L. Carrier: Obama's plan

Here is President Barack Obama's plan: If you don't work and don't contribute to society, the government will send you a check every month and subsidize your housing and health care.

But if you work hard, create jobs and are productive, the government will tax the stuffing out of you to give to the above.

Larry Carrier, Sabattus

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.


Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item



CRYSTAL WARD's picture

balanced budget Amendment

That old gimmic is back again--- a great sound bite -- but not based in todays reality. In order to Balance the Budget -- you would have to ruin Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many other programs that help the people. While the Republicans would have you believe this "sound bite "is the "golden" answer the devil is in the details. It is easy to propose something you know will never pass. It would sure help all the wealthy and would do great harm to the middle class and the ever growing poor in America. Stop the gimmics and save the middle class. We do not need more talk we need jobs!!

Steve  Dosh's picture

L. Carrier: Obama's plan

. .l o l , Lar ? 11.28.11 22:22 hst•
. .Perhaps the most appropriate and authoritative venue to peruse our President's past , current , and future plans as C E O of America is here http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Mind you , we could be wrong . After all , he may be receiving secret plans from Maertians through the fillings in his teeth • /s, Dr.Dosh , HI 96778 us of a ~ Happy Holidays ~

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Or, he could widen the spaces

Or, he could widen the spaces between his teeth so he could whistle better lies.

Joe Morin's picture

I agree with a "balanced" approach...

...Problem is that I don't trust one person in D.C. to take any extra "revenue" increased taxed dollars and put it as a down on the debt. It will simply go to a pet project to bribe a certain part of the electorate. If I did trust any of them I would be legally insane.

Joe Morin's picture

and furthermore...

.... How come all of the tax increases happen soon and all the "cuts" are down the road???? What has ever been cut??? This argument isn't academic its reality.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Exactly right, Joe. That's

Exactly right, Joe. That's why the tax cuts "don't work", as the libs like to put it. It's because the accompanying spending cuts never materialize.

RONALD RIML's picture

So Larry....

Who is it that's creating Jobs??? Care to tell us.......

The Govt had a lot of roads repaired and resurfaced last summer as I'm sure 'Pirate' can attest to.

And there's all those Govt contractors performing the jobs troops used to do way back when but at much higher costs now...... a la K.B.& R, Black Water (Now Xe) et al.....

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"What do pirates have to do

"What do pirates have to do with road repairs?", inquired the inquisitive parrot.

KRIS KUCERA's picture

Actually . . .

. . . the Anti-Christ's, er, Obama's plan is to bamboozle Americans into believing in a New World Order that will result in U.N. guards at Baxter State Park (Roxanne Quimby, Rosemary's Baby?) and a mass gathering of other demonic, anti-GOP forces, in grand preparation for the imminent Holy Land steel-cage death match between Obama/Satan/Beelzebub/The Beast/Justin Beiber and the newly returned and totally jacked Jesus Christ. Christ is favored by 7 in Vegas, but I'm taking the under because of the hot and arid playing-field conditions, especially in May. Go Fighting Jesuses!

And yes, I am sure to purchase ample food storage and survival items from Hannity-, Beck-, Savage-, and Ingraham-endorsed foodinsurance.com, the Rapture contradiction notwithstanding. (Glenn prefers the canned Vienna sausages, as do I -- preserved, just like my soul.)

MARK GRAVEL's picture

I damn sick and tired of footing the bill - How about you?


That pretty much sums it up. To that I would add the Republicans are pretty much the same albeit perhaps at a bit slower rate in spending increases. I’m damn sick and tired of footing the bill for Washington’s carless spending. How about you?

Mark Elliott's picture

Hey Mark, FYI: did you know

Hey Mark, FYI: did you know that republicans, yes republicans, submitted a balanced budget amendment just last week that garnered very little support from democrats? (3/5s vote required for constitutional amendments) We should be hearing about this one on all stations but we're not.....

How about we just say "some" republicans spend foolishly?

--> http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-18/politics/politics_balanced-budget-ame...

Mark Elliott's picture

Yes, you're correct Dan. That

Yes, you're correct Dan. That was an honest "error" and since this blog doesn't allow us to edit our comments I had to leave it in hopes that you were still "away" and wouldn't notice. Article 5, as the copy I keep in my pocket states, a 2/3 vote is required. Yes Dan you caught me in a big fat lie......I'm just another one of those capitalist pigs, purposely trying to pull the wool over American's eyes so I can make millions. In this case, 2/3 or 3/5 is completely irrelevant.....democrats still rejected it.

Mark Elliott's picture

There is one other

There is one other difference. I can clearly see where the blame lies for the failure to pass this amendment and you simply refuse to. Instead you choose to use a bit of smoke and mirrors to distract others from the point of my post. Democrats do not want a balanced budget amendment and they made it clear! They do not want us commoners telling them not to overspend our money.........

Mark Elliott's picture

Noooo, I am making reference

Noooo, I am making reference to the fact you are stuck on the whole 3/5, 2/3 detail when that doesn't affect the real point of my post in the first place. And yet again, you are blowing smoke and avoiding the fact that democrats rejected the amendment. I must ask you, with a talent like yours, can you spin straw into gold?

RONALD RIML's picture


The Republicans' didn't present a balanced "Spending Cut - Revenue Increase" approach, but rather threw out a minuscule 'Revenue' carrot so small that Bugs Bunny wouldn't have even seen it.

When they get more serious about reality than the fantasy world of Grover Norquist we might consider their souls no longer up for sale....

Mark Elliott's picture

You need to re-read my post

You need to re-read my post AND read the article. I was talking about a "balanced budget AMENDMENT" to the constitution, not any specific budget.

RONALD RIML's picture


And you have to pay attention to reality.

Besides the Balanced Budget Amendment, the Republicans also threw out the Toomey Proposal, which included "$300 billion in new tax revenue over 10 years and a rewriting of the tax code."*


Sorry, Mark - we don't operate in a vacuum here. That 30 Billion a year increase in revenues was a mighty small carrot as I said earlier.....

Mark Elliott's picture

You're comparing democrats

You're comparing democrats throwing out a constitutional amendment that would require them to spend our money more wisely to republicans throwing out a 300 billion dollar tax increase? As my 9 year old would say: "Really Riml?"

RONALD RIML's picture


You are the one who mentioned 'comparison'

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Sorry Ron, I'm no longer

Sorry Ron, I'm no longer sympathetic to all the smoke and mirrors. All budget proposals I've seen thus far only scratch the surface on the rate of increase in spending, not addressing the true problem, which is spending itself.

There are only three things that matter:
1. Total expenditures including long-term liabilities, such as SS.
2. Total revenue measures as a reasonable percentage of GDP - less than 20%.
3. Revenue - Expenditures = 0 (a.k.a a balanced budget).

See, if you measure revenue as a percentage of GDP, you can play all economic equity games that you want with the tax rate as long as revenue remains fixed as percentage of GDP. You can see it is as easy as 1, 2, 3.

Politics of greed and envy do nothing but complicate the situation.

RONALD RIML's picture

And if

I wanted sympathy I would look it up in the dictionary......

Which obviously is the only place one will find 'Responsibility' when discussing Revenues with Republicans.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Ronald, Where is it written


Where is it written there has to a balanced approach to solve the spending crisis? I’ve been hearing the same message for three decades (Balance cuts with revenue increases), but the budget numbers speak for themself – the national debt keeps growing, there no denying that is there? The Politicians are good at spending the nation into a crisis and then telling the average tax payer to foot the bill – enough I say, enough.

The average tax payer, including myself, did not get the Nation into this mess, and I’m damn well sure I don’t want to pay any more taxes to enable this bad behavior.

My message to Congress is fix it now, and fix it all with spending cuts. There is no good reason in my opinion why Congress needs to spend 25% of our GDP. Moreover, who amongst us can say the Government spends this money wisely in the first place? The Government is ineffective at policing its own budget wastes, so why give them more money? To do so is insanity!

Lastly, the fact that you only point to Republicans as those who sell their sole is ignoring human nature and the current political climate in our Nation or is showing extreme partisanship, which most, if not all, readers are already aware of the correct answer – perhaps a bit of both.

RONALD RIML's picture


Where is it written that we shall not roll back the massive tax cuts of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II??

One of the reasons we are spending so much includes the interest on the debt that we acquired under those three Hooligans as they spent and cut taxes.

If you wish to cut spending, then at least have the common decency to return to the original pre-spending tax rates.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

No Points Awarded for Effort!

Yes I’m aware that the republicans submitted a balanced budget amendment. I’m also equally aware that legislation is sometimes submitted knowing is has no chance in hell of getting off the ground to appease constituents. No points for effort will be given here.

I contrast the balanced budget amendment with those Republicans who are crying foul over the force defense department cuts resulting from the failure of the Stupid-committee. While most Americans want a strong military, the U.S. is broke, plain and simple, everything must be cutback.

In closing, the only Republicans that I see being constantly on message about spending are the new Tea Party freshmen. The old guard, like John McCain, is no better than the Democrats when it comes to spending issues.

Mark Elliott's picture

Yes Mark, but if they don't

Yes Mark, but if they don't submit such a bill, then democrats will be forever saying the republicans made no effort. That they are the "party of no". Now it is documented for eternity......democrats don't want a constitutional amendment forcing them to spend more wisely while **most** republicans are at least willing to try.....

Joe Morin's picture


...Even if the Rep. proposed a Balanced budget amendment that had heavy tax increases the Dem. run Senate would shoot it down because they have to force this congress to do nothing. That is their platform for 2012. Once again though i Re-iterate all the proposals that ever come out of the Democrat party include immediate tax increases with down the road cuts that never come to fruition or are just "Shell Game" savings.

Mark Elliott's picture

Joe, you're confusing

Joe, you're confusing "balanced budget amendment" (to the constitution) with "balanced budget".....a balanced budget amendment to the constitution would not specify any tax increases, decreases, or any cuts or increases in spending. It would simply require our government to balance the budget each and every time....

Joe Morin's picture


I know the difference but as I read my own post it doesn't make much sense. I blended two thoughts together. The balanced budget amendment with the act of trying to actually balance it.

Mark Elliott's picture

Correct, it was the balanced

Correct, it was the balanced budget amendment that democrats rejected.....



I'm interested in ...