April 05, 2011
— Geoff Paul Ryan released his new deficit-cutting budget plan today, saving almost $6 trillion over the next 10 years, which is very nice. Really. The National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform released a similar plan last December, saving almost $2 trillion by 2020, and it too was nice.
Really.
Despite my tone, I am a big fan of these plans, and earnestly hope that at least most of their features will be implemented. But lest we violate the guiding maxim of the estimable Winston Wolfe, let's remind ourselves of exactly how bad things are, so that we understand just what these plans can and can't do for us.
In FY 2011, we are running a $1.425 trillion deficit. This single year of spending will take our public debt from 62.1% of GDP up to 69.1% of GDP. Now, in our daily life, whenever we run up a debt the first thing we ask is: How long will it take me to pay this off?
So, how long will it take to pay off the debt we're adding just this year? Or, a slightly easier task: how long will it take to get the debt/GDP ratio back to what it was only 6 months ago?
Please understand that we're talking about money we're burning right now. We're halfway through the fiscal year, so we're right in the middle of running up this tab that we're going to have to pay off. And the Dems won't let us slow our spending to any significant degree.
So, how long? Let's point out right away that the White House budget never pays a penny of the 2011 debt back. In fact, the public debt keeps climbing and climbing, reaching 87% of GDP by 2021. So only the two budget reform plans are even trying to pay that money back. And just how fast are they hoping to do that?
Have a look:*
The gray line is where we were at the end of September 2010 ==> that's our target. The blue line is the Obama administration's baseline budget. As you can see, it sails off into the stratosphere. This is the budget plan the Democrats are defending.
The teal line and red line are the Deficit Commission and Ryan's plan, respectively. The teal line makes it back to the gray line by the end of 2022. Ryan's plan? Well, you'll have to wait another 10 years.**
So here's the bottom line. If you believe that the GDP will start growing at a healthy rate and continue at that rate forever, and if you manage to reform Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and if you reform the budget process, and if you reform the tax code, and if you accomplish all these reforms in FY12, then you might be able to pay off this year's spending within 11 to 12 years. Or maybe the decade after.
This is what the President and his crackerjack economic team have wrought. A one-year deficit that is so large that it can only be paid back if everything goes exactly right. And if everything goes exactly right, we're still looking at decades before we can get back to the debt level we had only 6 months ago.
But, on the bright side, perhaps as early as 2023 we can start working on paying off the FY10 deficit.
So when the Dems start their caterwauling about how "extreme" the GOP's suggestions are, just remind them that these "extreme" suggestions may not succeed in paying back even 1 year of Obama's spending.
*S. Weasel worked on an earlier version of that chart, using Ryan's old numbers. It looked great, but then it became obsolete before I got around to using it. I wanted to get this up quickly, so I just plotted it up myself. My apologies to Ms. W., and my thanks for her efforts.
**One of the key reasons that Ryan's plan pays down the debt more slowly is that he caps government revenue at 19% of GDP, while the National Commission lets it keep rising towards 21%. The Commission didn't take into account the likely negative effect of increased government revenue on GDP (Ace also talks about this below), so their projections are likely to be optimistic.
Posted by: Geoff at
10:02 AM
| Comments (314)
Post contains 723 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 05, 2011 07:22 AM (eOXTH)
From what I read, the leadership and "the will of the conference" nixed going back to '06. So the moderate Republicans refuse to speak the truth because they want to keep their seats and the Dems refuse to engage because they want to win big in 2012. We're boned.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 07:24 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: Jean at April 05, 2011 07:24 AM (WkuV6)
Remember that Ryan's plan doesn't even tweak Social Security, leaving that battle down the road.
If I thought he could ever win that battle, I'd be encouraged.
Posted by: geoff at April 05, 2011 07:27 AM (Fj/WG)
Posted by: Dan at April 05, 2011 07:27 AM (mXBxH)
Let me know if you ever see a claw in my back...
Posted by: Sosh Security at April 05, 2011 07:27 AM (ihSHD)
Yes. You have 8 seconds.
...7
...6
...5
...4
...3
...2
...1
...Okay, feeling over now. Back to business.
Honestly, I kind of love Ryan's plan. I mentioned a tactic whereby this plan is adopted and shows two things: 1) That Granny and Grampa won't starve and 2) that it's not nearly enough. Then, another one is passed- that makes more drastic cuts/reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, and begins actively addressing SS. And that cycle would continue until we're back to sanity.
I hope that's the plan. I think it has a chance of working.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 07:28 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Dan at April 05, 2011 07:29 AM (mXBxH)
Posted by: Jean at April 05, 2011 07:31 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Monty at April 05, 2011 07:33 AM (4Pleu)
The leadership told them to be vague about SS, so they were vague about SS. This budget basically requires that the president must act once x, y, and z occur, whatever that those are.
Though I did notice Rep. Lankford (R-OK)-- another brilliant budgeteer, btw-- did mention this as a first step during the Budget presser, so I'm thinking certain parties within the GOP might crawl-out of their holes if they see a proper sale "click" with the average American. I certainly hope so, anyway.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 07:33 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: Jean at April 05, 2011 11:31 AM (WkuV6)
Neither...he'll go golfing.
Posted by: Tami at April 05, 2011 07:33 AM (VuLos)
Posted by: MarkC at April 05, 2011 07:36 AM (yPPVC)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 07:36 AM (UO6+e)
Didn't the Deficit Commission plan to raise taxes?
At least Ryan is cogniscent of the economic effects of that little disaster...
I'd back Ryan.
Posted by: TexasJew at April 05, 2011 07:36 AM (QK1rf)
The Ryan roadmap does address social security with a 55 age cutoff for those who will still stay in the current system vs alternatives like private accounts.
Cite?
Posted by: spongeworthy at April 05, 2011 07:37 AM (rplL3)
I canÂ’t recommend this piece highly enough. This will be all the ammo weÂ’ll need when talking to other voters during the 2012 general election.
I read on another site a comment on how many surrogates for President Obama are praising Mitt for Romneycare in order to hurt him with his base. Mitt finally defended himself on Saturday when he said: “You may have noticed that the President and his people spend more time talking about me and MassachuseÂtts healthcare than EntertainmÂent Tonight spends talking about Charlie Sheen."
Posted by: Dan at April 05, 2011 07:37 AM (9L1z6)
Shut the dang gubment down.
Rep. Ryan is the Brad Stevens of Congress, unflinching, and I support the Ryan/Rubio ticket for 2012.
The Democrats cannot answer Ryan's budget and also have no answer to his understanding of the budget. There has not been a budget since W was President. Let 'er rip, GOP.
Posted by: ChristyBlinky at April 05, 2011 07:38 AM (FnRYN)
I think the MBM will carry the Donks water, vilify the Republicans, and we'll lose this round politically just like we always do. It's the "natural course" of government once people start voting themselves checks.
Ryan only makes sense to rational people.
Posted by: Beagle at April 05, 2011 07:38 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 07:40 AM (UO6+e)
And this will fly bird like into the glass window of those unicorn and skittles "independent" voters who don't like to have a serious discussion and will approve of whoever promises to keep the monies flowing and the problems down the road.
Of course they'll also go batshit insane when the whole system falls apart and blame whichever major party happened to be standing when the music stopped.
Color me skeptical of the "independents" who make it possible for big spenders to win.
Posted by: I want my skittles at April 05, 2011 07:40 AM (CoWPm)
/geek hat
Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at April 05, 2011 07:41 AM (BvTwT)
He's talking about Ryan's old roadmap, which I assume is now obsolete.
Posted by: geoff at April 05, 2011 11:40 AM (Fj/WG)
I believe Ryan mentioned exactly that (55 age cutoff for SS) in his presser today.
Posted by: Tami at April 05, 2011 07:41 AM (VuLos)
Posted by: joncelli at April 05, 2011 07:42 AM (RD7QR)
Percentages should be relative to GDP in their respective years rather than a FY 2010 baseline
I don't follow. All the projections are percentages of the GDPs for those years. The question is when to we return to 62% of GDP.
Posted by: geoff at April 05, 2011 07:43 AM (Fj/WG)
Chairman Ryan said the other day that the Medicare proposals within this budget are more like Ryan-Rivlin than what's in the Roadmap. The leadership (excepting Hensarling) never endorsed his Roadmap and they won't.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 07:43 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: Palerider at April 05, 2011 07:44 AM (5CusZ)
I don't think its obsolete, I think it's delayed.
In software development, we occasionally use a delivery methodology called Scrum (some of you may know about it). One of its main selling points is that it is iterative development with a usable product at the end of every single iteration.
Consider this a plan along those lines: we start with what we have any chance of getting (warning, don't be surprised to see this negotiated down. However, having started in the "Trillions" range of deficit reduction, don't expect the American people to settle for Billions again this cycle). After we've got that and, hopefully, at least the Senate (and hopefully the Presidency, too) in '13, we implement the next step. All along the way we keep showing people that we're not starving Granny, and we're not letting people die in the streets.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 07:44 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Reality Man at April 05, 2011 07:44 AM (9AQdP)
I believe Ryan mentioned exactly that (55 age cutoff for SS) in his presser today.
Posted by: Tami at April 05, 2011 11:41 AM (VuLos
Yesterday, too.
Posted by: Eddie Fuckin' Rabbitt at April 05, 2011 07:45 AM (QPhZk)
Posted by: ace at April 05, 2011 07:46 AM (nj1bB)
"The last thing I want to see is a debt crisis with Obama in office." ~Paul Ryan
^He's referring to a default
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 07:46 AM (UO6+e)
In software development, we occasionally use a delivery methodology called Scrum (some of you may know about it). One of its main selling points is that it is iterative development with a usable product at the end of every single iteration.
It would have been nice if they'd tried that sort of approach with the Stimulus and Obamacare.
Posted by: geoff at April 05, 2011 07:48 AM (Fj/WG)
Posted by: joncelli at April 05, 2011 07:48 AM (RD7QR)
A picture of that would be more palatable than his hideous demon-cat selections.
Posted by: Waterhouse at April 05, 2011 07:48 AM (YvNBz)
Then it's a labeling issue for the gray line. Or it's my brain.
Is Ryan's plan 'perfect'? Of course not. Is it better than the status quo? Is it a responsible path forward for our children's children? Yes. When you get David Brooks out of his NYT hidey-hole to declare it "...the standard of seriousness for anybody who wants to play in this discussion" you may well be on the right track.
Posted by: Kevin in ABQ at April 05, 2011 07:48 AM (BvTwT)
I like my posts better than Monty's. My posts are happy things, made of apple-blossoms and starshine.
... more like apple cores and Starburst wrappers.
Posted by: garrett at April 05, 2011 07:49 AM (QPhZk)
Monty's posts are all dolphins in the guillotine.
Posted by: ace
Perhaps, but with him we get plenty of 'tuna' fish.
Posted by: Blue Hen at April 05, 2011 07:49 AM (6rX0K)
Posted by: NYT Editorial Bored at April 05, 2011 07:50 AM (kb0wl)
Then it's a labeling issue for the gray line. Or it's my brain.
Since all the debts are ratioed to the GDPs for their corresponding years, and all we're interested in is getting back to the FY10 ratio, I think the line is OK.
Posted by: geoff at April 05, 2011 07:51 AM (Fj/WG)
Posted by: Ed Anger at April 05, 2011 07:51 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Monty at April 05, 2011 07:53 AM (4Pleu)
Posted by: Tami at April 05, 2011 07:53 AM (VuLos)
Yes, yes it would. Of course, neither of those were designed to produce a working product at any stage, so you would have violated one of the principles of Scrum right off the bat...
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 07:54 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Monty
Come back to the water. Come on back onto my turf. We'll see how tough you are... Crap; it's time for the matinee... I'm out.
Posted by: Flipper at April 05, 2011 07:54 AM (6rX0K)
Drill all that oil here and tax it at 20%. That's an extra $140 Billion that stays right here.
Make corporate taxes lower to bring back foreign branches of American companies. More taxes here and more jobs here. Then tighten up some tax loopholes to make even less attractive to move companies offshore.
Give tax breaks to foreign companies for moving here.
In other words, kick this economy in the ass and start competing globally. We have a robust enough economy even when it is as sluggish as it is right now to wipe out deficits much sooner if we just started competing for our own business.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 05, 2011 07:54 AM (f9c2L)
Not I.
Posted by: The Duck at April 05, 2011 07:55 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: maliheh at April 05, 2011 07:56 AM (EEHkr)
As I said in another thread, Ryan's plan is a wake-up call to TeamObama, akin to what Scott Walker and the R-led statehouse in WI did there. It aroused the opposition to unite and play whatever hardball is necessary to win in the future.
And that is exactly what we are seeing now. The Rs have no unity on this, no common thread, no one writing the must-do marching orders, and certainly no compliant press corps on their side.
Posted by: HackedTheHubble&Looking@U at April 05, 2011 07:56 AM (4sQwu)
Monty's posts are all dolphins in the guillotine.
Posted by: ace
--------
I fart skittles in your general direction!
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 05, 2011 07:57 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: maliheh
Supposedly Obama was new. And that didn't work out so well for us.
Posted by: Flipper at April 05, 2011 07:57 AM (6rX0K)
I'm an independent, and I'm intrigued by Ryan's proposal. If it would just get implemented, then maybe more can be worked on later as the public gets comfortable with the realities of his proposal -- no, it isn't a quick, ideal fix, but it's something and it can be built upon. It will be easier and less risky to do this than go full bore (which sounds like a good idea, but has serious potential risks). Get the economy in better condition, and then address more of the deficit.
I'd love to see Ryan's plan tied to a sturdy foreign policy (I was very much pro-wot, but the way it's being conducted is bleeding us and accomplishing very little -- we either change up the game plan there or we continue bleeding, literally and economically; that can't stand).
Posted by: unknown jane at April 05, 2011 07:57 AM (5/yRG)
Attacking the messenger.
How original.
Posted by: Slublog at April 05, 2011 07:58 AM (0nqdj)
One of the things Democrats tried to bash on Gov. Perry with early (2000-ish) was that he was globe trotting all the time. Then they saw the Texas economy start booming as he managed to bring companies by the truck-full to Texas- including branches of foreign companies.
He doesn't do that quite as much anymore, but one of the reasons we're among the strongest State economies is all that additional productivity and revenue.
I just wish the rest of America understood that.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 07:58 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Car in at April 05, 2011 07:58 AM (qIC+p)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at April 05, 2011 08:00 AM (Z1jiu)
Come back to the water. Come on back onto my turf. We'll see how tough you are... Crap; it's time for the matinee... I'm out.
Posted by: Flipper at April 05, 2011 11:54 AMI got this, kid.
Posted by: Tilikum at April 05, 2011 08:01 AM (2pEj7)
on a sports message board political thread I read a guy who said Obama actually lowered federal spending compared to Bush and that this years deficit is mostly social security, medicaid, medicare
It's difficult hearing that there are people out there who really are that stupid, even when you know it to be true.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 05, 2011 08:01 AM (SY2Kh)
He doesn't do that quite as much anymore, but one of the reasons we're among the strongest State economies is all that additional productivity and revenue.
I just wish the rest of America understood that.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther)
We should start a dead pool for when Illinois loses Caterpillar.
Posted by: Blue Hen at April 05, 2011 08:01 AM (6rX0K)
Is this supposed to be trolling? If so, it's a really sad example.
Presuming it is not, however...
Many people who I otherwise respect agreed that TARP was necessary. I disagreed then, and disagree now, but I respect them enough otherwise to allow that they were making what they thought was the best decision- good intentions and honor do not always prevent mistakes.
Further, Rep. Ryan has been pushing budgetary matters, and especially entitlement reform, for a long time. To attempt to paint him as a big tax and spender because he- like so many others- thought TARP was necessary to prevent total economic collapse is absurd.
However, if this was an attempt at trolling...
FOAD.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 08:02 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: maliheh
Not "new"? "New" is all the rage! "New" is all I care about! "New is "Now"!
But then again, I do have my nead ALL the way up my ass."Not new" - What a stupid fuck.
Posted by: Dang at April 05, 2011 08:02 AM (TXKVh)
Posted by: Dan at April 05, 2011 08:03 AM (mXBxH)
I take 3 months after Rick Perry manages to head that direction.
Did I mention that Cleburne, TX has a steel mill and steel recycling plant?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 08:03 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Dan at April 05, 2011 08:03 AM (mXBxH)
The main aspect in which it doesn't go far enough is this: Ryan says "this is what we can do," not "this is what we're gonna do come Hell, high water, or a fuckwit President."
If we all could keep a job by talking about our "plan" and showing nifty charts, there would be no unemployment. That's not how it goes in the Real World (i.e. outside D.C. and the Blogoshpere).
I got plans. You got plans. All God's chillun' gots plans.
Does anyone here know how to pay a grocery bill or mortgage payment with a plan? All the stores and banks I've seen or heard of want, you know, real money.
Posted by: Machine Gun Joe Viterbo at April 05, 2011 08:03 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 08:04 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 08:04 AM (UO6+e)
Unfortunately, he doesn't get to say that. Even if the entire Republican caucus fell in line behind this plan (here's hoping) there's the Senate and the President to consider. This is a starting position. It's the strongest beginning to negotiations that I've seen from the Republicans since I can't remember when. But when Ryan says "this is what we can do," that's the best he's going to be able to give you.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 08:05 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nsanyi23 at April 05, 2011 08:06 AM (wblEI)
Posted by: joncelli at April 05, 2011 08:07 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 08:09 AM (AZGON)
According to Politico, The Hill, and other sources, the Republicans as a whole* said no to further cuts and entitlement reforms. As it is, Politico is always teasing about these appropriators and others within the party who are squirming about having to embrace this. They don't want it, it's too much for them, but they're going to pretend they like if they public gets behind it. However, they're not going to embrace further cuts and reforms until they see this works, because they want to keep their seats.
*Since there were those arguing for more.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 08:09 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 05, 2011 08:10 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: doc at April 05, 2011 08:12 AM (AtQf8)
Short of Youtube videos of riots and carbecues or photos of kids with flies on their faces, how do you convince people that there is a debt crisis at all? I keep returning to this question: If you can fly to place X and have a lovely holiday with fine food and friendly service and you know many who do so, how do you expect to convince the Great Moderate Middle that titanic public debt in place X even matters?
Posted by: George Orwell
So your question is "how do we impart these problems so that the Great Moderate Middle understands and embraces the issue and its severity"?
Use your analogy. Look at all the places that are "nice to visit but I wouldn't want to live there". Focus on San Franciso, a place where it's nice to be a hipster or a bum, but not raise a family. Note that the list of places that are nice to visit only is growing. Hammer home the fact that we are exaserbating this problem. Focus on Detroit. Focus on Japan, where it is increasingly hard to raise children, and for those children to enjoy even the same standard of living.
Posted by: Blue Hen at April 05, 2011 08:12 AM (6rX0K)
Posted by: eeyore at April 05, 2011 08:13 AM (mka2b)
Posted by: unknown jane at April 05, 2011 08:14 AM (5/yRG)
So, do we have an operational definition of what IS sufficient? And a rationale for why it is sufficient? What's the target, and why?
Also, what is really, honestly, on the table here? What portions of economic activity/productive capacity, currently consumed by the state, will we allow to be idled? Let's not pretend that cutting government consumption now is going to be without negative economic consequences. Unemployment will spike higher, since private consumption has not recovered and will not any time soon. Also, in what way will dollars be removed from the system (tax)? We are going to have to be serious about deciding what government consumption will be permitted and where the dollars will be removed from the system once they are created by spending. The Left's answer is always the same - no government consumption is ever to be ended, and take dollars from the "rich" while inflating to take from everyone. We don't have the luxury of such a simplistic and widely appealing answer. We better make sure whatever we plan to do is going to work in the long run. Otherwise we'll do little more than bring the collapse upon us even faster.
I think political capital is better spent on accomlishing growth first, then cutting later. If we can't fix the energy problem and spur private employment, the obsession with the deficit will be pointless. We must get the cost of inputs down, and the rate of employment up, before cutting. Deficit cutting, and the attendant pain, is only valuable now if we can blame it all on Obama. Since the Republican's can't manage to sell any part of their agenda, I figure the odds of that are slim.
Posted by: Reactionary at April 05, 2011 08:14 AM (xUM1Q)
Funny, On a sports message board I read a guy who said
The Yankees will win the AL only to be swept in four by St.Louis in the series.
The similarities are eerie...
Posted by: Random sports fan on a political site at April 05, 2011 08:18 AM (72Nk7)
Posted by: USA at April 05, 2011 08:18 AM (YZISw)
Posted by: unknown jane at April 05, 2011 08:19 AM (5/yRG)
Awww, it looks like Paul Ryan is sporting some sharp pants creases. From Davd Brooks:
Ryan was a protégé of Jack Kemp, and Kemp’s uplifting spirit pervades the document. It’s not sour, taking an austere meat ax approach. It emphasizes social support, social mobility and personal choice. I don’t agree with all of it that I’ve seen, but it is a serious effort to create a sustainable welfare state — to prevent the sort of disruptive change we’re going to face if national bankruptcy comes.
It also creates the pivotal moment of truth for President Obama. Will he come up with his own counterproposal, or will he simply demagogue the issue by railing against “savage” Republican cuts and ignoring the long-term fiscal realities? Does he have a sustainable vision for government, or will he just try to rise above the fray while Nancy Pelosi and others attack Ryan?…
Paul Ryan has grasped reality with both hands. HeÂ’s forcing everybody else to do the same.
Posted by: He Who Gaffs at April 05, 2011 08:19 AM (ihSHD)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 08:20 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: joncelli at April 05, 2011 08:21 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 12:05 PM (8y9MW
Okay, this is true. But, given reality -- again, outside of D.C. and the babbling heads who incessantly mull over every word and check every poll before thinking for themselves -- what does that get us?
Nada.
I'm not arguing with you. But I still have to wonder what good the Pence Plan is going to be when we achieve our version of the Glorious Paradise that is Zimbabwe?
I'm just frustrated because I have enough trouble dealing with my own dwindling economy while people who live fat off the crumbs they extort from us can't/won't do what they are supposed to do, which is keep the country safe and healthy.
Posted by: Machine Gun Joe Viterbo at April 05, 2011 08:21 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: TexasJew at April 05, 2011 08:26 AM (QK1rf)
Posted by: Cathy at April 05, 2011 08:26 AM (jVzcR)
Posted by: USA at April 05, 2011 08:26 AM (YZISw)
I'd have to see a public flogging for the @#$%^ who are already looking to take 401ks. And my Dads favorite chestnut, How do you keep em from fucking the stock market up then too.
Posted by: Dave at April 05, 2011 08:30 AM (fm5yr)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at April 05, 2011 11:54 AM (f9c2L)
Uh... no.
Posted by: TexasJew at April 05, 2011 08:30 AM (QK1rf)
Posted by: S. Weasel at April 05, 2011 08:30 AM (mzcUB)
----
What exactly will that look like? How abstract will that be? I also accept that this will happen.
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 12:20 PM (AZGON)
It will look like inflation. How big that inflation will be is hard to guess.
Neither the US nor Japan is revenue constrained, since they can produce as many yen or dollars are necessary. Money is spent first, and bonds issued after to drain reserves - not the other way around. The only reasons to borrow money are to manipulate interest rates and provide for the public's demand for savings.
The problem is that if they do not remove enough currency from the system after spending it, that creates an oversupply of the currency and inflation sets in. The extra reserves of cash have to be drained. The usual method for such a drain is taxation.
Posted by: Reactionary at April 05, 2011 08:31 AM (xUM1Q)
Plus, we have people (of every political/ideological stripe, that's important to realize) whose response to "we're saddling our kids.." is: well, I don't have any kids and/or my kids are grown up and out of college, so I don't care about somebody else's damn kids (again, a pretty much verbatim quote I have heard).
They simply do not or refuse to see that what happens to "somebody else's damn kids" does effect them -- they just don't. They don't care if the country goes into the shitter as long as they get to keep on joyriding -- they are just going to keep ignoring the problems and "enjoying life" until reality busts through their door. Everybody else has to make the sacrifice: welfare recipients, the rich, the military, businesses, old people, young people, unions, private sector employees, minorities, white people...everybody but them, because they "deserve" the lifestyle they have right now (in fact, they feel entitled to more), and quite a few of them (again, from every professed political/ideological stripe) don't believe they should have to sacrifice any of their wants...not even to put into personal savings. And everybody but them is lumped into a category and depersonalized -- that seems to be where our public mindset is (among a frighteing number of people), and that is where we could end up on the ash heap of history at this rate.
**yeah, I kinda got my eyes opened the past few weeks
Posted by: unknown jane at April 05, 2011 08:32 AM (5/yRG)
It gets us time, at least theoretically.
Check out Lee Stranahan's page (I think he's coming over to the Right Side) today. He talks about what the Right needs to do to start making inroads on the PR front of our political battles. I don't agree with his exact prescription, but I think his diagnosis is pretty close.
Given that we (virtually) always lose the PR battle, we have to fight battles we can win. At this point, we need an Agincourt before we can negotiate a Treaty of Canterbury, and we need a Treaty of Canterbury before we can proceed to reclaim our rightful holdings- in our case, true Federalism, small government, and personal freedom and responsibility- as opposed to Harry V's claims to much of France.
This may not be our much needed Agincourt, but it's the best chance I think we've had in a long, long time, and our best bet before the house of cards collapses.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 08:33 AM (8y9MW)
The main--and really, it should be the most obvious--place the Japan comparison breaks down is that, frankly, we aren't Japanese. They have a much more orderly and homogenous culture--they'll just quietly work and bear up under it to the bitter end, as need be. We...won't. We might have once, maybe a hundred years ago, but culturally I think we bankrupted long ago, and now the rest is simply following suit. We'll screw around, we'll put off the hard work past where it would do any good, we'll default, and the whole thing will collapse into a stinking, flaming heap.
Closer to apples-to-apples would, sadly, be Greece, and even then they still have the Euro safety net that's holding off the inevitable. Once Germany bails on that system you'll have your counterexample.
Posted by: City of New Orleans at April 05, 2011 08:34 AM (GBXon)
Any plan that requires raising additional revenues is deceptive, because the politicians will never cut spending that additional amount, they will simply spend it. It's spending cuts or bust.
Posted by: Brian G. at April 05, 2011 08:34 AM (+3ddn)
Posted by: City of New Orleans at April 05, 2011 08:38 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: BigDaddy1964 at April 05, 2011 08:40 AM (pOcKt)
Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at April 05, 2011 08:41 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Vic at April 05, 2011 08:42 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 08:45 AM (AZGON)
Perhaps partially true but the problem with that argument is it looks like the following argument: "Socialism works fine, you just have to have the right kind of people."
Ah, but notice that wasn't what I said. In fact it just means that they grind down to the last without exploding--the end comes with a whimper, so to speak. We'll go out with a bang long before.
Even the 'best case' isn't that great, unless you're a fan of long, slow declines to oblivion.
Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at April 05, 2011 08:50 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Jean at April 05, 2011 08:53 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 08:55 AM (AZGON)
That's true. Maybe I should have compared to Braveheart... but he lost in the end.
Perhaps partially true but the problem with that argument is it looks like the following argument: "Socialism works fine, you just have to have the right kind of people."
And the fact is that Socialism does work fine, once you have the right kind of people. The problem is that the right kind of people are bees. Or ants.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 08:56 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 08:58 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 08:59 AM (AZGON)
Well... for a given definition of brutal. Their isolationist policies put them far behind the game, as it were, until... the 1600's? I think that's right. Anyway, that means that while Europe was in its Elightenment/Industrial Revolution, Japan was still in its Feudal/Medieval period.
Society was very, very uncompromising- moreso even than European Medieval societies. But that same brutality was used to, to some extent, impose order. Even peace, as long as all you mean by that word is "absence of war."
Post WWII, they were very, very influenced by American cultural mores, and their society has adapted accordingly.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 09:00 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 09:02 AM (AZGON)
It is, in many respects. Except it's the old notion of the ant colony (before we understood them better) wherein the "queen" controls the hive and all the other ants are her subjects.
Which is why, of course, Socialism fails in Humans- we're inclined toward hierarchy, and Socialism (that works) would require uniform equality. In a real ant colony, the queen doesn't "rule" the hive, she's mostly just a breeder.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 09:02 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 09:03 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 09:06 AM (AZGON)
That being said, you'll see Japanese suicide rates climb as the end approaches. Their birth rate is already below replacement--unless something extraordinary happens in the very near future, Japan as we know it is a dying nation, one way or another. Before they revert to what they were, you would literally have to cripple every nation in their vicinity, and I don't consider that terribly likely. (Though honestly, China isn't nearly in the kind of shape the Friedmans of the world would like to think...)
Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at April 05, 2011 09:08 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at April 05, 2011 09:08 AM (pdRb1)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 09:10 AM (AZGON)
Ask me when people start ignoring the decrees of the Japanese government that they don't get to carry weapons.
...and I don't relish spending my day pushing around a crumb from a Twinkie, twice my size.
Maybe, but wouldn't it be cool to be able to?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 09:13 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 09:15 AM (AZGON)
Maybe, but wouldn't it be cool to be able to?
If I had a crumb twice my size, that Twinkie would kill every diabetic within a 50 mile radius.
Posted by: AoSHQ's worst commenter, DarkLord© at April 05, 2011 09:15 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: Snort! at April 05, 2011 09:16 AM (K/USr)
Nothing will be sufficient until there is a GOP Senate and POTUS.
And the Left wont be the only ones caterwauling, clueless conservatives will too.
I'll hold my breath for Jim DeMint's plan or Michelle Bachmann's plan, but I dont think "lower taxes, smaller government RINOS suck" is a plan.
Posted by: swamp_yankee at April 05, 2011 09:21 AM (ZIpcL)
It would by much easier to prosper if we also reformed entitlements, but it was very wise to leave Social Security aside for the time being.
I also think we shouldn't expect the right's case to get weaker if Ryan gets his way. Sure, it will be a bit less urgent, but as Ryan's budget led to a much more stable economy, he would have much more influence over the moderates about the entitlement crisis.
It's good to note to conservatives that we're not going to pretend this fight is finished if we win this one (very difficult) battle, and Ryan agrees with that.
Posted by: Dustin at April 05, 2011 09:32 AM (Q3nWV)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 09:42 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 09:43 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: ace at April 05, 2011 09:50 AM (nj1bB)
The best if not only way of of the mess, not counting Weimar-Third World hyperinflation and debt default (The DNC-Obama Plan), is to increase economic growth dramatically. One obvious way to do that is exploit our world-leading petroleum reserves now that the prices are spiking. ANWR, CNG, shale, the lot. That could give us breathing space to get to the next thing.
Structural cuts in open-ended government liabilities are necessary but not sufficient to revive the economy.
Posted by: Beagle at April 05, 2011 10:03 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: Barack FNinsane Obama at April 05, 2011 10:07 AM (YVZlY)
WE must FOLLOW THE ONE OVER THE CLIFF!!!!!
Posted by: © Sponge at April 05, 2011 10:09 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 05, 2011 10:09 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: USA at April 05, 2011 10:10 AM (YZISw)
Joke for the next generation: How do you know Obama is lying? His lips are moving.....Bada bum TISHHHHHH!!
Posted by: © Sponge at April 05, 2011 10:12 AM (UK9cE)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 05, 2011 10:12 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: maddogg at April 05, 2011 10:12 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 10:13 AM (AZGON)
"What's next? Mercy killing? Imagine, in that vein, being condemned to death because you're poor. And 'Rayon' Ryan just keeps tugging along with his moocher's salary. He's so anti-government it's amazing he's even in the government in the first place.
Maybe when 'Rayon' Ryan dies, we'll be able to enfold him in the Nazi flag."
Read the rest-- it's just a taste of what the conservative Republicans are up against in the fight to pass this budget.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 10:15 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 10:18 AM (AZGON)
121 Still it appears that Ryan's plan doesn't really cut anything in 2012. All these cuts are "promised" down the road????
My understanding is that budget bills provide a number but Appropriations actually takes those numbers and does something with them. The budget is being marked-up by the Rules Committee tomorrow, so barring a shutdown they should start carving out specific cuts by next week.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 10:18 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at April 05, 2011 10:19 AM (eOXTH)
Posted by: Paul Carboni at April 05, 2011 10:20 AM (kwp8Z)
Santelli, "the president is very bold, cause when he had both houses, where was the budget?" Good question rick.
Boner's on now.
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 10:23 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 10:24 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: Paul Carboni at April 05, 2011 02:20 PM (kwp8Z)
Don't ever think they don't care. Remember the Republican's starve-the-beast strategy, which they pursued with their usual determination? The Dems coopted that strategy, only the opposite way around: run up huge deficits until you can say that the only way out is to jack up taxes on everybody. And they executed their strategy a lot better than the Republicans executed theirs.
But hey, you go to war with the retarded assholes you have, right?
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 10:25 AM (McG46)
Posted by: huerfano at April 05, 2011 10:26 AM (2pEj7)
Posted by: Chuckit at April 05, 2011 02:14 PM (vc2cu)
Peggy Joseph weeps.
Posted by: Cicero at April 05, 2011 10:26 AM (QKKT0)
"we are going to continue to fight for the largest cuts possible"
Now the CNBS flacks will keep cheerleading BO.
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 10:26 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 02:24 PM (k1rwm)
To be fair, BO spends all his time tanning and resting.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 05, 2011 10:27 AM (TpXEI)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 02:24 PM
Boehner may be actually working. Barry shot a 148 86 on Sunday.
Posted by: huerfano at April 05, 2011 10:27 AM (2pEj7)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 02:15 PM (UO6+e)
Interesting point of view he has there. If dangerously angry and feeling entitled a point of view.
Posted by: Beagle at April 05, 2011 10:27 AM (sOtz/)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 10:28 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 10:29 AM (AZGON)
Gee, Barry, what about borrowing 40% of the money the gummint spends? Do foreign debt holders take Skittles as payment?
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 10:31 AM (McG46)
You can find many more where those came from, too. The DCCC plans to run ads against 50 Rs stating that they (the Rs) have enabled the destruction of the welfare state. Lots of screaming about how this is the end of progressive government as we know it.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 10:31 AM (UO6+e)
You can find many more where those came from, too. The DCCC plans to run ads against 50 Rs stating that they (the Rs) have enabled the destruction of the welfare state. Lots of screaming about how this is the end of progressive government as we know it.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 02:31 PMIf only we had such luck.
Posted by: huerfano at April 05, 2011 10:32 AM (2pEj7)
I think several of our politicians need to review the definitions of "Bug" and "Feature."
Rush was playing soundbites, while I was out at lunch, from some Democrat idiot (didn't catch who, though) crying about the idea of Block Grants replacing the current Medicaid structure, and how that would give the Governors all the power over Medicaid. My thought was- "and this a complaint?"
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 10:34 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Guy Fawkes at April 05, 2011 10:34 AM (Z1jiu)
I think the idea of it from someone who is respected for being brilliant and a serious thinker scares them. So it doesn't matter than this budget doesn't have force of law and that much of it won't get enacted; they are frightened of even the very idea from a credible source and they're going to fight it to the last.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 10:35 AM (UO6+e)
You can find many more where those came from, too. The DCCC plans to run ads against 50 Rs stating that they (the Rs) have enabled the destruction of the welfare state. Lots of screaming about how this is the end of progressive government as we know it.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 02:31 PMGood. It's time to quit trying to finesse this. Put it squarely in front of the electorate. If they make the right decision, good, if they don't, it's time to start collecting survival gear.
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 10:36 AM (McG46)
If this is correct and people see that, this is very, very good. If we can make him angry, petulant, pissed off, he will start to collapse.
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 02:29 PM (AZGON)
The very first thing before Erin Burnett went to Harwood and Santelli was to say "he's angry, the president seems very angry"
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 10:36 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 02:34 PM (8y9MW)
This is the problem liberals have with reining in gummint. It's the loss of power.
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 10:38 AM (McG46)
Posted by: Adjoran at April 05, 2011 10:39 AM (VfmLu)
See price fixing which is why they are getting together and buying the price cutters since the department is focused on a few companies...
like the one google wants to get rid of? Seems this has happend before when one company with an ear in the government wants to eliminate the competition.
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 10:39 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 10:39 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Paul Carboni at April 05, 2011 10:42 AM (kwp8Z)
Posted by: iknowtheleft at April 05, 2011 01:01 PM (G/MYk)
If this is so, why are the Muz still around?
Had the West undergone cultural (not technological) ossification somewhere between 1880 and 1910, the world would be an immeasureably better place.
Nature doesn't prey on backward cultures - other cultures do. Those with strength of will. Those will a sense of purpose. We've had plenty of "progress" and "change" over the last few generations, and yet we continue to slip down the drain.
Posted by: Reactionary at April 05, 2011 10:42 AM (xUM1Q)
If this is correct and people see that, this is very, very good. If we can make him angry, petulant, pissed off, he will start to collapse.
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 02:29 PM (AZGON)
Yes, I used to catch rattle snakes with my bare hands. I would start by angering and badgering the snake. Get him to strike at me (you had to be quick to make this work). Then after several angry strikes, I would distract his sensors with the heat from my open palm, whilst working the other hand around behing his head very slowly, closer and closer while still being aware of the fangs on the other hand. When the time was right, I would simply grab him by the head and he was mine. The GOP should employ this same strategy on Zero.
Posted by: maddogg at April 05, 2011 10:43 AM (OlN4e)
This really is looking like a division of thought and sentiment as profound as we had in 1850. If this blog were Stale Air, I would now be banned.
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 02:39 PM (AZGON)
FIFY.
Just want to reassure all you Yanks who have no sympathy for the Confederacy: you are welcome to come down with us and fight against government overreach. No grudge will be held, no I-told-you-sos will be told.
We're all rebels now.
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 10:45 AM (McG46)
Where I come from, we didn't mess with that. You just got out the pistol (a .22 or .38 were fine) and shot the sumbich. Of course, I think that makes for a very different metaphor...
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 10:46 AM (8y9MW)
Well, speak for yourself on the "I-told-you-sos." The rest holds, though.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 10:47 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 02:46 PM (8y9MW)
Yeah, but my method was a lot sportier.
Posted by: maddogg at April 05, 2011 10:47 AM (OlN4e)
Yes, I used to catch rattle snakes with my bare hands. I would start by angering and badgering the snake. Get him to strike at me (you had to be quick to make this work). Then after several angry strikes, I would distract his sensors with the heat from my open palm, whilst working the other hand around behing his head very slowly, closer and closer while still being aware of the fangs on the other hand. When the time was right, I would simply grab him by the head and he was mine. The GOP should employ this same strategy on Zero.
Posted by: maddogg at April 05, 2011 02:43 PM (OlN4e)
Pffft....piker. I let them bite me....and then I smack the shit outta 'em.
Posted by: Honey Badger at April 05, 2011 10:47 AM (VuLos)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 10:48 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Paul Carboni at April 05, 2011 02:42 PM (kwp8Z)
Yeah, what pisses me off is that they're allowed to be so blatantly...hypocritical doesn't cover it. Spend more money than anybody in the history of the world, then bash your opponents for not being fiscally responsible. Come the apocalypse, I'll be hunting reporters too.
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 10:48 AM (McG46)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 10:49 AM (UO6+e)
Great column Geoff,
I came for DOOM! and there was none. This'll do.
I was talking with my aunt in the United States about this and mentioned that the US racked up $5 TRILLION in debt in three years!! $5 FREAKING TRILLION!!! Her response: "Obama had a lot of problems when he came in. Bush left him with 2 wars which weren't free..."
As to George Orwell's post about other nations, once everything comes down in a ball of flames, no nation is going to be immune from DOOM! DOOM will be everywhere. Things are going to be the most severe, and potentially violent, in the countries where people rely on the government most and the bottle is ripped from their suckling lips. Societies where the government doesn't coddle people cradle to grave, without massive government bureaucracies, without outrageous debt levels should display lesser symptoms of DOOM. You can't miss what you was never injected into your veins leaving you with the ever increasing need and desire for that next beautiful fix from sugar Daddy government.
Posted by: Canadian Infidel at April 05, 2011 10:49 AM (GKQDR)
Yes, I used to catch rattle snakes with my bare hands. - maddogg at April 05
I used to push a garden hose down a likely hole and pour a bit of gasoline down the hose. If a rattlesnake was down there, it would come out so pissed it would stand on it's tail. Then I would blast it with a shotgun.
Bounty on the rattles at the time was enough to interest a kid. Bounty on Jack Rabbits at the time, also.
Posted by: trainer at April 05, 2011 10:49 AM (Rojyk)
just a thought, aren't these the same pile of assholes that didn't even put a budget up for debate last year?
Posted by: Unclefacts Luxury-Yacht at April 05, 2011 10:49 AM (6IReR)
Not "Demand." Simply "exercise." And make sure you use that phraseology every time you're attacked for so doing.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 10:50 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 10:50 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 10:51 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 02:50 PM (AZGON)
You mean there could be another Obama around somewhere? Pour salt on him, don't cut him up.
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 10:51 AM (McG46)
I used to push a garden hose down a likely hole and pour a bit of gasoline down the hose. If a rattlesnake was down there, it would come out so pissed it would stand on it's tail. Then I would blast it with a shotgun.
Bounty on the rattles at the time was enough to interest a kid. Bounty on Jack Rabbits at the time, also.
Posted by: trainer at April 05, 2011 02:49 PM (Rojyk)
At 4 bucks a gallon for gas , the bounty would have to be a bit higher now days I'll wager.
Posted by: maddogg at April 05, 2011 10:53 AM (OlN4e)
Yes, and that should be a major talking point. Every time someone brings up how "extreme" the Republican position is, we need to say something along these lines:
"The Ryan Plan for Prosperity is a starting point. It represents what we hope to come away from the table with after negotiations. However, we understand there will be negotiations- some of what we propose will be dropped, some will be modified. However, we are submitting this budget as a core function of the House, which is something the previous Congress could not even bring itself to do. If Democrats have specific problems with specific proposals, that's fine; we expect that. But bring ideas to the table. Ideas, not talking points."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 10:53 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 10:55 AM (AZGON)
I've never done it, but I've heard that kerosene works just as well. And you don't have to use very much (I had a friend who did this when I was a kid. He'd use about a cup or so of kerosene).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 10:55 AM (8y9MW)
"Extreme" was the word to use last week, and we'll see what this week's is going to be very soon. Maybe they will recycle the one from last week.
The fucking republicans had better find a way to use this the way it ought to be used, and quickly, or else all will be lost. And I do not hold out hope for them. It has been proven in Madison, in Wisconsin, in Indiana, and too many other places, that when it comes to the kind of messaging and trench warfare and nastiness needed to win something like this, they are losers. Pushovers.
Posted by: HackedTheHubble&Looking@U at April 05, 2011 10:56 AM (4sQwu)
Politico keeps leaking information from Republican lawmakers who don't want to touch the entitlement side of this budget with a ten-foot pole.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 10:57 AM (UO6+e)
And if it takes more than two years, it'll take more than one Congress. But hey, I'm confident that a new Congress wouldn't start over, but would smoothly and competently take up where the previous Congress left off.
I'm just going to predict that we're boned. We will not make significant cuts voluntarily. They will only be made when they are imposed on us.
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 10:57 AM (McG46)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 10:59 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: maddogg at April 05, 2011 02:43 PM (OlN4e)
Are you saying The Won is rattlesnake or just that you could distract him with your warm palm?
....while we sneak up behind him
Posted by: ontherocks at April 05, 2011 11:02 AM (HBqDo)
too funny....
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 11:02 AM (k1rwm)
Yes, I used to catch rattle snakes with my bare hands. - maddogg at April 05
I show them my cock.
The females pass out.
The males just give up.
Posted by: Pat Fucking Caddell at April 05, 2011 11:03 AM (hki9w)
* Cutting business taxes and regulations.
* Exploring for energy, on- and offshore.
* Charging foreign countries (e.g., Europe) for all money expended in their defense.
* Controlling access the U.S. market, by mercantilistic countries like China.
* Keeping out illegal aliens, who burden America taxpayers by wasting educational, social welfare, and penal institutions.
* ...
I could go on, but I have a life.
Posted by: PacRm Jim at April 05, 2011 11:04 AM (yow1m)
Posted by: Will Folks at April 05, 2011 11:05 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 11:05 AM (k1rwm)
Can anybody even imagine the laughter/terror that would result if a corporate CFO yanked budgeting numbers out of his ass like these and presented them to the board with that stupid beatific look McSpendypants seems to have on his face all of the time?
Posted by: Fritz at April 05, 2011 11:06 AM (FaFnu)
It just won't happen.
The state will collapse and be nominally replaced by one populated by the same people, like post-Soviet Russia, that doesn't recognize the obligations of its predecessor. So they get all the money, and you get boned.
That's best-case. I'd lay odds on something more Hitler-y.
Posted by: oblig. at April 05, 2011 11:07 AM (xvZW9)
These moderate and liberal Republicans are almost as bad as the Dems on this. The leadership held-out for several months on addressing entitlements in the budget and they've been making noise about it for some time. So they'll begrudgingly and gingerly fight for these reforms, but they will run the moment the heat gets to be too much. At the end of the day, it might just be Budget, some RSC members, a few members of the leadership, and a few others strongly fighting for this change. But what else should I expect from them when only 13 members of the 111th endorsing the Roadmap?
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 11:08 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 11:09 AM (k1rwm)
Obama told Congress to "act like grown-ups"? I don't even know where to begin with criticizing that.
Howzabout, "Hey, dipshit. Adults can balance their checkbooks. Your little kids in Congress last year didn't even submit a budget! Do you run your household that way?"
The stupid coming from him is starting to hurt.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at April 05, 2011 11:09 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Will Folks at April 05, 2011 11:09 AM (AZGON)
225 I haven't forgotten that the republicans begged off repealing obamacare by saying that the money was set and factored in already...
ObamaCare is defunded in the budget.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 11:10 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 11:10 AM (k1rwm)
what about all that money that michelle bachman keeps bringing out and saying is part of obamacare and that it can't be touched and how clever they were in making it stick so well it can't be touched.
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 11:11 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 02:49 PM (UO6+e)
The only way it could be more ironic is if he had made that statement on vacation in Brazil.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at April 05, 2011 11:12 AM (TpXEI)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 11:12 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 11:12 AM (AZGON)
I'm just going to predict that we're boned. We will not make significant cuts voluntarily. They will only be made when they are imposed on us.
Yep, pretty much.
There's an outside chance that- if the Republicans make big gains in the Senate and beat Obama in 2012- that we could start seeing major changes in 2013, after which we lose the Senate (and possibly the House) in 2014. Restart the boning process, rinse, repeat.
Eventually we run out of money, it becomes more difficult and expensive to borrow, and we achieve DOOM. Then and only then- when most voters start feeling the pain- will anything truely change.
Alexis de Tocqueville had it right 175 years ago when he said "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the publicÂ’s money."
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 05, 2011 11:13 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 03:12 PM (k1rwm)
Head Start is a proven dismal failure. A complete waste of money.
Posted by: maddogg at April 05, 2011 11:14 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: curious
Silly wingnut. If we und Planned parenthood properly, we won't have to spend money on Head Start. That's called enlightened fiscal planning.
Posted by: I decide who lives and who dies, but I'm from the government, so it's cool at April 05, 2011 11:15 AM (6rX0K)
Posted by: Peggy Joseph at April 05, 2011 11:15 AM (AZGON)
Why not defund both?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 11:15 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 11:15 AM (k1rwm)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 03:12 PM (k1rwm)
Only one concept at a time, please. Planned Parenthood OR Head Start. Not both.
Posted by: Any Ol' Politician at April 05, 2011 11:15 AM (McG46)
235 what about all that money that michelle bachman keeps bringing out and saying is part of obamacare and that it can't be touched and how clever they were in making it stick so well it can't be touched.
I'll try to find that out when I get home and can read the entire thing.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 11:15 AM (UO6+e)
I was personally offended that he brought up head start. Why not defund planned parenthood and use that money for head start?
Defund them both. Head Start has been shown time and time again to be ineffective. It's another feel-good "for the children" program that exists only because it's politically unpopular to do so.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 05, 2011 11:16 AM (SY2Kh)
How are the WI elections doing? Anyone, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
(I can keep this thread up and walk by and refresh it, so technically, I'm not on the computer.
Thanks!
Posted by: momma at April 05, 2011 11:16 AM (penCf)
It's another feel-good "for the children" program that exists only because it's politically unpopular to do so defund it.
Fixed for clarity.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 05, 2011 11:18 AM (SY2Kh)
Full budget: The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise
The pg is full of links, comparison/contrasts, key facts & summary, etc.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 11:18 AM (UO6+e)
Do you have a list of all of those places? And specifically which ones are "First World?"
I'd like to do some research...
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 11:18 AM (8y9MW)
Defund them both. Head Start has been shown time and time again to be ineffective. It's another feel-good "for the children" program that exists only because it's politically unpopular to do so.
Posted by: Hollowpoint
This here proves that Rethuglicans, especially the ones in Wisconsin, do not care about children. Without this, many children do not eat at all! That's why I and my fellow teachers called out sick and protested against heartless Rethuglican policies. Which resulted in the schools being closed. Which resulted in the kids not being fed.
Wait.......never mind.
Posted by: Wisconsin teacher of the year at April 05, 2011 11:19 AM (6rX0K)
The Round Mound of Fiscal Soundness has the right idea: Zero Based Budgeting. Every department has to prove why it needs to exist every year. No proof, no money.
That would solve a lot of our problems, which is why it will never get a fair hearing. Wouldn't need the politicians then, now would we?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at April 05, 2011 11:20 AM (d0Tfm)
- Dick Cheney
Posted by: Trigger
"Deficits and long term debt are not the same thing. And stop drooling".
Macroeconomics professor
Posted by: Blue Hen at April 05, 2011 11:21 AM (6rX0K)
She tweeted this:
The #GOP Ryan budget is a path to poverty for America's seniors & children and a road to riches for big oil
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 11:21 AM (UO6+e)
The #GOP Ryan budget is a path to poverty for America's seniors & children and a road to riches for big oil
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 03:21 PM (UO6+e)
That's gotta be a record for getting the most cliches in one tweet.
Posted by: Tami at April 05, 2011 11:22 AM (VuLos)
Okay, but nothing that wasn't already on her computer's clipboard?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 11:22 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Peggy Joseph at April 05, 2011 11:23 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Shecky Obama at April 05, 2011 11:24 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: joncelli at April 05, 2011 11:25 AM (RD7QR)
well, this is just people I know. Some are moving to China too which I'm not too happy about and Canada. They are all lib/dems who work on wall street or in corporations. With a computer you can work anywhere. A big hedge fund guy sold his manhattan apt. for a record amount and went off and I'll be damned I can't remember his name but I'll ask my friends if they can. He went to Singapore which is where a lot of people are going.
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 11:25 AM (k1rwm)
#GOP Path to Poverty budget eliminates guaranteed benefits for seniors under Medicare http://is.gd/LEmuZp #GOPvalues
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at April 05, 2011 11:25 AM (9hSKh)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 11:25 AM (AZGON)
Nazi Pelousi tweets,
The #GOP Ryan budget is a path to poverty for America's seniors & children and a road to riches for big oil
When is someone going to tell Her Highness that a lot of Americans hold oil stock in their retirement portfolios? Of course, she'd have to be able to comprehend that fact, so...
Nevermind.
Stupidity should be painful. She'd be on a morphine drip.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at April 05, 2011 11:26 AM (d0Tfm)
"If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score?"
-Vince Lombardi
That quote has about as much relevance to this discussion as the one you pulled up.
Posted by: Slublog at April 05, 2011 11:26 AM (0nqdj)
Maybe in one tweet, but not in one place. Check out "The Perfect Country & Western Song."
Warning, linky goes to DU- but only the page that has the lyrics of that song. It just happened to be the first link Gargle found.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 11:26 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 11:26 AM (AZGON)
The #GOP Ryan budget is a path to poverty for America's seniors & children and a road to riches for big oil
Nancy's tweet did continue, in a postscript (known in Twitter speak as a twat)
That path does not pertain to the children we plan to abort with the Planned Parenthood money, or any campaign funds that Dems may receive from BP or other benevolent petroleum companaies.
Posted by: Blue Hen at April 05, 2011 11:26 AM (6rX0K)
Posted by: maddogg at April 05, 2011 11:28 AM (OlN4e)
I think some of the South American nations are pretty capitalist friendly, but I like my modern plumbing...
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 11:28 AM (8y9MW)
As Rush pointed-out, they really have nothing but tired clichés. They can't really attack Ryan on the numbers or go after him much personally, and he covered all his bases, so this is what they have left. The sad thing is that it actually might work.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 11:28 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: George Orwell at April 05, 2011 11:28 AM (AZGON)
I just heard a story from a friend about an ex pat that she knows who went into the embassy to renounce his citizenship and the embassy employee apparently said that she used to get very few of these and now they are getting a lot more. But I hesitate to say stuff that is hearsay....like the everyone is leaving stuff, I know of two people personally and the rest you hear about but it's still hearsay. But, it's tough to hear it none the less. I agnrily said to someone "what don't you love this country enough to stay and make sure it gets back on sure footing". he was a little surprised, I think I even surprised myself, and he really had no answer, one of his friends abruptly and immediately changed the subject.
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 11:32 AM (k1rwm)
Heritage has written a piece about the budget:
Paul Ryan's Budget Resolution Changes Course
It lists some elements of the budget that haven't been discussed much in the blogosphere. Their chief complaint is that he didn't more vigorously address Social Security in this budget.*
*Though he did in the Roadmap
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 11:33 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: I am Nancy's twat at April 05, 2011 11:33 AM (6rX0K)
Posted by: maddogg at April 05, 2011 11:35 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Nancy Pelosi on twitter at April 05, 2011 11:36 AM (AZGON)
See, I don't begrudge them leaving. The country quit caring about them and their well being (in general) a long time ago. We're now an entitlement/welfare society which places the moochers above the producers. We're no longer a land that believes that "all Men were Created equal." We believe that, by virtue of their lack of virtues, there are certain classes of people who should be "more equal than others."
If I were part of the working affluent (that is, people making that evil 250K+) I'd be looking to leave, too.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 11:36 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 11:36 AM (UO6+e)
- Dick Cheney
Posted by: Trigger at April 05, 2011 03:18 PM (J+2TZ)
"Deficits are really important."
- Barry O.
Posted by: Any Ol' Politician at April 05, 2011 11:36 AM (McG46)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 03:15 PM (k1rwm)
Yeah, I'm one of the guilty ones and just needed to air the last week or so before I had my first interview to renounce citizenship. I was looking for any signs that to counteract my belief that the US is boned. Or that the revolution is going to start REALLY soon. Sadly, no. I'm not giving up citizenship to avoid taxes though. I'm giving up citizenship out of fear what the government might try to take from any citizen, in or out of country after I've moved and started a good life. What should scare people, is I've mentioned this fear of the future government being out of control on very pro-American, pro-military blogs and no one's really been jumping forward defending the future US government saying "No, you're crazy. That'll never happen."
Giving up American citizenship - very hard, intellectually, emotionally.
Canadian. Not so much. Screw this socialist utopia and their social engineering. They lost me at human rights commissions. When the boning comes, I want Canada to get the worst brunt of it. Tear the entire system down with no income redistribution in the future.
curious: The lady at the embassy told me she used to get about 1 or 2 cases a year of people to renounce their citizenship. Now she gets about 1 a month. Renunciation becomes effective on the date of your second interviews with the oath being taken. The final papers used to cost $0 but are now $495 and take about 6 months to a year to process now.
Posted by: Canadian Infidel at April 05, 2011 11:37 AM (GKQDR)
Posted by: Roy Rogers at April 05, 2011 11:38 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Canadian Infidel at April 05, 2011 03:37 PM (GKQDR)
You have to pay to leave? What if you don't pay?
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 11:40 AM (McG46)
Then you technically remain a citizen, subject to all the duties (but benefiting of none of the Rights) attendant thereto, I'd imagine.
That is, you'd still have to pay your taxes.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 11:41 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: curious at April 05, 2011 03:32 PM (k1rwm)
I understand your feelings. But it's getting to the point where America doesn't want people like us. Our fellow citizens don't want to be saved by us, and live the way we think they should. I bear no ill will against those who seek to get out. I'm one of them myself. Each year my vote matters less, because the poeple who oppose my view out number me a little more. Each year they strive to take a little more. All this time, they spit on my vision for a decent society - and should I object I'm looked at as if I were some Victorian prude. Meanwhile my so-called allies are so full of busybodies and do-gooders that it makes me sick to call them compatriots. We can't even handle the muslim problem with a firm hand, for pete's sake.
I'm a lot less worried about deficit spending than I am about social decay and, as Kratos would call it, decadence. I think it's over when it comes to long-term hope. I'd be happier living out my last days near a sunny tropical beach surrounded by poor but friendly and simple folk, in a nation that thinks investment should be encouraged rather than taxed into oblivion.
Posted by: Reactionary at April 05, 2011 11:43 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 03:41 PM (8y9MW)
Good luck finding me in Rio de Janeiro.
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 11:44 AM (McG46)
Deficits don't matter."
- Dick Cheney
Ah, yes- the meme being parrotted by the liberal blogs.
Cheney said it in 2002, which had a deficit under $200 billion, and under $400 billion in FY 2003. I'd still disagree with him, but relatively small deficits don't matter that much.
Now, with a $1600 billion deficit and rising entitlement costs? Yeah, it matters. A lot.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at April 05, 2011 11:45 AM (SY2Kh)
You have to pay to leave? What if you don't pay?
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 03:40 PM (McG46)
Oh, you'll pay one way or the other. And be advised - they don't have to accept your decision to expatriate. They can decide you make too much, or have too much, and leave you in your IRS-forged chains. Unless you can fabricate a new identity, your bank will cooperate with the US authorities and you'll be taxed.
Even if they do accept it, there is an exit tax for those with high net worth. You have to be a low-worth puke, like me, to slip out without paying up.
Posted by: Reactionary at April 05, 2011 11:46 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 03:36 PM (8y9MW)
I'm not, but I want to be. And truthfully Canada and America seem to hate people like that.
As for me, South Korea. unknown jane is right in that I can't run from DOOM. But I'm only going to where I feel the DOOM is going to be felt less. The Koreans work and don't have an extensive welfare state. Public Debt to GDP ratio on usdebtclock is at 23.392% and falling. External Debt to GDP ratio is 41.201% and falling. South Korea has been through a major war in the lifetimes of most of their grandparents, They're still building. There's not a lot of people completely reliant on government going to be rioting in the streets for their dollars when DOOM comes there. They're not culturally suicidal as Western Civ seems to be. So sold...
Posted by: Canadian Infidel at April 05, 2011 11:46 AM (GKQDR)
You have to pay to leave? What if you don't pay?
Posted by: FUBAR at April 05, 2011 03:40 PM (McG46)
Then you don't get your final paperwork. I don't know if that has further repercussions, but I want the paperwork. The $495 and any *promises* of future social security benefits are small prices to pay.
Even if they do accept it, there is an exit tax for those with high net worth. You have to be a low-worth puke, like me, to slip out without paying up.
Posted by: Reactionary at April 05, 2011 03:46 PM (xUM1Q)
Like me too!! Now is absolutely the BEST time for me to be leaving without any hassles later on. I imagine it'd be hell to escape with a high net worth unless you were LITERALLY carrying all that you own and just left.
Posted by: Canadian Infidel at April 05, 2011 11:51 AM (GKQDR)
Mika calls Chairman Ryan "a nice boy"
Link also includes the usual from that nit-wit Debbie Wasserman-Shultz
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at April 05, 2011 11:53 AM (UO6+e)
Posted by: tom beebe st louis at April 05, 2011 11:55 AM (rTrMD)
I'm one of them myself.
Posted by: Reactionary at April 05, 2011 03:46 PM (xUM1Q)
I didn't know that until now. I've been doing m work and not reading all the posts. You and I understand each other very well.
And the cultural decay is another huge factor in my thinking. Kids born out of wedlock (blacks - 74%, whites - 25%, latinos - 50%). If not cultural suicide, it'll take a toll.
Anyways, I have to get to work. There are plans and goals that need to be implemented if I'm ever to escape Canada.
Posted by: Canadian Infidel at April 05, 2011 11:56 AM (GKQDR)
$ 2,200 Federal Tax Revenue (billions)
$ 1,300 Borrowing (the deficit)
—————
$ 3,500 Total Spending
$ 0 Total Saving
$14,500 Entire economy (GDP)
15.2% Taxes as % of Economy
9.0% Borrowing as % of Economy
24.2% Total spending as % of Economy
What if (say) Bob's family budget operated like the government, in proportion? That gives a feeling for our situation:
$50,000 What Bob can spend from his income
$29,900 Bob borrows this
—————
$79,900 Bob's spends it all
60% more than Bob's income
$ 1,400 The GOP cut in proportion
The proposed GOP cut in spending of $61 billion is just 1.8%. For Bob, it would be $1,400.
The federal government has made big promises, far above what it will collect in taxes at current rates.
$75,100 billion ($75.1 trillion) is the amount of a fund which would pay for the unfunded part of promised entitlement programs over the next 75 years, if available today and invested at 3% interest. Of course, there is no such fund, so meeting those promises would require immediately increasing tax revenues by 76% to pay off that "mortgage", or those promises will be broken.
Don't take comfort from the 75 year time frame. We are already falling short, being made up by huge borrowings (the deficit). The result of the 75 year analysis is that things will steadily become worse.
Collecting 76% more in taxes might cause or deepen unemployment. Or, increasing tax rates might actually decrease tax revenues if people decided to earn less and pay less. Or, it may be impossible to convince younger people to give up their savings in exchange for the right to charge their children high taxes in turn. I think the promises will be broken.
This problem is huge. The retirees of today and in the future have paid into Social Security thinking that their "insurance premium" will fund part of their retirement. Actually, all of the cash (real resources) has been spent. What remains is only the promise to now tax the non-retired to pay for the retired, at much higher rates. That is not what people thought Social Security would deliver to them.
Promises for Medicare and Medicaid are worse; they are bigger and just as unfunded. What is more kind: to face reality now, or to default on these promises at the last minute?
Unfunded Promises (billions)
7,900 Social Security
22,800 Medicare
35,300 Medicaid
9,100 Federal Debt
75,100 Total Unfunded Promises (billions)
above curent tax collections
2,100 Federal Pensions
3,700 Veteran Benefits
1,600 All Other
—————
7,400 In current budgets (billions)
$82,500 Total Promises (billions)
The unfunded promises of $75,100 billion are 34 times the $2,200 billion in taxes estimated to be collected in accounting year 2010 (the year ending Nov 30, 2011). There is nothing saved or set aside to satisfy those promises, and there is no tax revenue now collected or saved to pay those amounts now and during the next 75 years; that is the meaning of "unfunded".
Bob's unfunded promises (in proportion) would be $1,736,00 increasing at 3% yearly, to be paid off in 75 years, over and above Bob's current, spendable (and already spent) income of $50,000 (current tax collections).
EasyOpinions ->Family Budget
Posted by: Andrew_M_Garland at April 05, 2011 12:03 PM (iBN4b)
I believe the word is Chutzpah?
Lets see in 10 years, if we decided to pay for the Democrat debt plan.
children who are now 8 will be 18.
You will probably have about 330mil people.
Debt will be about $15T
Assuming equal distribution and paying off that debt before those kids who are 8 now die of old age. They have about $50 grand each they have to come up with, just to pay for the debt the Dems ran up before they could vote. And that is not counting taxes to fund the nanny state for their whole lives, which would be 150% of what we pay now. Which means if we work until about the beginning of April for the federal government, that would mean they would have to work till mid June for the federal government.....their whole lives.....and come up with another 50 grand in vig at some point, just to support the Democrat super state.
If you count state and local obligations, they will have to work the majority of their lives supporting mega government.
Yet we are one's impoverishing them. And the Democrats? They're all about the children.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 05, 2011 12:09 PM (0q2P7)
That's a commercial we desperately need. A little baby, and a simple set of captions.
This child, in his lifetime,
will have to spend more money feeding government,
than feeding his family.
Unless we stop the spending.
Unless we make the hard choices.
Unless we act responsibly [pause] now.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at April 05, 2011 12:17 PM (0q2P7)
just this last month the fed. gov. spent 8 times more than it brought in, their excuse "We had to pay back money we had loaned to ourselves" they don't say it that way, but that is what happened.
... the death spiral has begun.
Posted by: Shoey at April 05, 2011 12:22 PM (473WA)
Still recall years ago when problems in the health care industry caused some hospitals and docs to temporarily shut down. Know what? Their death rates went down too.
Posted by: Cathy at April 05, 2011 12:28 PM (jVzcR)
Not exactly the same thing, there. Since mortality rates are defined as people in your care when they die (for hospitals and physicians), you would- by definition- have a lower mortality rate by being closed for several days/weeks.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at April 05, 2011 12:36 PM (8y9MW)
Posted by: llotter at April 05, 2011 12:59 PM (F5S7a)
Posted by: swamp_yankee at April 05, 2011 01:32 PM (ZIpcL)
Same old, same old. Why 2008 levels? Weren't things way out of hand then?
Not one Federal Agency that needs eliminating?
60 billion plus in foreign aid is okay?
Pigford is okay?
75% of illegal aliens collecting welfare is okay?
Funding all sorts of Leftwing groups is okay?
Having a Congress and White House live like Emperors is okay?
Face the American experiment has failed. The nation is composed of leeches led by vampires feeding on the heritage of our forefathers.
Posted by: Molon Lobe at April 06, 2011 09:05 AM (PTpqi)
<a href="http://www.fakedhardy.com">replica Ed Hardy</a>
<a href="http://www.fakedhardy.com">ralph lauren polo</a>
Posted by: snowmasn at April 11, 2011 09:18 PM (wVdI3)
Posted by: snowmasn at April 11, 2011 10:11 PM (wVdI3)
Posted by: true religion jeans at April 20, 2011 06:56 AM (xWhoO)
Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Very helpful to me and I am sure to all the commenters here! ItÂ’s always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! <a href=http://www.wholesalechiflatiron.com/chi-digital-ceramic-flat-iron-c-10.html title='chi digital flat iron'>chi digital flat iron</a><a href=http://www.wholesalechiflatiron.com/chi-digital-ceramic-flat-iron-c-10.html title='chi turbo digital flat iron'>chi turbo digital flat iron</a>
Posted by: chi hair products at April 24, 2011 07:35 PM (j67V0)
It¡¯s really great article. I would like to appreciate your work and would like to tell to my friends.
<a href="http://www.hermesfantasy.com/">Hermes Handbags</a>
Posted by: Hermes Handbags at April 28, 2011 10:35 PM (cGmm6)
Online Radii Shoes• Buy Radii Shoes on www.radiishoes4u.com. Fashion and free shipping in radii footwear, radii straight jacket, radii 420 top.
Posted by: radii shoes at June 27, 2011 01:42 AM (f+mmx)
Posted by: dinu at July 06, 2011 01:04 AM (c95s8)
Posted by: dinu at July 07, 2011 03:42 AM (OtVjK)
I am very much pleased with the contents you have mentioned.I wanted to thank you for this great article.We wholesale pearl jewelry at competitive price,providing a huge range of freshwater pearl jewelry. You can buy cheap pearl jewelry.
Posted by: vivi at July 10, 2011 11:59 PM (y7aOJ)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.365 seconds, 442 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.









Remember that Ryan's plan doesn't even tweak Social Security, leaving that battle down the road. Any progress on that front will help dramatically.
And we will see a tax increase, probably ending up around the old Clinton rates. That's a bargaining chip. Of course, you won't see any of the Democrats offer that as a poison pill because they know we'd jump all over that deal.
Otherwise we are so boned.
Posted by: spongeworthy at April 05, 2011 07:20 AM (rplL3)