Monday, January 12, 2009

Some Facts About Our Soon-To-Be-(Re)-Inaugurated Socialist Deficit Government

1. The Congressional Budget Office's projection of a $1.2 Trillion deficit does NOT include Barack Obama's proposed $700+ Billion "stimulus" package. If included, the deficit for 2009 is likely to be more in the league of $ 1.7 Trillion.

2. A government that started with a balanced budget could run a $1.7 trillion deficit by mailing 1.7 million households $1 million, or 17 million households $100,000.

3. The whole world’s military spending in 2006 totaled a little less than $1.2 trillion. So next year’s U.S. deficit could cover that and still have $500 billion left over for building bridges.

4. When President George W. Bush was first elected, total federal government spending was about $1.7 trillion. In other words, the difference between federal outlays and federal revenue this year will be bigger than the entire government was as recently as 2000.

5. The CBO forecasts that federal revenue will only be $166 billion less than it was in 2008, a 6.6 percent decline. But relative to 2000, revenue has actually increased from $2 trillion to a scheduled $2.4 trillion in 2009.

From : Trillion-Dollar Spree Is Road to Ruin, Not Rally: Kevin Hassett

So...nothing new to see here, people (especially not change).

Just keep moving along, mind your own business, and let the DC beltway / FED / Wall Street masters-of-the-universe handle it all for us.

Amazing how making purely-speculative public "investments" using profligate public credit is the big government's answer to economic woes brought on by
purely-speculative private investment using profligate private credit (assuming you believe social/economic collectivist dogma as to why our economy is faltering).

We all know what a great 'money manager' the federal government has been under socialist Democrats and deficit warmonger Republicans. Two peas in a pod, if you ask me.

No wonder disgraced master-of-the-universe and Ponzi fraud artist Bernie Madoff always has a shit-eating grin on his face when he shows it around the Big Apple. The Democrat socialist government unfolding in Washington, D.C. makes Madman Madoff look like a cautious fiduciary.

Madoff, at least, stole from intelligent adults who consciously funded his "investment" scheme. Our sociopathic government is stealing from as-yet-unborn generations of Americans, who have no say in the government that is stealing their livelihood for the instant gratification of messianic blowhard political crooks.

As I heard one comment : 'Talk about taxation without representation. Sheesh.'

8 comments:

Delaware Watch said...

You really need to learn the meaning of the word socialist. It means public ownership of the means of production. That doesn't occur in very large part in the US and will not under Obama.

Tyler Nixon said...

Government controlling the economy is socialism, as far as I am concerned.

And maybe you should address the substance of the post, rather than nit-picking terminology.

How exactly is the U.S. government's "stimulus" of the economy not controlling the "means of production".

It is government controlling the production of wealth and money, choosing winners (and losers). Call it deficit socialism, if you will.

It is high time we jettison this illusion that America is a free market economy, or has been for at least 3 or 4 generations. When government moves into the role of prime mover / prime player / master manipulator of our entire economy, what exactly would you call it?
I

Delaware Watch said...

"How exactly is the U.S. government's "stimulus" of the economy not controlling the "means of production".

controlling does not equal owning. besides everytime the govt spends money that makes it way into the private sector, it's manipulating the economy (e.g. buying weapons systems)...is that socialism? Perhaps you are an anarchist.

"prime mover / prime player / master manipulator of our entire economy, what exactly would you call it?" prime is a bit excessive, but a govt. that is an important player is one that cares for the well being of its citizens...it closely approximates social democracy

Tyler Nixon said...

"the govt spends money that makes it way into the private sector"

Well, we'll just have to disagree that borrowing money from an as-yet-unexistent private sector of the future and doling it out to special interested, partisan-directed federal spending, with a nice hefty toll attached, is the best way for money "to make its way into the private sector".

Let's not forget, the money (supposedly) begins in the private sector in the first place. The best way for money to end up (rather than "make its way") into the private sector is to leave it there in the first place.

I would sooner see the "send $100000 each to 17 million households (beginning at the bottom)" than the garbage proposed by the DC socialists who live-and-breathe forcible collectivist economic determinism by federal fiat (and, in essence, monetary fraud).

Delaware Watch said...

Let's just cut through the crap, Tyler. You keep repeating the socialist charge because you like to redbait those you disagree w/.

That is a real weakness in your presentation. I don't know why anyone should concentrate on your larger points when you resort to such cheap tricks. Perhaps you lack confidence in your arguments.

Tyler Nixon said...

I don't consider socialists "reds", Dana.

If I wanted to "red bait" I would use the term communist, which I believe to be an epithet.

Socialist, not so much...at least on its face. As I have said before concerning this creeping collectivist takeover of our economy by the national government : "if the shoe fits, wear it".

When the government is outright nationalizing such things as private banks, other large corporate concerns, or otherwise guaranteeing such entities against their institutional failures - well, what would you call it? Fascism?? I guess that could be a similar term, but far more derogatory, to my mind, thsn socialist.

Why so defensive?

Bowly said...

Dana: You really need to learn the meaning of the word socialist.

Quite the irony, coming from someone who does not understand what libertarianism is. Besides, you do want indirect public ownership of the results of production via high taxes. The difference is of degree, not kind, and exists only so social democrats can make the technical claim not to be socialists.

Tyler: And maybe you should address the substance of the post, rather than nit-picking terminology.

Doubtful.

Tyler: - well, what would you call it? Fascism??

I do think Dana confessed his goal: "controlling does not equal owning."

Brian Miller said...

controlling does not equal owning

Actually, the government does assert ownership over a large portion of my property.

Every year, it asserts ownership over roughly 40% to 45% of my salary, which is redistributed to individuals who earn more but happen to have reproduced and gotten marriage licenses.

It also asserts the ability to confiscate approximately 1% to 3% of the value of your home every year -- meaning that in 30 to 100 years, your entire house's value is extracted by the government.

It asserts ownership over your right to earn a living -- imposing licenses and fees. In Philadelphia, the city government considers operating a business to be a "privilege" -- so much so that it imposes a "business privilege tax."

It asserts ownership over your assets after you die -- confiscating a significant proportion of what remains (resulting in the vast majority of your earnings and end results of those earnings going to the government when you die).

Government insists that it gets paid first -- and that it is more financially important than anyone else in your life. Your taxes must be paid before you pay for the roof over your head, the food in your stomach, your child's education or your spouse's chemotherapy.

Saying that government today doesn't control the economy and claim ownership over most property seems sorta silly when you view it from that perspective.