Last December, 1.3 million Americans received SSI disability payments for “mood disorders.” Yes, that’s right, more Americans than the entire population of San Diego received a monthly check from Uncle Sam to compensate for their suffering from such psychic maladies as sleep disturbance, appetite disturbance, decreased energy and feelings of guilt or worthlessness.
That may ruin your mood, but it’s the tip of a very large and menacing iceberg. In 1960, federal transfer payments totaled $24 billion in current dollars. By 2010, government transferred $2.2 trillion, a whopping 727 percent growth over the half-century, (inflation and population-adjusted). The annual bill for these entitlements today comes to almost $29,000 for an average family of four.
In 1940, near the end of the New Deal spending surge, entitlements had risen to consume one-third of government spending. Today it is two-thirds, with all other responsibilities of government, including protection from danger, consuming just one third of our resources.
It isn’t a matter of partisan conflict. While Democrats generally argue for more spending and Republicans for less (or at least a slower rate of growth), both parties have learned how to win votes by passing around other people’s money. Presidents Nixon, Ford and George W. Bush all oversaw huge expansions of the welfare state during their presidencies.
It wasn’t always this way. Americans at one time were regarded by themselves and others as proudly self-reliant. Yet they also supported a remarkable number of lodges, churches and volunteer civic associations dedicated to helping each other in times of need.
Now 75 years of entitlements have eroded our spirit of independence and made Americans hungry for even more. Politicians who make the slightest effort to slow down the spending train are asking for trouble. Ask Paul Ryan.
Ryan’s Medicare idea was to provide seniors with an annual sum to support health insurance costs, with the amount adjusted for need. But the proposal was too modest by far, excluding all beneficiaries 55 and older. Even though the desperately needed savings would be postponed, Ryan obviously thought the delay was necessary to make it politically palpable.
The reward for his effort was a loud outcry from the Left claiming he was trying to “end Medicare as we know it.” An infamous ad showed a Paul Ryan look-alike shoving a wheelchair bound grandmother over a cliff. So much for trying to be the adult in the room.
Yet it’s simple mathematics that “our nation is on an unsustainable fiscal path” as the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission blandly put it. Federal income covers only 60 percent of expenditures. The other 40 percent is passed off to future taxpayers -- you know, those little people in the pictures on our desks. But because of what we’re doing to them, our grandchildren will have even fewer resources to pay for their grandparents’ thoughtlessness. We have created a gigantic intergenerational Ponzi scheme with today’s takers the winners and the children, whom we supposedly love so much, the hapless victims.
What to do? The Obama administration hasn’t offered a single entitlement reform proposal. Instead, federal spending has ballooned to 27.1 percent of GDP (from 19.7 percent in 2007) and the federal debt has grown to a crushing $16 trillion. They took an admittedly bad situation and made it worse.
Their solution: Tax the rich. But “the rich” don’t have enough money, even if we took it all, to make a dent in the problem. Furthermore, higher income tax rates historically have failed to generate additional income. For example, from 1952 to 1979, the top income tax rate was 70 percent to 90 percent and income tax revenue was 7.8 percent of GDP. Yet the take was 8.1 percent of GDP from 1988 to 1990 when the rates maxed out at just 28 percent. The only way to substantially increase federal income is through policies which stimulate economic growth.
Another traditional American virtue was looking out for future generations, to ensure that “posterity” was even more blessed than we. History will judge us harshly if we continue to spend on ourselves money that we don’t have.
Do Americans have the moral fiber and will to change our ways and limit our expectations from government? We’ll soon find out.
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
Centrist posted at 9:43 am on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
This author seems to always be fact challenged. Apparently, he does not even understand how ssi works. Mood disorder is a broad coding category that can include things such as a traumatic brain injury. Mr. P. do us all a favor and stop writing uninformed propaganda.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:52 am on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
Agreed that we need entitlement reform, and debt decrease.
However, . . .
For Patterson to invoke Paul Ryan as a problem solver is ludicrous.
Look at his latest Medicare "solution" -- the voucher plus plan.
Here's what it'll offer to future seniors:
Stay on the existing program
Take a voucher that once it's run out, you pay the rest.
Guess which one most will take?
So how does his latest plan "save" Medicare?
As to decreasing the debt . . .
Ryan's a Johnny Come Lately to the debt problem, as is Patterson.
I don't remember Patterson bemoaning any of the following that led to the $11 trillion debt piled up by eight years of Republican rule:
Two tax cuts without concurrent spending cuts
Two wars "paid" for by borrowing, again with no concurrent spending cuts
Expansion of the Medicare drug plan, again with no concurrent spending cuts.
All of those came at a cost, the $11 trillion piled up under President Bush.
Not to mention the interest accrued on that debt.
And what was Paul Ryan doing during that time?
Voting for every single act that ballooned the debt.
Suddenly, though, Ryan and Patterson became acutely concerned with the debt . . . coincidentally just about the time that President Obama came into office.
So I did a little research on Tom Patterson's role in the state legislature. During his time as Majority Leader in the Senate, the legislature passed over $340 million in tax cuts. And guess what? Spending continued to rise, too. Cut taxes and increase spending, the Bush/Ryan/Patterson formula for economic success.
Accuracy posted at 11:49 am on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
According to the Social Security Administration, Social Security disability benefits are paid out to people who have worked and paid payroll taxes, but find themselves unable to work due to disability. And "all people receiving disability benefits must have their medical conditions reviewed from time to time."
SSI provides disability income and benefits for many of the people who don't have the mental capacity to work.
But, according to a recent Social Security trustees report; projections indicate that the Social Security trust fund for disability will be fully depleted in 2016.
mnjcpa posted at 2:29 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
Your discussion Mike is PRECISELY what Patterson is discussing.
The second we start talking about being fiscally responsible people like yourself look for every way possible to derail progress. Obama couldn't get his own party to vote on a budget, a telling observation of how little Democrats concern themselves with fiscal responsibility.
Mike McClellan posted at 2:50 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
mnjcpa, nope, I'm all for being fiscally responsible, in my life and in the government's life.
But Ryan's playing hocus pocus with his newest Medicare plan, knowing full well that the vast majority of future seniors will take the existing plan, which means that his reform is not really reforming anything.
Patterson and Ryan are fiscally responsible -- when they're not in the majority. But their histories show that when they did have the power over the budget, they performed wrecklessly.
Actions, mnjcpa, speak louder than words.
mnjcpa posted at 3:09 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
But you're in the bag for a guy that can't even produce a budget that his own party will vote for - and your still voting for him.
Yes actions should speak louder than words and sorry they don't work with you.
CSalafia posted at 7:41 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
1) Using entitlement as a slur, as the right does, is intellectually dishonest. They're earned benefits, as the citizenry pays into them.
2) "While Democrats generally argue for more spending and Republicans for less (or at least a slower rate of growth)" - President Obama has presided over the slowest and lowest growth in spending in decades.
3) Ryan's plan is a joke. It takes ~$700 in benefits from Medicare/Medicaid enrollees. The vouchers will be great for a couple years, but as they won't keep up with the rate of growth of health care costs (based on the last 20 years), it means that seniors, and soon-to-be seniors, will all be paying more for their insurance.
hljmesa posted at 9:24 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
Mr. Patterson, Moral Fiber??? Surely you have read Wendall Potters book or at least been to his web site? Eh?? Talk about lack of moral fiber. The insurance companies are running the biggest racket of all. Removing clients from from their customer list because it is not profitable. For those reading this, please Google Wendall Potter, read his blog, and then ask why Mr. Patterson never writes about this topic.
chatmandu002 posted at 10:47 pm on Sat, Sep 8, 2012.
Tom,
You are completely correct with this column. All of the entitlement program are nothing more than giant ponzi schemes. People cry "we paid into these programs and we are entitled to get them forever." Guess what folks, your government has sold you a bill of goods even worse than Bernie Madoff. The entitlement programs never collected enough money from the early participants to cover future generations down the road and the pay outs to present recieptents are much larger than expected. I don't care how big the trust fund is, it's not big enough. If people can't see this then they are in denial and oblivious to the truth. These entitlement programs must be moved to the private market sector which would reduce the deficit pressures on the federal budget. Romney/Ryan are the only ones willing to address the entitlements and their future structure.
wdgnas posted at 7:29 am on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
paul ryan and fiscally responsible should not be used in the same sentence.
paul ryan voted for two unfunded wars.
paul ryan voted for the bank bailouts.
paul ryan voted for unfunded medicare part d.
paul ryan sounds like a convicted murderer who all of sudden got religion.
mnjcpa posted at 9:01 am on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Shout it chatman!
Those like wdgnas, Mike M, and others can't get it through their thick heads that the entitlement programs ARE nothing more than ponzi schemes and the government lovers really believe that those benefits will ALWAYS BE THERE. And yet rather than face the truth, all the Obama lovers in this column will pick apart Paul Ryan who at least is trying to halt this run away train wreck.
Your point is spotless.
Centrist posted at 10:14 am on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Mnj and chatman,
Let me give you my address so you can mail me your social security checks because you would NEVER take an entitlement, correct. Please, don't tel me you are a hypocrite that would just so burst my image of you.
mnjcpa posted at 10:34 am on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Great point centrist because I haven't had those social security calculations in my personal financial planning for 15 years because it was so easy to see even then that ss was a house of cards that would implode without serious reform.
Centrist posted at 11:12 am on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Ok, so you will be sure to send any payment you receive to me right? I mean, God forbid you should take from that which you condem, right?
Engaged Voter posted at 11:28 am on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Centrist, please let us know when you get that check.
Conversely, 30 days from now also please tell us if you did NOT get the check.
Given mnjcpa's comment history, I know which one I'm wagering on. ;)
mnjcpa posted at 3:00 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Empty argument EnRaged because I'm not retired nor do I count on any future promise to pay me by the government.
What I have counted on is If liberals are left running the country my tax rate will probably be 70% by then and my benefits will be excluded anyway and/or social security will be bankrupt and I won't have anything to receive. Either way centrist by all means take that empty promise to pay me by the US government.
Easy to understand why I planned without it.
Centrist posted at 4:09 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
We are not debating your plans. This is about the integrity of your argument. Will you agree to forego ss payments? It seems to me you have to in order to stay true to your arguments. Good for you that you are smart enough and successful enough to fully fund your own retirement. We absolutely need more people like you. So, with all your wisdom, success, apparent clairvoyance, and beliefs, I can only assume that in the event the government cuts you a ss check that you will be sending it back with a note to put the money toward the principal on the national debt. Do we have an agreement on that? If not, you are in no position to argue against ssi disbursements. So, please spare us the specious arguments.
chatmandu002 posted at 4:13 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
It's easy to see who is in denial and oblivious to the truth about entitlement programs. LOL...
Centrist posted at 4:30 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Chatman, correct anyone who would so emphatically condemn a benefit but, when offered, accept it is either confused or a hypocrite... Not you. Right?
Mike McClellan posted at 5:26 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
There have been countless polls of self-identified TEA Party folks that show those folks don't like "government handouts" except for their government handouts, like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security (oh, yes, Medicaid's a part of those "handouts" a lot of people use -- to pay for seniors living in extended care facilities).
And polls also shows those same folks to be unusually silent about corporate handouts.
Finally, some TEA Party types should look at who's funding some of the "national" groups -- people with boatloads of money who use the TEA Partiers to maintain their wealth and power. Think I'm wrong? Check out Armey's group.
mnjcpa posted at 6:48 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
You were doing really well centrist until you got to line 5 and just like a good little snarky liberal you can't get through a debate without personal insults. But sure, I'm game. I'm confident if people like Obama/Reid/Pelosi stay in office I won't have a check coming to me regardless of the fact that I've paid in more than excessively for many years. But in the unlikely event that I will actually see a check? It will be like I said earlier. Either it would be fully taxable because my income is too high or it will be eliminated altogether.
And by the way, it's not that I'm exceptionally brilliant. It's that I know liberals.
mnjcpa posted at 7:17 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Mike M- I suspect you're about as out of touch with Tea Party members as I am with labor unions. You continue to support my point that it's hard to have meaningful, adult conversations about solutions to correct our debt problem because of the divisiveness in America.
What the Tea Party has a problem with is massive government intervention in to our lives to include how we're educated, receive healthcare, how we pay people, or run our lives. People that have paid in to a system for many years should rightfully expect to be paid, but they've been relying on promises from leaders who are less than honest. The Republicans are as much to blame as the Democrats.
So unless people can be honest about this, quit relying on your political assumptions then we will be Greece, and I won't get my ss check - something I was fortunate to realize many years ago.
Centrist posted at 8:40 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Mnj, as usual you refuse to answer a straight forward question electing to engage deflection instead. Don't worry, you answered it. Apparently, you will rail against the ssa, but when it comes to your check (which I heard you... You don't think you will get one...but OF COURSE that was not the question) you are going to accept the government's cash... Congrats, you are officially a hypocrite.
mnjcpa posted at 9:01 pm on Sun, Sep 9, 2012.
Not sure how much more clear I could make it. I won't be accepting a check, nor do I believe I will get one. I'm resigned to the fact that more of my income will be taken by bureaucrats. Clearly not the answer your smug arrogance can handle and precisely my point that the economic issues won't be resolved. There's too many immature people that would rather split hairs than have an adult discussion about the problem and how to fix it.
Centrist posted at 6:23 am on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
YOU are the adult one....RIGHT. Good one. Go ahead and let me know where to send you my address.
wdgnas posted at 7:10 am on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
centrist: you will soon realize that mnjcpa is a budding politico. never able to answer a question, but always able to ramble on.
mnjcpa posted at 7:46 am on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
I answered the question wdgnas or are your reading skills suspect too?
Yes, I would say I am adult about it centrist- and in particularly the `clairvoyance` I had years ago. which wasn't supernatural - it's that I get liberals. And just as you've demonstrated, they're more interested in making points that does zero to improve the situation than to demonstrate their superior critical thinking skills.
I'll never see that check - but sure, give me your address.
Centrist posted at 8:55 am on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
MNJ,
We are all so glad you BELIEVE you understand liberals. Although clearly, by your comments, you do not. I have been clear since the very first discussion in which we were involved (if you recall instead of answering questions about Obamacare you resorted to name calling...very adult of you). My comments on this board are always geared toward exposing so-called truths as opinions masquerading as facts. A prime example is your opinion that SSA money will not be available to you and that the SSA is not doing a good service by providing payments to eligible recipients such as those with a qualified mood disorder (such as a traumatic brain injury). Those are your opinions. But, they definitely stand in contradiction to your ability to recieve SSA funds when you qualify. So, without anymore of your distraction, answer this:
"Will you agree to never accept funds from the SSA and return each and every SSA check sent to you, if any, with instructions for those funds to be applied to the national debt?"
That question requires nothing but a "yes" or "No" response. Anything more would not be the "adult response." Also, if you agree to that, then you are being intellectually honest when you argue against the present distribution of SSA funds as you have done here. If you do not, then all of your comments and opinions ont he issue are hypocritical.
So, feel free to answse. But remember, if you answer "Yes" now but accept even one penny of SSA money later (which you have made clear you think will never come, but the point here is IF it comes) then you are a proven hypocrite. Good luck!
mnjcpa posted at 9:54 am on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
centrist - oh I completely understand liberals. You were quick to chastise that my opinion was of no one else's concern. And I never said that the SSA is not doing a good service by providing payments to eligible recipients. You’re putting words in my mouth. The answer is YES. I'm resigned to the fact that I will continually be called upon to pay more and more for wasteful programs.
The good news for you and wdgns and other liberals in this column is I have no political aspirations. I won't be commenting in worthless exchanges such as this after election day. The irony is if Obama wins, my retirement savings will grow in an extraordinary way because I'll be plenty busy helping businesses try to stay alive yet another four years from this disaster called the Obama economy.
We’re headed full steam ahead to an economic collapse that the fed won’t be able to do anything about. Maybe then you’ll concern yourself with putting forth solutions to correct this mess rather than showcasing your moral superiority.
Centrist posted at 10:31 am on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
MNJ,
You have showcased my moral superiorty for me. Thanks!
chatmandu002 posted at 11:46 am on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
Entitlement programs are still ponzi schemes.
Engaged Voter posted at 1:09 pm on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
"I won't be commenting in worthless exchanges such as this after election day."
Did someone just admit a less-than-honest agenda? I'm shocked! ;)
"Entitlement programs are still ponzi schemes.'
Chatstew, try to keep up. We're discussing SSI, not entitlement programs.
A program I have been paying into my entire life is NOT an entitlement.
mnjcpa posted at 1:38 pm on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
EnRaged - What I admitted to is not bothering with people that are more interested in excoriating others than offering solutions to the problem. That's the reason I believe it won't be solved by the politicians - it will be forced upon us through financial collapse.
SSI is thrown in to the `entitlement` description by the govt. EVERYONE that works and paid in to SS feels the way you do, and I don't blame you. But the bureaucrats have dipped in to the funds for too many things and aren't honest with the public as to dire condition we are truly in. Before you chastise chatman, you may want to keep up.
Engaged Voter posted at 3:57 pm on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
"That's the reason I believe it won't be solved by the politicians - it will be forced upon us through financial collapse."
And I agree - I too believe this is the norm in politics today.
"the bureaucrats have dipped in to the funds for too many things and aren't honest with the public"
Again, I agree - but this corruption (or we can just call it what it is - STEALING) doesn't detract from the fact that SSI is not welfare/entitlement.
"Before you chastise chatman, you may want to keep up."
Keep up with what, exactly? Chatmandu002 is notorious for parroting talking points over and over and over, not to mention launching sleazy personal attacks and false claims against other commenters when they call him out and ask him to support his claims. Surely you've noticed this trend.
(and he's not the only one!)
mnjcpa posted at 5:20 pm on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
The govt. refers to SSI as `entitlement` so it's just a broad based term that people use loosely. Everyone knows and believes that SSI isn't an `entitlement` within the framework of how both you and I use it. But the terminology confusion doesn't detract from the fact that America is going to collapse soon unless something dramatic shifts which it appears you agree. There's so much divisiveness that's been flamed by the Obama administration and absent leadership when he full well knows the magnitude of the financial problem. I suspect it's what `Hope & Change` was actually about - crippling the US economy.
Sleazy personal attacks.. ahem.....isn't that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?
Engaged Voter posted at 5:47 pm on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
"Sleazy personal attacks.. ahem.....isn't that a bit like the pot calling the kettle black?"
Not at all.
But feel free to find a comment of mine where I attacked another commenter (as opposed to RESPONDING TO) without provocation, or where I used a slur or made false claims about them. Good luck!
Calling someone a liar after catching them lying is NOT a personal attack, it is a factual claim. Keep that in mind. ;)
mnjcpa posted at 6:09 pm on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
There's a lot of fur flying in this column that is beyond ridiculous when in reality we all should work together as Americans to create solutions. chatman is just voicing his opinion in this column, just as you do. Need I remind you of the Chick fil A article that was pulled by the editors which was beyond gutter trash talk? You were one of the worst.
samkat posted at 6:54 pm on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
Accuracy said: "According to the Social Security Administration, Social Security disability benefits are paid out to people who have worked and paid payroll taxes, but find themselves unable to work due to disability. And "all people receiving disability benefits must have their medical conditions reviewed from time to time."
Accuracy, sad to say but I have a great niece who just got onto SSDI and collected a hefty back pay for supposedly having a learning disability. She applied at age 19 and after the appeal, they just approved it. She collected $13,000 in back pay and has never worked a day in her life. She didn't appreciate it when I told her she get her lazy *** out and get a job. Sadly, her mom is also on SSDI for having fried her brain on meth.
I would love to see a president who would actually separate the wheat from the chaff. I have no problem with folks who are actually disabled collecting SSDI but for the ones who can work but find ways to game the system, I would say hunger would provide a great motivation to look for a job.
Abstract01 posted at 11:48 pm on Mon, Sep 10, 2012.
I am sure getting confused about "who's on first?"
I agree with those who say that you should pay no more than the government requires. If I can legally retain more of my income, the government so blesses me. On the same note, I would (will) not give up any benefits to which I am legally entitled. This is not hypocrisy, but reality.
I believe that the tax structure is over-burdening, and that it should be simplified.
I also believe that the current rate of federal spending is going to bankrupt the federal government.
I predict that should that happen, these United States will become as partitioned as is Europe. Then you can really say good bye to all your benefits, earned and entitled.
Is that a good thing?
Centrist posted at 7:04 am on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
Mnj, while you attempt to argue cohesiveness, you forget that you and chatman don't just offer opinions but rather uninformed opinions which you all assert as fact. In so doing, you perpetuate the division. For example, just above you suggest the Obama administration intends to "cripple" the economy. You level this charge with NO evidence of same because it is so patently false. NO ONE is intent on crippling the economy. And please don't say your comment was anything other than that. What else were you possibly trying to say when you used quotes around hope and change and say it was all about crippling the economy. NO, you may disagree, with it's method, but it was intend to grow the economy and it did. All I ask of folks on this board is to stop being intellectually dishonest in your posts.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:16 am on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
Well, for the last 30 years the Republican Party has been the party of Borrow and Spend.
The only solution Republicans have for EVERY problem is MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH and cut spending ( on social programs never on that sacred cow - defense ).
That is and has been the Republican solution for EVERYTHING.
Seems as though they haven't changed their ways one iota in 30 years.
So, by Pattersons own reckoning, that means the Republican Party is very very short of moral fiber.
mnjcpa posted at 11:10 am on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
That's your opinion centrist and it isn't held by the majority of business owners I speak to which amounts to several thousand a year. Those are the people whose opinion I care about - not yours.
Centrist posted at 11:37 am on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
mnj,
You can't base an opinion on false facts. In fact, in some states that is unlawful. It is not enough for you to come on here and say, "well, let's all agree to disagree" when in truth, there is no evidence supporting your position. Give me one piece of evidence that demonstrates the Obama administration intended to cripple the economy. One piece of evidence of intent. One.
VofReason posted at 12:39 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
Who is this Tom Patterson? We all know that the Government spends every dime efficiently and everyone who gets "help" has no other way of earning money. All we need to do is raise taxes on rich people and all life will be good. Question, do you honestly think if you sent them back your SS check that they would pay off debt principle? That is rich.
VofReason posted at 12:41 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
For all of the avowed Atheists who comment here and persecute the believers, you sure have a lot of faith in something that has already failed you. Who his the bigger fool?
Centrist posted at 1:03 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
See, this is what I mean about people posting misleading statements and arguing them as if they were fact. YES, VofR, one can personally contribute to paying off the national debt. But, you are too busy believing your own hype that you don't research before you post:
The Bureau of the Public Debt may accept gifts donated to the United States Government to reduce debt held by the public. Acting for the Secretary of the Treasury, Public Debt may accept a gift of:
•Money, made only on the condition that it be used to reduce debt held by the public.
•An outstanding government obligation, made only on the condition that the obligation be retired and the redemption proceeds used to reduce debt held by the public.
•Other intangible personal property made only on the condition that the property is sold and the proceeds from the sale used to reduce the public debt.
Gifts to reduce debt held by the public may be inter vivos gifts or testamentary bequests.
The fiscal year to date information includes total gifts received for the months of October through September. For the years 1996 and 1997, monthly data is not available.
Read about how to make a contribution to reduce the debt.
Gift Contributions
Fiscal Year to Date
Totals
2012
$7,629,043.57
2011
$3,277,369.23
2010
$2,840,466.75
2009
3,063,057.05
2008
2,189,358.89
2007
2,624,862.42
2006
1,646,209.41
2005
1,455,541.65
2004
664,911.25
2003
1,277,423.40
2002
744,675.06
2001
1,645,082.28
2000
1,868,891.93
1999
1,457,510.59
1998
1,535,541.02
1997
955,897.15
1996
1,985,175.10
Gifts to Reduce Debt Held by the Public have been reported in the footnotes of the Monthly Statement of the Public Debt since February 1988. Visit the MSPD to view the debt historical information archives including fiscal year to date tables through and including 1987.
Centrist posted at 1:03 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
So, is that rich enough for you VofR.
mnjcpa posted at 2:09 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
I realize that the first amendment is a pesky document that liberals hate but threatening legal action just proves my point earlier that resolution to America’s problems won’t happen and the economy will default. That and battling it out with people in this column on whether someone is a hypocrite or not because they'll accept their ss checks that they paid fully for when the system is bankrupt to begin with are both vacuous arguments.
For starters, tax increases on businesses if Obama’s reelected will be 60% in January. What do you suppose that will do to unemployment? The capital markets for small and mid-size businesses are already down 60% (all provable from banking investment journals) since he took office and everything I read shows no reason that this will improve soon. The Wall Street Journal just reported today that unless a budget to reduce the debt is put in place by January, that our credit rating will be downgraded again. Obama hasn’t produced one since in office which no business could keep afloat with that type of sloppy leadership. This alone should get him fired.
If you really believe that the methods Obama administration employed would or is growing the economy, you’re living in dreamland. Either that or your work is one that greatly benefits from bigger government. The thousands of business owners I speak with every year would emphatically disagree with you, but you're bullying techniques centrist really make for a great laugh.
mnjcpa posted at 2:18 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
Better watch out VofReason - you may get sued for expressing your opinion!
Centrist posted at 3:45 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
Here we go again. MNJ you really should not bring a knife to a gun fight.
1) What 1st amendment protection do you think is afforded to opinions premised on false facts. Oh...wait...you didn't go to law school and don't have 17 years litigation experience. I do. Let me answer that for you,...None. Sorry you don't understand the 1st amendment. Do some research and then let's talk.
2) Did I threaten legal action. NO. I merely referenced what is unlawful. That is like saying, "driving over 55 is unlawfl." That is not a threat of legal action but merely a statement of a legal conclusion. But, then again, I know how you like to blur the lines MNJ. Boy, if only the attorneys I went up against were as easy to deflate as you.
3) So, now you admit accepting ss benefits is a good thing because you "paid fully for it". Interesting.
4) 60% tax increase on businesses in January. Cite your source. God help us if it is FOX.
5) The dow jones was 9,034 on January 2, 2009 and is 13,323 today. So how, EXACTLY, are the capital markets down 60%"since he took office." Explain please.
6) Obama has not proposed a budget???? Are you insane. Here is the link. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview
7) Your suggestion that to believe in Obama's version of our economy one is either living in a dreamland or working in a position that benefits from bigger government is a false choice. Why can someone like Van Duzen who owns a pizza store (ie not benefiting from big government) get it and you refuse to? Growing the economy from the middle out creates a demand for goods and services that the businesses can then supply. Remember, I have an economics degree from Duke!!! Knife - Gun, Gun - Knife.
8) Here we go again with your highly scientific study involving the "thousands of business owners you speak to each year". Can I have your client list? Seems a little long...Ok, even if it is not long, do you really think I don't have a business owner to go back-and-forth with your list? Let's try morescientific reporting. Let's look at job growth numbers under democratic presidents and compare it to republicans. Do you want to start that research. Go ahead. I'll wait....
9) I have never threatened to sue VofR so your comment is out of place. But wait, you are the adult in this conversation. Right!!!!!!!
MNJ, just admit that you are using uninformed talking points and we will all be the better for it.
mnjcpa posted at 3:56 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
Too funny. You've made my day.
Arizona Willie posted at 4:16 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
Good job, Centrist. You've got mnjcpa virtually speechless. He can only reply with na na na na na.
Centrist posted at 4:19 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
Excellent. I aim to please.
mnjcpa posted at 4:25 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
At the lowest rate, a 15% cap gain tax is going up to 20% and when you tack on 3.8% TAX that's buried inside of Obamacare as investment income tax bringing it to 23.8%. Moving from 15 to 23.8% is a 60% increase. Try the internal revenue code for a source document.
RMA & Pepperdine Univ. produce data for banks that communicate how far business equity has dropped during the Obama administration.
The stock market is a house of cards that will fall with the economy when it implodes.
Never said I would keep my ss check. I was pointing out what a stupid discussion it was when the system is bankrupt to begin with.
Won't even go there with you on the economy because we live in different worlds.
We all know how smart and well educated you are - you've let everyone know that many times. Need to be the smartest guy in the column? It's yours!
Bye!
Centrist posted at 4:50 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
I am glad we can agree that my level of education is higher than yours and that your world is dank, fact-challenged and distrubing, but I do think you are being intellectually dishonest in the other areas of your argument.
Let's start with the "I don't have to face my hypocrisy because I'll just claim the system is broke and that way I avoid the whole argument." Then, we will move right into how you are supposedly a "free market capitalist" who now (when it is convenient for your argument) does not believe in the stock market or its principles. Finally, we will burst right through your suggestion that an increase in the capital gains tax is a tax on businesses (hey, fella, not sure you realize it but a capital gain tax is a tax on the profit made after the sale of equities, it is not a tax on business income). Please don't try to get everyone in this column to believe your misleading statement that "the poor little old businesses will pay the price." Those "little-old" businesses will have to be large enough to be experiencing meaningful "capital gains". By the way, which should be taxed at a higher rate, "Wages earned by work-a-day-labor" or "Wages earned by money sitting in an investment." Which do you value more? Shouldn't the guy who went out and did an honest day's worth of labor get treated equal to or better than the passive investor? What has the passive investor added to the mix?
I bet I just blew your mind...
But, hey, this is all "too funny" to you.
detroitjames posted at 5:10 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
I'm disappointed with your "writing" ability.
mnjcpa posted at 5:19 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
Yeah just showed your comments to a few of the lawyers that work with us. They seem to think I got under your skin a bit and replied he's just a typical arrogant lefty who has personal benefits in the deal. Nothing new there. Georgetown law, but hey they couldn't possibly match your intellect.
And to my point, that ss/medicare will implode because there are too many really smart people just like yourself unwilling to see another point of view. Your arrogance blinds you.
Centrist posted at 6:09 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
Right, so I showed your comments to other CPAs who said,"yep, he is just misinformed and makes us look bad.". By the way, if I am arrogant, that is not typical of the left. Rather that is typical of the right. How does that saying go..."It takes a lot of brass...". And to your point, "you are not a psychic are you? Wait, are you?"
And, stop with your fake "sign offs". You know you are going to respond, you can't help yourself.
mnjcpa posted at 6:42 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
It's kind of like watching an accident - you just can't take your eye off of the train wreck no matter how hard you try.
Centrist posted at 6:51 pm on Tue, Sep 11, 2012.
There it is!
Engaged Voter posted at 12:23 pm on Wed, Sep 12, 2012.
Train wreck, indeed.
Now to see if mnjcpa can pull himself out of it, or pulls a "mrconservative" and only replies with false claims, lies, and insults.
Time will tell...
Engaged Voter posted at 12:26 pm on Wed, Sep 12, 2012.
"All I ask of folks on this board is to stop being intellectually dishonest in your posts."
Good luck with that...I've been asking for months!