Jump to content
Here are four more questions: How much debt has Obama added to the national debt? Answer is $5.5 trillion.
How many jobs has Obama added?
Answer is 5.5 million.
How much did each job add in new debt?
Answer is one million dollars per job.
What percentage of voters are really concerned about all the new national debt and the fact that it takes one million in new debt just to create one job?
Answer, maybe 2%, the rest by their actions, feel the U.S. can borrow huge amounts of money, literally forever.
I guess this editorial may have something to do with Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand saw her father lose everything to Communism. Her father built a business, and the communist government took it from him. Just basically, she said that government will grow and grow, and at some point the government will end up being the majority of the economy, which obviously would bring down the country because at the same time government is growing the private sector is shrinking, and once the private sector gets so small, who is going to pay taxes. Her belief was that government does not create jobs, the private sector does. Furthermore, she said, that at some point, entrepreneurs, including small business owners, would go on strike, why, because they would end up paying so much in taxes that it would not be worthwhile to continue to grow the business. She said everyone should be responsible for themselves, and yes, if you had money, you could give it away if you wanted to, but the choice would be yours and not the government's. In the U.S. government spending during the Great Depression was 3% of the economy, now it is 44%. If Ayn Rand is correct, once government spending pushes through 50%, government will have to tax to death. The fact is that, Rand like many other Americans, did not see that what government would do is to not tax, but borrow. With the rich paying 14% effective tax and the low income paying nothing in taxes one can hardly argue that we pay a lot in taxes. What we do is borrow a lot. However, it does look like there may be higher taxes down the road. Why did sales of Rand's book, "Atlas Shrugged" go up after 2008, because some Americans started seeing Rand's point: government growing bigger than the private sector could support, higher and higher taxes coming, the benefit of running your own business going down because of no profits due to too many taxes, and with business shrinking, jobs would shrink, tax revenue would actually decline, and the country goes to hell. Moreover, with no tax revenue, there are no government checks going out to help the needy, and they are all left with no one to take care of them. It looks like Rand may be right on, except she did not see the problem with the debt, and the problem with the debt will only make it much worse in the U.S. than even Rand forsaw. As far as this editorial's title, "Those who care and those who don't." Americans will learn here in the next few years that the government does not care about you, and if you are someone who depends on the government I say good luck. The government is only as good as the taxpayers, with no taxpayers, and no more credit, the U.S. government is not going to be able to help anybody. America's strength was entrepreneurship, investment, savings, hard work, and education, but no more, America today is about electing politicians who love giving away free money, which won't last very much longer.
Obama, like most politicians, has spent the last four years paying everyone back who voted for him, which is why he will be reelected. Furthermore, the House will stay Repubician and the Senate will stay Demorcrat. This is suppose to be the most important election of my time, but it looks like nothing is going to change. Miss Bardsley will be very busy writing for four more years and that's a good thing, everyone should be very worried about what's going on in this country even if you have what you feel is a worry free pension. Pensions may not continue much longer with all of this debt. Obama should add at least another 7-8 trillion after Americans give him another four years.
I'm going to look at R74 from a completely different point of view than what I have seen in the public and media. In the last 50 years the percentage of adults who are married has dropped from 70% to 50%. Meaning, marriage has not gotten more popular, but less popular. You may have an opinion why. I think it is because we are about the individual and not the state, city, or family, it is all about me. Tons of compromising is necessary in a marriage. Also, over half of those who get married will get a divorce, and that does not mean that the other half who stay married are happy. If R74 passes, with all the B.S. about all the good things that come from marriage, you may want to flip the coin over, even if just for a millisecond, and ask yourself are you ready for a commitment as serious as marriage, and is your partner. Yes, there are benefits in being married, but if it does not work out, and half the time it gets so bad that the couple divorces, you may actually wished that R74 had not passed. My point, which I'm sure many will take out of context, is not that R74 should or shouldn't pass, but that if it does, you should seriously think not only about the good things that can come from marriage that are touted by the proponents of R74, but the bad as well. There are literally millions of Americans who have gone through divorces, many have gone through them multiple times, and some of them wished they had not gotten married in the first place. Last tidbit, if you do get married instead of just being a couple, and you decide it is not working out and you decide on divorce, and there are children, money, homes, cars, pensions, and retirement accounts involved, and you and your partner cannot completely agree on how everything gets broken up, someone else who you don't even personally know will make the final decision for you, it's the law. Neither side of R74 seems it's important to point out that when you earn the right to get married, you will also earn the right to get a divorce.
I've got to throw this tid-bit of info out there since it does pertain to the debt. Today, President Obama told you that he has created 5.5 million jobs since he became president. And he's proud of it. When Obama took over in January 2009, the debt was $10.7 trillion, it is now $16.2 trillion. I know how everyone hates math, so I'll do the math for you: $5.5 trillion in new debt to create 5.5 million new jobs. That equals one million dollars (a trillion is a million, million) of new debt per new job. And unfortunately, this is not Saturday Night Live, to be proud of creating a new job in America for every one million dollars in new debt is beyond crazy. That poor guy who got the job, even if it is $50k a year, if he took every dollar he made from his new Obama Job, it would take him 20 years to pay the money back. And the sad fact, the guy who got the job doesn't care because he knows someone else has to pay the debt back, not him. For all you disbelievers, this clearly shows how inefficient government is, and the government is Republicans and Democrats. Only the government could get away with creating a job at a cost of one million dollars.
On January 29, 2002, 10 years ago, the U-B editorial board published an editorial titled, "Debt reduction must become national priority." At that time the national debt was about $6 trillion, now it is $16.2 trillion. In the mid Eighties Gramm-Rudman tried to get a balanced budget act passed, but failed and that was when the national debt was about $1.5 trillion. From small town newspapers to powerful politicians, from the mid Eighties to the present, this country has been keenly aware of the debt problem. However, the only thing that the media, the politicians, and Americans have done to address the issue is to continue to kick the can down the road. The can has gotten much bigger and the distance they kick the can gets less and less. As an example, in August of 2011, they raised the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, they are already reaching the new limit. But, don't worry there is a solution. Really. After 40 years of an aging population, becoming a debtor nation instead of a creditor nation, becoming a net importer verses a net exporter, creating fewer and fewer decent paying jobs, where healthcare costs have skyrocketed, where the rich pay an effective tax of 14% and the low income pay no income tax at all, there is a solution. Really. And the solution is what exactly? Of course raise the debt ceiling again. I can't help, but think all this talk about our debt are just skits from Saturday Night Live. I completely disagree with the 99% who believe there is a solution, there is no solution. When growing up in WW in the 50s and 60s I was bombarded with remarks about being fiscally responsible from parents and teachers: cash on the barrel, money doesn't grow on trees, there is no free lunch, don't be a deadbeat, and on and on. These people went through the Great Depression, and warned young boomers about it. Boomers refused to listen. Time will tell, can the vast majority of Americans live a prosperous life by simply voting in politicians who love borrowing and giving away free money? Or is America's prosperity dependent on hard work, individual responsibility, education, saving, and investment? Currently, there is a huge debate going on between the few, who believe that no you cannot borrow your way to prosperity, and the many, who feel you can. In the next few years the debate will finally be over and everyone of us will be able to answer that question with great ease.
Just one tid-bit, Obama is not black. I'm not even a woman, and I know that Obama's mother who is white did contribute to his DNA. Obama is half black and half white. My common sense tells me that just because the media calls Obama black, I shouldn't, why not, because he isn't.
Here's something you should not need to "fact check," because you could have heard it right from Obama's mouth in 2008. He told Joe the plumber, that he would raise taxes on people making more that $250,000. In 2009 and 2010 Obama was President and he had a Democratic House and Senate, but he lied, he did not raise taxes on the rich like he said. However, Obama did borrow $6 trillion dollars, like all politicians, and redistribute the money to the people he liked. To truth is Obama leans toward socialism, but bank profits are greater now than under Bush, and the rich still have low effective tax rates. Furthermore, the divide between rich and poor has gotten bigger under Obama. Even with a far-left President, the rich have managed to get richer and the elites more powerful. It looks like the wealthy and the elites get what they want no matter who is in the White House, and with all the bickering back and forth between the Liberals and the Conservatives, it gives everyone the illusion of choice when they go to the polls. But, the end results is always the same: the rich get richer and the elites more powerful.
The part in this editorial that really matters is the $6 trillion in new debt. Rather you support the Left or Right, how much brains does it take to spend $6 trillion like Obama has? Yes, if Obama would have have put into place policies that would grow businesses and create wealth producing jobs, and the people who ran those businesses, and worked at those businesses, spent the money, great. But, that is clearly not what happened. Obama borrowed the money and literally gave away the money to the people and businesses he liked the most (which is why he will win the election). When Obama took office in Jan of 2009, the national debt per the U.S. Treasury's website was $10.6 trillion, right now it is $16.2 trillion. The children, who we claim to care so much about, are going to have to pay back that $16 trillion in some way or another. And how are they going to pay it back with no decent jobs? Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Republicans will do, if they are elected, borrow and spend. Just as an example. When Reagan took office in Jan of 1981 the national debt was $1 trillion, when he left office 8 years latter it was $2.5 trillion, Reagan and Congress grew the economy, but they borrowed $1.5 trillion to do it, and that was 30 years ago. The only thing the politicians know how to do is to borrow and spend. And if you look at the history of the national debt in this country in the last 40 years, you can't help, but see it. You are all hoping that this debt will never have to be paid back, but unfortunately, at some point, it will be paid back like with all debt, either by hard work or bankruptcy. And it looks like bankruptcy is the track we are on and have been for a very long time.
First, just a little history lesson. Did you know that in the 18th and 19th centuries that almost every American coin minted had "Miss Liberty" on one side of the coin? However, in the last 70 years, virtually every coin has had a person's image on it instead of Miss Liberty. Meaning, those who want less personal freedom, and more government control are clearly winning. The government is now 44% of the GDP. Once it crosses 50%, would mean that there will be an equal amount of government workers and private sector workers, which is unsustainable once the credit dries up. I would ask Mr. Westneat one question, like I said he is winning, he is getting more and more government control, but Mr. Westneat, what happens when America's credit dries up? We have borrowed over $6 trillion in just the last 4 years? What happens to all the people who are insured by the government, who receive a monthly government check, or work for the government? What happens when the U.S. can no longer borrow any more money? What do you suggest we do with all those people? Tax the rich? I don't know how old you are, but maybe you remember the song, "I'd Love to Change the World" from back in the Seventies? A line from the song went like this, "Tax the Rich, feed the poor, till there are no rich no more." Well, it's been 40 years and the rich have not been taxed more yet, in fact, just the opposite, the rich are even richer. Forbes 400 says that the richest 400 Americans are worth $1.7 trillion, even if we took every nickel from them, even if we ignored what that would do to the stock market and economy, the government would burn through the $1.7 trillion in 5 months. What would you suggest we do with the 56 million Americans on Social Security or disability then, what would you suggest we do with the 45 million on food stamps, those receiving vet benefits, those on welfare, those on Medicare and Medicaid? I look forward reading about your realistic plan, or is your plan, to vote for either a Republican or Democrat, the same ones we have been electing for the last 50 years? The same ones who got us into this mess to begin with.
Last login: Wednesday, February 13, 2013
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.