Bachmann surprises Beck with stat on government piece of economy pie

Obama won’t be happy until like his buddy Chavez he owns it ALL. We must fight to stop the socialist and listening to Glenn Beck and his carefully researched points is a good start. Keep up the good work Mr. Beck.

hey rob you dropped your aluminum hat. so if the government is such a large part of the economy is it to big to fail? if we want to cut it down to size lets start at the pentagon. there’s a nice chunk of change that can be mostly done away with. then there’s the medical insurance we pay for in the senate and house of representatives. at least those that condemn the public option. i’m sure they would gladly drop their medical insurance and buy their own with their own money. we’re just cutting government spending like mad here. how about not paying companies to set up shop in foreign countries. how about cutting the money we pay out when a country kicks out a company that’s based in the usofa. as it is we now pay that company for its losses. how about companies to big to fail. cut them down to size and if they fail, they fail.

darkmark – you zapped Rob right in the head with logic! I love the part about Rob’s desire to eliminate all things govt as it has taken control of our economy with your question of “is it to big to fail”.

“Wealth” is not the same thing as “percent of GDP”; it’s an entirely different thing. Wealth is quite simply, assets minus debits. The government spends as much or more than it takes in, therefore has little wealth.

As reported by Peter Phillips in 2006, as of 2000 in the US, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% controlled 38%. The bottom 40% owned less than 1%.

As long as that top 1% keeps you thinking it’s the government that’s to blame, they’ve got you right where they want you. And they own the likes of both Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, too. Check the donor records; make a note of who owns FOX.

darkmark & gary do you both not realize the pentagon is the only thing you have listed that is constitionaly mandated. The president and every one in congress takes an oath to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. The pentagon is our defense. Every thing else these fools spend our money on is unconstitional

[...] wealth in the US. I am researching … OK Here is a newspaper that tracked down the stat. Click here for more Bachmann seems to have got the stat from this July 7 Washington Times paraphrase: William Boyes, an [...]

That PolitiFact piece was mind-blowingly stupid. They found it “mostly true” because Roberts cited an estimate for the PRESENT that didn’t conform to data from the PAST. (!!!) If you’re not following, read that last sentence again… slowly. Then they interviewed “liberal and conservative” economists and they all guessed somewhere near 40 percent, which is the figure most economists have been tossing around this year.

And the fact that they had to ASK economists IF economists consider transfers as government expenditures is just another example of our economically illiterate press.

And the economist from New America Foundation forgets to mention that transfers are not in realty non-distortionary, just less so than a program which purchases goods or services and then distributes them. Economists prefer transfers over other government spending because individuals do a much better job at allocating goods and services than government bureaucrats–”If you want to help, just give them cash!”

Please don’t try to conflate multiple points when it appears you don’t understand any of them.

Randy,

You’re right. Wealth is not the right word (not a surprise from Bachmann or Beck). But that doesn’t change the fact that government is increasingly intervening in the economy. That is not a good thing for anyone (other than self-serving politicians and their corporate/special interest patrons).

amazinggrace,

The Constitution does not mandate our ridiculous level of military spending. If the defense budget were .01 percent of what it is now, that would be perfectly constitutional.

Hey “Randy” you and all your liberal freak friends completely need to have stuffed (with a shovel I hope) into your tiny heads that an American is FREE to make and keep his money. You and b Hussein erkle are pure thiefs and sick liars who want to steal from those who work and save to give (as if it’s your money, another lie you tell) to your favorite whatevers. So that makes you a criminal. Who cares if 1% of Americans owns everythings as long as the 99% are free to do whatever they want including not working for the 1% and making their own money and own future and I can’t wait for this civil war to start. There’s only one way to fix the disease of liberal psychosis.

amazinggrace stop being ridiculous. Yes, the constitution PROVIDES that a military be maintained. Does that mean we need to be spending 800 billion + on it? No. How about actually investing in infrastructure that actually means something? Our country is crumbling and the only thing we will have to show for it are some bombs we dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the next pre-emptive war a Republican gets us in.

This didn’t happen in less than a year, thank your boy W too. I love how you Republicans think our woes started with 2009.

Oh and Bluesteel, perhaps you should pick up a history book. Part of the cause of the Great Depression was the complete inequality in wealth in America. The middle class is dissapearing due to the disastrous policies of Republicans with “trickle down” economics. I also like how you Republicans equate money with freedom. Money does not equal freedom. A LARGER MILITARY = A LARGER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Next time let’s let the government NOT intervene and watch our GDP lower in to negative territory. Republicans will not be happy until America is crumbling and the rich watch from their comfy perches.

If Representative Bachmann hates government so much, why does she accept it’s benefits (see Bachmann family farm subsidies), and work inside the belly of the beast for her daily bread as a Congressional Representative?

Hey Bluesteel, enjoy your serfitude.

“Bachmann said the 9/12 movement is a “huge tent” for people devoted to the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, repeating an image she conjures up often of those documents being the fabric of the tent.”

Bachmann likes to say things she opposes are not constitutional (for example, census questions that go beyond a simple headcount).

My question to Bachmann is this, Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can proscribe voluntary associations between consenting adults? (including prohibitions on same-sex civil unions and even gay marriage).

Why is Bachmann so selective in railing against government encroachment on our personal liberties?

I’m with Ron. Obama needs to go.

If…and that is a real stretch…but if the Government owns 30% of the wealth in this country, then that is a good thing.

They will at least spread it around to many that have needs but no means to acquire that wealth. In fact, perhaps it should go to 80% rather than 30%.

I think some need to be reminded of the fact that wealth is not a zero sum game where there is x amount of it that the government or boogeyman millionaires get to decide where it goes. The government DOES NOT CREATE WEALTH, it can (and sometimes should) decide where to reallocate it through taxes, but that’s it. It needs that power and we give it that power. This should not be the argument. The argument now is how much should it be reallocating and for what? Is it healthy/right for the government to pick and choose winners and losers? Both parties are involved in this type of action. If a huge company invests in some new technology and it fails, they lose money and learn from their mistake or perhaps even fold. If the government does this, it adds a few zeroes onto the check and tries again. I personally think masses of individuals, rich and poor, making individual decisions on where to put their money respond more quickly and accurately to changes in the world economy than do politicians. If you think Bush, Obama, Pawlenty or whoever make those types decisions better – than the 30% number won’t be a problem to you.

I’d be interested in seeing (in an abstract way) how this country would work if the only thing the government funded was defense. Let’s all go to work building our own bridges and roads, educating the children and young adults, providing our own fire and police security.
The “non-constitutional” services are constitutional because our duly elected representatives must make the laws that allow all governments to put infrastructure, education, and domestic security in place.
I love how those right-wingers say, “If it’s not in the constitution, then it’s unconstitutional.”
Holy Moses, go back and read all those government lessons you slept through in school.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”-10th Amendment to the Constitution

Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government can control the Wealth of America? No where, therefore controlling the Wealth of America is reserved to the people.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government has the authority to tax citizens to provide Health Care to other citizens? Nowhere does it even begin to suggest that, therefore it is inherent on the states to determine if they wish to do that.

Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the right to set a minimum wage for the entire country? Nowhere, therefore if the individual states wish to set one they have the right to do so.

Where in the Constitution does it say that Marriage is a liberty? Nowhere, because marriage is not a liberty, it is a privilege. Therefore the federal government has no business denying it, or allowing it. That decision is reserved to the states.

Defense spending is not the only spending that is Constitutional, it is just one of the few. We could dramatically cut our deficit by cutting the spending that is not prescribed for in the Constitution, there is no need to cut that which is.

You could go down through the budgets of the last nearly 100 years and find repeated instances of spending that is not prescribed for in the Constitution. The same for Legislation. This is not something that started with Obama or Bush or Clinton. This started long ago, and the sad thing is so many Americans see this as Republican vs Democrat. They then support whichever of the two their mommy and daddy supported, and in the end both parties forget their responsibilities, and seek only to benefit themselves.

Ron says: “Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government can control the Wealth of America? No where, therefore controlling the Wealth of America is reserved to the people.”

i think it comes from an interpretation of the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
“ [The Congress shall have power] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; ”

Bachmann surprises Beck with stat on government piece of economy pie…

Wingnut Michele Bachmann (R-Lunatic) is at it again. Excuse me while I go to Act Blue and send Tarryl Clark another donation….A statistic from lying wingnut Michele Bachmann made Glenn Beck (R-Pathetic Excuse for a Human Being) go, “Whoa!” on his ra…

Michele Bachman is a fruit cake that has been in the box way to long.
I am more frightened of anyone who takes her seriously and votes for her.

[...] Bachmann surprises Beck with stat on government piece of economy … [...]

Ron is spot on.

The specific areas where Congress was intended to have legitmatacy are the Enumerated Powers. Clauses like the general welfare clause are not expansions to those powers but merely provide a context that those powers should be used under.

The Framers established a Limited Restrained Federal Govt. They did not go through the bother of listing the Enumerated Powers and then add wide-open do-whatever-you-want catch-alls.

A reason this Govt had to be restrained in what it could do nationwide was because the people in the various regions and States would have refused to join the Union if this Federal Govt was going to impose things on them theydid not want.

The limited Govt allowed there to be a very large country, where the peolpe would live in harmony with one another because the rule making (and the mistake making) would be locally-caused and locally able to be fixed.

The Federalization of welfare was not only illegal it’s also what is bankrupting this country and it wasn’t necessary.

And now this Congress and President are going to add even more to it.

The Federal Govt’s tax authority was limited for only expeditures of the State.. not for redistribution.

The 5th Amendment forbids the seizure of private property for public use without compensation.

Many of us are done with this. We’ve had enough. No more.

When the dollar collapses, the world as you know it will never be the same.

Some people are able to see this risk and are fighting to prevent it.

Others seem to either absolutely not care because of thier selfish emotional problems or seem to want it to happen.

So go ahead and attack Bachmann.. Quibble over the percentage that the Fascist Govt now controls ..

This arrogant society is about to take a fall , remember that when it happens you were the ones that enabled it.