". . . In the 2016 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump promised to eliminate the deficit (and all existing U.S. debt) in eight years. Instead, the budget deficit is two-thirds larger than the deficit he inherited, and his latest spending plan expects the shortfall to linger into 2035. And that’s only because the budget is built on a mountain of falsity — from an expectation that the economy will grow by 3% (which it hasn’t in the Trump era) and that Democratically held U.S. House of Representatives will accept a slew of damaging social safety net reductions, including cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, while substantially increasing spending on the military and a border wall. . . "
(from https://www.boldprogressives.org/ronald-reagan-in-1984-social-security-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-deficit/)
". . . Social Security, let’s lay it to rest once in for all…Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security trust fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing the budget or erasing or lowering the deficit. . . . "
There is a 'chain' email circulating (since about 2009) claiming that a 28th amendment to the Constitution, purported to be written by Warren Buffet, that could easily end the deficit. Some of the information contained therein is true. Some is false. And some is simply unverifiable.
But did you know . . .
Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution specifies two procedures for amendments. One method is for two-thirds of states legislatures to call for a constitutional convention at which new amendments may be proposed, subject to ratification by three-fourths of the states. The constitutional convention method allows for the Constitution to be amended by the actions of states alone and cuts Congress out of the equation — no Congressional vote or approval is required. However, not once in the history of the United States have the states ever called a convention for the purpose of proposing new constitutional amendments.
The other method for amending the Constitution (the one employed with every amendment so far proposed or enacted) requires that the proposed amendment be approved by both houses of Congress (i.e., the Senate and the House of Representatives) by a two-thirds majority in each, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states. It's probably safe to speculate that the odds that a supermajority of both houses of Congress would pass an amendment which placed such restrictions upon them are very low indeed.
(by Charlie Reese, a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper)
"Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!"
So congressional Republicans claim they will never allow taxes to increase for wealthy Americans. They claim that they will eliminate loopholes and leave tax cuts in place which will provide the additional revenue the country requires.
Conversely, President Barack Obama says that the amount of revenue that elimination of tax loopholes would generate, (while leaving tax cuts for the wealthy in place) is not nearly close to the amount of revenue required to tackle the budget deficit.
It seems to me that the 'leave-cuts-eliminate-loophole' strategy either WILL or WILL NOT generate the amount of revenue required. There is no OPINION involved. This is an empirical issue and can be proved or disproved.
Either Congressional Republicans or the Administration should take it upon themselves to prove or disprove (OBJECTIVELY & AUTHORITATIVELY) the effectiveness of the strategy. Or even better, if you can imagine, the news media could take it upon themselves to prove or disprove it (OBJECTIVELY & AUTHORITATIVELY) and actually provide a service to the general public for a change.
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
. . . the election is finally over. One estimate said the presidential campaigns costs a combined total of $2.5 billion. I don't know why people brush off billions whenever I ask about saving such sums as the campaign expense. I know the national deficit is in trillions but, as Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen said, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." The campaign expenses are particularly irksome to me because they are purely showbiz. Dispensing facts to the general public in print or online, for example, would be infinitely less expensive than the hateful and reality-challenged television ads the two major candidates ran. And though we are left with a president who exhibits some leaning toward integrity, albeit not fully realized when applicable to the U.S. (and world also, for that matter) citizenry, and not with one who not only ignores the needs of the preponderance of the planet's population but also lives in a fantasy, pre-scientific world landscaped with hundred-dollar bills (or are they thousands?) - I don't really think all our problems are solved. Which leads me back to Rocky (Anderson, that is): ". . . The government is shafting the people of this country. It doesn’t matter
which party is the majority, they’re all feeding at the same trough of
special interest money and we, the American people, are suffering from
it. We’re in the midst of a new Gilded Age, with a greater disparity
between income and wealth since the 1920s and the highest poverty rates
since 1965. It’s as if all the gains of the war on poverty have
disappeared. That along with our outrageous healthcare system, including
Obamacare, results in incredible suffering, including the loss of tens
if not hundreds of thousands of lives every year. . ."
So even though the election is over, there is still much work to be done.
What
do YOU think?
http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
You can NOW download
your
very own copy of Ray Jozwiak's
newest release:
AMBIENCE & WINE
. . . I'm not talking about the jury in the famous play and movie. I'm not talking about the twelve sons of Jacob or the followers of Jesus. Not 12 bad habits that hold good people back, not twelve good men and true. . .
No. I heard a politician on the radio this morning refer to the Congressional "'Super Committee' as twelve GOOD people who worked hard" to reduce the deficit. Almost FOUR months! And NO DEAL! COME ON!!!
Now the final insult from our public servants. No deal after all this time, fuss and their refusal to take the well being of their constituents seriously. And the same, one, big, clear point of disagreement remains - TAXES!!
And even the rich people that the Republicans refuse to tax WANT to take on the extra burden. (See the news last week.)
I URGE the "Occupy" groups to take on this one issue and I'll be specific about how I think it should be done. Here's your chance to show the world that you DO HAVE AN AGENDA. What better way to help the 99% than by removing the 1% from power. My suggestion. . .
Occupy Washington DC and recall the ENTIRE CONGRESS. WHO NEEDS THESE PEOPLE to continue pretending to serve us? We certainly don't.
What do YOU think? http://www.rayjozwiak.com/guestbook.html
Download your very own copy of ANOTHER SHOT by Ray Jozwiak
. . . each one seeking happiness . . . well, I ain't no Sinatra, but. . .
From Three Charts to Email to Your Right-Wing Brother-In-Law Monday 29 August 2011 by: Dave Johnson, Campaign for America's Future | Op-Ed http://www.truth-out.org/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law/1314626142
Couldn't reproduce the charts here (you can see them by copying-and-pasting the hyperlink above to your browser), but Dave Johnson advocates something in which I believe very strongly, FACTS!
The chart shows Bush increased spending 88%; Obama increased spending 7.2% and Johnson says says, "Government spending increased dramatically under Bush. It has not increased much under Obama. Note that this chart does not reflect any spending cuts resulting from deficit-cutting deals."
"Deficits Bush-Obama Deficit Chart Notes, this chart includes Clinton's last budget year ($128 billion surplus) for comparison." Bush, $1.4 trillion deficit. Obama, $1.2 trillion and headed downward.
"The Stimulus and Jobs Bush-Obama-Jobs-Chart In this chart, the RED lines on the left side -- the ones that keep doing DOWN -- show what happened to jobs under the policies of Bush and the Republicans. We were losing lots and lots of jobs every month, and it was getting worse and worse. The BLUE lines -- the ones that just go UP -- show what happened to jobs when the stimulus was in effect. We stopped losing jobs and started gaining jobs, and it was getting better and better. The leveling off on the right side of the chart shows what happened as the stimulus started to wind down: job creation leveled off at too low a level.
It looks a lot like the stimulus reversed what was going on before the stimulus. Conclusion: THE STIMULUS WORKED BUT WAS NOT ENOUGH!
More False Things These are just three of the false things that everyone "knows." Some others are (click through): Obama bailed out the banks, businesses will hire if they get tax cuts, health care reform cost $1 trillion, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme or is "going broke", government spending "takes money out of the economy."
Why This Matters These things really matter. We all want to fix the terrible problems the country has. But it is so important to know just what the problems are before you decide how to fix them. Otherwise the things you do to try to solve those problems might just make them worse. If you get tricked into thinking that Obama has made things worse and that we should go back to what we were doing before Obama -- tax cuts for the rich, giving giant corporations and Wall Street everything they want -- when those are the things that caused the problems in the first place, then we will be in real trouble."
Download your very own copy of ANOTHER SHOT by Ray Jozwiak
"Democratic Rep. Xavier Becerra of California said that he would "fight to take [Social Security] off the table" in budget negotiations, because it "hasn't contributed 1 cent to the deficit that we face today, nor 1 cent to any of the national debt, the $14.3 trillion." We take no position on whether Social Security should be cut, but it's wrong to say it's not contributing to the deficit.
Social Security benefits paid were more than payroll taxes in 2010, leading to a cash deficit of $49 billion. For 2011, the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees project a $46 billion deficit. And those figures don't include the billions more the government will have to borrow to cover that reduction in payroll taxes that was in last year's deal to extend the Bush tax cuts."
Did you see that LAST LINE, "And those figures don't include the billions more the government will have to borrow to cover that REDUCTION IN PAYROLL TAXES that was in last year's deal to EXTEND THE BUSH TAX CUTS."??
Meanwhile back at the ranch, "Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) will serve on the commission, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced. Reps. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) will represent House Republicans(in the Super Congress deficit commitee), said Speaker John Boehner. All six Republicans have signed a pledge to Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform that they will not vote to raise taxes." (reported by the Huffington Post)
So you tell me. . . exactly what, or should we ask WHO, IS THE PROBLEM HERE???!!!!
download your
very own copy of
ANOTHER SHOT
by Ray Jozwiak
. . . please bitchslap house speaker John Boehner and explain to him the theory behind the term 'balance'?
From Carla Fried The Daily Money July 6th. . . "When the Joe Biden-led negotiations broke down. . . it was reportedly due in part to the Republicans’ refusal to accept a deficit reduction plan that generated about 80 percent of savings through spending cuts and 20 percent through increased tax revenue. That’s 80-20, not 50-50.
if you tax capital gains at ordinary income tax rates, higher-income folks will probably think twice about realizing gains. But at a time when the rhetoric and politics are flying over how to deal with the deficit, it’s important to recognize that federal spending isn’t simply a function of what we appropriate to various programs. It’s also what is spent on all the tax breaks embedded in the tax code. Without raising income tax rates, trimming some tax expenditures is one more way we could address the deficit."
download your very own copy of ANOTHER SHOT by Ray Jozwiak
