I ride the local bus to work. I don’t like this bus system. It has been granted a local monopoly, but thanks to unionization and the fact that the whole transit authority is treated as a cash cow by various politicians, it still needs massive federal subsidies to keep it solvent ($54 million per year last time I looked, but that was years ago). So it’s a boondoggle, a political abomination. So, therefore, does taking the bus rather than nobly bicycling to work make me some sort of hypocrite? I don’t see it that way.
Same for Larry and the Bush tax cuts.
In any case, for either side to point to the others’ deficit spending as a defense is a lousy argument (‘tu quoque fallacy’ for those who like their latin). Big deficits were bad when they happened on Bush’s watch; the bigger deficits we’re seeing on Obama’s watch are even worse.

Oh, but:
The Obama stimulus isn’t generational theft, as it is for programs which benefit Americans of all ages.

Really? Totally age-neutral in its benefits? I doubt it, but let that go; the thing that makes it intergenerational theft is the fact that Americans of all ages *aren’t going to be paying for it equally*, indeed much of the debt will have to be paid by those not yet even born. The narcissistic Boomer generation would rather make serfs of their grandchildren than have their high standard of living impaired. Personal sacrifice is something totally alien to them.

bbart: The narcissistic Boomer generation would rather make serfs of their grandchildren than have their high standard of living impaired. Personal sacrifice is something totally alien to them.

Never truer words spoken, bbart. And I am embarrassed for my generation. What makes it worse is that Congress and holders of the purse strings are dominated by boomers.

I’ve always said, my generation was great at music, but really sucks at governing.


Hey, there is another plan, I know Pelosi is now stamping her little foot her cloven hoof demanding the House dems pledge their vote before they read the damn thing.

Fixed that for you.

Aye thinks that I’m hypocritical for not giving the government a rebate on my tax cuts, if I’m opposed to them.

I’m neither “whining” nor “crying” about the massive Bush generational theft — dwarfing that of the Obama stimulus. I’m simply calling attention to it. Read my comment # 8, above. Not a tear to be seen.

Warren Buffet was very much opposed to the Bush economic stimulus (i.e. borrowing massive amounts of money to finance tax cuts), yet Buffet famously employs teams of lawyers to take advantage of every line in the tax code to which he’s legally entitled. Buffet famously said, also, that he pays 20% of his income as tax, where his secretary pays 30%. Buffet is not a “hypocrite,” either. He’s a businessman.

So am I. A businessman.

I am very much into promoting good legislation. I am very much not into ultimately meaningless gestures. I am a voter, not a crusader.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

I agree, Mata. I had a Woodstock DVD playing in the background the other day. Nobody ever did music that good. Today’s pop music is all overproduced. Plus the music isn’t original — it’s derivative.

But, goodness, we’ve been so selfish.


Unfit, those cats would take care of you seeing as how they are
much smarter.

Larry, you are a hypocrite and not a business man. Your attempt to
compare apples to oranges doesn’t fly, but you know that.
If you don’t think the tax cuts were ok, then send it back. Or
you could pay more taxes to make up for the cut. Your desperate
attempts to blame Bush while absolving your “God” are disgusting.

1965-1980 or so is to rock music what 1730-1820 is to classical music, a period of genius that can’t be surpassed by subsequent imitators; everything that follows will either be at least somewhat derivative or else different enough that it is part of a new genre.

Gracious of you to accept my kind of mean-spirited slam on your generation. Obviously not everyone of your generation is like that, I’ve just seen a lot of examples. Funny enough, both my wife and I were born a little too late to be Boomers, to parents who were a little too old to be – maybe if there were boomers in my family tree I wouldn’t be so quick to badmouth them 🙂

Hard, you are a hard guy to like. I mean, truly. Have you ever heard of the concept of the honest difference of opinion? Does it make you feel so much better as a person to diminish those with whom you disagree? I’ll leave it to others to determine if my comments (with whom most on this blog would disagree) or yours (politically more in tune with most of the other folks) are the more “disgusting.”


We could go round and round and round all day long with this “Yes it is”, “No it isn’t” nonsense.

You can cite Buffet, or anyone else you want to bring up, but if they have complained about the tax cuts, and have still availed themselves of the opportunity to get that money then, yes their behavior is hypocritical as well.

For example, if I were to sit here typing out a complaint about welfare, food stamps, WIC, et al with one hand while the other hand quietly collects and cashes the checks for those same programs then I would be guilty of hypocrisy and you, or anyone else who is not guilty of the same, would be right and justified to call me out on it.

If, on the other hand, I were legally qualified to benefit from welfare, food stamps, WIC, et al but declined to do so on the basis of principle, personal responsibility and self-reliance I would then be able to be intellectually honest and non-hypocritical when/if I complained about said programs.

I didn’t honestly expect you to accept what I had to say about your word/action imbalance. I expected that you would respond exactly as you did.

Perhaps some inner reflection and self-evaluation will help.

It’s all about personal principles.

Some have them and live by them without fail.

Others don’t.

Remember, admitting you have a problem is the first step.


I’m leaving now.

I will be using a blue smoke belching, oil burning, carbon producing chainsaw to cut firewood that I will then burn in my wood stove.

Everyone has to do their part for global warmening, right?


Larry: You want to talk REAL “generational theft?”

Cost of extending the Bush tax cuts for the same 10 year period = $4.4 trillion !!!

Let me see if I understand this. Letting people keep MORE of the money that THEY EARN for a ten year period = generational theft. Is that what you are saying? Does that mean that if I give a little less to the United Way this year, that I am stealing from them, too? If I don’t but tickets to the theater production that supports the food bank am I stealing from them, too? What if I don’t hang a sack of canned goods from my mail box this year? More theft?

The theft here, Larry, is the theft of money from one economic class, by the government, that is in turn given to another economic class in return for votes. I make a good living, usually, and I am happy to pay my fair share of federal taxes in order to support the CONSTITUTIONAL functions of our nation’s government, but I am sick and tired of paying considerably more than my fair share in order for the government to run a “new deal” welfare state. I’m far from rich, but when I add the payroll taxes that I pay, in addition to the income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, license fees, fuel taxes, etc., I am paying considerably more to the various levels of government than I am keeping. And, at the same time, I maintain between 10-15 employees, jobs that wouldn’t exist without someone like me driven by the rewards of evil capitalism, and I give thousands of dollars to support charities, money that they wouldn’t have without that same evil capitalism.

I guarantee that I was a lot less “giving” during the Clinton years when my taxes were higher, and I will be a lot less giving now that Obama is raising my taxes. In fact, the passage of the schip program, and its higher tobacco taxes alone, will cost me about $10,000 in inventory costs. That’s just a one time hit, not included in any income tax estimates. That money isn’t recoverable, and I’ll never get it back. That’s money that could have gone, to Cowboys Against Cancer, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, The SW Wyoming Mule Deer Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, the local high school sports teams, the local amateur sports leagues, etc., all favorite charities of mine that I usually support. But that money is gone, vanished in to the pit of nothingness that we call the U.S. Treasury. Oh, but hey, I’ll get another 13 bucks a week!

The fact is, the federal gov’t runs a ponzi scheme that is millions of times bigger than the one that was run by Madoff! The difference of course, is that now that his collapsed, he will go to jail, but the feds will just take even more money from their “investors” and keep the whole scam going.

If the federal government would return to doing only the jobs given to it by the constitution, and allow the people and the states to do the rest, there wouldn’t be a budget problem.

Aye: Please feel perfectly free to consider me to be a hypocrite, if it pleases you to think in these terms and to so label people, but please also realize that stating that someone is a hypocrite does not constitute a counter-argument to the item under discussion — in this case, the fact that the Bush stimulus package (tax cuts, combined with government spending increases, combined with Wall Street bailout), constituted a massively larger case of “generational theft” than does the present Obama stimulus package.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Let me see if I understand this. Letting people keep MORE of the money that THEY EARN for a ten year period = generational theft. Is that what you are saying?

Yes, precisely so. It is called pass the bill down to your children as opposed to pay as you go.

Had Bush cut spending and then cut taxes by a similar amount, he’d have been a hero. But, instead, he took the easy way out. He increased spending and cut taxes at the same time. He then told us to use the extra money and go out and shop. He literally said this. Perhaps putting it in these terms will help you to understand what is really going on. He cuts our taxes. Makes up for the budget shortfall by borrowing money from the People’s Republic of China. So, in actuality, we are borrowing money from the People’s Republic of China to allow us to have more money for our shopping spree. Only, unlike our personal VISA cards, the bill to the People’s Republic of China won’t be repaid within the working lifetimes of most of us. It will be paid by our children and grandchildren, who will have to pay higher taxes tomorrow, to spare us the unpleasantness of having to pay higher taxes today.

Generational theft.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

bbart: Gracious of you to accept my kind of mean-spirited slam on your generation.

Well, what can you do? If the Birkenstock fits, ya know. LOL

The one historical point you are missing, Larry, is that the the three times in the past that taxes were significantly lowered, it has led to higher gross receipts by the U.S. Treasury, but the government, President and Congress together, have each time spent that increased amount and more. I will not apologize for deficit spending in time of war, I believe it is fully acceptable, but I don’t think deficit spending for the purpose stimulating the economy is. I was against the last stimulous bill, I was against the TARP bill, and I am against the porkulous package.

More importantly, you cannot justify Obama, Pelosi, and Reid’s deficit spending by attacking Bush, Pelosi, and Reid’s deficit spending. That is hypocrisy.

Additionally, I refuse to equate tax cuts with spending. They are not the same thing. It’s like a sale at a store you don’t shop in. You’ll save $50 if you spend $100, sure, but if you didn’t buy anything at all, you would have saved $150. I would just as soon opt out of the new new deal and save my $150.

As for actual spending, I would agree with you there. Had any previous government, President and Congress together, Democrat OR Republican, EVER effectually cut spending, we wouldn’t be in this mess at all. But creating thousands of new programs that will require endless future funding well beyond what is provide in the porkulous bill, definitely won’t make it better.

Please take a look at this site if you aren’t already familiar with it:
They are trying to rally Patriots who are willing to march on DC in May. They are also staging rallies in state capitals.

The one historical point you are missing, Larry, is that the the three times in the past that taxes were significantly lowered, it has led to higher gross receipts by the U.S. Treasury,

Wisdom, this is what conservatives (not conservative economists, but conservative pundits) always say. But this is extraordinarily misleading. With both Reagan and Bush, when there was a “significant lowering” of the tax rates, there was no compensatory reduction in government spending. Instead, what you had was a massive infusion of borrowed capital — the government put money back into the people’s pockets, while replacing the money they would have otherwise received from the people with money borrowed from China and elsewhere. This resulted in more capital in the economy. Of course, the economy grew — the same way that my personal economy grew when I took out a home equity line of credit, several years ago.

Here is what is important, however. The increased taxes generated by having more money in the economy by virtue of the tax cuts eventually paid for less than 30% of the money which had to be borrowed to offset the revenue lost from the tax cuts. Even conservative economists agree with this. Even Laffer, I think, now believes this. Even the Heritage Foundation which “Aye” cited states that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, although the Heritage Foundation is disingenuous in the way they minimize this issue, using intentionally misleading language.

The most important reason tax receipts have gone up, following tax cuts, by the way, is very simple. At the time of the Bush tax cuts and, before that, the Reagan tax cuts, the country was in a recession. Following recovery from recessions – recoveries which historically always happen – whether in the 90% marginal tax era of Eisenhower or in the low marginal tax era of more modern times — the GDP goes up and accordingly tax receipts increase.

But, once again, the tax cuts never come close to paying for themselves. And it is a misnomer even to call them tax cuts. They are more accurately referred to as tax shifts, as what finances the tax cuts is borrowed money, which must be paid back, with interest, by tomorrow’s taxpayers.

It can be called taxation without representation (as the people who will be on the hook for the tax are currently not of voting age) or it can be called generational theft.

But here’s the point: add up the generational theft from the Bush tax cuts plus the unfunded Iraq War (also paid for with borrowed money) plus the $700 billion Wall Street bail out, and you are looking at well over 5 to 6 trillion dollars. This dwarfs the debt incurred by the current $780 billion “stimulus,” which is 36% tax cuts, which, presumably, you like.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA