The Future Of American Affluence Isn’t What It Used To Be

400-social-security

For the Wilson Quarterly, Robert Samuelson writes that while America will inevitably recover from the Great Recession we’re currently mired in, that recovery isn’t likely to benefit America’s younger generations as the demands of government put greater and greater burden on their wealth:

For millions of younger Americans—say, those 40 and under—living better than their parents is a pipe dream. They won’t. The threat to their hopes does not arise from an impending collapse of technological gains of the sort epitomized by the creations of Fulton, Ford, and Gates. These advances will almost certainly continue, and per capita income—the average for all Americans and a conventional indicator of living standards—will climb. Statistically, American progress will resume. The Great Recession will be a bump, not a dead end.

The trouble is that many of these gains will bypass the young. The increases that might have fattened their paychecks will be siphoned off to satisfy other groups and other needs. Today’s young workers will have to finance Social Security and Medicare for a rapidly growing cohort of older Americans. Through higher premiums for employer-provided health insurance, they will subsidize care for others. Through higher taxes and fees, they will pay to repair aging infrastructure (roads, bridges, water systems) and to support squeezed public services, from schools to police. …

Americans in their late forties, fifties, and sixties believe that the contract made with them should be kept. They want their Social Security and Medicare benefits. They are angry when what they thought were career jobs are unexpectedly terminated; corporate buyouts and firings weren’t part of the bargain. Meanwhile, their children and grandchildren are befuddled and frustrated. Their unemployment rates are high, and their wage levels—compared to those of the past—are low. Yet they feel guilty advocating trims to Social Security and Medicare, even when the transfers go from the struggling young to the comfortable old.

For the time being, there seems to be little public appetite for reform to these government programs which represent such an enormous, and frankly unfair, transfer of wealth from young to old. That may change as some younger Americans who are increasingly aware of what a bad deal Social Security and Medicare really are grow up.

Certainly we’re going to see a test of where we’re at politically given that the Presidential race now includes Rep. Paul Ryan who is one of the few national political leaders given to straight talk on these issues. Criticizing Social Security and Medicare might not be the instant political death it once was, but the Romney campaign will be putting to the test whether or not Americans have an appetite for grown-up debate about entitlement spending.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • jack1

    But Rob, you’ve demonstrated over and over your hatred of working Americans, so this should be good news for you.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I’d respond if you were making a coherent point.

      • Jack1

        Well, you’re against collective bargaining and a living wage, right? Or have I misread you?

        Your nominee is even against the Equal Pay Act, so he must hate working people like you do.

        • robert108

          No, you’re trying to fit “working people”(we all work) into the Marxist box market “the proletariat”.
          Collective bargaining should be given to all Americans, or to no Americans, in the name of basic fairness. There is no such thing as a preset “living wage”, either.
          Try reality.

        • JustRuss

          Collective Bargaining should be reserved for private sector unions. Women generally make more than the same man in the same profession, but only when they choose to concentrate on their career rather than have children. There is no inequality in pay, in general women make less but trade off for time off and other benefits. You cannot simply compare base pay to base pay without looking at all the factors.

          “living wage” is complete BS, if you don’t have the skills needed to make a higher wage, you will just have to work multiple jobs or get the skills somewhere to be more marketable.

    • robert108

      Typical lying smear from a far left wing liberal.

    • yy4u2

      Jack, I forget the last name…was it ‘Emoff or Meoff? You haven’t a clue as it appears your learned disability has been pointed out by russ and robert.

      • Jack1

        You are so clever. I’ve never heard that one before. You must be one of the smarter teabaggers.

        • yy4u2

          Color me crazy, but I was just being childish to reflect your post and guess I was correct. Maybe it is true what your momma told ya and now you are blind…of the truth.

  • Albert Lickenspittle

    Dropping the tax rates on the rich from 90% to 13% has no effect on the economy. Whoops, I forgot it has a “good trickle down effect”. Is that why the middle class is broke and the rich have more than ever. Spin Rob Spin.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      But the middle class isn’t broke, as the article clearly notes. The middle class is recovering, and their wealth will grow. Unfortunately, their obligations to pay for government will grow even faster.

      • Jack1

        Actually, here in the real world middle-class buying power went dramatically down during the Bush years and has not recovered.

        Do you remember when Obama lowered your payroll taxes? Or when Reagan raised taxes 11 times? Probably not.

        • tony_o2

          I remember hearing about Obama’s payroll tax cuts, I had to look it up to see how it actually affected me. I can say that I’m not impressed. And unless the future President(s) has the cajones to address SS reform, the funding cut to this ponzi-scheme is just gonna make it’s way back to U.S. suckers.

          • Jack1

            Two things Tony:

            1. You clearly have no idea how SS works.
            2. How are massive tax cuts for Paris Hilton affecting you?

          • tony_o2

            1. I know that SS is a ponzi scheme that relies on current payments to pay current benefits. The temporary 2% cut means less money for current benefit payments. It also means that my total contributions will be slightly reduced therefore reducing my benefits (I’m young, so I’m not expecting them anyways). I also know that the current structure is not sustainable and someone needs to address reform.

            2. Unless Paris is reinforcing her mattress with cash, her money is being invested. I don’t know what her investment portfolio looks like, but I’m guessing that somewhere in there is a company that is providing jobs and paychecks.

          • Jack1

            1. Please look up the definition of “ponzi scheme” and then a definition of “social security.” You will learn that they are two different things. Not the same, different.

            2. Here in the real world, “trickle down” economics don’t work. Never have worked, never will. yet you want to double-down on a policy that has been proven, time and time again, to fail.

          • tony_o2

            “A fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little
            risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older
            investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the
            promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new
            investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new
            investments stop.”

            Aside from SS being legal, it is a ponzi scheme

        • robert108

          Those “payroll tax cuts” were actually redistributed from Social Security, so it was a shell game. President Reagan cut tax rates, but the greedy Dem Congress kept trying to jack them up, by making the false promise that they would cut spending; never happened.

        • donwalk

          “Reagan signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982 before the recession was even over and went on to sign 10 more major tax increases during his administration. By 1988 he had taken back half the 1981 tax cut. These tax increases were most enacted as part of budget deals that cut domestic discretionary spending. Compared to today’s Republicans, Reagan was a model of fiscal responsibility.”
          CUMULATIVE TAX INCREASE TOTAL: $132.7 BILLION
          CUMULATIVE TAX CUT TOTAL: $275.S BILLION
          EVEN WITH YOUR MATH ABILITIES, THAT CALCULATES OUT TO A TAX DECREASE!
          Some additional details: One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the Highway Revenue Act of 1982) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (“user fee” as the revenue went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Rconciliation Act of 1985). These are tax increases, but are not income tax increases.
          Bottom line is Tax Cuts exceeded the Tax Increases during his administration.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Donny, the real bottom line is Raygun raised taxes to get out of his recession.

          • robert108

            Not only did President Reagan cut tax rates to recover from the Carter recession, but JFK and President Bush did the same thing, with the same results.
            Keep pushing your propaganda, though, even though the facts prove you a liar.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Big 180 McCain voter and Willard fill flopper, take it up with Donny. He’s the one who posted:

            “Reagan signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in
            1982 before the recession was even over and went on to sign 10 more
            major tax increases during his administration.

          • robert108

            Liar: I’m always glad to smack your lies with the truth, as I have done countless times, especially your lies about President Reagan and his prosperous economy. Basic truth: taxes do not produce prosperity, except for govt greedheads like obama.
            The House(Democrat, in this case) originates the tax increases, and to get President Reagan to sign their tax increases, they lied in promising to cut spending $3 for every $1 tax increase, but they lied. Did I mention that they lied about the spending cuts to get President Reagan to sign THEIR tax increases?
            You lie about “major” tax increases, as they were incremental, under pressure by the Spendocrats to slow down the tremendous recovery brought about by the tax rate cuts(real economic stimulus). Even with the Democrat tax increases, tax rates remained significantly lower than they were under the Carter debacle, and remained there until Clinton made his retroactive tax hikes.

          • Jack1

            Robert, you can believe anything you want to but if you took a history class you’d flunk (well, maybe not at Liberty University, but anywhere else).

          • Jack1

            See bob, you’re simply 180 degrees wrong on the facts. Bush TRASHED the economy, at least here in the real world.

          • robert108

            Wrong again; history shows that President Reagan succeeded in getting us out of the Carter debacle, and President Bush rescued us from the Clinton debacle, until the Pelosi/Reid Congress and the CRA crashed the economy.

          • Jack1

            Clinton debacle? He turned Bush I’s $290 billion deficit into a $236 billion surplus!

            For the facts—which of course mean nothing to teabaggers—please visit http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

          • Jack1

            Dude, you’re trying to convince teabaggers with facts, which is a losing game. Facts mean nothing—it’s all about belief. They believe in Reagan’s Godhood. When you point out he raised taxes and gave amnesty to illegal aliens they just stick their fat fingers in their ears and go “la la la I can’t hear you!”

          • robert108

            Wrong again; President Reagan was deceived by the Democrat Congress, which lied about both cutting spending and that the amnesty would be a one-time thing. It’s actually their agenda.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            If I can save just one of their lost gops souls, the effort will have been worth it.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Insert something here about a mote, a beam and a glass house…

          • donwalk

            “Reagan signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982 before the recession was even over and went on to sign 10 more major tax increases during his administration. By 1988 he had taken back half the 1981 tax cut. These tax increases were most enacted as part of budget deals that cut domestic discretionary spending. Compared to today’s Republicans, Reagan was a model of fiscal responsibility.” CUMULATIVE TAX INCREASE TOTAL: $132.7 BILLION
            CUMULATIVE TAX CUT TOTAL: $275.S BILLION
            EVEN WITH YOUR MATH ABILITIES, THAT CALCULATES OUT TO A TAX DECREASE! Some additional details: One of the tax increases Reagan signed (the Highway Revenue Act of 1982) was a temporary increase in the federal gas tax from 4 to 9 cents. (“user fee” as the revenue went to roads and infrastructure.) Another was a cigarette tax (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Rconciliation Act of 1985). These are tax increases, but are not income tax increases. Bottom line is Tax Cuts exceeded the Tax Increases during his administration.

            Subject: [ndsayanything] Re: The Future Of American Affluence Isn’ t What It Used To Be

    • jl

      When the rates were 90%, were there no poor? Was every government agency still clamering for more money, as they do now? Spin Albert spin.

    • robert108

      First, your claim is a lie. If income tax rates were reduced to 13% for all Americans, the stimulus effect would be tremendous, but it would reveal the truth that we do much better without govt managing our lives and money.
      obama has transformed the “middle class”(an income grouping, not a specific group of people) to the proletariat through govt theft of our earnings.

    • tony_o2

      And raising taxes has a “good spreading effect”???…. The “rich” are
      still going to be “rich”, and the “poor” are going to actually be poor.

      If my employer’s (a small business owner, aka “rich”) taxes went from
      13% up to 90% (please provide the source of these numbers), the effect
      would cause a tsunami and not a ripple.

      He would have to lay off employees or reduce everyone down to minimum
      wage (which would be “fixed” therefore resulting in more layoffs). How
      does this help the middle-class(beside lowering the bar for
      classification)?

      He would not be able to afford the work trucks that we need to do our
      job. Last time I checked, trucks are the cash crop of the auto
      manufactures. If they can’t sell trucks, then how are they going to pay
      all those middle-class employees? Especially since their own taxes
      just went up.

      He would not be able to afford all the expensive tools he provides, and I
      would not be able to afford all the personal tools I need (due to my
      pay-cut). The manufacturers of these tools would see a decrease in
      sales, as well as an increase in taxes (because they were “rich”), and
      would have less money to pay their employees who make them. Thus
      reducing even more people to lower-class.

      I could go on and on about the “trickle everywhere” effect that higher
      taxes will have on businesses that pay people. The “rich” will still be
      “rich” (even though we lowered the standard for everyone) and the
      “poor” will still be “poor”.

      And while we waste our time and ruin our prosperity on the notion that
      everyone can have everything if we just take it away from those that
      have it, the rest of the world will surpass U.S. and make the rules.

      The Left does not believe in American Superiority and the notion that
      those who take initiative are entitled to the reward of their actions.
      We are supposed to believe that we are all entitled to rewards that are
      provided to us just for being.

      I am a citizen of a town in ND. I am entitled to any rewards earned by
      my neighbors. I am a citizen of ND. I am entitled to any rewards
      earned by fellow statesmen. I am a citizen of the U.S. I am entitled
      to any rewards earned by my nationals. I am a citizen of the Planet
      Earth, I am entitled to any rewards earned by my fellow human beings. I
      am a citizen of this planet, I am entitled to anything that exists in
      the universe (and if there is no such thing proven, I am a Star Child of
      the Galactic Federation…….)

      My last paragraph contained an obvious break from reality to
      foolishness. It’s sad that some people can’t identify it…..

      • Jack1

        Tony: Who the hell is trying to raise taxes on the 1% to 90? That’s just crazy talk. The smart thing to do is raise them slightly—from 34 to 39 percent—not 90.

        That was the tax rate under Clinton. Remember Clinton, the guy who gave Bush II a $260 billion surplus and a comprehensive plan to kill Bin Laden?

        No wonder you people are so confused.

        • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

          “That was the tax rate under Clinton” Can we go back to the spending limits under Clinton, too?

          • Jack1

            That is a reasonable conversation we can have, as soon as we get out of the Bush recession. Until then, we need to “prime the pump” like FDR did.

          • Onslaught1066

            “prime the pump” like FDR did.

            You mean War?

            With whom, pray tell

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Canada. We conquer them, we don’t need presidential approval to complete Keystone. (removes tongue from cheek)

          • $8194357

            I think they already did that on Southpark..

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I remember Jonah Goldberg did a piece he called “Bomb Canada”

          • Jack1

            Well, we are fighting a War on Terror. Ask Bin Laden who was tougher—Bush or Obama?

          • Onslaught1066

            Seal Team 6

            And this war is not working you say we are still in the “Bush” recession.

            So, who do we go to war with to end the recession?

            Or are you just a liar, ’cause I was counting on you for the answer.

            I mean you seem to be a relatively inteee…eee.eeel Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

            Sorry, I couldn’t say it with a straight face.

            You are one stupid kid, I’ll tell you.

          • robert108

            President Bush kicked AQ’s ass out of Iraq, and obama cut and ran away. obama is the coward here, and President Bush had to fight all the traitorous Democrats as well as AQ.

          • $8194357

            Bin Laden who was tougher?
            Seal Team 6

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “as soon as we get out of the Bush recession” Really? Because this administration and financial experts agreed that the Bush recession ended in June 2009. Everything since then is Obama’s “baby”
            .
            Besides the trillion dollar stimulus Obama asked for in 2009 is now built in as the baseline of the annual federal budget. (Or would be if the Senate ever got off their fat arses and passed one.) Your analogy to FDR and “priming the pump” is about as flawed as it can be.

          • Jack1

            Pardon me, but exactly WHO is claiming the Bush recession is over? Certainly not me !

            BTW, the Federal government’s fiscal year 2009 began on November 1, 2008. Do you remember who was POTUS back then?

            And the idea that the stimulus package is “built in as the baseline of the annual federal budget” is absurd. Totally without merit. Seriously, where do you teabaggers come up with such nonsense?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “but exactly WHO is claiming the Bush recession is over?” Tell you what. I’d hate to spoil your joy of discovery, so why don’t you Google “end of Bush recession, June 2009″ and if you can’t find the claims from this administration or the Council of Economic Advisers, I’ll help you out. Besides, the operative word is not “is” but, “was”. The Bush recession was over in June 2009. Now, the current economic mess that “is”, can be laid at the feet of the first incompetent Democrat president since Jimmy Carter. Sucks to be a liberal, don’t it?

            “Certainly not me (sic) !” And you wonder why no one believes anything you say? (BTW, grammatically, it should be “Certainly not I”)

            “BTW, the Federal government’s fiscal year 2009 began on November 1, 2008. Do you remember who was POTUS back then?”

            Irrelevant, like most of your drivel. June 2009 comes after Nov. 2008. Do you remember who was POTUS back then???

            “And the idea that the stimulus package is “built in as the baseline of
            the annual federal budget” is absurd. Totally without merit.” Strike three. You’re out. Educate yourself a little more or stop wasting our time.

            You’re probably a victim of the public school system, Jack, so I’ll give you a head start:

            The Recession Has (Officially) Ended -NYT
            http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/the-recession-has-officially-ended/

            Report: Recession Over In June 2009 -NPR
            http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129990734

            Obama answers skeptics after recession is declared officially over -WaPo
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/20/AR2010092005999.html

            By July 2009 a growing number of economists believed that the recession may have ended. The National Bureau of Economic Research announced on 20 September 2010 that the 2008/2009 recession ended in June 2009, making it the longest recession since World War II. -wikipedia

            Recession Is Over! (If You Want It) -Huff Po
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/recession-is-over-if-you_b_735836.html

            Democrats to start TV campaign “Recession Over”
            http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=950236

          • robert108

            Too late, liar; obama has already claimed that we are in “recovery”, beginning in 2009. Your own boy proves you a liar.

          • tony_o2

            BTW. FY 2009 began on Oct 1, 2008. And yes, Bush was POTUS at that time.

            Do you remember who was POTUS when the Omnibus Appropriations were submitted and passed? Do you remember who was POTUS when the Stimulus was passed? I’ll give you a hint, they were in FY 09 but after Jan 20, 2009….

          • $8194357

            They will be priming that pump until the
            Federal Reserve Note goes tits up..
            That is the real agenda…

            Soros and crew selling America short for their own
            profit and global agendas….global governance and currency.
            Drown the US in debt priming that dang fiat debt ponzi’s pump…

            Wealth redistribution and restructuring of political power just like their New World Order agenda has been dictating for decades..

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Sorry! You “prime the pump” with a little bit of water so that you can pump a lot. Obama drained Lake Tahoe into the pump with hopes of filling an Evian bottle.

          • $8194357

            The poison pen syndrome got many a small fry in the slammer…
            Writing more checks than ya got cash to cover…
            In DC?
            Poison is candy and political hay..

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            As long as there are fools who believe that profligate deficit spending is “priming the pump”, Obama will still be able to buy his votes wholesale.

          • Bat One

            That would be the liberal Democrat-controlled Senate that hasn’t bothered to pass a budget in nearly 4 years… right?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            One of the reasons they don’t pass a budget is they don’t want their fingerprints on anything so large or wasteful.

          • robert108

            It’s the obama recession, and priming the pump with debt just results in more debt, as obama’s massive spending has taught us.
            FDR caused a 15-year depression, hardly a good recommendation.

          • Jack1

            In what fantasy land did that happen in, Robert?

          • Jack1

            BTW< I was just wondering if you have a life separate from this blog?

          • robert108

            When the lying propagandist gets smacked with the truth, he scrambles to change the subject with personal stalking.

          • robert108

            The depression lasted until 1946-47, which was 15 years after FDR started his wasteful social spending spree with taxpayer money.

          • Bat One

            When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the unemployment rate was STILL in double digits – ten years after what should have been a moderately strong recession. What FDR’s two and a half pre-war terms as president prove is that federal “pump-priming” doesn’t really do much to get the economy out of recession. Perhaps if you read more Friedman and Bernanke and less Krugman you’d know what you’re talking about.

        • robert108

          Clinton gave us a recession and failed to take OBL twice during his reign, along with ignoring AQ after the ’93 WTC bombing.

          • Jack1

            The Clinton recession? You’re delusional. And if you want to start pointing fingers about a pre-2001 OBL, remember that Reagan armed and trained AQ in the 1980s.

            Bush let OBL go. Obama killed him. Them’s the facts, robert. do you “do” facts?

          • robert108

            Clinton passed a recession on to President Bush. FACT. Clinton also passed on 9/11, due to his failure to go after AQ after the ’93 WTC bombing, when they were small and weak. Clinton also refused to take OBL twice, when he was leading AQ. obama sent armed men after an old man watching TV in his pajamas, and executed him instead of bringing him in and draining him of intel, which would have been the only military justification for the mission. As it is, the mission was only for political purposes to puff up obama’s reputation, and he endangered the lives of our military to try to win re-election.
            Since you are history-challenged, let me school you on the fact that we aided AQ to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Soviet Union being our main enemy at that time.
            I have smacked your lies with the facts, “jack”.

        • $8194357

          (No wonder you people are so confused)
          Exactley Meoff…
          You folks on the left are so confused with leftist lies and
          revisionism it is totaly pathetic..

        • jl

          “Clinton, the guy who gave Bush a $260 billion surplus…” Due in large part to the capital gains tax CUT passed under Clinton. Your memory of history seems to be very selective.

          • Bat One

            Actually it was the whole “fiscal responsibility” embodied in the Contract With America that saved Clinton’s ass and his reelection. After all, if things were so good after Clinton hiked taxes in 1992, how come Republicans retook the House for the first time in 40 years?

          • $8194357

            2 tru 4 skool, Bat

          • Jack1

            How fiscally responsible is it to turn a $236 billion surplus into a $412 billion deficit?

          • robert108

            There was no surplus, only a ten-year projection that ignored 8 years of islamic terrorism and the bombing of the WTC in ’93. The Clinton-enabled 9/11 attack made his massive defense cuts look insane.

          • Jack1

            He kept the capital gains rate at 28% until 1997, when he agreed to lower it to 20%. By then he’d already wiped out the GOP deficit.

        • tony_o2

          I was responding to Albert, who seems to think that the days of 90% would have no negative effect on our economy.

        • tony_o2

          And after you raise them to 39%, will it stop there? Why not raise them slightly more? And then slightly more?

          Tax increases are inevitable. We are so far in debt that spending cuts alone will not solve our mess. But you can only raise taxes so much before you get a diminishing return. And as long as liberals have control of the country, spending cuts are never going to happen.

          • Jack1

            1/3 of the stimulus package was spending cuts, or don’t you remember?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Now now, Jack, please don’t confuse the nutters with actual facts.
            You know how it upsets them.

            What ever you do, don’t tell them the truth about President Obama cutting taxes. Poor dears will be beside themselves with fear.

          • Onslaught1066

            No worries there, boob.

            But here is a fact for you:

            “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

            Barack Hussein Obama 7-13-2012

            Dumb-O said that.

            You know how I know?

            “President Obama, who is dumb as a box of rocks did say that.”
            RBB (make up your own acronym) 8-17-12.

            Because you said that.

          • tony_o2

            Why don’t you refresh my memory. Tell me why it cost so much money to spend less money.

      • Jack1

        BTW Tony, did you know that ND is a parasite state? You receive $1.06 in benefits and services for every $1 in federal taxes. So the next time you drive on a state highway, thank the blue states for paying for it.

    • Jamer Morrow

      Who would work to pay 90% in taxes?

  • $8194357

    My Grandparents lived thru the 20’s, 30’s, 40’s ect. ect up into the
    late 60’s and mid 90’s…
    They told as a lad DC screwed the people and went communist…..
    Now I see just how right they were…
    What a anti-Constitutional communist international/globalist mess we
    have since the early 1900’s on…Progressive huh….FORWARD COMRADE.

    • Jack1

      Then I’m sure they watched the GOP trash the economy a few times and watched Democrats like FDR and Clinton clean up the mess.

  • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

    I can understand that people think that the social security “promises” should be kept. The problem with that is that really this generation lied to themselves saying that they money should be there. Certainly we can’t blame the kids that didn’t create the problem.

    • sbark

      With 40 SS payout hikes to inflation…..how can they argue the promises have not been kept? For those who paid in maximum of 1200 per yr into the early 80’s and now recieve that per month for just one spouse…….how can they argue the promises and more have not been kept.
      The boomer generation best call for SS reform themeselves asap………if the millenium generation (18 to 30) ever wakes up to what is being done to their productive future…………the OWS movement will look like a kindergarden birthday party in comparison. They need to direct this anger at the Left—the party of generation deception……..and generational wealth redistribution.
      My hope is he likes of Paul Ryan, Rubio, Walker, Chrisite can wake up the millenium generation to what has been done and is being done to them……..and they need to be the generation to force change………..If they would ever get off facebook and PS3…….
      The Tea Party needs this youthfull charge and energy……..but the youth are easily mesmerized by some unknown messianic figure…..but then again so are dem’cats.

  • sbark

    Affluence…….Victor David Hanson: Affluence and poverty are the twins of liberalism. The former allows one to both dream and to escape that dream. The latter provides the fodder for liberal artillery.
    ….. for the more elite and influential progressive, affluence has allowed liberal orthodoxy to evolve to its theoretical limitations. There is a reason why 90% of professors — life-long tenure, summers off, guaranteed pay raises — are liberal and 70% of small-business people are conservative. The more removed one becomes from the elemental struggle to eat one more day
    — and never in the history of civilization have so many been so exempt from such existential worries — the more one enjoys the luxury of pondering more cosmic issues such as extending Social Security disability payments to youths suffering from attention deficit disorder or mandating gay history in state public schools or saving the smelt.
    ………the Ruleing Class Elite……..

    • $8194357

      (Victor David Hanson: Affluence and poverty are the twins of liberalism. The former allows one to both dream and to escape that dream. The latter provides the fodder for liberal artillery)
      The ruleing class elite olagarchy….Using the working class and poor as Cloward/Piven cannon fodder for the cause…..
      10X sbark….10X

  • GilbertEngageAmerica

    Entitlements are a bit tricky. When we raising taxes to pay
    for certain programs, those paying into it are not seeing the immediate
    benefit. But not only that, since the money being paid into is being spent
    faster than it gets collected, a picture of our future is very blurry at
    best. Calling for more taxes, only means
    ,you would further delay job creation and any sort of outlook of economic
    prosperity that might come as the economic recovery continues. One thing is for
    certain, getting to the point of affluence for many Americans without the prospect
    of a good labor market is going to be a very far reah

  • Snarkie

    Too much government? If you only value value, view Singapore, where it is illegal to chew gum.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

Top