Skip to main content

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.'

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.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...