The Economy in 2015 Might Shock You

No need to worry about 3 more years of gridlock. Boehner is about to get rolled!

Folks are still asking,”How did Obama win the election with such a bad record the past four years?” He gave away the store, money, food phones, free entrence to the country, free schooling, you name it. How...?? Whose money did he give away and how, since the House of Represenatives is supposed to handle money?? If he did take power this way, how long will it last, and is this debt piled on debt?? Please someone, give an answer that makes it sound reasonable!! I’m not asking about what is coming down next, just how he won by giving away almost everything (we have, earn, own, and work for)!!

he kenyan’s party controls the vote count. It doesn’t mater even a tad what bobdole the Republicans cough up in 2015.

I highlty doubt that anyone hear would recognize the US of 2016. The beginnings of a socialist revolution are occuring here and now. With the level of denial I see, the transformation should be well under way within the next four years. A lot of nations didn’t think it could happen to them, they thought wrong.

Please explain how, since i have contributed yearly since 1968, social security is an entitlement.

First, the definition of "entitlement program" appears to be widely misunderstood; second, many also don't understand the math behind Social Security and Medicare. On the first point: While "entitlement program" has become a pejorative phrase in some circles, with the insinuation that people are getting something they didn't earn, it's really just a term for any government program guaranteeing certain benefits to a segment of the population. In short, it has nothing to do with whether recipients are deserving, nor it is linked to a cost-benefit analysis on taxes paid versus benefits received. That bring us to the second point: Social Security and Medicare are not just entitlement programs, they also are very much an example of redistribution. Sure, American workers pay a specific tax to fund the Social Security and Medicare systems, and Social Security benefits are correlated to work history and earnings. But especially when Medicare is taken into account, most senior citizens end up receiving more in Social Security and Medicare benefits than they paid into the system during their working years.

I absolutely empathize with the difference of morality on this issue. To wit - there is a vast moral distinction between Social Security benefits earned by those who paid payroll taxes during their working years vs. those Social Security Disability, direct welfare payments, EBT Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing, Aid to Families With Dependent Children, etc.

However, that does not negate the fact that Social Security is still an entitlement by both definition and by law.

[Article]
That was manageable in the late 1990s when the economy was on a robust plane of growth. But today's politicians -- nor the ones who will be pondering a run for the White House in 2015 -- will likely be operating in an environment of robust growth.

Either the author's been misquoted, or he punted the last clause by dropping the "not" which would make sense of his statement.

Item, the author pimps (Un)FairTax.org's nostrum of a VAT, the principal objects of which are

to unload corporate income taxes from the backs of businesses, a grail they've pursued ever since George H.W. Bush [41] became President and gave a subcabinet patronage job at Treasury to business superlobbyist Charls [sic] L. Walker, who used that pulpit to plump for VAT in business media, appearing with relentless regularity on PBS's Nightly Business Report to advocate for VAT, and
to reload savers and basically steal their savings through consumption taxes, as a way of replacing foregone business taxes and (supposedly) solving the government's operating deficits. Which works for Obama and the Democrats by increasing poverty and dependency among seniors (who normally vote Republican).

The author needs to get stuffed, and his FairTax allies and Alinskyite buds with him.

Now let all the FairTaxers appear and cry "ignorance!" and "prejudice!" and "negativity!" and "try it, you'll like it, and anyway Practicality Demands Compromise!" (with Democrat Alinskyite attack-dogs from hell).

And oh, btw, the rate isn't 23%; if you calculate it not as a lying FairTaxer, but as an honest businessman, you get something more like 33% or more, if you calculate the tax rate as an increment added to the basic cost.

As a coda, this article also serves as further evidence that Townhall is being taken over by Friends of Barack, preaching tactical Alinskyite prolefeed to the unwashed.

The money you “contributed” was spent as soon as it was received. It has been clearly defined as a tax by the US Supreme Court. Under that ruling you have no legal right to any benefit other than whatever Congress votes to give you. Congress can change or eliminate the benefit at its whim.

To wit - there is a vast moral distinction .....[h]owever, that does not negate the fact that Social Security is still an entitlement by both definition and by law.

Franklin Roosevelt lied reflexively (so Gen. MacArthur told us) to the American People to talk them into things that were against their interest, and of benefit primarily to FDR and the Democratic Party. One of the biggest was about the nature of Social Security and its real purpose.

It is a Ponzi scheme created to elect Democrats.

FDR chose a moment when his People were in an agony of want and doubt, to knife them with a poisoned blade. His monument should be a 50-foot-high dagger.

“That’s because our economy is unlikely to handle three more years of gridlock, which keeps us stuck in a phase of higher government spending and shrinking revenue.”

Did I miss something?
Doesn't "gridlock" bring us Sequestration, which brings us less government spending, and less revenue? (Higher tax rates, but most likely crashing revenues)