Can We Afford Rick Scott for 4 Years?

[NotNow]

Thanks for the partial (but still long) response, StephenDare! 

I am assuming that your rant about failed policies means that you believe that the President's policies have been successful?  I find the claim about "saved jobs" especially amusing.  The hard facts are that unemployment is up quite a bit despite the President's promises.  I'll give him the credit for Wall St.'s return.  As I posted earlier, this year there were record profits and record bonuses on Wall St.  I also support the President's handling of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gitmo, despite some mixed messages.  I have found very little to support in the President's domestic and economic agenda.

I have never supported deficits, but I am a realist and I understand that world events will, at times, require emergency action by the Federal government.  I do not believe that any deficit since 2003 fits into that category.  That includes the second term of President Bush.  The current President has developed government borrowing into a new kind of art.  One and two trillion dollar annual deficits are unsustainable regardless of ideology or party.  The truth for all of us is that our economic system will crash if we attempt to sustain this.  Our national debt is now headed for $15 trillion and higher.  The President is proposing ending his first term with the nation almost $18 trillion dollars in debt.  President Obama has greatly accelerated the debt problem with huge deficits.  You can not deny this truth. 

What you call 'shenanigans" really constitutes legitimate political debate.  Not everyone agrees with you or the Democrats on the points you listed.  In congress, I would like all sides of an argument to be heard. 

I actually agree with you on much of what you say about technology and the future.  I disagree with your gloominess.  Technology has been changing the job market long before you and I came along.  Times change, and so do occupations.  Many working folks besides us blood sucking public employee union members are making a good living.  HVAC techs, plumbers, welders, and many other skilled labor occupations are doing fine. 

The biggest danger to the middle class is not the Republicans, but the ravaging of the value of the dollar by the entire Federal government, especially over the last two years.  Both parties are responsible.  Both will have to correct the problem or they must be replaced.

[Ralph W]

Armed with higher taxes and a congressional mandate to cut spending, the federal government headed into a new fiscal year today with the prospect of compiling its smallest deficit in three or perhaps four years.
   The budget deficit in the fiscal year which ended at midnight Sunday ran to about $25 billion by the administration's own estimate - the fourth largest in history.
   President Johnson gave the government its deficit cutting tools last Friday when he signed the 10 per cent income tax surcharge and accepted at the same time the $6 billion in spending cuts he didn't want.
   Americans will begin paying higher taxes in paychecks withholding after July 13.
   The tax boost and spending cut could drop the deficit for the new fiscal year to as low as $2.5 billion if present spending estimates remain unchanged, an unlikely prospect.
   The government last ran a deficit that low in fiscal 1965 at $1.1 billion. The red ink rose to $3.7 billion in 1966 and to $8.8 billion in the fiscal year which ended one year ago.
   The only official word from the administration is that the deficit in the new year should move to well below the $8 billion projected last January.
   Spending for the Vietnam was at about $27 billion caused the large deficit in the fiscal year just ended. War costs are now figured at about $28.4 billion in the new fiscal year.
   Only three World War II deficits were higher all totaled more than $50 billion, with the one in 1943 reading $57.4 billion.
   In the last fiscal year, total spending is expected to hit between $175 and $10 billion when all the figures are compiled in about three to four weeks. Revenue can be expected to total about $153 billion.
   Last January, Johnson figured spending in the new fiscal year at $186 billion but since the the cost of the war hiked another $2.6 billion and Congress ordered the $6 billion cut in non-war costs.
  The tax package signed last Friday - which also includes a speed-up in collection of corporate taxes and extension of the 10 per cent excise tax on telephone service and 7 per cent excise on automobiles - will increase tax collections this year by more than $15 billion.
   Fiscal 1968 just ended was the eighth straight deficit year. The last surplus came in 1960 at $213 million.
   When Johnson submitted his budget to Congress last January, he envisioned a $19.8 billion deficit in the year just ended and an $8 billion deficit in the new year.
   Because of the continuing deficits, the federal debt has jumped to about $350 billion.
Washington (AP) Monday, July 1, 1968

[mtraininjax]

There indeed are people who wish to abolish Social Security.  I had a professor at UNF who made a reasonable case for getting rid of this entitlement program.

Social Security came about from FDR, did it not? Then Johnson created the "war on poverty" and gave us Medicare. So we have to large elephants, given to us by "men of the people", both democrats. We live with their legacies, good or bad. Obama should continue the push by Clinton and Bush to privatize Social Security. There are pundits and supporters on both sides who would support privitization.

From the Fairbanks Daily Miner:

The federal government must get its debt under control. The interest payments on it will capture precious dollars needed for real work. The Government Accountability Office in November described how fast this will happen if nothing changes. Under an “optimistic” scenario, one that envisions a substantial net tax increase, by 2040 the federal government will have no money to pay for anything but Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt. Under a more realistic scenario, which still includes a hefty tax increase, the government can afford nothing but Social Security and debt payments in 2040.

The U.S. government was not created 224 years ago merely to run a pension system. It has a several other important functions. But without fundamental change, those functions will be driven into the ground.

[mtraininjax]

Nothing bleeding heart about it. FDR created SS, Johnson created Medicare, and they are destroying our economic growth. We borrow and borrow and borrow to pay for these cancers, and they are cancers on our economy.

Further, read the last paragraph from the Fairbanks Miner:

The U.S. government was not created 224 years ago merely to run a pension system.

To this I strongly agree.

I know there are many Americans who believe that the United States of America government was created so that it can support them. Generations of Americans have proven this, and sadly because of these programs, generations more will wallow in these programs.

[RiversideLoki]

I hope Rick Scott is paying attention to Wisconsin. He's in for the same deal if he ain't careful.

[Timkin]

Can you imagine what Social Security would be worth today if it hadn't been raided SO Many times in the past?

[jaxnative]

That is very true Timkin.  Our buddy LBJ made that possible.  Just like our famous Great Depression extender FDR, LBJ found a wonderful way to create a never ending voting block.  Unfortunately, when you run out of other peoples money, and the fiscal policies of the federal government are the major contributors to this and other economic downturs, all hell breaks loose and you have the boys and girls blaming everyone but those at fault. 

[Timkin]

As mentioned above, Social Security IS , in my opinion  IMPERATIVE to keep operational.  The elderly have worked and part of their compensation is what funded Social Security.  In effect, doing away with it is the same as / no better than STEALING from the folks who paid into this, present company included.  

I do not pretend to have answers ,but doing away with this vital program is just wrong to do to our elderly.  What are they ( especially those who have NO ONE to help them ) supposed to do then? Starve ? be homeless?  

No way in hell do I support SS being done away with .

[jaxnative]

Meh.  What a way to sidetrack facts and veer into another subjective tangent. 

[Timkin]

Then I will apologize for going so grossly off topic

[Timkin]

  I was mainly being a smart ass with that post , Stephen.  

[tufsu1]

I hope Rick Scott is paying attention to Wisconsin. He's in for the same deal if he ain't careful.

he even got booed at the most conservative of venues...the Daytona 500!

[Timkin]

So far his ideas and plans are seemingly dangerous... If there is a way to get him out of office, I think it needs to happen.

[mtraininjax]

I hope Rick Scott is paying attention to Wisconsin. He's in for the same deal if he ain't careful.

If the Democrats leave the state, I'll be happy to pack for them. Now that is democracy, just leave the state when things aren't going your way. Politics are so childish sometimes....great lessons for the kids of today, run away from your problems. 

[stjr]

If the Democrats leave the state, I'll be happy to pack for them. Now that is democracy, just leave the state when things aren't going your way. Politics are so childish sometimes....great lessons for the kids of today, run away from your problems. 

Democracy is when all points of view have at least a chance for consideration.  When one side stonewalls the other and abuses their majority, you can expect the opposite side to levarge extraordinary means to get attention.  Is this any different than a Republican threatening to filibuster the Senate when the Democrats are in charge?  Politics may be childish, but then again, the people the politicians represent are often childish as well.  Why should we not be surprised?  You can bet there is always one side to an issue proud of such "childish behavior" when it suits their purposes.