This is what donkey fiscal discipline looks like

Well, for the first time in 4 years Senate Democrats have a budget proposal, and from what I have seen they might as well have done what they did the last 4 years: nothing. This new monstrosity basically adds close to a trillion dollars in new taxes, a whole lot of money they can steer to their constituency, lobbyists, friends, and advocacy groups stimulus spending, at the same time as it seems to add close to $10 trillion in new welfare spending (see graph below).

The Senate on Wednesday presented its first budget in four years, a proposal by leaders of the Democrat-controlled chamber that calls for nearly $1 trillion in tax increases but includes no strategy to make federal revenue match spending in the coming years.

The plan calls for $975 billion in new tax revenue through closing loopholes and ending deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country’s highest wage earners.

It also calls for $100 billion in new stimulus spending while cutting $1.85 trillion from the deficit over 10 years. The rest of the savings would come through spending cuts.

Yeah, sure! All I see is a lot of new taxation – not limited to the evil rich but hitting everyone, but especially the middle class the hardest – followed by promises of cuts so far in the future that only douchebag liberals and their friends in the LSM take that crap seriously. And of course we get stimulus spending too. The people that swallowed up the close to $1 trillion of tax payer’s money our government pissed away four years ago, with the rest of us that were not part of that elite chosen few seeing nothing of that spent money, want more, and they will get it.

I also hear that they are counting on some $600 billion in savings from the Iraq and Afghan wars, which were scheduled to end in 2014 anyway. So If I decide to spend $3000 on new furniture for my place, then decide not to, I saved $3K? That’s the logic at work for these government types. What nonsense. Especially when I see a lot of new spending in that graph that follows after we are get these savings.

MOAR SPENDING

First Senate Budget Proposal in 4 years sucks

In case you are unable to do basic math, that’s a fuckton of new spending. A decade from now government will be spending $2 trillion more than it does now. Add up all that new spending over that decade and we are looking at more than $10 trillion. I don’t think we have any cuts there that matter if projected spending keeps going up, and the taxes are not going to be enough to make a dent in that number. I am sure the CBO accountants will find a way to pretend things work out in the future, even if not a single bit of the pretending/projecting since 2008 has come true. Looks like, at a minimum, we will be sitting on some $27 trillion of debt by 2023 if these fuckers get their way. They are likely getting their advice from this moron, which is why they feel this is not a big deal. Back to the article.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray said the budget takes a balanced, “pro-middle-class” approach and argued the country’s economic problems started long before fellow Democrats entered the White House in 2009.

Pro-middle-class? Sure, I can see how you would think this crap is pro-middle-class if you also think rape is just rough sex. The group most likely to suffer the hardest under these new tax changes are the members of the middle class. Look back for the last 4 years, then look at what’s coming, and the group getting hammered the worst is the middle class. Bar none. And that’s the direct consequence. Imagine the pain as our economy throws another seizure because of all the foreseen and unforeseen consequences of the socio-engineering attempts of the nanny staters? It’s not accidental that these progressives talking the talk about helping the poor have seen the largest increase of the welfare rolls during Obama’s tenure, while the rich have gotten richer. The middle class? They have been hammered. Wait until Obamacare kicks in and the pain really starts. And yet, the left keeps pretending they care about the middle class. Insulting. Really insulting.

“Despite some of the rhetoric you may hear from my Republican colleagues, the Great Recession didn’t start the day President Obama was elected,” said Murray, D-Wash.

No, it started with the oh so many socio-engineering and other gerrymandering efforts by the left, going back decades. Obama has only prolonged the pain, probably for at least the next decade, through the policies he and the left stuck us with in the last 4 years. Trillions we don’t have spent and nothing to show for it, with the law telling us even more trillions we do not have will need to be spent. But why let facts get in the way of a pipe dream, huh? Spend us into prosperity! Never mind $1 trillion in stimulus, spend $50 trillion. Then we will be the most prosperous country evah! Don’t worry about the debt. Krugababy said so.

Anyhoo, back to the article one more time. This is something everyone needs to be aware of:

The plan also calls for replacing the recent, $85 billion in spending cuts with more measured cuts.

That’s code for ending these cuts and replacing them with the promise of cuts sometime in the far, far away future. For those that have a problem with that math it means that they want to go back to spending that money and plan to never cut anything. Banana republic here we come! We are so doomed, and the number of freeloaders has put us over the tipping point.

Seriously, the Senate should have not proposed a budget at all. It would be less ridiculous and stupid than what they did. I pine for the bad days of the Boosh spending bonanza. I am even willing to give the left the Clinton tax rates if we get government spending what it was under Clinton. When government is spending close to $6 trillion in a decade, a 62% hike, will our GDP also be up 62%? Only idiots would pretend that’s gonna happen. So government is going to own close to 1/3 of our GDP in a decade. Our kids should hate us. We have murdered their future.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    This new monstrosity basically adds close to a trillion dollars in new taxes

    From your linked quote:

    The plan calls for $975 billion in new tax revenue through closing loopholes and ending deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country’s highest wage earners.

    In the other thread you were complaining about how the Dems supposedly look after their rich mates by not making them pay tax.
    Which is it?

    The people that swallowed up the close to $1 trillion of tax payer’s money our government pissed away four years ago, with the rest of us that were not part of that elite chosen few seeing nothing of that spent money, want more, and they will get it.

    Evidence that the money only went to ‘elites’? And that the stimulus money was just “pissed away”?

    They are likely getting their advice from this moron, which is why they feel this is not a big deal.

    Do you have some considered rebutal to the arguments made in that piece?

    Look back for the last 4 years, then look at what’s coming, and the group getting hammered the worst is the middle class.

    But your usual argument is that it’s the idiot poor who will get hit hardest, but that’s ok because they deserve it for voting Dem. Have you changed your opinion on that now?

    It’s not accidental that these progressives talking the talk about helping the poor have seen the largest increase of the welfare rolls during Obama’s tenure, while the rich have gotten richer.

    Your source for ‘the largest increase of welfare rolls’ includes that huge piece of dishonesty that was put out by the GOP last year.

    …the Republican report lumps some 80 different programs into the mix, counting job training efforts, Pell grants, and tax credits for working class families that many may not think of as welfare.

    There is another factor that may be padding the numbers in the Republicans’ report: in the fine print, the report states that the figures include anyone residing in a household in which one person received benefits. So, in theory, there could be 10 people in a household where only one person is getting help from a federal program, and all ten would count as welfare recipients in the math used in the report.

    So how many people are really on welfare then? It depends entirely on how the numbers are crunched, and what is considered welfare.

    We called the Department of Health and Human Services and asked for the total number of Americans on welfare.

    The response was 4.3 million people.

    http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/19242517/2012/08/09/republican-report-110-million-americans-on-welfare

    So what’s your plan and how does it result in the middle class get richer instead of the already-rich? How does your proposal not double-down on the rewards going disproportionately to those who already have most of the wealth?

    But why let facts get in the way of a pipe dream, huh?

    But where are these facts you speak of? You haven’t provided any.

    Hot! Thumb up 4

  2. grady

    nearly $1 trillion in tax increases but includes no strategy to make federal revenue match spending in the coming years.

    Again we see that they do not take the deficit seriously. A ten year plan with growing debt each year. How do they think that this is a good plan? Are the tax increases supposed to help the economy along, or is this just the line to use to keep the votes coming through class warfare?

    The plan calls for $975 billion in new tax revenue through closing loopholes and ending deductions and credits benefiting corporations and the country’s highest wage earners.

    What are the chances that the corporations and the targeted wage earners will change things to lower their tax burden? Does that $975 billion actually come in at that number, or will it be a lower one? I can’t imagine they will come close to it, but their spending numbers will definitely not be any lower than the projections. Stupidity keeps on rolling and the majority of the country couldn’t care less. The next credit downgrade in 3, 2, …

    cutting $1.85 trillion from the deficit over 10 years.

    Not even a 10% reduction in the deficit per year. Why did they make it sound like they were cutting spending?

    The rest of the savings would come through spending cuts.

    Cool, we do get spending cuts!

    The plan also calls for replacing the recent, $85 billion in spending cuts with more measured cuts.

    Wait, does this mean the cuts happen or not? Are the new cuts just going to replace the old ones? What does this mean in overall numbers? It means we have trillion dollar plus deficits every year. Play the numbers game however you like, this is just a bad idea to deal out to our country. I’m guessing they did it to play the conversation out that they had tried (once in 5 years), but those House Republicans just are being obstructionist! If you’re with Geithner and Krugman and believe that deficits/debt don’t matter, then why not spend away? Too bad reality isn’t taught at Harvard.

    Despite some of the rhetoric you may hear from my Republican colleagues, the Great Recession didn’t start the day President Obama was elected,

    It just wouldn’t be right if they didn’t throw an implication that it’s all Bush’s fault.

    CM – I see you are enjoying fisking Alex’s statements, but do you actually think that the Senate’s proposal is a good thing for the US? As a citizen of another country, you may enjoy the show of the US driving itself toward bankruptcy, but here at home it pretty much just sucks.

    Thumb up 8

  3. CM

    Why would I want the US to go bankrupt? How is that ever going to be a good thing for me?

    I believe the theory is laid out by Krugman at the link.
    The idea being that deficits are only bad if they’re an increasing percent of GDP. World War 2 was never paid off because the debts were surpassed by rising GDP. The Dem theory is that being more gentle in the short term will provide better GDP growth, which will reduce the impact/relevance of the deficit.

    If you’re with Geithner and Krugman and believe that deficits/debt don’t matter, then why not spend away?

    Saying this kind of thing, along with ongoing accusations of ‘class warfare’ etc etc isn’t assessing the proposal according to its design. Those kind of statements suggest “I don’t care what the theory is, I’m not going to assess it on those terms”. What’s the point in doing that? Surely you’re got to understand something in order to explain why it’s wrong?
    This is one of Alex’s main problems – he criticises things by assessing them an on entirely different basis. It’s like assessing a 10 storey office building and concluding that it’s the stupidest bridge you’ve ever seen.

    Thumb up 1

  4. AlexInCT *

    Wait, does this mean the cuts happen or not? Are the new cuts just going to replace the old ones?

    What it means is that there will be promises of cuts. Promises that are as likely to be kept as old George Bush’s “Read my lips: no new taxes” promise.

    Thumb up 4

  5. grady

    Why would I want the US to go bankrupt? How is that ever going to be a good thing for me?

    It wasn’t intended as an accusation. More of an observation similar to folks that watch racing for the wrecks, watching hockey for the fights, etc. I pay a bit of attention to the international political scene as well and can’t help some feelings that just come to me. I was stoked to see the Canadians right their financial ship a few years back, but I can’t understand the train wreck that the Greeks (or Californians for that matter) are steering themselves towards. There’s a combination of dread and apathy that is inside me. They kinda deserve what they have coming, but I still don’t really want to see it happen to them. A line from he movie Clerks 2 during a donkey show was “it’s disgusting, but I can’t take my eyes off it.”

    Class warfare has been a Democratic talking point for decades. It is how they keep support from some of their regular voters. I don’t think that you would deny that it is a strategy in elections.

    I understand the theory that government should spend during the down years to prop up the economy. But what is happening is not even close. There is no intent on the current administration to ever pay off the debt (or even reduce the deficit). So the Harvard economists think that governments can always carry debt. Sure, so can a household. There is a certain point that your obligations will be too large to be able to borrow what is necessary to maintain themselves. I believe that the US is accelerating towards that point (credit downgrades are an indicator).

    The Dem theory is that being more gentle in the short term will provide better GDP growth, which will reduce the impact/relevance of the deficit.

    Sure we have private sector growth, but the current government spending is not sustainable and there is no plan to reduce it. What is their theory based on time-wise? 100 years? When does the government stop spending more than they make? Are you comfy with NZ doubling their debt every 3-4 years? That is what we are doing unless the economy takes off at double-digit growth. How realistic is that?

    Dis-agreeing with a theory does not mean that you do not understand it. Just the same, because Mr Krugman is explaining a theory does not mean he is applying policy correctly to the theory. Has he said what the tipping point is (debt/GDP)? Where do we stop? When is it too much or does that point not exist? Japan is an interesting example, but they are severely limited on what they can do as a government when a crisis happens.

    It’s like assessing a 10 storey office building and concluding that it’s the stupidest bridge you’ve ever seen

    I think a better analogy is a green energy company spending 1 million dollars on the greenest 10 story building ever when their profits are $50K a year. Sure they can pay it off in theory, but when and what do their investors think? Someone pointing out that this is stupid doesn’t mean they don’t understand the theory, they just think it is stupid.

    Thumb up 6

  6. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  7. AlexInCT *
    The Dem theory is that being more gentle in the short term will provide better GDP growth, which will reduce the impact/relevance of the deficit.

    Sure we have private sector growth, but the current government spending is not sustainable and there is no plan to reduce it.

    The problem isn’t just the spending. It is the socio-engineering bullshit that practically guarantees to make it impossible for the private sector to grow in any area that government doesn’t approve of with only the people government approves off making money. Our economy has become a pseudo command economy, where politicians in Washington D.C. pick the winners and the losers, with all of us losing because the winners are always their buddies, not what’s best for us the consumer or the people. And they have all sorts of excuses. We are saving the environment! Global warming! We are protecting the little people from evil capitalists! We want to control your healthcare money and options! Blah, blah, blah.

    Take energy as an example. We have found massive amounts of natural gas, undersea oil deposits, and shale oil all over the country. All these resources if properly tapped, even if done in nature friendly ways that are more expensive, would allow for enormous employment and private sector growth. And yet the left has constantly and totally been against any of this development. We have been bombarded with lies about how fracking damages everything and kills “chiruns”, or that oil pipelines will break and destroy Gaia, so they can shut these projects down. The states however that have started tapping these resources have seen massive boons, and done so in nature friendly ways. I too am concerned for nature, but the left doesn’t want a compromise: they do not want these resources used. And that is on purpose. With less of this energy not controlled by leftists they can force people to go for idiotic things like EVs and windmills, where liberals make billions selling us crap that’s not just inefficient but not at all good for the environment anyway, which would not survive in the private sector without massive government subsidy and forced support.

    What we have is the left spending, and then in such a way that it benefits their constituencies and their interests which are practically always not part of the private sector, exclusively, with nothing to show for it. Them pretending they are helping grow the private sector is laughable. The problem is the stupid GDP calculation that we have right now, which allows government to claim what they spend should just be added to the total when computing GDP, despite the fact that practically all government spending, and definitely all the welfare spending, is of near zero value. And they keep wanting to raise taxes which directly impact GDP, because it robs the private sector of valuable resources. But you can never convince the marxist-Keynesians that their faulty economic logic will end up turning us into Greece. They think they can force the laws of nature and economics to bend to their planning. After all, they are really, really, smart, and they all keep telling each other that. Real world examples of how horrible command economies end up performing, are ignored. Reality should not apply.

    We are doomed because what can’t go on, won’t. The current policies make it insane to do any kind fo saving, and the fed’s attempts to keep inflation down, are already failing, but not being noticed because of propaganda. The economy will never get fixed with these marxist-Keynesians in charge and implementing more of their wealth redistribution schemes and scams. Ever. The LSM keeps reporting news that under a guy with an (R) next to his name was presented as disastrous, as things getting better, when nothing of the sort is happening. It has been going on for over 4 years now. Just last week they where claiming unemployment had dropped to 7.7% so things where great, but the number really is low because so many people are now off the unemployment dole list but still unemployed. Real unemployment and under employment is over 17%, and as high as 22% according to some. The stock market is flying because the dollar is losing so much value that there is nothing else for property and capital owned by the companies on the stock market to do but raise their stock prices. try buying an international airline ticket. Something that cost you $300 5 years ago now goes for over $1200. And it is not just the price of gas that has quadrupled the price: the dollar is worth shit.

    I can go on and on about this, but the left doesn’t care. That’s why I wonder if the end goal is precisely to destroy what we have so panicked people will accept an even more tyrannical and bloated nanny state , which they otherwise would never do. Of course I am the idiot for not being able to use logic, real logic, not the shit the left pretends is logic, to figure out why they can not see the coming train wreck.

    Thumb up 6