The federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that our government entitlement programs (which already consume 60% of our budget) are running a long-term shortfall of $45 trillion. That is the difference between what it will take in and what it will shell out in the next 75 years in Social Security, Medicare, and the other entitlement benfits.
This does not include the billions in additions under any plan any Democrat candidate has for…anything.
David Walker, the main guy at the GAO says, “Our government has made a whole lot of promises in the long term that it cannot possibly keep.”
The ranking budget committee member, Republican Senator Jud Gregg said, “The longer we wait to fix this, the harder it will be.”
It is not a question of whether liberalism will bankrupt our nation. It is only a question of when.
The root cause is two fold:
1) Women voting
2) Liberalism
There are entire industries build around pleasing women with a freebie; flowers, candy, jewelry, ladies night at the bar, men buying women drinks every night at the bar, etc. Come on everyone – you know the score.
Why would politicians be any different? They give women things to get their vote. Politicians just get to use your money instead of their own to score with the ladies. Government deficit spending started just after women started voting.
Next the women may want to wear pants and and run for political office. THEN - where will the nation be?
And liberalism – or communism as it is usually called – is based on the premise that if you have more than someone else, you must share. Sounds all wonderful and everything until the biggest liberals learn that the less they do, the more they get - so they do less. Then the other citizens realize the more they work, the less they get to keep – so they do less. That is when the leaders of the liberals FORCE you to work.
I think that is called slavery in the real world. Liberals call it the Progressive Great New Deal Society, with Socialized Medicine and Government-run daycare. – Hank Dagny
16 comments ↓
Just to be clear: Do you support eliminating Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security?
Yes, I support eliminating it all - since none of it is constitutional.
Obviously it would have to be a scale down since the advancing tide of liberalism has at least half of the nation and 70% of the government on the entitlement teat.
Once people understand they are responsible for their own healthcare and retirement, they will act differently in order to pay for it.
The free market will adjust prices and increase service as warranted. It’s called capitalism and it built this country.
Just wanted to confirm that you were an anarcho-capitalist.
A completly unregulated economy has never existed in the United States, and if this is your definition of capitalism, it is not what build this country.
And “providing for the general welfare” is constitutional.
Reid, I thought you were a liberal. Only a liberal would hang 60% of our federal budget on two words in the Constitution - AND want it to build up from there.
Plus, the fact that our nation is being bankrupted and turned into a socialist-communist nation seems to have no effect on your belief system.
Just wanted to confirm you were a communist.
Please keep reading. I will be posting an analysis of all the “Progressive Great New Deal Society” programs and how they all have failed.
Not that it will change a liberal’s mind - since liberalism is a mental disorder, and truth and facts cannot penetrate or are ignored completely.
I am not trying to be insulting here. I honestly believe liberal’s brains do not reach to any of the middle or top floors of the ‘common sense’ building within.
If a communist country is any nation that provides social services, that would mean every first world country is communist.
Do you really believe this? You’re hanging a lot on a very questionable definition.
The truth can hold up whatever I hang on it.
Socialism is just communism when the capitalist system that is being crushed can still support the Ponzi scheme short term. That is where the USA is now.
Communism kicks in after socialism finally kills the capitalist goose laying the eggs.
What part of this is confusing for you, Reid?
I’m confused about your use of the words liberal, socialist, and communist. You seem to use these words interchangably, so I’m confused about what you mean by any of them.
You didn’t answer my question about other countries. If I’m an American liberal (or as you called me, a communist), and since a member of the Labor party in England is futher from me to the economic left, is England now being run by communists?
They are interchangeable.
Yes, England is run by communists.
The labor movement in the United States was started by two communists - Eugene Debs and William D. “Big Bill” Haywood.
The charter for the first union stated it’s goal as
- NOT better pay
- NOT better working conditions
- NOT vacations, sick time or benefits
- But the OVERTHROW of the capitalist system in the United States.
So is the Labor Party in England communist? The Democrat Party n the United States?
Yes, they are.
Wow. England a communist country? I thought I could get a truly nutty statement out of you. Since this was what I was going for, I think my work here is done.
I thought you were trying to learn something - not just get a nutty statement.
I don’t think you should leave. You learned alot and you have more to learn, Reid.
You know how I know you learned truths? You never challenged that:
> The nation is going broke thanks to liberalism
> In the poker game of life - women are the rake
> You hung 60% of our federal budget on two words
> That unions are communist
You ignored my explanation that socialism is the prelude to communism and went right to the ‘nutty’ statement tag line conclusion. Glad I could help you out.
I hope you post again. It was a pleasure listing all the items you could not refute. Liberalism exposed is impossible to defend.
Local unions in the United States date back to the 18th century, but the first major union was the Knights of Labor, which pre-dates Eugene Debs and the Wobblies by several decades. The Knights of Labor believed in ending child and convict labor, equal pay for women, and a progressive income tax. This was radical for the time, but no one calls them communist.
The Wobblies were more extreme, many believing in anarcho-syndicalism, and you’ll be happy to know that many of them were killed, arrested, or deported by the government.
Eugene Debs, as you know, became the leader of the Socialist Party, and was opposed fiercely by both the Republican and Democrat parties. Debs was arrested and imprisoned while Democrat Woodrow Wilson was in office.
As for budget problems, a large tax cut coupled with the cost of a war that will go on for an indefinite period of time should be our greatest concern. We have gone from surpluses under Clinton to massive defecits under Bush.
The idea of eliminating Medicaid and Medicare is so radical it’s difficult to concieve the problems it would cause. But if millions of Americans were suddenly dropped from health care, I think it is safe to say that the number of preventable illness and deaths would shoot up, and these additional uninsured people would do what uninsured people do now - go to emergency rooms for all their health problems. And I doubt that the hospitals would have the capacity to deal with several million more patients.
As for my hanging a lot on ” promote the general welfare”, the entire Preamble to the Constitution is one sentence, meant to summarize what the entire Constitution is intended for.
And if women voting is the root cause of all our current woes, why not reverse suffrage? Our do you have a better idea for keeping them in line?
Thanks for a more in depth look at the pure anti-Americanism that are unions.
For the zillionth time - the tax cuts spurred economic growth that ADDED $785 billion MORE tax revenue INTO the treasury.
For the zillionth time - the war is not breaking us (and is constitutional and necessary), it is the bills for ENTITLEMENT programs and waste that is responsible for the deficit.
Dropped from health care? Now you are trying my patience Reid. I said it would have to be “scaled down”, not dropped. Damn liberals twist everything to make their lies seem like fact.
And the volume is what it is. There would be no increase ior decrease. If anything, socialized health care would increase volume. Ever been between a man and free beer?
Anyone needing care gets it. THAT is not the case in England or Canada now with their socialized medicine.
Reid, just say you are a communist and we can stop there. Don’t twist our Constitution into Marxism.
And Reid, you may just know less about women than you do economics. How in the hell can anyone keep women in line? They risk death in the Middle East and still do what they want. Women voting is killing this nation because most vote socialist - Democrat. And they take jobs from men, making men worthless. And they are not having babies, which is why our politicians want open borders and amnesty to illegals. We don’t have enough new customers - thanks to women being men and liberal women killing their babies.
I know we can’t put the genie back in the bottle on women voting, so all I can do is hope to educate them to the point they can look past their socialist instincts.
The brief history of unions was to show that they were not communist in the sense that normal people use the word. (I still don’t understand what you mean by it). The wobblies were denounced as anarchists. This was the big scare word at the time, the way the word communist became in the 1950s, and we know the sad history of the paranoia and panic that was caused in both cases.
It’s good to know that you support some government health care, even if at the same time you “support eliminating it all - since none of it is constitutional.”
If you notice, the presidential candidates in this year’s election are promising even bigger entitlements and more spending on domestic socialism and wealth re-distribution.
We can’t afford what we have now. Why is the cure for failed liberalism always more of it?
This nation citizens deserve the chains they are placing on themselves.
Ben Franklin said, “We gave you a republic, if you can keep it.” We are not.
The Zen Taoist in me has to ask…
There’s reference to the Wobblies but not the Luddites of England- their anarchistic demolision of anything mechanical [some would say “new technology” in this day and age] led not to the suppression of Ex Machina and the rise of man but to being spurned and ridiculed for not embracing what made their lives easier and [hopefully] more productive.
Unions since the concept of organized labor have had “For The People” as their axiom for centuries now.
Why is it not “By The People”..?
Unions have had their place when used by and for ethical, moral and justified [or, “of justice”] causes- my grandfather worked in the coal mines of Illinois and I was around for the tail end of some of the bloodiest incidences involving miners trying to organize and what was left of corrupt politicians and mine owners.
But eventually the founding principle of that union crumbled- corruption became easier and more profitable than “the good fight”. Being a union boss was a service- not a job unto itself which it later became.
Gee- I see a pattern forming here at it’s own microcosm… Do you?
Russ
Unions from jump street were designed to overthrow this nation’s capitalist system.
It did help workers early - but it helped communist politicians, dirty politicians, mafia bosses and thugs, enemies of this nation and union figureheads even more.
No pattern. Simply the continuation of the original plan - to overthrow our capitalist system and undermine individual freedoms.
“For the people” they will rule. “By the people” - according to liberals - is unfair. Everyone in chains is at least fair.
Leave a Comment