« Respecting America | Main | Romney's Campaign SWOT »

February 09, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Yesterday one of Obama's financial advisors was trying to defend the budget calling for both tax increases and spending increases. His justification was that we need more spending because cutting government does not allow for expansion of the economy and his evidence was that the economy is expanding at 2.1% but it is being held back by the cuts in state and local spending. He went on to say that if we would not be cutting to balance all those state and local budgets we would actually be growing 3.5% or more. What he never did say as how we would bail out all the bankrupt states and counties so I can only assume we would use the California plan: The Feds would bailout the state and local governments creating even more debt at the Federal level. Ironically that is exactly what we did with the stimulus money. Very little of it went to growth oriented projects as we were led to believe. Instead most of that money went to and continues to go to unemployment benefits, state and local worker pension funds and other social costs. The truth may be that had we instead done at the Federal level what the states (except the 3 big blue: California, NY & Illinois) did: cut spending and balance budgets the country as a whole might be growing at 4% by now.


Progressive strategy is to increase social program spending as much as they can while they are in power so that by the time the people wise up and throw the bums out as they started to do in 2010 then the Republicans can take the blame when they are forced to try to balance the budgets. You see this in play in many states as the Republican governors take the heat for the changes.


Today Sec Geithner said to Congress that the President's budget includes $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1.00 in tax increases. If that is true then how does the deficit remain at $1.3 Trillion? Here's my guess: The $2.50 in cuts are measured over a projected ten years while the tax increases will be immediate. His 2012 budget is $3.8T. Government spending in 2011 was $3.8T. So, where are the cuts? Where are the savings from the Iraq war ending? Where are the defense 5% cuts?

We are headed for $16T in debt. Do you know how much $1 Trillion dollars is? If you spend $1 a second then it will take you 32,000 years to spend a trillion dollars. It takes our government 1 year to spend $3.8T. It is truly amazing that we can print them fast enough to keep up.

I posted this on CNBC today: What kind of a President submits a budget that gets voted down 98-0 one year and then submits another that is basically headed down the same path the next year? Arrogant! It has received 79% aggreement. Even Liberals recognize a man who knows it all better than the people he serves evidently.

OBAMACARE---Is a minor problem compared to the one we face with Obama proposing Trillion dollar deficits over the next ten years. Interest will erase and eat up every other expendiiture of the government. The biggest reason I object to Obamacare is that it is a one party system put on the people of the country despite their overwhelming objection to it. It was done at a point in time when the country cannot pay for and will not address the safety net already in place for welfare, unemployment, medicare and social security. Why would we purposely ignore fixing the problems we've got before we borrow to implement another? There is no moral dilemma. There is a fiscal dilemma. Whenever responsible people like Ron Paul or Simpson/Boles address the issue they are demonized as Obama has done to Paul and the Republican house along with Boles. Todays figures of the top 34 countries in the world placed the US 28th in fiscal responsibility. Italy was 27th and Spain 25th. In the past 10 years the US has fallen from the top 10 to 28th. Obama's new budget proposed another $800B in stimulus money. His energy commission is considering another loan to an electric car company that produces cars with a 52 mile range and cost $109,000 each. This is a follow on loan to the previous one.

No takers on the great moral dilemma that is on us now? I was about to say that it would have to be faced in the future, but I really think that the future is now.

Bill -
Your arrangement assumes that all are employed in positions which produces enough income to fund at a personal level. A great many are not in a position to do so. What is to become of them?

You favor a basic level of coverage. How is that to be provided? Do you mean a mandate? Otherwise, what to do about "freeriders"?

Definately tort reform. Currently only the lawyers are winning in a macro sense.

In my view the great unsolvable problem is the ever rising cost brought about in large part by the successes of modern medicine. Most people in their 70s and 80s have had several lifesaving procedures, many times in the $1m range. How as a society are we to decide who lives and who dies by withholding available medicines and procedures? The total cost of "saving" everyone will bankrupt the nation. No combination of private or public plans can possibly pay for all. But what else are we to do?

The issue is not Obamacare. It is the moral problem of who is saved and who isn't. However, no one wants to talk about that.

Harry: Back to Obamacare. I've given my point of view in blogs of July 10, 2010, and December 3, 2010. In the most macro sense the cost of healthcare is a limitless demand, and someone must decide whether the next dollar (of the individual and of society) should be spent on healthcare, or education, or defense or something else. Options include: the federal government, insurance companies, employers, or individuals. I favor the individual through such mechanisms as health savings accounts, co-pays, and deductables. I favor a free market letting individuals put pressure on suppliers of pharma, devices, and services. I favor tort reform. I favor a basic level of coverage for everybody with the ability for people to add coverage as they see fit with their own money.

If you want "an actual discussion" you can begin there, putting forward your own proposals.

Let's try for an actual discussion -

What is it that you don't like about Obamacare? I get the part about the mandate. What else?

No rambling please - specific and brief.

Voluntary Tax on the Rich??

This one is interesting. I posted it on CNBC and it received 89.7% agreement. People don’t dislike people who follow the laws on taxes.

Hard to make a case that Romney should voluntarily pay a higher tax rate than he is legally required to while at the same time cheering when Warren Buffet says he should pay more taxes but doesn't. Romney's 10% to his church and other charity is far more than most American's give. Don't blame the tax payer--change the tax laws or forget it.

Third Party on the left?

Might backfire as the left maybe creating their own 3rd party with Rosie!

Excellent article, Bill.

UNLEASH THE AG; Dare we release our intrepid guardian of Democracy, Eric Holder, on this ? All too fantastic but in line with previous activities.
Patriotic fervor will continue to grow with these types of revelations. Providing enough 'Ballot Box' security; the Country will survive this 'Incompetant Fraud' perpetrated on us.
Say a Prayer for a successful delivery today by our Candidates.

The comments to this entry are closed.