Friday, August 17, 2012

What Progressives Have Wrought for the Economy

It has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words.  With that in mind, I thought I would share a few pictures, charts, and graphs that illustrate perfectly what a disastrous job President Obama and the progressives in congress have done with their "help" of our economy.   















With all of this highly relevant data, it seems fairly  obvious that re-electing Obama and the Democrats is not the solution to our economic problems.  And it doesn't take anywhere near a thousand words to come up with that painfully apparent conclusion.

25 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

And they have managed to the all that with the lowest spending growth in decades.. Amazing!

John Myste said...

Jerry,

Are you suggesting that there is a correlation between reduced government spending and a slowing economy? If you are, I am sure T. Paine would like to thank you, as I think he missed this correlation. I do see it, though. Spend! Spend! Spend!

T. Paine said...

Jerry, thanks for stopping by and commeting.

Unfortunately, you have been duped, sir. Nutting's "analysis" was little more than a sleight of hand playing with the numbers. Just like nearly all Americans gut instinct tells them, his math was wrong and Obama's spending is completely out of control. In fact, his level of spending growth is worse that any non-war president as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/obama_i_am_not_an_overspender.html

Like the post says, the liberal media can try and help Obama as much as possible, but in the end, people know that the sun does not set in the east.

Mr. Myste, must we have this discussion again. Keynsian pump-priming only pro-longs recessions and is harmful to the long term health of the economy. History bears this out every time, including this current recession that Obama has prolonged with foolish un-constitutional spending.

John Myste said...

Keynsian pump-priming only pro-longs recessions and is harmful to the long term health of the economy. History bears this out every time, including this current recession that Obama has prolonged with foolish un-constitutional spending.

Bu...bu... but, Burr Deming has repeatedly said things like this:

Austerity only pro-longs recessions and is harmful to the long term health of the economy. History bears this out every time, including this current recession that Obama has prolonged with foolish un-constitutional spending.

Why should I choose your faith over his?

T. Paine said...

John, that is a fair question, even if I have my doubts about your sincerity in asking it, sir. If you look at history, every time a recession hits and government spending is increased, the recession is prolonged. When federal spending is reduced, the economy rebounds. History throughout the 20th century proves this. Look at the “forgotten depression” in the early 20th century. Harding and Coolidge cut spending drastically. We ushered in the roaring twenties accordingly. Hoover and FDR came along and started spending a butt-load and created and prolonged the Great Depression respectively. Such holds true even into the 90’s. George H.W. Bush was experiencing a mild recession at the end of his term. Clinton cut spending and the economy boomed. George W. Bush had the unfortunate incident of 9/11 occurring but still decided to spend huge amounts of money that wasn’t necessary after that. Obama came in and doubled down on that spending and has thus pro-longed the poor economic performance of our nation. Facts are stubborn things, regardless of our friend Mr. Deming’s faith to the contrary.

Dave Dubya said...

It's reassuring to see the Bush Recession was caused by progressives.

Worried about drilling permits?

The oil and gas industry has nearly 7,200 permits to drill on public lands that it has yet to use, according to Bureau of Land Management data.

John Myste said...

When federal spending is reduced, the economy rebounds. History throughout the 20th century proves this.

Bu.. bu...bu... WWII was very expensive and the economy rebounded when we started all that spending.

T. Paine said...

Dubya, as I have argued all along, Bush was nothing more than an old school Democrat. He was the modern embodiment of JFK, except Bush was probably more inclined to spend money. In other words, many of Bush’s proclivities were indeed progressive. That is why many true conservatives and libertarians were not happy with his growth of government and entitlement spending.

Obama rightly criticized Bush’s spending when he was a candidate. Too bad Obama wasn’t serious about it and proved what a joke his criticisms were, since he doubled the spending under his sad stewardship for these last four years.

T. Paine said...

Yes John. WWII was very expensive and the economy did indeed rebound after that spending because all of those previous unemployed men were sent to fight. Do you propose that we start WWIII and once again have the far better part of a half a million American’s killed to get us out of this economy? We lost 2.5% of the world’s population with that war. Somehow I don’t think that is a solution we should encourage. Other jobs programs funded by the tax payers like FDR’s TVA project etc. did very little to stem the blood flow of the economy. Despite FDR’s gargantuan spending, it did not bring us out of the Great Depression. It took WWII to do that . Now, borrowing the trillions more we would need to put everyone to work on “created” government jobs would eventually catch up to us again. After all, somebody eventually has to pay that money. If there are more people working for the government than there are taxpayers available to pay their wages, how does that end up working?

Dave Dubya said...

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe the Bush crash of '08 and the devastated economy is all the fault of progressives?

How can the Pelosi House dominate a Bush White House, but the poor Republican House is helpless with Obama?

Do you blame Obama for the wreckage he inherited, and expect him to fix what took Republican leadership years to mangle? All to be accomplished over the obstrucion by Republicans more interested in Obama's failure than the nation's recovery?

Instead of trying to tie the progressive label on Bush, you could perhaps be more honest and say the irresponsible members of both parties are to blame.

Bush gave huge cut tax cuts to the rich, giveaways to pharma in Medicare, and ran up the debt for wars. He exploded the debt with these corporatist actions. This is not progressivism. He also wanted to privatize social security, along with a long list of very un-progresive ideas.

Bush, sir, was no progressive. I am. I know the difference.

Your attempt to scapegoat progressives is a disappointing disregard for the facts.

Dave Dubya said...

In case it's news to you, Republicans left FDR the Great Depression and the worst unemployment levels ever.

FDR reversed that damage. Obama will not be allowed to implement any policy that improves things.

Why? Well, we all know why.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm

FDR Unemployment rates (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

1933 - 24.9%

1934 – 21.7%

1935- 20.1%

1936 – 17%

1937 - 14.3%

T. Paine said...

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe the Bush crash of '08 and the devastated economy is all the fault of progressives?

Yes I do, because it is factual.

Do you blame Obama for the wreckage he inherited, and expect him to fix what took Republican leadership years to mangle? All to be accomplished over the obstrucion by Republicans more interested in Obama's failure than the nation's recovery?

I don’t blame Obama for the mess he inherited. I acknowledge that things were not good. That said, Obama had a Democrat House and Senate during his first two years in office and not only continued the asinine Bush spending, but he doubled down on it. He grew the size of the government even more, despite his criticism of Bush for having done so. In fact Obama called Bush unpatriotic for saddling our children and grandchildren with such irresponsible debt. Obviously Obama lied, because he continued many of the exact same egregious Bush-era policies and spending.

Instead of trying to tie the progressive label on Bush, you could perhaps be more honest and say the irresponsible members of both parties are to blame.

You are right Dave. The irresponsible members of both parties are indeed to blame. The problem for you is that those members from both parties are still progressives in their underlying ideology, regardless of their party affiliation, sir.

Bush gave huge cut tax cuts to the rich, giveaways to pharma in Medicare, and ran up the debt for wars. He exploded the debt with these corporatist actions. This is not progressivism. He also wanted to privatize social security, along with a long list of very un-progresive ideas.

Bush also gave tax cuts to the poor and middle class. Obama gave huge giveaways to any number of his cronies and campaign contributors, particularly in the “green energy” fields. Obama further exploded the debt with his Marxist actions by having the government take over private companies like certain banks, GM, and Chrysler. He then gave the majority of the assets of the car companies to his political allies in the UAW instead of to the bond-holders where the money was supposed to go first. That is progressivism in line with its ugly socialist/Marxist history. What Obama did is the same thing done by Lenin, just not on as grand of a scale… yet. You are right that Bush did want to privatize social security in order to save it. That is the only good example you have given me thus far of where Bush doesn’t fit the progressive mold, sir.

Bush, sir, was no progressive. I am. I know the difference. Your attempt to scapegoat progressives is a disappointing disregard for the facts.

I am not trying to scapegoat anyone. I am simply making factual observations. More Keynesian spending will not fix our economy. It will be the catalyst for the collapse of the United States and then the world’s economy, if it is not stopped. Again, trying to spend your way out of such a deep recession makes about as much sense as trying to drink yourself into sobriety.

T. Paine said...

I fully acknowledge that Hoover was an idiot and made a mess of things with the Great Depression. FDR, like Obama, only held the course. He prolonged the misery with government spending which only improved certain aspects marginally. Harding and Coolidge, on the other hand, were very good stewards of the economy. The Forgotten Depression in 1920 was short lived, because Harding cut spending. This issued in the roaring 20’s. Hoover came along and spent with abandon and thus helped precipitate the Great Depression. FDR merely prolonged it by spending huge amounts of money on the TVA and other “jobs programs”. It took WWII to pull us out of it. If FDR had followed Harding’s example, the Great Depression would have been far shorter. See: http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2010/04/proper-way-to-handle-recession.html

John Myste said...

Yes John. WWII was very expensive and the economy did indeed rebound after that spending because all of those previous unemployed men were sent to fight.

So, let me see if I understand you. What solved the depression era economic woes was government jobs. I think you are saying that the U.S. government should stimulate the current economy by hiring people, as it did in WWII. Do you recommend we use that labor to repair our transit system or produce green energy production or for something else? I think your idea makes a lot of sense.

Despite FDR’s gargantuan spending, it did not bring us out of the Great Depression. It took WWII to do that .

Let me paraphrase for clarity: Despite FDR’s gargantuan spending, it did not bring us out of the Great Depression. It took even more spending to do that.

You sound like a liberal!

If there are more people working for the government than there are taxpayers available to pay their wages, how does that end up working?

You mean, how did that end up working, right?

The Forgotten Depression in 1920 was short lived, because Harding cut spending. This issued in the roaring 20’s.

So, it is your contention that the “roaring 20’s” was A. A good period in which to live and B. “Successful” only because of spending cuts. They did it, right? The profits of the 20s were the results of these cuts and not something else, right? The 20s was not characterized by virtually unregulated worker exploitation, exploitation of orphans and exploitation of blacks, right? It roared because of spending cuts, right, and it was a happy roar for all everyone? Through diligent research you have found this to be the cause for the 20’s roar, a roar you know the general populace found melodious, because there were some spending cuts and all, right?

You need not remember the boom in technology, cars, radios, electronics, and the stocks market! It was a new world. People borrowed rampantly, purchased stocks on margin, lived above their means. And then the stock market bubble, the thing propping the roaring 20’s up, burst (well, that and spending cuts propped them up. Let us not forget the spending cuts). As with all bubbles, when they burst, the economy bursts with them, and when this happened, the raped children could no longer produce. The funds were not there anymore. The blacks were not hard enough workers to keep things going, no matter how much they toiled in sweat. FDR had destroyed the economy, and once he got elected in a few years, everyone would know it was him. They were just biding their time, marinating in agony over their lost wealth, waiting for FDR to get elected four times, so he could be the cause of our destroyed economic world.

But finally, finally, finally, WWII fixed the problem. How again? Oh, by providing jobs and stimulating the economy with manufacturing, ala Keynes. It is so hard to sort all of this out. Stinking FDR!

Thanks for the history lesson, Mr. Paine.

Dave Dubya said...

Ah, TP.

I have to say you are dependable and consistent in your steadfast beliefs. You deserve a true believer award.

Since the Bush Administration initiated auto bailouts and TARP, that would make them more than mere progressives, they would have to be Marxists in your view. If your beliefs say he is progressive, then why not Marxist?

Fine. We get that. Your perspective at your end of the spectrum is pretty clear.

You have asserted as factual "the Bush crash of '08 and the devastated economy is all the fault of progressives".

But you see, that was an assertion of opinion, not fact. Your response above is filled with assertions, opinion, and beliefs. It's a thing of beauty in a way. Every belief necessary for the economic elites to take everthing.

You want to give them social security and Medicare? You want to give them power to seize government functions and dictate their own regulations and rule of law?

What if they decide they want police power? Contractors are already at paramilitary strength.

For more facts, though.

FDR had these unemployment numbers tell the tale:

1933 - 24.9%

1934 – 21.7%

1935- 20.1%

1936 – 17%

1937 - 14.3%

No wonder he got reelected. Big Money didn’t have most of the politicians in their pockets.

If Obama had FDR’s conviction and support he may well have helped send unemployment back down.

But Republicans learned that Obama must not be allowed to repeat that pattern. They vowed to insure his failure.

They have succeeded.

Now their job is to continue brainwashing Americans into thinking even MORE tax cuts for the rich will be good for everyone.

It didn’t work before, it isn’t working now, it won’t work next year, and it won’t work... ever.

Giving in to everything the economic elites demand is the path to neo-feudal servitude.

And this is fundamentally everything the Republican Party stands for. Enough Corpo-dems are there to keep the program going.

Now money is free speech. Big Money is Big Speech.

There’s your real bipartisan problem. Bought and paid for corporatocracy.

But what do I know? You cannot accept that I know anything really. You must reject what I just said, facts be damned.

After all, I’m just a crazy Marxist Progressive to you.

T. Paine said...

Mr. Myste, you have shown me the error of my ways, sir. Your logic is irrefutable. That said, I will concede defeat and reconsider Keynesian economics and progressivism in general.

In that vein, I think we should have the federal government hire millions to fix our interstates, highways, main thoroughfares, secondary roads, tertiary roads, dirt roads, and assorted goat paths and game trails.

I think the federal government should hire millions more, especially Democrat campaign-contributors just to remain in the spirit of how business is conducted with the current administration, to produce green energy. Obviously the only problem with Solyndra and all of the other now-defunct green energy companies is the fact that we simply did not employ enough people or throw enough tax payer dollars at the problem. This is something easily remedied.

Continuing, I think we should employ all of the poor to build their own tax-payer provided homes. We can make it like a Habitat-for-Humanity on steroids! Not only will this help the homeless, but it will give them a job! After their homes are built, then we taxpayers can pay them to maintain those houses, since they will be out of a job otherwise at that point.

I think millions more people can be hired to canvas these newly-built Habitat for Humanity neighborhoods, inner cities, and liberal suburbs and register the people there to vote. We could probably even fund ACORN to return and do this. I am sure they have learned their lesson and wouldn’t engage in illegal voter registration again. And besides, even if they did, that is a small thing compared to the millions of people the tax payers will be putting back to work.

Millions more of these people can be hired to open up and staff additional Planned Parenthood clinics. They can distribute condoms, birth control pills, IUD’s, and help people with their “choice” of aborting any parasitic tissue masses that happen to develop despite the use of birth control.

The remaining millions we can pay to be a rent-a-crowd for anytime President Obama gives a speech, fund-raiser, or even makes a great chip-in shot onto the green at whatever golf course he is playing that day.

Of course, all of these millions and millions of currently unemployed people that the government will be hiring will need to have a sustainable living wage and health care benefits. After all, that is now the law, and its constitutional just like abortion… so says John Roberts.

Yep, I am excited about the utopia we will build. As a matter of fact, I think I am going to quit my job just so I can be hired by the federal government just to be a part of it all. Thanks for setting me straight, John. I never knew how uplifting modern liberalism could be!

T. Paine said...

I have to say you are dependable and consistent in your steadfast beliefs. You deserve a true believer award.

Thanks Dave! Right back at ya, buddy! 

Since the Bush Administration initiated auto bailouts and TARP, that would make them more than mere progressives, they would have to be Marxists in your view. If your beliefs say he is progressive, then why not Marxist?

While there is some logic to your point, there is a difference, sir. TARP and the auto bailouts were indeed grossly inappropriate use of tax payer dollars and was very progressive. NATIONALIZING those private companies, firing their executives, telling them what cars they would now be making, and giving control of the assets to the unions instead of the bondholders like Obama did… well that, my friend, is Marxist. See the difference? It is a matter of only a few minor degrees, granted.

You want to give them social security and Medicare? You want to give them power to seize government functions and dictate their own regulations and rule of law?

No, I want them to fix social security and Medicare so that it will still be available when I retire. If left to the status quo, like the Democrats seem hell bent on doing, they will become defunct long before then. Seize government functions and dictate their own regulations and rule of law? Do you mean like Obama’s HHS mandate that violate mine and millions of other’s first amendment right to freedom of exercise of our faith? Instead, we are told that we must pay for health insurance that provides for birth control, abortifacients, and sterilizations in contrast with our faith. Is that the kind of example you mean? Because, I am strongly against anything like that. As a matter of fact, I am for the federal government doing ONLY what they are specifically authorized to do in the Constitution and no more. Every other power belongs to the states or the people, like that archaic and ignored document says.

No wonder he got reelected. Big Money didn’t have most of the politicians in their pockets.

Give me a break. FDR was a corrupt progressive too. Hell, he couldn’t get his way legislatively on some of his big progressive plans and thus wanted to pack the Supreme Court with additional liberal justices that would support his un-Constitutional actions. So much for defending the Constitution and maintaining the checks and balances on the hypothetically three co-equal branches of government.

If Obama had FDR’s conviction and support he may well have helped send unemployment back down.

Yes, I am sure if we threw a few more trillions of dollars at the problem, he would have been able to marginally improve unemployment just like FDR marginally did. In the end though, he would still have a lagging economy and high unemployment rate. Wouldn’t it be better to cut spending and let the power and innovation of the American entrepreneur be unleashed, thus creating real jobs and real economic strength?

But Republicans learned that Obama must not be allowed to repeat that pattern. They vowed to insure his failure.

Damn straight! It didn’t succeed for FDR and we don’t want to waste more than the nearly $6 trillion Obama has already spent simply to tinker around the edges with unemployment. If he is going to be stupid about it, why should we give him a blank check with which to do it?

T. Paine said...

Dubya: Now their job is to continue brainwashing Americans into thinking even MORE tax cuts for the rich will be good for everyone.

Paine: The class warfare stuff from you well-meaning folks is absolutely amazing. Nobody is advocating for more tax cuts for the rich.

Dubya: Giving in to everything the economic elites demand is the path to neo-feudal servitude.

Paine: Indeed. And that’s why I plan to continue fighting Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Kerry, Buffett, Soros etc. to ensure that those economic politburo types aren’t putting us into their idea of a Soviet utopia.

Dubya: But what do I know? You cannot accept that I know anything really. You must reject what I just said, facts be damned. After all, I’m just a crazy Marxist Progressive to you.

Paine: Dave, I think you are a very bright guy. Further, I think your intentions are very good. I simply think that you are only looking at part of the story though and choosing facts that bolster your preconceived progressive ideology. I don’t know if you are a Marxist though. If you support what Obama did to the banks and the car companies, than I guess you are a Marxist. I don’t use the term as a pejorative, but rather as an accurate descriptive term of what our President and his supporters have done. If you don’t like being labeled a Marxist, don’t do or support things that meet the definition of Marxism, my friend!

John Myste said...

Thanks for setting me straight, John.

It is a tedious job, but one I am happy to do.

T. Paine said...

I have to say, John, that my new-found progressivism is very liberating. I don't have to worry about the decay of the country anymore. I don't have to worry about the Constitution anymore. I don't have to worry about facts anymore. I just get to go with the flow, safe and secure in the knowledge that the government will take care of any little problem I may have. I really wish I would have become a liberal a long time ago. This is great! :)

John Myste said...

Both sides accuse the other side as a whole of ignoring facts and the Constitution and both sides are equally narrow-minded and brain-washed when they do it.

People having a different philosophical interpretation than you does not make them stupid or deluded, despite your faith to the contrary.

T. Paine said...

In all seriousness and with no sarcasm meant, both sides do indeed accuse the other of ignoring facts and the Constitution. Further, both sides are right about that often times. The difference is that the few people, either right or left, that still care about facts and the Constitution are a distinct minority subset of their larger philosophical parties. I don’t think someone that thinks differently than I do on political issues is necessarily stupid or deluded. Sometimes they are, just as sometimes there are knuckleheads that I agree with philosophically that tend to be stupid or deluded. I try to make it a point not to waste my time with those stupid or deluded people, regardless of party or ideology. That is one of the reasons why I do like to debate people such as yourself, Burr, Ryan etc. While I don’t always agree with the conclusions of you good people, I can follow the logic of your arguments and I have an understanding of the core axioms you all have in helping to guide and form those opinions. That does nothing to change the fact that you all are often wrong, but certainly not stupid or deluded. :)

Dave Dubya said...

So our “steadfast beliefs” are:

TP: Obama and the Democratic Party are Marxist and Bush was a progressive.

DD: Bush was an elite coddling Republican corporatist and Obama is a Democratic corporatist who invited insurance companies to the table for health care legislation.

TP: "the Bush crash of '08 and the devastated economy is all the fault of progressives".

DD: The market crash was a result of deregulation and corporate Wall Street’s reckless unaccountability.

TP: NATIONALIZING those private companies was Marxist.

DD: They were government funded bailouts. The government does not own an auto company. It does not own their contracted providers, nor does is it own the dealerships that sell cars. Not does the government dictate what they manufacture. That sir, is not Marxism.

The banks are the opposite of nationalized. They “own” congress.

TP: Federal Social Security and Medicare amount to Marxism and should be given over to corporate control. (To “fix” them)

DD: You want to give them power to seize government functions and dictate their own regulations and rule of law. (This you divert and dilute into your resentment for insurance provided birth control.)

Social Security and Medicare are constitutional public safety nets under the general welfare clause. Even libertarian guru Hayek supported safety nets.

TP:
Dubya: Now their job is to continue brainwashing Americans into thinking even MORE tax cuts for the rich will be good for everyone.

Paine: The class warfare stuff from you well-meaning folks is absolutely amazing. Nobody is advocating for more tax cuts for the rich.

Dubya: Giving in to everything the economic elites demand is the path to neo-feudal servitude.

Paine: Indeed. And that’s why I plan to continue fighting Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Kerry, Buffett, Soros etc. to ensure that those economic politburo types aren’t putting us into their idea of a Soviet utopia.


DD:
Yes, the truth should be perceived as class warfare. Guess who’s winning? Nobody is advocating for more tax cuts for the rich?


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/


Under Romney’s plan, the Tax Policy Center estimates that high-income earners would get the largest tax cut... Romney’s campaign has argued that his plan to cut tax rates would spur economic growth.


TP: Response to” Giving in to everything the economic elites demand is the path to neo-feudal servitude.”

(Irrelevant red baiting distraction continues with “politburo types” and “Soviet utopia”.)

DD point stands due to TP evasion.

Giving in to everything the economic elites demand is the path to neo-feudal servitude

You: “to marginally improve unemployment just like FDR”

Me: FDR restored jobs for 40% of the unemployed Americans.

This is your idea of “marginal”???

1933 - 24.9%

1934 – 21.7%

1935- 20.1%

1936 – 17%

1937 - 14.3%

If Obama had decreased the unemployment rate over 10% in four years we’d have no unemployment.

Yet that is “marginal”?

And Bush was “progressive”?

And Obama is a Marxist?

How can we accept your conclusions when we can’t take your meaning of words seriously?

T. Paine said...

TP: Obama and the Democratic Party are Marxist and Bush was a progressive.

Paine rebuttal: Yep, that pretty much sums it up!

DD: Bush was an elite coddling Republican corporatist and Obama is a Democratic corporatist who invited insurance companies to the table for health care legislation.

Paine rebuttal: No argument here on that either.

TP: "the Bush crash of '08 and the devastated economy is all the fault of progressives".

Paine rebuttal: You’re doing well so far, Dubya.

DD: The market crash was a result of deregulation and corporate Wall Street’s reckless unaccountability.

Paine rebuttal: While those were absolutely factors, they are by no means the only ones.

TP: NATIONALIZING those private companies was Marxist.

Paine rebuttal: That is absolutely correct.

DD: They were government funded bailouts. The government does not own an auto company. It does not own their contracted providers, nor does is it own the dealerships that sell cars. Not does the government dictate what they manufacture. That sir, is not Marxism.

Paine rebuttal: The government had no business bailing out anybody and choosing winners and losers. That is what the existing bankruptcy laws are for, Dubya. The government DOES own a huge portion of those car companies, paid for with our tax dollars. Further, the government told them which dealerships to close (typically ones that were not campaign contributors to Obama or were Republican owned.) Continuing, the government absolutely did tell which cars they can manufacture. Hummer, Pontiac, and Oldsmobile no longer exist as companies under GM accordingly. Replacing GM’s executives with a government appointed CEO that had no background in car manufacturing whatsoever and then told what all of the leadership were going to be paid were also signs of the problem. THAT is indeed Marxism, sir.

DD: The banks are the opposite of nationalized. They “own” congress.

Paine rebuttal: there is some truth to this, Dave.

T. Paine said...

TP: Federal Social Security and Medicare amount to Marxism and should be given over to corporate control. (To “fix” them)

Paine rebuttal: Now you have jumped the tracks. I never said this. Social Security and Medicare are promises that must be kept since so many Americans are dependent upon them. Maintaining the status quo, like the gutless Democrats want to do, will ensure their insolvency in short order. Revamping them to maintain their existence, whether through privatizing aspects of them or otherwise, is the responsible thing to do.

DD: You want to give them power to seize government functions and dictate their own regulations and rule of law. (This you divert and dilute into your resentment for insurance provided birth control.)

Paine rebuttal: I want the government to regulate interstate commerce, as per the Constitution, to ensure that worker rights are protected and monopolies are not formed. Many other laws and regulations that the federal government has passed are extra-constitutional, often unnecessary, and add huge inefficiencies and cost to businesses and thus to consumers.

DD: Social Security and Medicare are constitutional public safety nets under the general welfare clause. Even libertarian guru Hayek supported safety nets.

Paine rebuttal: Hayek is right once again on this issue. I have no problem with a safety net. What progressives have created is a safety hammock.

We are in desperate times and are drawing ever closer to economic collapse of our economy. Ask Greece what that is like. We cannot continue to spend money we do not have. Any improvements made by doing so thus far are minor and are simply prolonging our economic woes. We are ignoring the main problems of spending money on un-constitutional or extra-constitutional measures. Progressives are trying to provide goodies to their constituents in order to garner votes. Most Americans used to be self-sufficient. Progressives through their policies are trying to foster dependence in order to sustain and grow their power base voting bloc. The class warfare crap is the propaganda they use to further these means. Either we enact real solutions to the problems, and quit with the damned progressive politics, or the dollar will go the way of the Soviet Ruble. The fact that the left disbelieves this only goes to show how we got into this mess in the first place, sir.