politicalman

My RSS Feeds








Associations

MBA Logo 100

My Bookmarks

My Top Tags

   

National debt

« H E email
posted Wednesday, 19 December 2007

The debt to a minute here

"  Comprising two-thirds of all federal spending and growing by 7 percent annually, mandatory spending can no longer be taken off the table during the budget process. Spending caps have kept discretionary spending under control in the past and can work for mandatory programs as well."  From Conservative Heritage Society.

"Overview

In efforts to restore fiscal balance, it's important to focus on entitlements for a number of reasons:

 

  •  Entitlements are where the big dollars are.
  •  They are growing rapidly.
  •  Given the unsustainable deficits that this growth implies, there are only three possible options: restructure entitlements, eliminate most of the rest of government, or raise taxes to unprecedented levels.
  •  Sooner or later, entitlements will have to be addressed—and sooner is much better than later.
  •  As long as entitlements are left off the table, all of the pressure will fall on discretionary programs.
  •  That pressure is likely to lead to underinvestment in the next generation and to cuts in programs for low-income families"i From the Liberal Brooking institution.

 "Mandatory spending accounts for two-thirds of federal spending and is authorized by permanent laws, not by the 13 annual appropriations bills. These include entitlements, such as Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits, and Food Stamps. They are called entitlements because citizens are entitled to the benefits, based upon their age, income, military service, or other criteria. Mandatory spending also includes interest on the national debt."

 From Info please


comments (1)


1. Tabacco left...
Friday, 21 December 2007 5:57 pm :: http://tabacco.blog-city.com/

I am impressed with Politicalman!

I see from recent posts that you are making a SINCERE effort to be objective, informative and LEAVING A TRAIL! I am proud to belong to the same fraternity as you (Bloggers)!

Without those references, disputation is impossible. Bloggers, who do not wish to be challenged, decline to reference their sources.

First, I must admit that in this post, you list 3 sources. Listing or linking to them is usually sufficient. That indicates an honest blogger. Congratulations again. However I only checked one: "Brookings" because I knew that "liberal" tag was inaccurate. See below:

To this day, Brookings is commonly, and inaccurately, dubbed "liberal" (e.g., Baltimore Sun, 8/9/98; Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/30/98; Dallas Morning News, 7/1/98; AP, 5/29/98). CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg even publicly chastised one of his colleagues for not tagging Brookings as "liberal" in his reporting (Wall Street Journal op-ed, 2/13/96). It's called "centrist" almost as often, but never "conservative," though that label would be more accurate than "liberal." http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1436

Although think tanks span the political spectrum, liberal critics charge that conservative think tanks are far more prevalent than their progressive counterparts. In an annual survey, the liberal media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) lists the 25 think tanks most often cited in the mainstream media. Their data for 2006 show that the most-cited think tank was the Brookings Institution, followed by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Of these top five, the FAIR regards the first two as centrist and the next three as conservative. Regarding media citations of think tanks more generally, the FAIR found 45% to be centrist, 40% conservative or center-right, and 16% progressive or center-left. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tanks

Politicalman, please note I used 2 references to make my point. I already knew Brookings was NOT LIBERAL! In fact there are NO LIBERAL THINK TANKS! They ALL tend to be Republican, Neoconservative, Capitalist and pro-Rich and pro-Big Biz, which generally pays their bills. All I had to do was type the following in my Browser Window:

"Brookings Institut3+liberal+conservative"

and I used the 1st two sources, which popped up. This is a very useful technique to use before you make an assertion based on singular or similar sources, which may themselves be biased. Republicans love to call organizations "liberal", which are basically conservative, then quote them as if they are being "fair". SOPHISTRY!

I do the same in reverse; I quote Conservatives criticizing Bush. But I know they really are Conservative when I make that allegation. NOBODY could call Fox, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and the rest of that gang "LIBERAL"! So when I quote Neal Boortz, Americans For Fair Taxation etc., I KNOW they are really conservative.

When I initially found your blog, I gave you the benefit of a doubt. Once I saw "Neal Boortz", the pendulum swung and I knew I was on sound footing: I knew you were NOT Liberal. Tabacco is a PROUD LIBERAL. Everything good done in this country for the last 75 years was accomplished by Liberals, not Conservatives. Conservatives fought against Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, and all of FDR's initiatives. The last GOP president, for whom I have any respect at all, is Theodore Roosevelt! IT'S BEEN THAT LONG! I might have included Dwight Eisenhower if he had "come clean" while still active instead of naming the "Military-Industrial Complex" as his final address before he left office.

I dismiss Colin Powell because he has never told the truth - and he knows it!

I think we can disagree and still get along. This has nothing to do with Christmas or political correctness or being "polite" - my how I hate that word! I think we can get along because you are basically HONEST! I'm never sure at first when I find a Conservative, but I'm beginning to be swayed by you because of your forthcoming about your sources. I AM IMPRESSED WITH YOU!

I have NO RESPECT for Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Susan Coulter and other biased Talking Heads. Not because they spout Neoconservative ideas, but because they do NOT BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE SAYING!

I respect honest difference of opinion. I DO NOT RESPECT HYPOCRITES, who say and do things for self-interest of the financial kind when they know the Truth lies elsewhere. Most of these Judas Goats used to be Democrats as were the charter members of PNAC (Project For The New American Century). SOME OF THE WORST REPUBLICANS are FORMER DEMOCRATS! Now how does that grab you!

Joe Lieberman, Mike Bloomberg, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Bill O'Reilly etc. The list goes on. All former Democrats and the SCUM OF THE EARTH NEOCONS! (Tabacco calls them QuasiCons because there is very little Conservative about them!)

I haven't published in two days because this Commenting has tired me out. So if I disappear from time to time, it's not necessarily because I agree with your assertions (Smile). But I do have a Blog of my own.

Incidentally, I must give you the credit for inspiring my republishing a prior "FairTax" Post. Interaction with contrarian positions is much more inspirational than interaction with Tabacco think-alikes. That's just the way it is in Blog-Land.

Respect and regards, Tabacco