Broke
If you are one of those who have swallowed the red pill and have been reading the preceding chapters, you know that the United States is headed towards a fiscal cliff due to the unsustainable costs inflicted upon the nation by our lying politicians. By promising people benefits in exchange for votes, these Crooks and Thieves have managed to get themselves elected time and time again. However, the due date on this pyramid scam they've been running is fast arriving. One look at the fiscal troubles of the "Blue" states we mentioned in Reality and the sovereign debt crisis in Europe should convince anyone not stuck inside the Matrix, that America too will face its day of reckoning if nothing is done to prevent it.
Many on the left would like to reassure you that California and Illinois are still "functioning" and that the leaders of the Eurozone have continually been able to find a trick or a gimmick enabling them to avoid bankruptcy. But, can it really be argued that this can continue? Have they actually fixed the fiscal imbalances that have led them from crisis to crisis? Of course not. The Crooks and Thieves of these ruined economic models have merely managed to kick the can down the road a little further. That is all.
Those who try to convince you that the current path we are on is sustainable or can be fixed by the fantasy notion of taxing the "rich" are either lying to you or living in denial. In truth, they are acting like little children wishing away reality and throwing temper tantrums to keep the fantasy alive. As far as they are concerned, those adults who say ask them to confront the truth are mean terrible people who must not be listened to. With fingers firmly ensconced in their ears, they are oblivious to logic and reason.
Perhaps you, too, believe that the debt crisis isn't as serious as I am making it out to be. Perhaps you agree with the Democrats and think that all of us who say the emperor has no clothes are extremists for pointing out how it might be time to cover his nakedness. I mean, how serious a problem is it really? Well, if you do just a little bit of simple arithmetic it's really @#$% huge:
Many on the left would like to reassure you that California and Illinois are still "functioning" and that the leaders of the Eurozone have continually been able to find a trick or a gimmick enabling them to avoid bankruptcy. But, can it really be argued that this can continue? Have they actually fixed the fiscal imbalances that have led them from crisis to crisis? Of course not. The Crooks and Thieves of these ruined economic models have merely managed to kick the can down the road a little further. That is all.
Those who try to convince you that the current path we are on is sustainable or can be fixed by the fantasy notion of taxing the "rich" are either lying to you or living in denial. In truth, they are acting like little children wishing away reality and throwing temper tantrums to keep the fantasy alive. As far as they are concerned, those adults who say ask them to confront the truth are mean terrible people who must not be listened to. With fingers firmly ensconced in their ears, they are oblivious to logic and reason.
Perhaps you, too, believe that the debt crisis isn't as serious as I am making it out to be. Perhaps you agree with the Democrats and think that all of us who say the emperor has no clothes are extremists for pointing out how it might be time to cover his nakedness. I mean, how serious a problem is it really? Well, if you do just a little bit of simple arithmetic it's really @#$% huge:
Things have gotten worse since Iowahawk first created the above video. According to Steve McCann writing in The American Thinker:
The true indebtedness of the United States now exceeds $222 trillion. Appearing on National Public Radio in August of 2011 Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff of Boston University said:
If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, and subtract all the taxes we expect to collect, the difference is $211 Trillion. This is the fiscal gap. That is our true indebtedness.
Since that interview, the indebtedness has increased by another $11 trillion. Yet these estimates do not include the full impact of ObamaCare, which could add another $17+ trillion. On the other side of the ledger: the annual Gross Domestic Product (the value of all economic activity in the U.S.) is $15.6 trillion. The indebtedness to GDP ratio is a staggering 14.2 to 1 and guaranteed to further accelerate if Barack Obama is re-elected.
The United States is not facing bankruptcy, it is bankrupt. The primary factor that has kept the nation afloat over the past four years is that the dollar, albeit temporarily, remains the world's reserve currency, thus allowing the Federal Reserve to print enormous sums of money to cover the Obama budget deficits and flood the global market with near worthless cash. Today it requires $100.00 to purchase the same goods $10.00 purchased in 1950.
As a further comparison, the total annual GDP of all the countries on earth is $70 trillion. The American indebtedness alone exceeds that amount by a factor of 3 -- which contributes mightily to a world drowning in debt and facing an inevitable debt crisis and financial collapse, which will trigger a massive global depression.
2=====================================================================================================
Just take a look at these charts and you'll begin to get a flavor for how totally screwed we are if we don't do something and soon:
The true indebtedness of the United States now exceeds $222 trillion. Appearing on National Public Radio in August of 2011 Professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff of Boston University said:
If you add up all the promises that have been made for spending obligations, and subtract all the taxes we expect to collect, the difference is $211 Trillion. This is the fiscal gap. That is our true indebtedness.
Since that interview, the indebtedness has increased by another $11 trillion. Yet these estimates do not include the full impact of ObamaCare, which could add another $17+ trillion. On the other side of the ledger: the annual Gross Domestic Product (the value of all economic activity in the U.S.) is $15.6 trillion. The indebtedness to GDP ratio is a staggering 14.2 to 1 and guaranteed to further accelerate if Barack Obama is re-elected.
The United States is not facing bankruptcy, it is bankrupt. The primary factor that has kept the nation afloat over the past four years is that the dollar, albeit temporarily, remains the world's reserve currency, thus allowing the Federal Reserve to print enormous sums of money to cover the Obama budget deficits and flood the global market with near worthless cash. Today it requires $100.00 to purchase the same goods $10.00 purchased in 1950.
As a further comparison, the total annual GDP of all the countries on earth is $70 trillion. The American indebtedness alone exceeds that amount by a factor of 3 -- which contributes mightily to a world drowning in debt and facing an inevitable debt crisis and financial collapse, which will trigger a massive global depression.
2=====================================================================================================
Just take a look at these charts and you'll begin to get a flavor for how totally screwed we are if we don't do something and soon:
As you can see in the last chart, the revenue line has taken a huge hit as a result of the recession and spending has risen dramatically. If this were a short term rise due solely to attempts to stimulate the economy, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, the stimulus didn't stimulate and revenues have not recovered, but spending is continuing to rise. Worse, it is projected to rise at a rate of 7-8% per year indefinitely because of the retirement of the baby boomers:
Notice, in this chart, that according to the President own budget, spending will continue to rise at a level outpacing revenue by a wide margin for the next decade. Well, that's bad. What's worse, is that the revenue estimates were based on the assumption that we would return to 4% growth rates. Last time I looked, GDP growth for the past two years have been staggering along at less than a paltry 2%:
Basically, if things don't improve economically, and soon, you can flatline the 2010 revenues and watch the gulf between income and outgo widen even more disastrously. And what will happen if that is the case? Nothing good:
3======================================================================================================
For those who say, well, it isn't really that bad. After all, we aren't Greece. Really? If we don't get a handle on spending we will soon pass Greece and be headed into absolutely uncharted territories of insolvency. If you have seen the riots going on in Athens and this last chart doesn't scare the crap out of you, then you have either gone beyond the rational, or you are thoroughly stuck in the Matrix.
Besides the horrible economy in the US for the past decade and the sagging revenues they've generated, what accounts for these huge deficits we've been running? Why, it's those vote buying entitlements that the Crooks and Thieves have promised us all:
For those who say, well, it isn't really that bad. After all, we aren't Greece. Really? If we don't get a handle on spending we will soon pass Greece and be headed into absolutely uncharted territories of insolvency. If you have seen the riots going on in Athens and this last chart doesn't scare the crap out of you, then you have either gone beyond the rational, or you are thoroughly stuck in the Matrix.
Besides the horrible economy in the US for the past decade and the sagging revenues they've generated, what accounts for these huge deficits we've been running? Why, it's those vote buying entitlements that the Crooks and Thieves have promised us all:
As you can see, the sheer numbers of people from the baby boom generation reaching retirement age makes entitlement spending expand dramatically.
4====================================================================================================
So, what happens to spending, deficits and the debt as a result? They explode:
4====================================================================================================
So, what happens to spending, deficits and the debt as a result? They explode:
And here, in the last five charts, we get to the real nub of the situation. It isn't spending on the poor, or the military, or even NPR and Planned Parenthood that is bankrupting the country. It is entitlements and the interest we must pay on the debt to fund them. It is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Unless and until these programs are reformed and changed, spending on entitlements will completely crowd out every other function the government is supposed to perform. Want aid to the poor? Sorry, Granny needs her check. Want clean air and safe food? Sorry, Granny needs her check. Want to be safe from criminals, terrorists and countries that want to make war on us? Sorry, Granny needs her check.
We are currently borrowing the money to pay Granny's check and we will soon be borrowing the money to pay for the money we borrowed to pay granny's check and that still won't be enough, so we will have to borrow even more to cover the difference so we can continue to make sure dear granny gets her check. Thus, the entitlement system in our country is completely unsustainable as presently structured . This isn't my opinion. It is simple arithmetic. It is an inescapable truth. One we must confront if we are to survive as a free people.
5=======================================================================================================
So what happens when we borrow all that money to send granny her check? We have the same problem you have when you run up credit card debt. Interest payments go through the roof and crowd out spending on anything else:
We are currently borrowing the money to pay Granny's check and we will soon be borrowing the money to pay for the money we borrowed to pay granny's check and that still won't be enough, so we will have to borrow even more to cover the difference so we can continue to make sure dear granny gets her check. Thus, the entitlement system in our country is completely unsustainable as presently structured . This isn't my opinion. It is simple arithmetic. It is an inescapable truth. One we must confront if we are to survive as a free people.
5=======================================================================================================
So what happens when we borrow all that money to send granny her check? We have the same problem you have when you run up credit card debt. Interest payments go through the roof and crowd out spending on anything else:
As if the entitlement crisis wasn't bad enough, continuing to run the kinds of structural deficits that will occur if we honor the promises of the Crooks and Thieves will create unsustainable interest payments that will forever put us into a hole that we cannot dig out of as the last chart shows. President Obama likes to talk about how Republicans drove us into a ditch. Well, if the levels of spending on entitlements continue, it will drive us into a gorge! These charts don't lie, sad to say. Unless we act, we are going to go bankrupt. There are no two ways about it.
Sorry to overdose you with numbers and charts , but until you see the actual numbers and trends, you just can't truly comprehend just how completely screwed we are if we don't do something and soon. And those charts don't even count Obamacare, which I guarantee you will be a huge budget buster. History shows us that if you give anything away for free, people will abuse it. The famous Reagan adage has always held true: if you want less of something, tax it, if you want more of it, subsidize it. We are now going to add millions of Americans to completely subsidized and cost free (to them) health care. What do you think is going to happen? Will people use more of their free health care or less of it?
Now you've seen the numbers. I've seen them. President Obama has seen them. I don't think there is any question that we need some good and well thought out solutions. There is room to compromise if everyone is willing to discuss the core issue of the coming insolvency (entitlement reform) and put out concrete plans on how to solve it. I have no problem if President Obama wants to have an honest, factual debate about whether his idea that his IPAB council of 12 unelected bureaucrats will do a better job cutting costs in Medicare and insuring the health of seniors than Paul Ryan's plan which focuses on vouchers and competition within the private insurance industry. I don't think Obama's IPAB even has a prayer of doing what he says it will, but I am willing to have the debate. In fact, I welcome it. In this way, we might be able to find a compromise that can prevent catastrophe.
However, all of us must get on the same page in order to have an "adult" discussion about what to do. Everyone must recognize that we are headed for a fiscal cliff and it is fast approaching. Doing nothing or stepping on the gas as most Democrats are proposing will lead only to national suicide:
Sorry to overdose you with numbers and charts , but until you see the actual numbers and trends, you just can't truly comprehend just how completely screwed we are if we don't do something and soon. And those charts don't even count Obamacare, which I guarantee you will be a huge budget buster. History shows us that if you give anything away for free, people will abuse it. The famous Reagan adage has always held true: if you want less of something, tax it, if you want more of it, subsidize it. We are now going to add millions of Americans to completely subsidized and cost free (to them) health care. What do you think is going to happen? Will people use more of their free health care or less of it?
Now you've seen the numbers. I've seen them. President Obama has seen them. I don't think there is any question that we need some good and well thought out solutions. There is room to compromise if everyone is willing to discuss the core issue of the coming insolvency (entitlement reform) and put out concrete plans on how to solve it. I have no problem if President Obama wants to have an honest, factual debate about whether his idea that his IPAB council of 12 unelected bureaucrats will do a better job cutting costs in Medicare and insuring the health of seniors than Paul Ryan's plan which focuses on vouchers and competition within the private insurance industry. I don't think Obama's IPAB even has a prayer of doing what he says it will, but I am willing to have the debate. In fact, I welcome it. In this way, we might be able to find a compromise that can prevent catastrophe.
However, all of us must get on the same page in order to have an "adult" discussion about what to do. Everyone must recognize that we are headed for a fiscal cliff and it is fast approaching. Doing nothing or stepping on the gas as most Democrats are proposing will lead only to national suicide:
6======================================================================================================
During the past year, we have had two major confrontations between the two parties over the size of the Federal budget and how to deal with the deficit and the national debt. Each time the cry from the media and the public was for compromise. Both sides, they said, should moderate their positions in order to find common ground for an agreement. This desire for a “moderate centrist” solution is consistent with the outlook of most of our fellow Americans. We live in a society where you see far more Toyota Camrys and Honda Oddysseys than Porsches or Chevy Volts. That is because these cars are reasonable compromises between the ultimate in performance and the ultimate in economy. They are the "moderate centrist" position in automobiles.
As our nation heads off a fiscal cliff, are there also a "moderate centrist" positions on the deficit and the debt? Is there room for a compromise based upon a shared recognition of the enormity of what faces us? Can the solution to our problem be a "centrist" reduction in our speed from 80 mph to 40 mph? No, it cannot. The only sensible solution is to apply the brakes and stop the car before we all plunge to our deaths.
During the Continuing Resolution debate, even the Wall Street Journal editorialized that Republicans should declare victory and accept a "compromise" when making that agreement would have done absolutely zero to solve the debt crisis. Which brings us to the central question that everyone should ask when considering how to analyze and judge what is occurring in the political arena when it comes to debt and deficits. Can an effective "compromise" be reached between one group who says the emperor has no clothes and another that sees him fully bedecked in finery? In other words, what good is being "reasonable" and "compromising" if the end result is insufficient to the task at hand?
If you get into a negotiation over, for example, a Toyota Camry and the salesman gives you his bottom line figure of say $20k and you say you'll give him $2k, because that is all you can afford, is the compromise for him to sell you the car for $11k? Are you going to end up driving that car off the lot for that "compromise" number? No, of course not. Is he being unreasonable and extreme for holding fast to a number that will allow him to make a small profit? Again, of course not.
Therefore, the center position, the moderate position and, yes, the compromise, can only be a number that will allow the dealer to sell you a car and for you to purchase it without bankrupting either of you. This isn't to say that bargaining, negotiating and compromising doesn't have its place, but it does mean that a result that ends with you driving away in a car and the dealer making enough money to pay for his overhead, his employees and a little profit besides might be for you to be purchasing the beat up old Ford he has at the end of his lot. In other words, the goal of whatever position you take, whether it be the "center" position or not, is to achieve a purpose. If being in the center or compromising jeopardizes that objective, it isn't a reasonable "adult" way to act. After all, in the real world, you aren't going to get a new Camry for $2k or even $11k. But, if your object is to buy a car, the Ford might be an acceptable compromise. The dealer makes some money and you drive off the lot with a car that runs. Problem solved.
For the United States, the objective is to avoid going bankrupt and to reassure the credit rating agencies and our creditors that we have a plan to fix the problems that are causing our structural deficits. If we do not, the agencies will downgrade our credit even further, it will cost more to borrow money and we will approach the cliff ever more quickly.
Therefore, in order to achieve our objective, programs must be reformed and spending must be cut. While this is an unavoidable truth, the six hundred pound gorilla in the room so to speak, the President and his party would rather keep spending at current levels and not touch the programs that are causing the problem at all. They claim that they can fix our fiscal problems by raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" and by "other" unspecified cuts. In the next chapter, Rich Bastards!, I will show how their reliance on taxes in this situation is nothing but a fairy tale.
7=====================================================================================================
There is no doubt that Democrats claim that they are concerned about the deficit especially when it serves their partisan interests during presidential campaigns:
During the past year, we have had two major confrontations between the two parties over the size of the Federal budget and how to deal with the deficit and the national debt. Each time the cry from the media and the public was for compromise. Both sides, they said, should moderate their positions in order to find common ground for an agreement. This desire for a “moderate centrist” solution is consistent with the outlook of most of our fellow Americans. We live in a society where you see far more Toyota Camrys and Honda Oddysseys than Porsches or Chevy Volts. That is because these cars are reasonable compromises between the ultimate in performance and the ultimate in economy. They are the "moderate centrist" position in automobiles.
As our nation heads off a fiscal cliff, are there also a "moderate centrist" positions on the deficit and the debt? Is there room for a compromise based upon a shared recognition of the enormity of what faces us? Can the solution to our problem be a "centrist" reduction in our speed from 80 mph to 40 mph? No, it cannot. The only sensible solution is to apply the brakes and stop the car before we all plunge to our deaths.
During the Continuing Resolution debate, even the Wall Street Journal editorialized that Republicans should declare victory and accept a "compromise" when making that agreement would have done absolutely zero to solve the debt crisis. Which brings us to the central question that everyone should ask when considering how to analyze and judge what is occurring in the political arena when it comes to debt and deficits. Can an effective "compromise" be reached between one group who says the emperor has no clothes and another that sees him fully bedecked in finery? In other words, what good is being "reasonable" and "compromising" if the end result is insufficient to the task at hand?
If you get into a negotiation over, for example, a Toyota Camry and the salesman gives you his bottom line figure of say $20k and you say you'll give him $2k, because that is all you can afford, is the compromise for him to sell you the car for $11k? Are you going to end up driving that car off the lot for that "compromise" number? No, of course not. Is he being unreasonable and extreme for holding fast to a number that will allow him to make a small profit? Again, of course not.
Therefore, the center position, the moderate position and, yes, the compromise, can only be a number that will allow the dealer to sell you a car and for you to purchase it without bankrupting either of you. This isn't to say that bargaining, negotiating and compromising doesn't have its place, but it does mean that a result that ends with you driving away in a car and the dealer making enough money to pay for his overhead, his employees and a little profit besides might be for you to be purchasing the beat up old Ford he has at the end of his lot. In other words, the goal of whatever position you take, whether it be the "center" position or not, is to achieve a purpose. If being in the center or compromising jeopardizes that objective, it isn't a reasonable "adult" way to act. After all, in the real world, you aren't going to get a new Camry for $2k or even $11k. But, if your object is to buy a car, the Ford might be an acceptable compromise. The dealer makes some money and you drive off the lot with a car that runs. Problem solved.
For the United States, the objective is to avoid going bankrupt and to reassure the credit rating agencies and our creditors that we have a plan to fix the problems that are causing our structural deficits. If we do not, the agencies will downgrade our credit even further, it will cost more to borrow money and we will approach the cliff ever more quickly.
Therefore, in order to achieve our objective, programs must be reformed and spending must be cut. While this is an unavoidable truth, the six hundred pound gorilla in the room so to speak, the President and his party would rather keep spending at current levels and not touch the programs that are causing the problem at all. They claim that they can fix our fiscal problems by raising taxes on "millionaires and billionaires" and by "other" unspecified cuts. In the next chapter, Rich Bastards!, I will show how their reliance on taxes in this situation is nothing but a fairy tale.
7=====================================================================================================
There is no doubt that Democrats claim that they are concerned about the deficit especially when it serves their partisan interests during presidential campaigns:
I couldn't agree with the President more. Running up huge deficits and and adding to the debt on the back of our children is unpatriotic and irresponsible. However, given that Barack has run up more debt in four years than President Bush did in his eight year presidency, the reality is that he may know how to talk the talk:
But, he certainly doesn't walk the walk. However, with the aid of his media allies he is portrayed as being a reasonable and moderate centrist when it comes to spending.
8=====================================================================================================
During the 2008 presidential campaign, the One presented himself as a "responsible" Democrat who would govern as a fiscal conservative unlike that irresponsible and unpatriotic Bush:
8=====================================================================================================
During the 2008 presidential campaign, the One presented himself as a "responsible" Democrat who would govern as a fiscal conservative unlike that irresponsible and unpatriotic Bush:
Paygo, eh Barry? Every dollar spent on a new program you'd find an old one to cut? So I guess that means that when you became President you only increased spending by $17 Billion because that's how much you found to cut in your first couple of budgets. In fact, as I recall you originally took out your "scalpel" and cut a mere $100 Million dollars before it was apparent that pig wouldn't fly. But, hey, while the $17 Billion you found in "cuts" doesn't match the nearly the hundreds of billions you increased non-stimulus (we'll cut you a break for the stimulus), it still is a lot of money, right? Nope. It's a drop in the proverbial bucket:
The truth is that when Barack Obama became President with a Democrat controlled House and a fillibuster proof Senate, He and his party went on a spending spree the likes of which had never been seen before:
9=====================================================================================================
Left to their own devices with total control over the government, the Democrats opened up the spending floodgates. President Obama's own 2010 and 2011 budgets predicted ruinous deficit spending as far as the eye could see with no plan whatsoever to do anything about them:
Left to their own devices with total control over the government, the Democrats opened up the spending floodgates. President Obama's own 2010 and 2011 budgets predicted ruinous deficit spending as far as the eye could see with no plan whatsoever to do anything about them:
This type of fiscal irresponsibility did not go over too well with a public becoming increasingly alarmed by the sheer size of the deficits Barry, Nancy and Harry were running up. Most Americans are forced to balance the family budget and they expect their leaders to do the same. Despite the President thinking that he had cover on out of control deficits because he had appointed yet another "commission" to look into it and propose solutions, the public was still anxious. Therefore, President Obama sent his political gurus back to their focus groups to find out a poll tested way to convince the American people that Democrats were serious about reining in spending (without actually having to do so!). President Obama unveiled his new approach to tackling the deficit problem in his 2010 State of the Union address. And what was this amazing and magical thing that Barry proposed that would restrain out of control spending, heal the planet and stop the rise of the oceans? Why, it was a spending freeze! Sounds great in theory doesn't it? As the economy gets better and revenue increased the deficit will shrink. If we froze all federal spending, we would surely wipe out deficit spending in just a few short years. I knew Barack was the smartest man ever to be president.
Unfortunately, when it comes to Democrats, if it sounds too good to be true, it is. You see, with Barack Obama, it is very important to read the fine print:
Unfortunately, when it comes to Democrats, if it sounds too good to be true, it is. You see, with Barack Obama, it is very important to read the fine print:
You've got to hand it to the President. It was a really nice try. He somehow came up with another insignificant amount of money he was willing to "cut" from his gargantuan budget and tried to sell it to what he hoped would be a gullible public who would take his words at face value. Hey, it sounded great, right? Unfortunately, for the Democrats the public just wasn't buying that kind of nonsense. In fact, in response to the massive spending of the Democrats there arose a grass roots rebellion called the Tea Party. These deficit hawks were instrumental in thrashing the Democrats in the 2010 election and retaking control of the House of Representatives from Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.
10====================================================================================================
Knowing that his party had been soundly defeated at the polls in part because of the high deficits he had been running, one would have thought that Barack Obama would start moving towards the center as Bill Clinton had successfully done before him. If ever there was a time that a bi-partisan consensus could be reached to deal with the long term structural problems of entitlements, this was it. However, for that to happen, both sides would have to go into the discussion with serious proposals of their own. Only then, with two competing ideas towards accomplishing the same end could a compromise be reached. Each sides proposals would balance the other's paving the way for the kind of centrist solution the media is always telling us that the public wants.
Under normal circumstances, I would say that this kind of balance is generally the norm in American politics and, in many ways, was the desired outcome of the Founder's vision. This is one of the reasons why we have such a strict separation of powers in the Constitution. It is rare that this nation goes too far in either extreme. We did have a Reagan, but his desires to move the country as much to the right as he would have wished was tempered by Tip O'Neill and a Democrat congress. We've also had Presidents, like Obama, who is on the left extreme of American politics. Would that Obama, who is clearly as ideological as Reagan, had not had a rubber stamp congress that worked with him to push the country as far to the left as was possible.
That being said, the grim realities of the current situation require far more than a re-balancing to the right of Obama's excesses to the left. I would argue that when it comes to the signature issue of our time, the impending financial ruin of the United States because of our sky high debt and unsustainable future obligations, the only “balanced” position is one that actually solves the problem. There is no more time to argue about how fast we should be traveling towards that cliff. It is time to start talking about how quickly to apply the brakes!
That's why so many people anxiously awaited the recommendations of the President's deficit commission. Chaired by Democrat and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and retired Republican Senator Alan Simpson, this commission set out to see if they could find a compromise plan that would apply the brakes in a way that was acceptable to both parties. They ended up with a plan that cut about $4 Trillion in deficits over ten years using a ratio of three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases generated by a reforming of the tax code.
With the Republicans newly in control of the House of Representatives, everyone expected that the President would talk about the findings of the Simpson/Bowles commission at the 2011 State of the Union address. It was hoped that he would offer some of their suggestions as a way to open a dialogue with the Republicans on how to solve the deficit crisis. Well, for all those who thought that reason and compromise might rule the day, President Hope and Change burst their bubble. Instead of proposing any of the recommendations of his own deficit commission, Obama presented more of his ridiculous spending "freeze" gimmick.
11=====================================================================================================
Why did the President pass up this historic opportunity to show leadership on the budget? According to Erskine Bowles, the President's Chicago Cabal convinced him that it would be much wiser to let the Republicans go first so that he could demagogue and attack them mercilessly:
10====================================================================================================
Knowing that his party had been soundly defeated at the polls in part because of the high deficits he had been running, one would have thought that Barack Obama would start moving towards the center as Bill Clinton had successfully done before him. If ever there was a time that a bi-partisan consensus could be reached to deal with the long term structural problems of entitlements, this was it. However, for that to happen, both sides would have to go into the discussion with serious proposals of their own. Only then, with two competing ideas towards accomplishing the same end could a compromise be reached. Each sides proposals would balance the other's paving the way for the kind of centrist solution the media is always telling us that the public wants.
Under normal circumstances, I would say that this kind of balance is generally the norm in American politics and, in many ways, was the desired outcome of the Founder's vision. This is one of the reasons why we have such a strict separation of powers in the Constitution. It is rare that this nation goes too far in either extreme. We did have a Reagan, but his desires to move the country as much to the right as he would have wished was tempered by Tip O'Neill and a Democrat congress. We've also had Presidents, like Obama, who is on the left extreme of American politics. Would that Obama, who is clearly as ideological as Reagan, had not had a rubber stamp congress that worked with him to push the country as far to the left as was possible.
That being said, the grim realities of the current situation require far more than a re-balancing to the right of Obama's excesses to the left. I would argue that when it comes to the signature issue of our time, the impending financial ruin of the United States because of our sky high debt and unsustainable future obligations, the only “balanced” position is one that actually solves the problem. There is no more time to argue about how fast we should be traveling towards that cliff. It is time to start talking about how quickly to apply the brakes!
That's why so many people anxiously awaited the recommendations of the President's deficit commission. Chaired by Democrat and former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and retired Republican Senator Alan Simpson, this commission set out to see if they could find a compromise plan that would apply the brakes in a way that was acceptable to both parties. They ended up with a plan that cut about $4 Trillion in deficits over ten years using a ratio of three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases generated by a reforming of the tax code.
With the Republicans newly in control of the House of Representatives, everyone expected that the President would talk about the findings of the Simpson/Bowles commission at the 2011 State of the Union address. It was hoped that he would offer some of their suggestions as a way to open a dialogue with the Republicans on how to solve the deficit crisis. Well, for all those who thought that reason and compromise might rule the day, President Hope and Change burst their bubble. Instead of proposing any of the recommendations of his own deficit commission, Obama presented more of his ridiculous spending "freeze" gimmick.
11=====================================================================================================
Why did the President pass up this historic opportunity to show leadership on the budget? According to Erskine Bowles, the President's Chicago Cabal convinced him that it would be much wiser to let the Republicans go first so that he could demagogue and attack them mercilessly:
How's that for leadership? Of course, those of us who truly understand Barack Obama were not surprised in the least. We know that the only solution the President is willing to accept to solve the problem of deficits are immediate tax increases to fund the massive rise in spending that he implemented when he and the Democrats ruled the roost for the first two years of his presidency. As far as the long term problem of our unsustainable spending trajectory, it only matters to him in as much as it presents a political opportunity to gain partisan advantage on the Republicans. Why worry about long term issues when the only thing that matters to those who seek power is the next election?
Because President Obama is singularly focused on the tax raising side of the equation and the Republicans have rejected that as a solution to the problem, he knows there cannot be a compromise. After all, once taxes are off the table, the only thing left to discuss is spending and Obama and his party have absolutely no interest in getting involved in a discussion over cutting the programs they love so much.
Therefore, because there is nothing in it for him, when it comes to debt and deficits, this President has chosen not to lead. Far better to let the other side go first and then attack them. Were Obama really serious about the fiscal dangers we face, he might have shown some leadership when he proposed budgets for the first three years of his Presidency. Not a single one of them produced a credible plan to prevent the country from going broke. Each one of them shows us with increases in spending and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. When faced with the challenge of this generation, he decided to vote "present" once again. The budget for 2011 was the equivalent of doing absolutely nothing about our fiscal problems, even according to the liberal Washington Post:
Because President Obama is singularly focused on the tax raising side of the equation and the Republicans have rejected that as a solution to the problem, he knows there cannot be a compromise. After all, once taxes are off the table, the only thing left to discuss is spending and Obama and his party have absolutely no interest in getting involved in a discussion over cutting the programs they love so much.
Therefore, because there is nothing in it for him, when it comes to debt and deficits, this President has chosen not to lead. Far better to let the other side go first and then attack them. Were Obama really serious about the fiscal dangers we face, he might have shown some leadership when he proposed budgets for the first three years of his Presidency. Not a single one of them produced a credible plan to prevent the country from going broke. Each one of them shows us with increases in spending and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. When faced with the challenge of this generation, he decided to vote "present" once again. The budget for 2011 was the equivalent of doing absolutely nothing about our fiscal problems, even according to the liberal Washington Post:
USA Today was not impressed with the President's leadership either:
In fact, the President's plan was so ridiculous, so unworthy of the paper it was printed on, so unworthy of the task at hand, that it couldn't even get one Democratic vote in the US Senate and went down to an ignominious defeat:
12=====================================================================================================
Obama is not the only Democrat without the courage or desire to face up to the reality that confronts us. Despite their obligations under the Constitution to propose a spending plan and pass a budget, Harry Reid and his Democratic majority in the Senate have not produced one in 1200+ days. The craven coward even went so far as to say this:
Obama is not the only Democrat without the courage or desire to face up to the reality that confronts us. Despite their obligations under the Constitution to propose a spending plan and pass a budget, Harry Reid and his Democratic majority in the Senate have not produced one in 1200+ days. The craven coward even went so far as to say this:
It would be foolish politically to do the right thing for the country you mean, Harry? It would be foolish to let the country know where you stand on an issue vital to the future of our country? Are you for real? It seems that Harry would rather play the partisan political game offering nothing so he can slam Republicans than fulfill his responsibilities under the law. As you can see, it isn't just the President. The entire leadership of the Democratic party obviously has no desire to engage in any serious debate on the subject of cutting spending. Since they have offered nothing, then that is their negotiating position. Nothing.
Of course, they can't let the public know that is their true position on the issue. Therefore they have become expert at spouting pious platitudes in an attempt to mask the fact that they have no desire to cut spending whatsoever:
Of course, they can't let the public know that is their true position on the issue. Therefore they have become expert at spouting pious platitudes in an attempt to mask the fact that they have no desire to cut spending whatsoever:
Nice words, eh? Too bad that's all they are. As we have seen, it is the entitlement programs of Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security that are driving the deficits now and in the future. Any credible long term deficit plan needs to reform them in order to prevent a fiscal train wreck. Yet, here is former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi revealing her position on them:
Hmm, well if there there are to be no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, then surely they must come out of domestic spending, right? Don't be ridiculous. These are Democrats we are talking about. As can plainly be seen in the above video, Minority Leader Pelosi's constituents were not happy with the cuts to discretionary spending either. They called her a "sell out". Not surprisingly, that opinion is the consensus view among those whose votes are being bought and those whose careers are made by doing the buying. Indeed,
for many in the Democrat party, any cuts at all to discretionary spending is absolutely unacceptable. To the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, they are downright evil:
Sugar coated Satan sandwich! That's rich! But, seriously, if you listen to what Representative Cleaver is saying and parse his statement, what he wants is to solve our fiscal crisis without touching Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid or even discretionary spending. In other words, he doesn't want to cut a dime. In his world, everything can be made right again if we just use the "balanced" approach of raising taxes to pay for it all. What Rep. Cleaver doesn't mention is that taxes for every one of us would have to double by 2050 to pay for this. That taxation of this magnitude would destroy the economy is irrelevant to him. Granny must get her check! His clients in the inner cities must get their checks! The mating habits of Shrimp must be studied and NPR and Planned Parenthood must be funded.
13======================================================================================================
When you analyze what Democrats say and what they propose, it boggles your mind that they can claim they want to deal with deficits with a straight face. First of all, it is absolutely not possible to solve either the short or the long term deficit and debt problem without touching entitlements. Any politician that says otherwise is either a liar or too ignorant to hold his/her position:
13======================================================================================================
When you analyze what Democrats say and what they propose, it boggles your mind that they can claim they want to deal with deficits with a straight face. First of all, it is absolutely not possible to solve either the short or the long term deficit and debt problem without touching entitlements. Any politician that says otherwise is either a liar or too ignorant to hold his/her position:
It cannot even be done if we were to eliminate the one domestic program Democrats are always happy to cut:
Hmmm, well, we obviously aren't going to eliminate the Defense department and the President's own Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says that the current cuts to the Defense Department caused by the failure of the debt limit deal will seriously jeopardize our national security and lead to a "hollow force". Therefore, since Democrats refuse to cut entitlements or their cherished NPR, I guess leaves only the raising of taxes as a means of fixing the deficit, right?
14======================================================================================================
According to these paragons of fiscal virtue, the budgetary problems the United States faces can be fixed if we ask "millionaires and billionaires" to pay their fair share. In the next chapter I will deal in detail as to why this is an absolute fantasy on their part. For now, let's look and see what tax rates would have to be if we don't cut spending and reform entitlements. First, let's blow up this ridiculous notion that taxing the rich will cure all that ails us:
14======================================================================================================
According to these paragons of fiscal virtue, the budgetary problems the United States faces can be fixed if we ask "millionaires and billionaires" to pay their fair share. In the next chapter I will deal in detail as to why this is an absolute fantasy on their part. For now, let's look and see what tax rates would have to be if we don't cut spending and reform entitlements. First, let's blow up this ridiculous notion that taxing the rich will cure all that ails us:
Oops! That clearly isn't going to work. Well, I guess Democrats are proposing to raises everyone's taxes to pay granny's checks, eh? Surely, that'll solve the problem. Uh... No:
Obviously, this level of taxation would destroy the economy. The Democrats know this, but they figure that as long as the media Matrix machine spins their lies about taxes as truth, they can get away with it. Even so, given that neither the Democrats in Congress nor their President are willing to cut spending, one would have at least thought that, for the sake of the nation they claim to love, they'd have offered something more substantive than this fantasy about taxing the rich. Sadly, that is not the case.
This leads to the inescapable conclusion that either these Democrats have read the charts above and are living in a dream world where they don't think we have a problem with our long term fiscal situation (and, thus show they are too ignorant or unfit to lead) or they don't care as long as attacking Republicans for trying to steal Granny's check helps them to get reelected and back in control of Washington. In either case, they are all demonstrating a complete unwillingness to engage in a substantive debate in a way in which progress on solving our debt problem can be made. In their obliviousness to facts and figures and, frankly, simple economic reality, the Democrat party collectively remind me of Kevin Bacon in Animal House:
This leads to the inescapable conclusion that either these Democrats have read the charts above and are living in a dream world where they don't think we have a problem with our long term fiscal situation (and, thus show they are too ignorant or unfit to lead) or they don't care as long as attacking Republicans for trying to steal Granny's check helps them to get reelected and back in control of Washington. In either case, they are all demonstrating a complete unwillingness to engage in a substantive debate in a way in which progress on solving our debt problem can be made. In their obliviousness to facts and figures and, frankly, simple economic reality, the Democrat party collectively remind me of Kevin Bacon in Animal House:
15====================================================================================================
While it is beyond disappointing that Democrats are only willing to offer the lie of taxing the rich as a solution to the debt crisis we will soon be facing, it is completely beyond the pale when the shameless partisan games they have been playing causes severe governmental dysfunction. You see, while in the majority in both chambers of Congress, Democrats didn't even have the guts to pass a budget in either house lest the voters find out what spendaholics they were. Nor did they have the political courage to pass a debt ceiling hike when they had every opportunity and huge majorities to do so. Why, doing their constitutional responsibilities might have hurt them at the polls! Waaah!
Even after the election of 2010 during the "lame duck" session, these children couldn't even muster up the gumption to pass a budget, a Continuing Resolution or a debt ceiling hike when the political fallout would have been far less severe. As a result, their actions forced the country towards government shutdowns twice in 2011. Democrats would like to claim that the GOP were acting like terrorists holding the nation hostage during both threatened shutdowns, but it was their cowardice that loaded and cocked the gun and then put it in the hands of the Republicans. This was done on purpose so as to put the onus of doing the "responsible" thing and dealing with the crisis of unsustainable deficits squarely on the shoulders of the GOP. If the government shut down because of Democrat intransigence on spending cuts, their media allies would be sure to spin the public that is was the fault of those mean dastardly Republicans. You see how the game can be played when you control the media Matrix machine?
This total lack of even a semblance of political courage on the part of the Democrats resulting in the first confrontation between the parties over the Continuing Resolution (CR) reminded one Republican of Led Zeppelin:
While it is beyond disappointing that Democrats are only willing to offer the lie of taxing the rich as a solution to the debt crisis we will soon be facing, it is completely beyond the pale when the shameless partisan games they have been playing causes severe governmental dysfunction. You see, while in the majority in both chambers of Congress, Democrats didn't even have the guts to pass a budget in either house lest the voters find out what spendaholics they were. Nor did they have the political courage to pass a debt ceiling hike when they had every opportunity and huge majorities to do so. Why, doing their constitutional responsibilities might have hurt them at the polls! Waaah!
Even after the election of 2010 during the "lame duck" session, these children couldn't even muster up the gumption to pass a budget, a Continuing Resolution or a debt ceiling hike when the political fallout would have been far less severe. As a result, their actions forced the country towards government shutdowns twice in 2011. Democrats would like to claim that the GOP were acting like terrorists holding the nation hostage during both threatened shutdowns, but it was their cowardice that loaded and cocked the gun and then put it in the hands of the Republicans. This was done on purpose so as to put the onus of doing the "responsible" thing and dealing with the crisis of unsustainable deficits squarely on the shoulders of the GOP. If the government shut down because of Democrat intransigence on spending cuts, their media allies would be sure to spin the public that is was the fault of those mean dastardly Republicans. You see how the game can be played when you control the media Matrix machine?
This total lack of even a semblance of political courage on the part of the Democrats resulting in the first confrontation between the parties over the Continuing Resolution (CR) reminded one Republican of Led Zeppelin:
To give you an idea of how totally unserious the Democratic party's position on spending was during this debate, not only did they not have the courage to produce a budget as even a rudimentary starting point for a compromise, they even complained that the measly cuts that were eventually agreed to as the clock was ticking down to zero were draconian. How draconian? Well, I'll leave it to 1000 pennies and some Jack Daniel's to explain:
Note, that the actual agreement reached on the CR "compromise" only called for cuts of 38 billion dollars in spending for 2011. This is actually less than half a shot glass! If the Democrats went into a gnashing of teeth and tearing of garments over only a half a shot of Jack when we have at least fourteen shots to go to balance the budget, then we must face the truth that their position in the debate over the CR was but even further evidence that they have absolutely no desire to cut spending. Now, or ever.
It isn't that Obama and the Democrats aren't in the center of political thought on debt and deficits, they aren't even in the game. I mean how serious could they be about reducing spending when even the President's Treasury Secretary, the tax cheat, Tim Geithner, is forced to admit that the President's own budget is unsustainable:
It isn't that Obama and the Democrats aren't in the center of political thought on debt and deficits, they aren't even in the game. I mean how serious could they be about reducing spending when even the President's Treasury Secretary, the tax cheat, Tim Geithner, is forced to admit that the President's own budget is unsustainable:
As for little Timmy Geithner... (by the way, don't you think it is absolutely ridiculous to have a Treasury Secretary who by his own admission doesn't know how to fill out his own taxes?) at least he has the honesty to be candid about the fact that the President's budget won't fix the problem at all. According to Timmy, someone else must propose a solution that will fix the problem! Maybe not the President, maybe not Harry Reid and his 1200+ day failure to produce any budget at all... so who will it be?
16====================================================================================================
Why it's Paul Ryan and the Republican Party! And why were these newly elected politicians willing to risk their political careers by being the party that "sucks" and wants to end the little spending party? Because, seeing the same numbers and charts I showed you they came to the same conclusion everyone who hasn't sold their soul to the vote buying/taking racket comes to: this country will go broke if someone doesn't stand up and do the right thing:
16====================================================================================================
Why it's Paul Ryan and the Republican Party! And why were these newly elected politicians willing to risk their political careers by being the party that "sucks" and wants to end the little spending party? Because, seeing the same numbers and charts I showed you they came to the same conclusion everyone who hasn't sold their soul to the vote buying/taking racket comes to: this country will go broke if someone doesn't stand up and do the right thing:
After spending six years of the Bush presidency spending like drunken Democrats, the GOP finally mustered up the courage to go "first" and put their collective feet on the third rail of American politics. By reforming entitlements, they risked the wrath of every senior citizen in America. Republicans were willing to take that chance because they know that it is necessary in order save the country. In their first budget as a Congress, they proposed a plan that is barely enough to meet the smell test in terms of fixing the long term problem as far as I am concerned. However, their budget does cut domestic discretionary spending, block grants Medicaid and turns Medicare into the kind of premium support system proposed by the Breaux Medicare commission authorized by Bill Clinton.
Though, I personally don't think that the Republicans went far enough in terms of cutting duplicative and wasteful programs in the domestic discretionary budget, the plan they passed does have numbers totally in line with what the President's own deficit commission recommended (which Obama completely ignored of course) and what the bi-partisan Domenici/Rivlin plan proposed. It will prevent bankruptcy. In the chart below you can see how the "Ryan plan" puts the US on a sustainable fiscal footing while the Presidents plan keeps the foot firmly on the gas pedal towards the fiscal cliff:
Though, I personally don't think that the Republicans went far enough in terms of cutting duplicative and wasteful programs in the domestic discretionary budget, the plan they passed does have numbers totally in line with what the President's own deficit commission recommended (which Obama completely ignored of course) and what the bi-partisan Domenici/Rivlin plan proposed. It will prevent bankruptcy. In the chart below you can see how the "Ryan plan" puts the US on a sustainable fiscal footing while the Presidents plan keeps the foot firmly on the gas pedal towards the fiscal cliff:
17=====================================================================================================
When the GOP budget plan was first proposed by Paul Ryan, the President hailed it as a "serious" effort and many thought that maybe now that the Republicans had gone first and put their proposal on the table, that the President would respond with one of his own. In this way a "compromise" might be reached and a showdown over raising the debt limit might be avoided. When Congressman Ryan was invited to sit in the first row to watch the President's speech in reply to the GOP budget proposal, many within the Matrix got their hopes up that the President who campaigned on hope and change and transcending the politics of division would use the occasion to push for a bi-partisan consensus solution. Those of us who have swallowed the red pill knew better. This wasn't an opportunity for Obama to compromise, it was time for him to attack!:
When the GOP budget plan was first proposed by Paul Ryan, the President hailed it as a "serious" effort and many thought that maybe now that the Republicans had gone first and put their proposal on the table, that the President would respond with one of his own. In this way a "compromise" might be reached and a showdown over raising the debt limit might be avoided. When Congressman Ryan was invited to sit in the first row to watch the President's speech in reply to the GOP budget proposal, many within the Matrix got their hopes up that the President who campaigned on hope and change and transcending the politics of division would use the occasion to push for a bi-partisan consensus solution. Those of us who have swallowed the red pill knew better. This wasn't an opportunity for Obama to compromise, it was time for him to attack!:
One has to wonder what purpose it served President Obama to invite the head of the GOP budget committee to sit front row at a speech aimed at solving the deficit problem and then call him un-American to his face. Aside from a total lack of common decency, how was this kind of ad hominem attack against the person you are soon going to be negotiating with ever going to be a starting point for fixing the entitlement crisis? It wasn't. What this speech accomplished was to let the Republicans know that Obama and the Democrats were going to come at them with scorched earth demagoguery unless they agreed to what they wanted. It was Chicago style thug politics at its finest.
18======================================================================================================
In terms of dealing with the debt and deficit, the April speech just served to show how completely unserious Barry is on the subject. President Obama had months to come up with a response to the budget the GOP passed after his own budget was dead on arrival on capitol hill. He had more months to come up with a serious proposal to deal with the debt ceiling debate. He had months to use those millions of brain cells that his sycophants in the media claim make him the smartest President ever, months to come up with a credible plan of his own. Instead we get this:
18======================================================================================================
In terms of dealing with the debt and deficit, the April speech just served to show how completely unserious Barry is on the subject. President Obama had months to come up with a response to the budget the GOP passed after his own budget was dead on arrival on capitol hill. He had more months to come up with a serious proposal to deal with the debt ceiling debate. He had months to use those millions of brain cells that his sycophants in the media claim make him the smartest President ever, months to come up with a credible plan of his own. Instead we get this:
So how did the Obama plan from the speech he gave in April of 2011 compare with the other deficit reduction plans that had been proposed? Are you kidding?:
So let's see. The President offered about $3 Trillion in deficit reduction mostly coming from tax hikes he knows cannot pass Congress. But, then, we don't even know if these numbers are actually true because President Obama only made a speech outlining his ideas. He didn't actually put anything on paper. This gentleman from Reuters is being overly generous by doing some "back of the envelope" calculations for him. Because President Obama offered no specifics or anything that could later be used against him.
19=====================================================================================================
In order to help the American people see exactly what President Obama was offering in his speech, Paul Ryan asked the head of the CBO, Douglas Elmendorf to score the proposal so that the Republicans (and the country) would have a framework from which to compare the competing ideas on how to fix the budget. The response:
19=====================================================================================================
In order to help the American people see exactly what President Obama was offering in his speech, Paul Ryan asked the head of the CBO, Douglas Elmendorf to score the proposal so that the Republicans (and the country) would have a framework from which to compare the competing ideas on how to fix the budget. The response:
"We don't estimate speeches"... Classic! Well, if Elmendorf won't score the President's speech, I guess it wasn't very serious now was it? It seems to me that something that can't be scored isn't exactly a plan, it's just more words out of Barry's mouth. It's just another of his innumerable speeches:
I don't always agree with Hillary, but I think she nailed it that time. Barack Obama mouths the words and speaks the platitudes, but when it comes to reining in entitlements or finding solutions to the problem of massive deficits, he is AWOL. In the end, that's all he has ever done on this issue: give speeches. Even the Democrat co-chairman Obama personally chose to lead his deficit commission can't contain his contempt for the President's unwillingness to lead and be honest with his numbers. On the other hand, he feels that the GOP and Paul Ryan have made an honest and sincere effort to rescue the nation from the fiscal cliff:
20=====================================================================================================
While the Republicans were willing to risk the third rail of politics by coming up with a budget that the former Clinton Chief of Staff categorized as "sensible, straightforward, and serious", tragically, not one single Democrat leader, whether it is the President, House Minority Leader Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Reid have come up with a proposal, much less legislation on how to reform Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Or any other specific spending cuts for that matter. Nor are they telling the American people the truth about how much taxes are going to have to be raised to keep these programs solvent if left unreformed and untouched either. If the true scope of tax increases Democrats would need to solve the debt problem were known to the public, we'd be having a totally different discussion, I guarantee you. That's why it is so important for Democrats that the left-wing media keep everybody in the Matrix looking the other way at shiny object distractions from the real issues at hand.
Because they knew their stenographers in the media will not call them to account for their utter failure to lead and will do their best to make sure everyone stays blissfully ignorant and content inside the Matrix, Democrats have decided to adopt a political strategy of shamelessly attacking those who are actually willing to stick their necks out to solve the problems we face. By offering no credible solutions of their own, they not only preclude the possibility of reaching a compromise, but they are also free to demagogue any Republican "cuts" for maximum partisan gain. While this tactic may turn out to be successful in getting them back their majorities and winning Obama's re-election, it does nothing to solve the problem or move the debate forward. How can the two parties find "compromise" or even the genesis of a solution on this critical issue to our nation's future when the President sends out Secretary of HHS and head honcho of Obamacare, Kathleen Sebelius, to make outrageous charges like this about Ryan's and the GOP's attempt to fix Medicare so that it is solvent for the future:
While the Republicans were willing to risk the third rail of politics by coming up with a budget that the former Clinton Chief of Staff categorized as "sensible, straightforward, and serious", tragically, not one single Democrat leader, whether it is the President, House Minority Leader Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Reid have come up with a proposal, much less legislation on how to reform Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. Or any other specific spending cuts for that matter. Nor are they telling the American people the truth about how much taxes are going to have to be raised to keep these programs solvent if left unreformed and untouched either. If the true scope of tax increases Democrats would need to solve the debt problem were known to the public, we'd be having a totally different discussion, I guarantee you. That's why it is so important for Democrats that the left-wing media keep everybody in the Matrix looking the other way at shiny object distractions from the real issues at hand.
Because they knew their stenographers in the media will not call them to account for their utter failure to lead and will do their best to make sure everyone stays blissfully ignorant and content inside the Matrix, Democrats have decided to adopt a political strategy of shamelessly attacking those who are actually willing to stick their necks out to solve the problems we face. By offering no credible solutions of their own, they not only preclude the possibility of reaching a compromise, but they are also free to demagogue any Republican "cuts" for maximum partisan gain. While this tactic may turn out to be successful in getting them back their majorities and winning Obama's re-election, it does nothing to solve the problem or move the debate forward. How can the two parties find "compromise" or even the genesis of a solution on this critical issue to our nation's future when the President sends out Secretary of HHS and head honcho of Obamacare, Kathleen Sebelius, to make outrageous charges like this about Ryan's and the GOP's attempt to fix Medicare so that it is solvent for the future:
She should be ashamed indeed! But, hey why give Kathleen a hard time? She is but a puppet on her master's strings dutifully parroting what Obama wants her to say. This is no different than Obama's April speech where he accused Paul Ryan of being un-American and wanting to throw granny into the street with her autistic kids. The plan is to demagogue, demagogue and demagogue some more. As far as they are concerned it doesn't even matter if what they are attacking Republicans for is true:
Like I said, when it comes to savaging Republicans for being "dumb" enough to actually want to deal with the debt crisis, why let the truth get in the way? This is the strategy Democrats have decided upon to win the election of 2012 and it was an integral part of their plan to flummox the Republicans and prevent any meaningful cuts and reforms in entitlements or other spending during in the debt ceiling debate. Their goal was either to get the Republicans to agree to a massive tax hike that would take place immediately in exchange for spending cuts that occur many years into the ten year time frame or, if that failed, to reject any type of entitlement reform and use the issue as a cudgel to beat them with. If that meant that they would have to employ a strategy of obfuscations, spin and lies to achieve those ends, so be it.
21=====================================================================================================
You have to give the Democrats credit. Since they know that the media plays for their team, they can be sure they'll have a willing accomplice in trying sell this bag of excrement to the American people:
21=====================================================================================================
You have to give the Democrats credit. Since they know that the media plays for their team, they can be sure they'll have a willing accomplice in trying sell this bag of excrement to the American people:
As I said, the Democrat strategy during the debt ceiling confrontation was to lie, distract and demagogue in order to prevent any chance that their vote buying racket would be disturbed. After all, with almost 50% of American households receiving some sort of governmental assistance and with that number expected to grow dramatically as the baby boomers retire, they figure they will be able to buy elections over and over again until the fiscal car finally drives off the cliff. But, hey there's always ways to delay the day of reckoning, right? Look at the Europeans... Therefore, the heck with the future! What really matters is maximizing their power today!
So, they started off with lies. During the lead up to the debt ceiling debate, the Republicans rightfully asserted that the Democrats were unwilling to put any of their ideas on the table. They had gone first and presented a package that Democrats were gleefully savaging. But, where was the Democrats proposal? If the House could pass a budget, why not the Senate?
Realizing, that most Americans believe in fair play and expect their elected representatives to pass a budget as the law legally obliges them to, the Democrats attempted to distract their attention and turn the subject back on the Republicans. Out came Majority Whip of the United States Senate Dick Durbin to lie in front of the cameras:
So, they started off with lies. During the lead up to the debt ceiling debate, the Republicans rightfully asserted that the Democrats were unwilling to put any of their ideas on the table. They had gone first and presented a package that Democrats were gleefully savaging. But, where was the Democrats proposal? If the House could pass a budget, why not the Senate?
Realizing, that most Americans believe in fair play and expect their elected representatives to pass a budget as the law legally obliges them to, the Democrats attempted to distract their attention and turn the subject back on the Republicans. Out came Majority Whip of the United States Senate Dick Durbin to lie in front of the cameras:
It says a lot about how ignorant and gullible Democrats think the American people are that Durbin believes he can get away with this pathetic lie. However, given the failure of union dominated schools, how many people actually know basic civics anymore? The reality is that :
Dick Durbin's claim is incorrect for three reasons. First, budget law states that budget resolutions are privileged, meaning they cannot be filibustered, only require a simple majority vote for passage, and can be brought up by the majority party (which controls the Senate floor schedule) at any time. Second, for a large portion of last year, Democrats controlled 60 seats in the Senate, and still chose not to pass a budget plan for the nation. Finally, Senate Democrats have not even written or introduced a budget plan this year, much less passed one out of the Senate.
However, when did the truth ever stop the media from distorting the truth to the Democrats advantage? Watch CNN tut-tutting the failure of "Congress" to pass a budget while showing members of the only branch of Congress that did:
Dick Durbin's claim is incorrect for three reasons. First, budget law states that budget resolutions are privileged, meaning they cannot be filibustered, only require a simple majority vote for passage, and can be brought up by the majority party (which controls the Senate floor schedule) at any time. Second, for a large portion of last year, Democrats controlled 60 seats in the Senate, and still chose not to pass a budget plan for the nation. Finally, Senate Democrats have not even written or introduced a budget plan this year, much less passed one out of the Senate.
However, when did the truth ever stop the media from distorting the truth to the Democrats advantage? Watch CNN tut-tutting the failure of "Congress" to pass a budget while showing members of the only branch of Congress that did:
I don't think that there is a better example of the unreality that is the Matrix. When the Democrats were in control of all of Congress they didn't pass a budget. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in 1200+ days. When the Republicans took control of the House they passed a budget every year and on time. So, who does left-wing propagandist Erin Burnett and CNN blame? Congress as a whole. This falsely lumps in Republicans with the cowards from the other party who are to afraid to pass a budget of their own. There is no attempt made whatsoever to inform the public that it is the Democrats and only the Democrats who are to blame for there not being a budget. But, the ultimate insult and unreality is that the only members of Congress shown in this story are the ones entirely innocent of the charge. This is how Democrats can get away with the indefensible. This is how their ability to set the narrative through control of the media Matrix allows them to control the terms of the debate.
22======================================================================================================
Despite the fact that neither the President or the Senate have put forth a single plan on paper to deal with the debt, the media allows them to appear as participating equally and sincerely in the negotiations when that is nowhere near the truth. Therefore, when the time finally came to engage in the debate over the debt ceiling increase, President Obama and the Democrats could count on the media to dutifully parrot whatever story they wanted to tell. In this case, it was that the President was acting as the "adult" in the room who was trying to solve the crisis with a "balanced" approach while the Republicans were mean nasty extremists who were holding the nation hostage in order to steal Granny's Medicare.
To prevent any serious analysis of the President's non-proposal vs. the GOP's voted on and passed legislation, Obama and his media spinmeisters resorted to the time proven successful strategy of wasting time with shiny objects. For example, Barry got all into a high dudgeon when Republicans said that he needed to step forward and lead on the debt ceiling talks. Rather than responding by putting forth a detailed proposal of his own, Obama diverted attention away from the fact that he was unwilling to take a solid position. Instead, he chose to spin the news cycle into distraction mode by charging that it was the GOP who were being irresponsible for leaving town to spend time with their families over the Fourth of July break. Watch and learn how the shiny object tactic works:
22======================================================================================================
Despite the fact that neither the President or the Senate have put forth a single plan on paper to deal with the debt, the media allows them to appear as participating equally and sincerely in the negotiations when that is nowhere near the truth. Therefore, when the time finally came to engage in the debate over the debt ceiling increase, President Obama and the Democrats could count on the media to dutifully parrot whatever story they wanted to tell. In this case, it was that the President was acting as the "adult" in the room who was trying to solve the crisis with a "balanced" approach while the Republicans were mean nasty extremists who were holding the nation hostage in order to steal Granny's Medicare.
To prevent any serious analysis of the President's non-proposal vs. the GOP's voted on and passed legislation, Obama and his media spinmeisters resorted to the time proven successful strategy of wasting time with shiny objects. For example, Barry got all into a high dudgeon when Republicans said that he needed to step forward and lead on the debt ceiling talks. Rather than responding by putting forth a detailed proposal of his own, Obama diverted attention away from the fact that he was unwilling to take a solid position. Instead, he chose to spin the news cycle into distraction mode by charging that it was the GOP who were being irresponsible for leaving town to spend time with their families over the Fourth of July break. Watch and learn how the shiny object tactic works:
Ahh, vintage Obama, you stay here, I've been here.... Notice how the lapdogs in the press corps laugh in conformity and agreement as Obama pretends that he is the "adult" in the room who is acting responsibly in this debate (despite putting zero on the table), while the children (Republicans) are off galivanting around and enjoying themselves. The stenographers in the press dutifully make the "Obama as the adult in the room" meme the story of the day. Falling for this trap, Republicans responded by agreeing to forego their Independence Day break and made an immediate offer to meet with Obama ASAP:
The next day, Obama responded through his press flack by saying, no, he wouldn't meet with them because:
It's not a conversation worth having? I thought he just said that Republicans should stay in Washington and talk with him because the stakes were so high. But, the next day he turns around and says that he doesn't want to talk and that he thinks going to his fundraiser is more important? Really? Well, Barack does need to raise a billion bucks to get reelected, so yeah that's obviously more important to him. But, wait, Barry O's leadership gets even better. After castigating Congress for taking off the Fourth of July weekend, what does he do? Exactly what you'd expect:
This is leadership? First you demagogue the very people with which you need to negotiate a deal, and then you rebuff their response and go and do exactly that which you called them out for? That isn't leadership, that is just a politician playing a snarky partisan game and trying to change the subject by demonizing his adversaries as lazy. It is the very definition of childishness and these kinds of petty antics are why everyone is so turned off by politics. But wait a minute, didn't Obama campaign on transcending this kind of partisan foolishness? Especially when the stakes are so high? Ahhh, but that was when the motto was hope and change not fear and dread.
23======================================================================================================
Notice, that the end result of President Obama's bit of media aided razzle-dazzle was to waste four entire days of a critical news cycle with ridiculous partisan bickering instead of any focus whatsoever on the fact that he refused to present a plan. Nicely played, eh? However, as well crafted as this little piece of distraction was, there still remained the fact that the President didn't have a plan. So, it was back into the old Democrat playbook for another shiny object: corporate jets and the fat cats who fly in them:
23======================================================================================================
Notice, that the end result of President Obama's bit of media aided razzle-dazzle was to waste four entire days of a critical news cycle with ridiculous partisan bickering instead of any focus whatsoever on the fact that he refused to present a plan. Nicely played, eh? However, as well crafted as this little piece of distraction was, there still remained the fact that the President didn't have a plan. So, it was back into the old Democrat playbook for another shiny object: corporate jets and the fat cats who fly in them:
So, six times in one press conference during the debt ceiling debate, Obama mentions subsidies for corporate jets. Six times! Well, it must be a critically important component in his brilliant plan to keep the US from going bankrupt then, eh? Actually, no. Let's forget for a moment, a long moment, that this tax loophole was part of his stimulus plan. Take a guess how much revenue closing this loophole that he created would raise? Given the importance that he placed upon it in the press conference, how about 10% of the four trillion debt reduction target? No? What about 5%? Still, no. 1%?? Nope, not even one percent. This much:
Are you kidding me? Less than one-tenth of one percent? Let's see if I have this straight. The President says that he is serious about reducing the debt and calls for a commission to look into the problem and then he completely ignores every one of their suggestions. Instead, the President presents a budget that is so ridiculous that it can't even get the vote of one member of the United States Senate. Then, he responds to the only proposal that has been put on the table by calling its author un-American and making his counter-proposal so vague that the head of the CBO doesn't deem it substantive enough to even score it. Then, during the debt ceiling debate, the President has a press conference in which he devotes a great deal of his time highlighting his outrage over a loophole that he himself created and that won't even fund the government for one third of one single day during a period of 3650 days. And he has the gall to present himself as the reasonable "adult" in the room? If the stakes weren't so serious, the President's effort to appear that he is in any way concerned about fixing our fiscal ship would be comical.
24=====================================================================================================
The more the debt ceiling debate dragged on, the more the public became angry with politicians on both sides of the aisle for getting nothing done. Seeing his poll numbers begin to free-fall, Barack Obama decided to ratchet up the pressure on the Republicans to force them to make an agreement rather than call his bluff and let the government shut down. Once again, this called for another shiny object from the old Democrat playbook and an assist from the media Matrix. What did they decide to do? Why, scare the bejeezus out of our seniors of course! It's time to threaten everyone's checks: (sorry about the commercial)
24=====================================================================================================
The more the debt ceiling debate dragged on, the more the public became angry with politicians on both sides of the aisle for getting nothing done. Seeing his poll numbers begin to free-fall, Barack Obama decided to ratchet up the pressure on the Republicans to force them to make an agreement rather than call his bluff and let the government shut down. Once again, this called for another shiny object from the old Democrat playbook and an assist from the media Matrix. What did they decide to do? Why, scare the bejeezus out of our seniors of course! It's time to threaten everyone's checks: (sorry about the commercial)
with a boldfaced lie:
which nonetheless is parroted by the administration's stenographers in the media:
It's great to have media allies that will propagandize for you, eh? Notice that every headline in the story below slams Republicans and touts Democrat talking points:
Notice that under "more news" Obama calls for compromise. The headline makes him sound like the reasonable one. Yeah, right. The truth is that the President had no choice according to statute but to pay out the Social Security checks. Even if the Government is in default, the Social Security Agency could have used an accounting trick to liquidate some of the trillions in fake I.O.U's in the trust fund to pay every single beneficiary unless they (Obama's Treasury) chose not to. I know this, the President knows this, but most seniors don't. Our retired population should be able to count on the media to inform them of this salient fact and they should be able to count on their President to do his job. But, Barry would rather scare them for partisan gain. And this is a man who claims to care about our seniors? Apparently not enough to abstain from using them as a bargaining chip.
How does frightening granny about her Social Security help our nation when it is an "adult" conversation about just those kinds of benefits that we need to have in order to prevent an inevitable fiscal insolvency in the first place? Resorting to this kind of cheap and demonstrably false demagoguery, is absolutely counterproductive if your goal is to reduce future spending to levels we can actually afford. Unless, that is, you really don't want to cut spending. Unless, that is, you've seen all the charts and the numbers, and you don't give a rat's ass as long as you keep getting elected. Hello, Barck Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Emanuel Cleaver. Hello, Democratic party! Crooks and Thieves!
25=====================================================================================================
Did you know that Obama originally wanted a "clean" debt ceiling bill passed? In fact, he claimed he would veto one that had anything attached to it at all. That's Washington lingo for zero spending cuts. That should tell you all you need to know about where the Democrats really are in this debate on debt and deficits. Obama's proposal for a "clean" bill reveals that their actual negotiating position starts at zero. To get even one dollar of cuts out of them, the Democrats needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to the budget cutting negotiating table. Then these same Democrats had the audacity to point the finger at Republicans and accused them of being terrorists for "forcing" them do the responsible thing and face our fiscal reality. Had Obama gotten his way and received a clean debt ceiling rise, Fitch and Moody's would have been racing Standard and Poor's to be the first ones to downgrade our credit.
I've always believed that you can tell more about what people really believe by studying what they do and not what they say. If Democrats were actually as concerned about the deficit the way they all piously claim to be, they'd have tried to win the public to their side with serious proposals of their own. I always thought that was what a debate on policy was supposed to be about. One side would come out with a position and try to persuade the voters that they were right and the other side would counter with a different proposal to move the public to their side. But, I guess that is a quaint idealistic notion in the day of the left-wing media Matrix.
Nowadays, everything in Washington is crafted in private behind closed doors and released to the public in a crisis atmosphere with barely enough time to vote on the bill, much less read it. Remember, the porkulus bill? It had to be done, right now, right away. There wasn't a moment to waste or the country would crash into depression. And then, once passed, Barack took three long days, time that could have been used to examine the bill more thoroughly, before he finally deigned to sign it. The same was true with Health Care, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the Continuing Resolution and the debt ceiling bill. All created in secret and rushed to a quick vote at the midnight hour or granny won't get her check. That's the way Washington works today.
This is how Crooks and Thieves operate:
How does frightening granny about her Social Security help our nation when it is an "adult" conversation about just those kinds of benefits that we need to have in order to prevent an inevitable fiscal insolvency in the first place? Resorting to this kind of cheap and demonstrably false demagoguery, is absolutely counterproductive if your goal is to reduce future spending to levels we can actually afford. Unless, that is, you really don't want to cut spending. Unless, that is, you've seen all the charts and the numbers, and you don't give a rat's ass as long as you keep getting elected. Hello, Barck Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Emanuel Cleaver. Hello, Democratic party! Crooks and Thieves!
25=====================================================================================================
Did you know that Obama originally wanted a "clean" debt ceiling bill passed? In fact, he claimed he would veto one that had anything attached to it at all. That's Washington lingo for zero spending cuts. That should tell you all you need to know about where the Democrats really are in this debate on debt and deficits. Obama's proposal for a "clean" bill reveals that their actual negotiating position starts at zero. To get even one dollar of cuts out of them, the Democrats needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to the budget cutting negotiating table. Then these same Democrats had the audacity to point the finger at Republicans and accused them of being terrorists for "forcing" them do the responsible thing and face our fiscal reality. Had Obama gotten his way and received a clean debt ceiling rise, Fitch and Moody's would have been racing Standard and Poor's to be the first ones to downgrade our credit.
I've always believed that you can tell more about what people really believe by studying what they do and not what they say. If Democrats were actually as concerned about the deficit the way they all piously claim to be, they'd have tried to win the public to their side with serious proposals of their own. I always thought that was what a debate on policy was supposed to be about. One side would come out with a position and try to persuade the voters that they were right and the other side would counter with a different proposal to move the public to their side. But, I guess that is a quaint idealistic notion in the day of the left-wing media Matrix.
Nowadays, everything in Washington is crafted in private behind closed doors and released to the public in a crisis atmosphere with barely enough time to vote on the bill, much less read it. Remember, the porkulus bill? It had to be done, right now, right away. There wasn't a moment to waste or the country would crash into depression. And then, once passed, Barack took three long days, time that could have been used to examine the bill more thoroughly, before he finally deigned to sign it. The same was true with Health Care, the extension of the Bush tax cuts, the Continuing Resolution and the debt ceiling bill. All created in secret and rushed to a quick vote at the midnight hour or granny won't get her check. That's the way Washington works today.
This is how Crooks and Thieves operate:
26===================================================================================================
During this debt ceiling debate, we've seen examples of how the President and his party lie and produce shiny objects to distract the public's attention from the fact that they refused to put any plan whatsoever on paper that the public could look at to see who was being reasonable and who was not. Further, all of the negotiations were taking place behind closed doors and in an atmosphere of crisis. That's just how Barry likes it. Otherwise, closer scrutiny might reveal his plan (and he himself) as the empty suit it really is. What President Obama chose to do during the debt ceiling crisis was to abdicate leadership and eschew responsiblity.
As Chris Christie of New Jersey so rightly points out, in these climactic times you cannot lead from behind:
During this debt ceiling debate, we've seen examples of how the President and his party lie and produce shiny objects to distract the public's attention from the fact that they refused to put any plan whatsoever on paper that the public could look at to see who was being reasonable and who was not. Further, all of the negotiations were taking place behind closed doors and in an atmosphere of crisis. That's just how Barry likes it. Otherwise, closer scrutiny might reveal his plan (and he himself) as the empty suit it really is. What President Obama chose to do during the debt ceiling crisis was to abdicate leadership and eschew responsiblity.
As Chris Christie of New Jersey so rightly points out, in these climactic times you cannot lead from behind:
And isn't that just the point? Where's the leadership. Where is the putting the country ahead of partisan advantage? The President didn't try to stake out the "center" position or even a position that was a credible solution to the crisis. He staked out a position that was best for his own re-election. Obama cowardly proposes absolutely nothing that might help forward the debate because he doesn't want to cut spending and/or because it might cause him political damage. Yet, at the same time, he savages his political opposition every time they actually propose a solution.
President Obama is the leader of the country. His job is to determine what is the best course for America to follow and to lead it in that direction, not wait till others go first because whoever “speaks first loses”. This is not the time to "lead from behind". The President has plenty of time to golf, play basketball, go to fundraisers and have parties with his celebrity friends at the White House, but no time in the past three years to come up with a new and original proposal to save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from insolvency? The very programs he says he loves? Hogwash!
To be fair to the President, he does give speeches where he has outlined some of his proposals. Not in writing of course, but he has dutifully moved his head from side to side as if he's watching a tennis match and read the words that were on TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States) to let us know what was on his (TOTUS'?) mind. That's all well and good, but, as Hillary says, speeches are just words. Even Jay Carney can't spin the President out of the fact that he refused to lead on the subject:
President Obama is the leader of the country. His job is to determine what is the best course for America to follow and to lead it in that direction, not wait till others go first because whoever “speaks first loses”. This is not the time to "lead from behind". The President has plenty of time to golf, play basketball, go to fundraisers and have parties with his celebrity friends at the White House, but no time in the past three years to come up with a new and original proposal to save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from insolvency? The very programs he says he loves? Hogwash!
To be fair to the President, he does give speeches where he has outlined some of his proposals. Not in writing of course, but he has dutifully moved his head from side to side as if he's watching a tennis match and read the words that were on TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States) to let us know what was on his (TOTUS'?) mind. That's all well and good, but, as Hillary says, speeches are just words. Even Jay Carney can't spin the President out of the fact that he refused to lead on the subject:
Watch the whole thing. It's classic spin!
This is a truly amazing piece of political three card monty. Where's the plan? We gave you a plan last Friday when we knew you would all be off on your three day summer weekends. Well it's different than the plan you had last week, and last month and it's different from what the Speaker says you offered, so why did the President ask the public to call their Congressman to tell them to pass something without telling them in detail what plan to tell them to support? Well, we don't need a plan on paper because that might hurt negotiations because then people would see the details and it would become politically charged. It is better if all this is crafted in secret and presented to the public as a fait accompli. I mean, really, A plan on paper? You know better than that. That's not the way the process works. You've been in this town long enough to know that. Why do you keep asking me this silly question? If we did that it might mean that we would be forced to get our hands a little dirty and be held accountable for our proposals. We can't have that. That isn't how Washington works and you know it!
Amazing bit of spin, eh?
Mr. Carney, I'll tell you how it is supposed to work, how a leader leads. The President comes up with a plan in January when he presents his budget. It is a serious plan that, when put on paper, makes the cuts or tax increases credible enough to solve the problem of the deficits and the debt. At that point, you have a solid position from which to open the debate and compromise from. Nobody knows this more or says it better than Chris Christie:
Amazing bit of spin, eh?
Mr. Carney, I'll tell you how it is supposed to work, how a leader leads. The President comes up with a plan in January when he presents his budget. It is a serious plan that, when put on paper, makes the cuts or tax increases credible enough to solve the problem of the deficits and the debt. At that point, you have a solid position from which to open the debate and compromise from. Nobody knows this more or says it better than Chris Christie:
A President is elected to lead. From the front and not from behind. Otherwise what are we paying him for? Starting from zero, which is why Obama got zero votes for the budget, isn't a credible starting position. Or, the President could have put out a new plan in April that could have been scored by the CBO, or Barry could have put out a plan at any time during the debt ceiling negotiations. Without specifics, who the heck knows what the President is really willing to do to solve the debt crisis. All the negotiations are behind closed doors and, thus the President has full deniability to spin whatever he thinks is politically expedient. That might be smart "politics" but in terms of solving our nation's problems, that kind of self serving behavior just doesn't cut it.
27======================================================================================================
The reason they don't put a plan on paper is because it allows Obama to go out on the campaign trail and say things like this:
27======================================================================================================
The reason they don't put a plan on paper is because it allows Obama to go out on the campaign trail and say things like this:
Let us leave aside for the moment that the four trillion dollars in deficit reduction he talks about is but a mere down payment on fixing the long term structural problems. Nor does he talk about the fact that reducing the projected deficit by four trillion out of the twelve to thirteen trillion in deficits we are projected to run up over the next ten years means that we are still going to be another nine to ten trillion in the red and our total national debt will be uncomfortably close to Greece levels. In addition note that if the President had the courage to address that inconvenient truth, then he would no longer be able to pontificate on the need for millionaires and billionaires to "pay a little bit more". This is probably the most dishonest piece of hooey that the President threw out there. There is no conceivable way to fix our structural deficit problems by raising taxes on the wealthy. It also makes zero economic sense to place an additional two trillion dollar tax burden on the job creators of the country during a time of anemic economic growth. While the President, loves to talk about the fat cats and corporate jet owners, the truth is that he is really talking about everyone who makes over 200k a year. That fact kind of changes things a little bit doesn't it? Many people make that kind of money, but telling the truth about that doesn't fly as well with the focus groups as asking for "sacrifice" from millionaires, billionaires, corporate jet owners and Big Oil companies. I find all this political spin to be just a tad disingenuous, don't you?
That said, the real problem with this little partisan rant by Obama is that nothing can be proved and nothing can be learned from it. He can say whatever he wants because there is no paper trail to hold him accountable. Do you know what the details were of the deal that he offered John Boehner? I sure don't. But, according to un-named sources, the Speaker and the President had a deal for $800 billion in revenue increases as part of a reform of the tax code that would have lowered rates while closing loopholes, but then the President supposedly wanted another $400 billion more the next day. If this is true, it is actually proof that Boehner was willing to have everyone "sacrifice" (raise taxes), but the President doesn't mention that little detail in the above speech, now does he? Oh, no! That would destroy the nice little narrative that he is trying to spin.
Boehner, for his part, said he was upset and disappointed that the President welched on an agreement they had made and which caused him no end of political condemnation within his own party. He was willing to compromise and thought he had a deal with the President and when Obama changed his mind because Nancy and Harry were aghast that entitlements would be cut, Boehner walked of the negotiations in disgust. The President says it didn't quite happen that way. So, what is actually true? I have no idea. Why? Because the President wouldn't put what he proposed to John Boehner on paper for all to see. If he had made a "reasonable" offer to the Speaker, why not make it public so that everyone could learn what assholes John Boehner and the Republicans are ? Then we could have judged who were the actual adults in the room. However, without the details in black and white, we have to take the President's word for it and the way he behaved during that whole messy debate, I am no longer willing to give him the benefit of that doubt.
28====================================================================================================
That's the real point I am trying to convey. Obama and the media Matrix tries to spin the meme that he is being the reasonable one and the Republicans are the lickspittles of millionaires and billionaires. Well maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. But until the President comes forward and levels with us and let's the chips fall where they may, we just don't know. I, for one, don't think that it is either "adult" or responsible of him to just stand there and blast the proposals of the Republicans without making a concrete one himself:
That said, the real problem with this little partisan rant by Obama is that nothing can be proved and nothing can be learned from it. He can say whatever he wants because there is no paper trail to hold him accountable. Do you know what the details were of the deal that he offered John Boehner? I sure don't. But, according to un-named sources, the Speaker and the President had a deal for $800 billion in revenue increases as part of a reform of the tax code that would have lowered rates while closing loopholes, but then the President supposedly wanted another $400 billion more the next day. If this is true, it is actually proof that Boehner was willing to have everyone "sacrifice" (raise taxes), but the President doesn't mention that little detail in the above speech, now does he? Oh, no! That would destroy the nice little narrative that he is trying to spin.
Boehner, for his part, said he was upset and disappointed that the President welched on an agreement they had made and which caused him no end of political condemnation within his own party. He was willing to compromise and thought he had a deal with the President and when Obama changed his mind because Nancy and Harry were aghast that entitlements would be cut, Boehner walked of the negotiations in disgust. The President says it didn't quite happen that way. So, what is actually true? I have no idea. Why? Because the President wouldn't put what he proposed to John Boehner on paper for all to see. If he had made a "reasonable" offer to the Speaker, why not make it public so that everyone could learn what assholes John Boehner and the Republicans are ? Then we could have judged who were the actual adults in the room. However, without the details in black and white, we have to take the President's word for it and the way he behaved during that whole messy debate, I am no longer willing to give him the benefit of that doubt.
28====================================================================================================
That's the real point I am trying to convey. Obama and the media Matrix tries to spin the meme that he is being the reasonable one and the Republicans are the lickspittles of millionaires and billionaires. Well maybe they are, and maybe they aren't. But until the President comes forward and levels with us and let's the chips fall where they may, we just don't know. I, for one, don't think that it is either "adult" or responsible of him to just stand there and blast the proposals of the Republicans without making a concrete one himself:
As a citizen, I think I have the right to know exactly where my President and his party stand on one of the most important issues of the day. Otherwise, how can I know which proposals are better for our country's future? I'd like to know how much of the "cuts" in the package that the President said he offered to Boehner are real and not just budget shenanigans and accounting gimmicks like he uses in his own budgets that he can't get a single vote for. Not to mention the accounting ploys that were used for the "compromise" agreement in the Continuing Resolution. I'd like to know how many of the cuts come in the next two years, during this Congress and how many of them come in later years when Obama is no longer President and a future Congress isn't bound by any agreement this Congress made. I'd like to know what specific cuts were agreed upon. And what about entitlements? The President spoke about cuts in "health care" in the speech above, but he doesn't tell us where they will come from and how they will be made. So what do we actually know about where the President really stands? We the people, know absolutely nothing and that's just the way he and his party want it. It allows them to play their silly little partisan games and hold out "shiny objects" about who is the adult and who is the child, rather than having to deal with actual facts and figures. And their friends in the media are happy to play along. Crooks and Thieves all!
While all this saddens me greatly, what really sticks in my craw is that the Democrats domination of the media Matrix allowed them to play their final shiny object trick from their tried and true playbook. Because the media didn't focus on the President's non-plan, because they wasted time with nonsense like who was more lazy, who was the adult in the room, who was responsible for the Senate not passing a budget (when that answer was never in doubt), whether fat cats should get a tax break for their corporate jets and whether senior citizens would get their social security checks (when that answer was never in doubt either), attention was diverted from the real stakes involved in the debate.
It wasn't that Republicans just hate old people and are misers at heart that made them so insistent on the $4 Trillion target that everyone from Simpson/Bowles on down said was the minimum downpayment necessary to preserve fiscal solvency. It was that the credit ratings were warning that they'd have to institute a downgrade on America's AAA credit rating if we didn't act to get our finances straight and $4 Trillion was the magic number they gave. Anyone with even a shred of honesty that has seen the charts I showed you earlier would have to admit that. Our current fiscal course in unsustainable. Agree with them or not, it cannot be denied that the Republicans showed great courage in sticking their necks out to warn the world that the emperor no longer had clothes.
29==================================================================================================
For this act of patriotism, the Democrats and the media painted the GOP as being "extreme". Worse, as being the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden himself:
While all this saddens me greatly, what really sticks in my craw is that the Democrats domination of the media Matrix allowed them to play their final shiny object trick from their tried and true playbook. Because the media didn't focus on the President's non-plan, because they wasted time with nonsense like who was more lazy, who was the adult in the room, who was responsible for the Senate not passing a budget (when that answer was never in doubt), whether fat cats should get a tax break for their corporate jets and whether senior citizens would get their social security checks (when that answer was never in doubt either), attention was diverted from the real stakes involved in the debate.
It wasn't that Republicans just hate old people and are misers at heart that made them so insistent on the $4 Trillion target that everyone from Simpson/Bowles on down said was the minimum downpayment necessary to preserve fiscal solvency. It was that the credit ratings were warning that they'd have to institute a downgrade on America's AAA credit rating if we didn't act to get our finances straight and $4 Trillion was the magic number they gave. Anyone with even a shred of honesty that has seen the charts I showed you earlier would have to admit that. Our current fiscal course in unsustainable. Agree with them or not, it cannot be denied that the Republicans showed great courage in sticking their necks out to warn the world that the emperor no longer had clothes.
29==================================================================================================
For this act of patriotism, the Democrats and the media painted the GOP as being "extreme". Worse, as being the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden himself:
Since Democrats know that if they had to actually engage in the debate about debt and deficits and put actual numbers on a piece of paper, the American people would quickly realize that it was their party that were not being reasonable. Therefore, rather than level with the American people, they change the subject from facts and reality to emotion and fear and turn the tables on their opposition.
They specialize in this kind of demonization of their opponent in order to marginalize
them in the public's mind. It is a tactic straight from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and the Democrats are true disciples. When in trouble, they and their friends in the media go into scorched earth attack mode:
Trying to save the planet as we know it! Are they freaking serious? Are they living on the same planet we are? Or, are they living in a fantasy world where real numbers and real money are irrelevant and everyone can have lollipops and roses? These people are beyond irresponsible! And yet, they and their media allies managed to turn the tables on the Tea Party. While Democrats should have been the ones to blame for an utter lack of seriousness or desire to take advantage of an historic opportunity to reach a grand bargain that would at least slow the car down before it hit the cliff, their control of the narrative from start to finish made the only ones who were truly serious about dealing with the debt the villains:
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi – “We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi – “They want to destroy your rights.”
- Sen. Harry Reid – “The time for ideological extremism should end.”
- Rep. Rangel – “These people don’t care about our country.”
- Comm. Director Dan Pfeiffer – “…could potentially put us towards a depression because House Republicans…are unwilling to compromise.”
- DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz – “This is almost like dictatorship.”
- Rep. Garamendi (D-CA) – “They basically want to terminate the American Dream.”
- Rachel Maddow Show – “shameless, craven, unprincipled, partisan hackery”
- Tom Friedman – “If sane Republicans do not stand up to this Hezbollah faction in their midst, the Tea Party will take the G.O.P. on a suicide mission.”
- Rep. Hoyer – “They want to shoot every bullet they have at the president.”
- Van Jones – “They want to repeal the 20th century. They want to smash down every American institution our grandparents fought for…”
- Joe Klein in Time – “Osama bin Laden, if he were still alive, could not have come up with a more clever strategy for strangling our nation.”
- Steve Rattner on MSNBC – “It’s a form of economic terrorism…These Tea Party guys are like strapped with dynamite standing in the middle of Times Square at rush hour saying either you do it my way or we’re going to blow you up, ourselves up, and the whole country with us.”
- Paul Krugman in NY Times – “Republicans have, in effect, taken America hostage…”
- William Yeomans at Politico – “they have now become full-blown terrorists. They have joined the villains of American history who have been sufficiently craven to inflict massive harm on innocent victims to achieve their political goals.”
Trying to save the planet as we know it! Are they freaking serious? Are they living on the same planet we are? Or, are they living in a fantasy world where real numbers and real money are irrelevant and everyone can have lollipops and roses? These people are beyond irresponsible! And yet, they and their media allies managed to turn the tables on the Tea Party. While Democrats should have been the ones to blame for an utter lack of seriousness or desire to take advantage of an historic opportunity to reach a grand bargain that would at least slow the car down before it hit the cliff, their control of the narrative from start to finish made the only ones who were truly serious about dealing with the debt the villains:
I mean, really... Terrorists? For trying to save the country from a debt downgrade? For trying to prevent the country from going off a fiscal cliff? I guess that if you are on the left and live in a fantasyland where facts, figures, charts, logic and reason don't matter... then yeah, Republicans are terrorists:
30======================================================================================================
In everything that I have read or seen on , no one expresses what I've been trying to say in this chapter better than Senator Marco Rubio of Florida:
In everything that I have read or seen on , no one expresses what I've been trying to say in this chapter better than Senator Marco Rubio of Florida:
Watch the whole thing. It is worth every minute!
Senator Rubio is right. If your house is burning down you try to save the whole house, you don't compromise to save just part of it. Unfortunately, the Democrat party's idea of compromise might conceivably slow the car down, but it doesn't come anywhere close to stopping it. Sure, the two parties agreed on a debt ceiling deal and now we are supposedly going to cut $2.5 Trillion in deficit spending over the next ten years and that's a start. A pitiable start, but a beginning nonetheless. The plain truth is, however, we are still going to have to borrow another $9+ Trillion dollars over that same time which will bring our national debt to over $23 Trillion dollars. Remember Thelma and Louise? That's where we are headed if we accept more of these kinds of "compromises".
According to Robert Tracinsky:
Reading that the new debt limit coming out of the "debt reduction deal" is $16.8 trillion, I got my pen out and jotted down some numbers:
2nd Quarter 2011 GDP: $15.00 trillion/yr.
Current national debt: $14.3 trillion
(self-cancelling) internal debt: $4.6 trillion
Net debt: $9.7 trillion
65% of GDP
Of the $4.6 trillion in internal debt, about $2.6 trillion is the Social Security 'trust fund' (which is 'invested in' U.S. treasury bonds) and about $3 trillion is the Medicare 'trust fund.' There are lots of other 'trust funds' beyond these (e.g., the Highway 'fund') The thing all of these trust funds have in common is that their balances are falling.
If I assume that the rate of deficit spending is about $1.6 or $1.7 trillion/yr., we'll reach the new $16.8 trillion debt limit right around inauguration day, January 20, 2013. If the economy grows at about 2%/yr. between now and inauguration day (assuming no new recession), it will be operating at $15.45 trillion/yr.
That means the debt to GDP ratio will have deteriorated dramatically:
1st Quarter 2013 GDP: $15.45 trillion/yr.
Current national debt: $16.8 trillion
(self-cancelling) internal debt: $4.4 trillion
Net debt: $12.4 trillion
80% of GDP
Only in Washington could a plan to increase the national debt from 65% to 80% of GDP in less than a year and a half be called a "debt reduction" deal.
As you can see, the best deal that could be had between those who wanted to stop the car and those who didn't want to take their foot off the gas pedal was a slight reduction in speed. As a result of this debacle, Standard and Poor downgraded our credit for the first time in our nation's history. Seems to me, like the compromise Democrats were willing to make didn't even come close to achieving the objective. But, that's what happens when your negotiating position is zero. A compromise is never enough to accomplish the goal.
31====================================================================================================
What is truly disheartening is that not only did Democrats scuttle this historic opportunity to get our fiscal house in order, the President still doesn't want to put a real deficit reduction plan on the table. His most recent budget was yet another example of his utter unwillingness to face the fiscal realities of our time. It is the ultimate indication that Obama and the Democrats believe that enough people are asleep and hypnotized within the Matrix that they can get away with appearing to be "serious" about the deficit on one hand, and do absolutely nothing about it on the other. Besides demagoging Republicans over entitlements and maintining the fiction that taxes on the wealthy will solve everything, of course.
How asleep do they think the American people are? Well, if you can believe it, before the budget for 2013 was announced they actually sent out President Obama's new Chief of Staff to try to rescue Harry Reid's Senate Democrats from actually having to vote on what they knew was another total punt on the debt. Once again, despite obvious facts to the contrary, Jacob Lew, like Dick Durbin before him, accuses Republicans as being the ones to blame for why the President's plan would not be immediately considered in the Senate. It wouldn't be because the President's plan was a stinker. Oh, no! It would be because the Republicans are a bunch of mean nasty obstructionists! It's as if they believe Joseph Goebbels theory that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it:
According to Robert Tracinsky:
Reading that the new debt limit coming out of the "debt reduction deal" is $16.8 trillion, I got my pen out and jotted down some numbers:
2nd Quarter 2011 GDP: $15.00 trillion/yr.
Current national debt: $14.3 trillion
(self-cancelling) internal debt: $4.6 trillion
Net debt: $9.7 trillion
65% of GDP
Of the $4.6 trillion in internal debt, about $2.6 trillion is the Social Security 'trust fund' (which is 'invested in' U.S. treasury bonds) and about $3 trillion is the Medicare 'trust fund.' There are lots of other 'trust funds' beyond these (e.g., the Highway 'fund') The thing all of these trust funds have in common is that their balances are falling.
If I assume that the rate of deficit spending is about $1.6 or $1.7 trillion/yr., we'll reach the new $16.8 trillion debt limit right around inauguration day, January 20, 2013. If the economy grows at about 2%/yr. between now and inauguration day (assuming no new recession), it will be operating at $15.45 trillion/yr.
That means the debt to GDP ratio will have deteriorated dramatically:
1st Quarter 2013 GDP: $15.45 trillion/yr.
Current national debt: $16.8 trillion
(self-cancelling) internal debt: $4.4 trillion
Net debt: $12.4 trillion
80% of GDP
Only in Washington could a plan to increase the national debt from 65% to 80% of GDP in less than a year and a half be called a "debt reduction" deal.
As you can see, the best deal that could be had between those who wanted to stop the car and those who didn't want to take their foot off the gas pedal was a slight reduction in speed. As a result of this debacle, Standard and Poor downgraded our credit for the first time in our nation's history. Seems to me, like the compromise Democrats were willing to make didn't even come close to achieving the objective. But, that's what happens when your negotiating position is zero. A compromise is never enough to accomplish the goal.
31====================================================================================================
What is truly disheartening is that not only did Democrats scuttle this historic opportunity to get our fiscal house in order, the President still doesn't want to put a real deficit reduction plan on the table. His most recent budget was yet another example of his utter unwillingness to face the fiscal realities of our time. It is the ultimate indication that Obama and the Democrats believe that enough people are asleep and hypnotized within the Matrix that they can get away with appearing to be "serious" about the deficit on one hand, and do absolutely nothing about it on the other. Besides demagoging Republicans over entitlements and maintining the fiction that taxes on the wealthy will solve everything, of course.
How asleep do they think the American people are? Well, if you can believe it, before the budget for 2013 was announced they actually sent out President Obama's new Chief of Staff to try to rescue Harry Reid's Senate Democrats from actually having to vote on what they knew was another total punt on the debt. Once again, despite obvious facts to the contrary, Jacob Lew, like Dick Durbin before him, accuses Republicans as being the ones to blame for why the President's plan would not be immediately considered in the Senate. It wouldn't be because the President's plan was a stinker. Oh, no! It would be because the Republicans are a bunch of mean nasty obstructionists! It's as if they believe Joseph Goebbels theory that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it:
A few days later, the same administration that sent their Chief of Staff onto the Sunday shows to tell a bold faced lie to the American people, produced their budget for 2013 and it revealed exactly why the Senate didn't want to vote on it. To say it wasn't received well as a framework from which to prevent the Unites States from going of the fiscal cliff would be an understatement:
And it wasn't just Fox News that thought the President's plan was a pathetic excuse for a deficit reduction plan, it was liberal bastions like the Washington Post:
Even the Associated Press (hardly a conservative institution) fact checkers couldn't help but to find Obama's budget "savings" and assertions laughable:
In fact, even if we accept the ridiculous numbers that the Obama budget assumes for economic growth and even if we count all the phantom cuts, gimmicks and unpassable tax hikes that the President calls for in the plan, it will still keep us heading towards the cliff at a brisk pace:
Even US News and World Report felt compelled to chime in that the proposed Obama budget offers no solution to the long term deficit problem:
33=====================================================================================================
Not only does the Obama budget do nothing to fix the long term deficit problem which will lead the nation straight off the fiscal cliff, it doesn't even provide any path whatsoever to achieve a balanced budget:
Not only does the Obama budget do nothing to fix the long term deficit problem which will lead the nation straight off the fiscal cliff, it doesn't even provide any path whatsoever to achieve a balanced budget:
Spin, spin and more spin, eh? It is hard to look more like a lying, deceiving politician than OMB Acting Director Jeffrey Zients does in trying to shill for the Obama administration's total lack of fiscal responsibility. That is, until you see Treasury Secretary and tax cheat Tim Geithner's testimony before this same committee:
So, the tax cheat and Treasury Secretary admits that if nothing is done the US economy will shut down in 2027, a mere fifteen years away. Yet, his boss, the President, proposes no plan to rescue the country from that fate. None whatsoever! Yet, Geithner has the audacity to say that while the Democrats won't do anything to stop the nation from falling off the fiscal cliff, what he knows is that they don't like what the Republicans propose. Insane and utterly irresponsible, don't you think?
The kicker of all this is that despite offering no solutions to save the nation, the budget they presented to Congress will cause the economy to contract even further:
The kicker of all this is that despite offering no solutions to save the nation, the budget they presented to Congress will cause the economy to contract even further:
Now think about that for a moment... President Obama's "balanced" approach to dealing with the debt and the deficit will adversely impact the one thing that could possibly save the country from the painful cuts in entitlements he refuses to consider. For only a robust economy can fill the treasury with the kind of revenues necessary to fund them. Yet, his own budget puts the squeeze on the capital formation necessary for the economy to prosper. And this is the plan that President Obama is going to run for re-election on?
So pathetic and cowardly is the President's deficit strategy that when it was brought before the House of Representatives for a vote, it received zero votes:
So pathetic and cowardly is the President's deficit strategy that when it was brought before the House of Representatives for a vote, it received zero votes:
It couldn't even get one single vote in the Senate for the second year in a row:
34======================================================================================================
President Obama's attempts to keep the vote buying machine alive long enough for him to use the issue to demagogue Republican "extremists" for their sin of actually telling the American public the truth will one day be seen as the most cowardly and irresponsible derelictions of leadership in modern American history. By kicking the can down the road for just one more election, he risks accelerating the possibility that the ratings agencies will downgrade our debt further. That will cause the cost of our debt to become so great that it will effectively shut the US economy down for good:
President Obama's attempts to keep the vote buying machine alive long enough for him to use the issue to demagogue Republican "extremists" for their sin of actually telling the American public the truth will one day be seen as the most cowardly and irresponsible derelictions of leadership in modern American history. By kicking the can down the road for just one more election, he risks accelerating the possibility that the ratings agencies will downgrade our debt further. That will cause the cost of our debt to become so great that it will effectively shut the US economy down for good:
Now, that is scary stuff. Sure it might not happen. But, when Clinton's guru and bond market genius Robert Rubin says that the excrement could hit the fan if we don't act, I'd say we'd better act. Because it would seem that those higher interest rates they are predicting is about to start soon:
As a result of this fecklessness, the Chinese are already signaling that they are tired of being screwed over by Washington and are thinking about no longer buying our debt:
35=====================================================================================================
The day the Red Chinese stop buying our debt the jig is up and our country faces a financial meltdown that'll make our current problems seem like a walk in the park. As Monty Pelerin at The American Thinker so accurately asserts Bob Woodward's new book shows how totally screwed we will be:
Anyone concerned with the impending economic collapse will find Woodward's account fascinating, although not for the reasons he intended. He stumbled into truth, important truth, and seems to have missed it entirely. What follows is an excerpt from the article with the italics added by me:
Another possible outcome, Geithner said, was perhaps worse. "Suppose we have an auction and no one shows up?"
The cascading impact would be unknowable. The world could decide to dump U.S. Treasuries. Prices would plummet, interest rates would skyrocket. The one pillar of stability, the United States, the rock in the global economy, could collapse.
"So," the president said, "if we give $1.2 trillion now in spending cuts" - the amount in the House bill to get the first increase in the debt ceiling for about six to nine months - "what happens next time?" The Republicans would then come back next year, in the middle of the presidential campaign, and impose more conditions on the next debt ceiling increase. He could not give the Republicans that kind of leverage, that kind of weapon. It was hostage taking. It was blackmail. "This will forever change the relationship between the presidency and the Congress.
"Imagine if, when Nancy Pelosi had become speaker, she had said to George W. Bush, 'End the Iraq war, or I'm going to cause a global financial crisis.' "
So, Obama said, they had to break the Republicans on this. Otherwise, they would be back whenever it suited them politically.
They were out of options, Geithner said. The only one might be accepting the House bill, loathsome as it might be. "The 2008 financial crisis will be seen as a minor blip if we default," he said.
The president said, "The Republicans are forcing the risk of a default on us. I can't stop them from doing that. We can have the fight now, or we can have the fight later on, but the fight is coming to us."
So, no, Obama said, he was not going to cave. Period. He said good night, got up and left. He was very agitated.
Geithner thought there was one other consideration. He did not mention it to anyone, not even the president, but he had thought about it a great deal. It was not just that Obama faced an economic choice or a political choice. He faced a moral choice.
The president should not put himself in the position of saying unequivocally that he would veto, Geithner concluded, for one simple reason: No one could be sure how to put the American or the global economy back together again. The impact would be calamitous.
"And the people who would bear the pain of that would be the people less prepared," Geithner told others, "less able to absorb that cost. It would be something you could not cure. It is not something you can come back and say, a week later, 'Oh, we fixed it.' It would be indelible, incurable. It would last for generations."
Turbo Timmy Geithner confesses the desperate nature of the situation. The government is broke. Geithner fears the world knows this when he says: "Suppose we have an auction and no one shows up?" Geithner knows that we cannot finance our deficits using traditional credit markets. The deficits are too large and the government has no credibility regarding the required spending cuts. Geithner was admitting that markets would not allow the US government to continue its profligate ways. That admission is major news, although not to Woodward and his politically-oriented audience.
Credit markets have (or nearly have) stopped US government debt financing. That's why we have the Federal Reserve, the counterfeiter of last resort. If government can raise the debt limit, then it would be legal for the Treasury to issue new debt. The Treasury's sibling, the Fed, would buy it by printing new money. That would allow the government to pay its bills for a while longer.
One must wonder about the intelligence and stewardship of Timmy and the other attendees of this meeting. When Geithner declares: "It would be indelible, incurable. It would last for generations," he is stating the inevitable. Raising the debt limit does nothing to change the US condition other than temporarily postpone his predicted outcome.
The two italicized sentences of Geithner's reveal what the American people need to know. No one will buy US Treasuries other than the Federal Reserve. Raising the debt limit only puts the government more hopelessly in debt, ensuring that Treasuries will be even more difficult to sell. Without intending it, Geithner admits that Bernanke will be printing money until the electricity is shut off or until hyperinflation shuts everything economic down. In either case, we reach his "indelible, incurable" situation which will "last for generations."
Now, don't you feel better knowing Woodward's inside account of what is going on. These geniuses were rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic instead of addressing the iceberg that will sink the country. At least Woodward seemed to enjoy the political intrigue.
This is how critically important getting a handle on the debt problem is. Yet, the President claims that Republicans are "extemists" for pointing this out. How serious, even "centrist", is Obama when he offers solutions that don't fix the problem? Heck, they don't even address them! Remember, that Standard and Poor downgraded our debt after Obama gave his April speech on his "new" revised budget and then they downgraded our credit even further after the grand "compromise" of the debt ceiling deal was reached. Shows how serious they think the plans he has and will propose are. Not!
36======================================================================================================
Let's face it, the President and the Democrats have abandoned fact, logic, reason and simple mathematics in order to keep up the facade that their vote buying machine is sustainable if only the rich will pay more. We know this is a lie. After seeing all of the data and the charts, can anyone not fully lost in the Matrix of left-wing media lies about the debt issue come to any conclusion other than we need to get our finances in order and quick? Something must be done. Many people have swallowed the red pill and have woken up to the scary fiscal reality we face:
The day the Red Chinese stop buying our debt the jig is up and our country faces a financial meltdown that'll make our current problems seem like a walk in the park. As Monty Pelerin at The American Thinker so accurately asserts Bob Woodward's new book shows how totally screwed we will be:
Anyone concerned with the impending economic collapse will find Woodward's account fascinating, although not for the reasons he intended. He stumbled into truth, important truth, and seems to have missed it entirely. What follows is an excerpt from the article with the italics added by me:
Another possible outcome, Geithner said, was perhaps worse. "Suppose we have an auction and no one shows up?"
The cascading impact would be unknowable. The world could decide to dump U.S. Treasuries. Prices would plummet, interest rates would skyrocket. The one pillar of stability, the United States, the rock in the global economy, could collapse.
"So," the president said, "if we give $1.2 trillion now in spending cuts" - the amount in the House bill to get the first increase in the debt ceiling for about six to nine months - "what happens next time?" The Republicans would then come back next year, in the middle of the presidential campaign, and impose more conditions on the next debt ceiling increase. He could not give the Republicans that kind of leverage, that kind of weapon. It was hostage taking. It was blackmail. "This will forever change the relationship between the presidency and the Congress.
"Imagine if, when Nancy Pelosi had become speaker, she had said to George W. Bush, 'End the Iraq war, or I'm going to cause a global financial crisis.' "
So, Obama said, they had to break the Republicans on this. Otherwise, they would be back whenever it suited them politically.
They were out of options, Geithner said. The only one might be accepting the House bill, loathsome as it might be. "The 2008 financial crisis will be seen as a minor blip if we default," he said.
The president said, "The Republicans are forcing the risk of a default on us. I can't stop them from doing that. We can have the fight now, or we can have the fight later on, but the fight is coming to us."
So, no, Obama said, he was not going to cave. Period. He said good night, got up and left. He was very agitated.
Geithner thought there was one other consideration. He did not mention it to anyone, not even the president, but he had thought about it a great deal. It was not just that Obama faced an economic choice or a political choice. He faced a moral choice.
The president should not put himself in the position of saying unequivocally that he would veto, Geithner concluded, for one simple reason: No one could be sure how to put the American or the global economy back together again. The impact would be calamitous.
"And the people who would bear the pain of that would be the people less prepared," Geithner told others, "less able to absorb that cost. It would be something you could not cure. It is not something you can come back and say, a week later, 'Oh, we fixed it.' It would be indelible, incurable. It would last for generations."
Turbo Timmy Geithner confesses the desperate nature of the situation. The government is broke. Geithner fears the world knows this when he says: "Suppose we have an auction and no one shows up?" Geithner knows that we cannot finance our deficits using traditional credit markets. The deficits are too large and the government has no credibility regarding the required spending cuts. Geithner was admitting that markets would not allow the US government to continue its profligate ways. That admission is major news, although not to Woodward and his politically-oriented audience.
Credit markets have (or nearly have) stopped US government debt financing. That's why we have the Federal Reserve, the counterfeiter of last resort. If government can raise the debt limit, then it would be legal for the Treasury to issue new debt. The Treasury's sibling, the Fed, would buy it by printing new money. That would allow the government to pay its bills for a while longer.
One must wonder about the intelligence and stewardship of Timmy and the other attendees of this meeting. When Geithner declares: "It would be indelible, incurable. It would last for generations," he is stating the inevitable. Raising the debt limit does nothing to change the US condition other than temporarily postpone his predicted outcome.
The two italicized sentences of Geithner's reveal what the American people need to know. No one will buy US Treasuries other than the Federal Reserve. Raising the debt limit only puts the government more hopelessly in debt, ensuring that Treasuries will be even more difficult to sell. Without intending it, Geithner admits that Bernanke will be printing money until the electricity is shut off or until hyperinflation shuts everything economic down. In either case, we reach his "indelible, incurable" situation which will "last for generations."
Now, don't you feel better knowing Woodward's inside account of what is going on. These geniuses were rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic instead of addressing the iceberg that will sink the country. At least Woodward seemed to enjoy the political intrigue.
This is how critically important getting a handle on the debt problem is. Yet, the President claims that Republicans are "extemists" for pointing this out. How serious, even "centrist", is Obama when he offers solutions that don't fix the problem? Heck, they don't even address them! Remember, that Standard and Poor downgraded our debt after Obama gave his April speech on his "new" revised budget and then they downgraded our credit even further after the grand "compromise" of the debt ceiling deal was reached. Shows how serious they think the plans he has and will propose are. Not!
36======================================================================================================
Let's face it, the President and the Democrats have abandoned fact, logic, reason and simple mathematics in order to keep up the facade that their vote buying machine is sustainable if only the rich will pay more. We know this is a lie. After seeing all of the data and the charts, can anyone not fully lost in the Matrix of left-wing media lies about the debt issue come to any conclusion other than we need to get our finances in order and quick? Something must be done. Many people have swallowed the red pill and have woken up to the scary fiscal reality we face:
Sensible people understand that if we ran our personal finances the way the government does, borrowing 42 cents for every dollar that we spend and then we tried to apply for a credit limit increase to spend even more what the bank's answer would be. You can just imagine how hard they'd be laughing in the processing department, eh? Especially after all the crying and wailing some members of the family did over the measly cuts in spending we were "forced" to make (the $38 Billion from the Continuing Resolution battle). But, hey we can always pass on the cost to our kids:
Sadly, though the bank (the bond market) may buy the ruse that our kids will pay for our high living today for a few more years, the day will come when the debt is so enormous and the spending liabilities so high, that even they will conclude that it's time to stop sending good money after bad. When that day comes, the American Dream and the American Experiment in self-governance will come to a crashing end.
37======================================================================================================
It is time for us to stop living beyond our means and to right the financial ship. I think it's time we the people sent the Crooks and Thieves in Washington the kind of letter the bank would send us for their most recent application for even more credit:
Dear Congress, Your Credit Application Has Been Turned Down
A. Barton Hinkle | May 20, 2011
The Honorable _________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable _________
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. or Ms. _______,
Thank you for your interest in the American Public Trust's Gold Card credit program. Rest assured your application has been given thorough and careful consideration by the American people.
After reviewing the information provided in your application as well as your credit report, we regret to say that we are unable to extend you further credit at this time. The reasons for our decision are as follows:
(1) Inadequate income.Our records indicate that your annual income for the 2011 taxable year was $2,170,000,000,000. You have requested a credit limit of $17,000,000,000,000. These figures exceed the American Public's debt-to-income guidelines for credit issuance.
(2) Excessive spending. The receipts you provided indicate your annual expenditures for the 2011 fiscal year total $3,820,000,000,000, or $1,650,000,000,000 more than your total income for the year. The American Public prefers that its members of Congress maintain a positive or neutral rather than a negative cash flow.
(3) High debt utilization. Your credit report indicates that you have a credit limit of $14,300,000,000,000, and of that amount you have utilized $14,300,000,000,000, for a debt utilization ratio of 100 percent. Consumer banking industry guidelines recommend a debt utilization ratio of no greater than 30 percent for standard creditworthiness, and 10 percent for exemplary creditworthiness. A debt utilization rate of 100 percent meets our classification of "You're *&^%$#@! kidding, right?"
(4) High credit activity. Our records indicate you have credit accounts open with the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, the Social Security Administration, the People's Bank of China, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Bank of the Republic of Burundi, Bank Frick & Co. AG Liechtensteiner Privatbank, Quik-Cash Loans, Three Gold Balls Pawn Shop (Ann Arbor, Mich.), MyFast Loan.com (Antigua), paydayloans-r-us.com (Cayman Islands), Frank the bartender (Old Towne Tavern), and several members of the extended family of Salvatore "Sammy Meatballs" Montigliano of Montclair, N.J. While account activity threshholds vary by lender, your activity exceeds American Public guidelines for further credit issuance.
(5) Multiple recent credit inquiries. Records indicate your credit report has been accessed more than 6,437 times in the past 60 days. Inquiries may be triggered by applications for credit, employment or both and represent one factor in determining an applicant's loan risk to a credit issuer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as amended, requires businesses to have legitimate grounds for requesting your credit history. If you feel your credit information is inaccurate or has been accessed for unacceptable reasons, you may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission.
(6) Multiple account charge-offs. Balances left unpaid for more than sixty (60) days may affect your creditworthiness. Your credit report indicates unpaid balances from Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq); Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan); the Troubled Asset Relief Program; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act; the Cash for Clunkers Extension Act; the Worker, Homeowner, and Business Assistance Act of 2009; the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010; and others too numerous to list.
Member of Congress, please understand that the American people's decision was based on information obtained from a report from one of the following three consumer credit reporting agencies: Equifax, Experian, or Trans- Union. The reporting agency did not make the credit decision.
You have the right under the amended Fair Credit Reporting Act to request a free copy of your credit report once each calendar year from each of the three major credit reporting agencies listed above. You can order your report from annualcreditreport.com or the Annual Credit Report Request Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA 30348-5281.
You may also wish to contact a consumer credit counseling agency. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling can help you locate a reputable counseling agency in your area. You may also wish to visit the NFCC's website for helpful tips on such subjects as
•drawing up a budget
•living within your means
•saving during tough economic times
•steps to take when your finances get out of control
In the event that you can provide documentation of changes to your credit status, we will be happy to evaluate another application for credit from you at that time. We hope to have the opportunity to meet your credit needs in the future.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the American people during regular business hours. Please do not contact us at home. If you call us after 9 p.m. and wake the baby, there will be hell to pay.
Sincerely yours,
We the People
37======================================================================================================
It is time for us to stop living beyond our means and to right the financial ship. I think it's time we the people sent the Crooks and Thieves in Washington the kind of letter the bank would send us for their most recent application for even more credit:
Dear Congress, Your Credit Application Has Been Turned Down
A. Barton Hinkle | May 20, 2011
The Honorable _________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable _________
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. or Ms. _______,
Thank you for your interest in the American Public Trust's Gold Card credit program. Rest assured your application has been given thorough and careful consideration by the American people.
After reviewing the information provided in your application as well as your credit report, we regret to say that we are unable to extend you further credit at this time. The reasons for our decision are as follows:
(1) Inadequate income.Our records indicate that your annual income for the 2011 taxable year was $2,170,000,000,000. You have requested a credit limit of $17,000,000,000,000. These figures exceed the American Public's debt-to-income guidelines for credit issuance.
(2) Excessive spending. The receipts you provided indicate your annual expenditures for the 2011 fiscal year total $3,820,000,000,000, or $1,650,000,000,000 more than your total income for the year. The American Public prefers that its members of Congress maintain a positive or neutral rather than a negative cash flow.
(3) High debt utilization. Your credit report indicates that you have a credit limit of $14,300,000,000,000, and of that amount you have utilized $14,300,000,000,000, for a debt utilization ratio of 100 percent. Consumer banking industry guidelines recommend a debt utilization ratio of no greater than 30 percent for standard creditworthiness, and 10 percent for exemplary creditworthiness. A debt utilization rate of 100 percent meets our classification of "You're *&^%$#@! kidding, right?"
(4) High credit activity. Our records indicate you have credit accounts open with the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, the Social Security Administration, the People's Bank of China, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Bank of the Republic of Burundi, Bank Frick & Co. AG Liechtensteiner Privatbank, Quik-Cash Loans, Three Gold Balls Pawn Shop (Ann Arbor, Mich.), MyFast Loan.com (Antigua), paydayloans-r-us.com (Cayman Islands), Frank the bartender (Old Towne Tavern), and several members of the extended family of Salvatore "Sammy Meatballs" Montigliano of Montclair, N.J. While account activity threshholds vary by lender, your activity exceeds American Public guidelines for further credit issuance.
(5) Multiple recent credit inquiries. Records indicate your credit report has been accessed more than 6,437 times in the past 60 days. Inquiries may be triggered by applications for credit, employment or both and represent one factor in determining an applicant's loan risk to a credit issuer. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as amended, requires businesses to have legitimate grounds for requesting your credit history. If you feel your credit information is inaccurate or has been accessed for unacceptable reasons, you may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission.
(6) Multiple account charge-offs. Balances left unpaid for more than sixty (60) days may affect your creditworthiness. Your credit report indicates unpaid balances from Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq); Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan); the Troubled Asset Relief Program; the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act; the Cash for Clunkers Extension Act; the Worker, Homeowner, and Business Assistance Act of 2009; the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010; and others too numerous to list.
Member of Congress, please understand that the American people's decision was based on information obtained from a report from one of the following three consumer credit reporting agencies: Equifax, Experian, or Trans- Union. The reporting agency did not make the credit decision.
You have the right under the amended Fair Credit Reporting Act to request a free copy of your credit report once each calendar year from each of the three major credit reporting agencies listed above. You can order your report from annualcreditreport.com or the Annual Credit Report Request Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, GA 30348-5281.
You may also wish to contact a consumer credit counseling agency. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling can help you locate a reputable counseling agency in your area. You may also wish to visit the NFCC's website for helpful tips on such subjects as
•drawing up a budget
•living within your means
•saving during tough economic times
•steps to take when your finances get out of control
In the event that you can provide documentation of changes to your credit status, we will be happy to evaluate another application for credit from you at that time. We hope to have the opportunity to meet your credit needs in the future.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the American people during regular business hours. Please do not contact us at home. If you call us after 9 p.m. and wake the baby, there will be hell to pay.
Sincerely yours,
We the People
38====================================================================================================
Would that the Crooks and Thieves in Washington would heed the sentiments expressed in this letter. Perhaps the upcoming 2012 Presidential election will give the people the chance to make them. By picking the architect of the GOP plan to rescue the country from the fiscal cliff as his running mate, Mitt Romney is betting that the American people have had enough of the lies of the Matrix and are ready to confront the truth we all face:
Would that the Crooks and Thieves in Washington would heed the sentiments expressed in this letter. Perhaps the upcoming 2012 Presidential election will give the people the chance to make them. By picking the architect of the GOP plan to rescue the country from the fiscal cliff as his running mate, Mitt Romney is betting that the American people have had enough of the lies of the Matrix and are ready to confront the truth we all face:
Say what you will about the Republican party, and I can say a lot of nasty stuff, but at least they had the guts to put both their feet squarely on the third rail of American politics to try to apply the brakes before the United States economy went crashing over the cliff. There is no partisan advantage in committing political hari-kari (as they found out when they got mediscared out of the seat in NY26), but it was the right thing to do for the good of the country. If you don't like the way they do it, that's fine, but at least have the honesty and integrity to put out an alternative entitlement fix (yes that means you Harry Reid!) or a credible budget plan (that means you Barry). And if you can't even do that, then at least have the decency to stop with the Mediscare campaign to convince granny that the GOP plan to fix entitlements is "un-American" and soon she'll be the one shoved off a cliff. I'll tell you what's un-American... what's un-American is to propose nothing credible to solve the fiscal crisis which could imperil us all... what's un-American is to fiddle for partisan gain while America burns!!!