Fiscal discipline – donkey style.

And like the famous “donkey punch” sex maneuver, it is unpleasant for the recipient. Don’t get fooled by this bullshit NYT propaganda piece and the ludicrous claim that the fucking marxist nanny stater’s budget are doing any sort of cuts. It is all smoke and mirrors. This bullshit piece starts off with the ludicrous statement:

WASHINGTON — President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials say.

In a significant shift in fiscal strategy, Mr. Obama on Wednesday will send a budget plan to Capitol Hill that departs from the usual presidential wish list that Republicans typically declare dead on arrival. Instead it will embody the final compromise offer that he made to Speaker John A. Boehner late last year, before Mr. Boehner abandoned negotiations in opposition to the president’s demand for higher taxes from wealthy individuals and some corporations.

I have never seen this many lies and half-truths, packed together, and presented as facts, in a long time.

Let’s look at that claim he is proposing cuts in Social Security and Medicare. The fact is that Social Security & Medicare spending is going to grow under these faux cuts, and the claim is ludicrous and deceptive as usual. From the article:

Several programs, notably Social Security, which the White House said would be “cut” under President Obama’s fiscal 2014 budget which he’s finally unveiling next week would actually grow at close to the currently projected rates, according to experts.

Instead of the “cuts” heralded in headlines today, the president’s budget writers are seizing on a formula that simply tweaks the rate of growth. While it could still significantly reduce the projected 10-year budget deficit, it won’t cut anything from what seniors, veterans, students and others who rely on the programs get.

In fact, one Senate analysis reveals that the Obama “cut” will lower slightly the growth of Social Security benefits over the next 10 years to 5.9 percent from 6.1 percent.

Ditto for reports on the “cuts” to Medicare. The plan is to reduce future payments in the program to doctors and hospitals, though wealthier recipients might see higher premiums.

I am tired of collectivist scumbags raising the growth rate on their pet socio-engineering wealth redistribution schemes, to ridiculous numbers, then rolling them back by a fraction, and having the LSM claim they are cutting spending. It’s not just deceptive; it is disgusting. A 0.2% reduction in projected spending increases amounts to more spending, and more spending of money we don’t have so leftists can buy votes, period! It is all accounting gimmicks, designed to fool low information & attention voters, to pretend that the left actually wants to do anything other than the usual tax & spend wealth redistribution scams they rely on to buy votes.

Just in case you are going to be stupid enough to argue that the progressive’s fiscal policy isn’t centered around creating more government dependency, let me point you at this article on how high the disability rolls have climbed to under Team Blue’s fiscal policy of the last 5 years and this post at Zero-hedge about how bad the real employment statistics are in the US. It’s not accidental that their economic policies are based on creating as many people dependent on government as possible, because those people know whom to vote for, while justifying wealth redistribution through confiscatory taxation, targeted at those people they have a beef with primarily, schemes. It’s the formula for power retention. And it is why nothing they do will ever fix the economic disaster we are in right now. It doesn’t serve their purpose to have a good economy, and when they tell you they want that, they are outright lying. If you can get by the bullshit in this Reuters article that claims the problem is Washington’s austerity, you will find a nugget of truth: the tax hikes the donkeys passed in the last go around, and the additional tax hikes they want now, have caused the slow growth. And what this new budget has plenty off, according to the NYT article above, is more taxation:

Congressional Republicans have dug in against any new tax revenues after higher taxes for the affluent were approved at the start of the year. The administration’s hope is to create cracks in Republicans’ antitax resistance, especially in the Senate, as constituents complain about the across-the-board cuts in military and domestic programs that took effect March 1.

Mr. Obama’s proposed deficit reduction would replace those cuts. And if Republicans continue to resist the president, the White House believes that most Americans will blame them for the fiscal paralysis.

Besides the tax increases that most Republicans continue to oppose, Mr. Obama’s budget will propose a new inflation formula that would have the effect of reducing cost-of-living payments for Social Security benefits, though with financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries, administration officials said. The idea, known as chained C.P.I., has infuriated some Democrats and advocacy groups to Mr. Obama’s left, and they have already mobilized in opposition.

As I pointed out, the game for the donkeys isn’t about fixing the economy: it’s about increasing dependency on them and thus their power. And as you can see from the NYT article, the bad people are those that don’t want to allow the productive to be fleeced even harder, and not the crooks robbing Peter to buy Paul’s vote with some wealth redistribution scheme. These leftists do play a mean game though. And they will tell any damned lie they believe the idiots will gobble up. After all, the LSM isn’t going to call them on it. Heck, they carry water for these crooks.

Here are the facts: the new Obama budget cuts nothing and wants to steal even more productive. It is more of the same idiotic shit that have kept this recession going for 5 years now, with no end in sight, packaged as fiscal discipline, and only intended to fool the stupid sheep. This is not going to end well, and it will come as a surprise to so many when it does too. We are so screwed. Fuck I hate collectivists.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    I don’t see how Medicare and Social Security can’t grow with our aging population. This is over a trillion dollars in entitlement cuts (over ten years, much more when you compound it) for $580 billion in eliminating tax deductions — remember when the GOP was all about that? If the GOP ignores his new spending measures, this becomes a very workable deal. Certainly more workable than the “CUT SPENDING! I DON”T KNOW HOW OR WHAT BUT CUT SOMETHING!!!!” mantra that constitutes the opposition.

    Thumb up 2

  2. Hal_10000

    It’s also the difference between governing and commentating. Cuts of the type you want are simply not going to happen. Cuts of this type might, if the Democrats can be kept in line. This is about as good a deal as we will get out of the present government. When are people going to learn to take “yes” for an answer?

    Hot! Thumb up 3

  3. Mississippi Yankee

    No one better fuck with Social Security. Period. I am applying for it the day after Christmas.

    And just about every cent I get from SS will be fed into a big green (in color) machine with the name DILLON emblazoned on it. Oh crap, Dillon was my ex-wife’s maiden name. Meh.

    Thumb up 0

  4. AlexInCT *

    I don’t see how Medicare and Social Security can’t grow with our aging population.

    That’s like saying I know my credit cards and loans are maxed out, but since I still need more things, and the things are not getting cheaper, I am going to keep spending. Let me be candid Hal. I feel sorry for the people that really rely on these programs, but the fact is that they are unsustainable. Especially with Obamacare ramping up and getting ready to suck up even more money. There is no way to keep these programs running. The obligations are just staggering, and even if they found a way to magically double our GDP, it wouldn’t be enough.

    Maybe it is for the better that they are spending these programs into the inevitable collapse sooner than later, but they should at least be honest and admit that they are not only not cutting anything, they are actually increasing spending, and expediting the eventual collapse of the system. They could possibly drag it out for another generation if they impose European style confiscatory taxation in the 75-90% range on everyone not on the dole, but that’s all it will do, as the consequence will be a deterioration of the economy as well.

    Government doesn’t have the power to take 5 fishes and a dozen loafs of bread and make it feed a crowd of 5000, despite the left’s fanatical religious faith that big government is the new Jesus. The gig is up. We are circling the drain, and nobody has the balls to admit the system is not only broke, but that the longer we drag it out the worse things will be. Our children and their children will pay the price, and it will be a hefty one.

    It’s also the difference between governing and commentating. Cuts of the type you want are simply not going to happen.

    You might be right, but without the cuts I want the only outcome that is viable is that the system implodes. The collectivist economic policies have killed any growth of the wealth pie, and the collectivist’s social spending policies will cost orders of magnitudes more than that pie can produce. It is simple math. Sooner than later the red ink will cause a collapse. Most people are hoping that when that comes they are long gone and unaffected. Me, I am focused on how we have destroyed the most prosperous country ever, and handed our children, and their children, one of the biggest shit sandwiches ever. It especially galls me because the outcome was blatantly obvious and we still not only kept the course, but are doing so still despite the proof that it will not only end, but end really fucking ugly.

    No one better fuck with Social Security. Period. I am applying for it the day after Christmas.

    I sure as hell hope you can get money out of it for however long you need it MY. My guestimate is that it will be DOA in 15 years tops.

    Thumb up 6

  5. Mississippi Yankee

    My guestimate is that it will be DOA in 15 years tops.

    If I had know I’d of lived this long I’d have taken better care of myself. And I say that only half jokingly.

    Thumb up 3

  6. Hal_10000

    You might be right, but without the cuts I want the only outcome that is viable is that the system implodes.

    You know, over the past couple of years, we have made serious progress on the deficit. Flat budgets, recessions, sequester,expiration of the payroll tax have cut future deficits by over $5 trillion. That’s not nothing. And, if you had your way, none of it would have happened. We would have crashed the debt ceiling in 2011, plunged back into recession and have an even bigger deficit now.

    The balanced budgets of the late Clinton years weren’t created in a day. It started with tax hikes and spending cuts under Reagan and went piece by piece for over a decade before we got there. That’s how politics works.

    Thumb up 2

  7. AlexInCT *

    You know, over the past couple of years, we have made serious progress on the deficit.

    Erm, what planet has this been on? Or where you joking? I hope you are joking.

    Team Blue under Obama tacked on, and then in just 3 1/2 years, more than was done during the 8 years of Boosh. I again feel obligated to remind those that are historically challenged that the bulk of the Boosh years deficit spending came after Pelosi took over the house in 2006. Team Blue has been running a trillion dollar deficit every fucking year since he took office. And that’s staying so, for the foreseeable future, despite the fucking lies from the OBM that you can easily dismiss by just looking at how accurate their previous idiotic predictions have been.

    And the problem isn’t the deficit spending but that our debt is projected to top $25 trillion by the next presidential election at this rate of spending. You have to be joking. That’s got to be it.

    Flat budgets, recessions, sequester,expiration of the payroll tax have cut future deficits by over $5 trillion.

    Ah, I get it. You are stupid enough to believe these gimmicks. Maybe this is why politicians keep doing it despite the fat that it is a lie. Next you will tell me that anyone that just says they are going to increase their spending by X – where X is a big number – then roll it back to Y – where Y is still a big number, only smaller than X – is showing significant progress, even though they are spending 30% more money than they can afford. Shit, I am gonna hunt for some companies on the stock exchange that follow this business model to invest in… They must all be doing pretty good

    That’s not nothing.

    IT’S A FUCKING GIMMICK!

    It’s even worse than nothing. Are you high? Are you being paid by the politicians in either party to say dumb shit like this that can give them cover?

    And, if you had your way, none of it would have happened. We would have crashed the debt ceiling in 2011, plunged back into recession and have an even bigger deficit now.

    You have to be fucking kidding me. At this point I hold no doubt that we are STILL in a recession and that we will not get out of it with anything that government does. Frankly, we would have been better off letting those companies that where too big to fail all fail, because while that would have been painful, history proves we would have recovered by now, even with the fucking clueless Keynesians currently running the country deeper into the financial shithole of their making.

    Look Hal, there is a simple and unavoidable reality. We have lived beyond our means and we can’t keep doing it. Anyone unwilling to accept and deal with that reality is in for a rude awakening. Our political masters are just dragging the inevitable out. There is no fix for this situation, and they even know it. That’s why they are so busy disarming us all while setting things up so they can stay in charge of everything when the house of cards comes crashing down. Keep deluding yourself that things are better all you want if it helps you sleep, but you are making a fool out of yourself when you start carrying water for these idiots like you are doing right now.

    Seriously, I hope you were just joking, because if you really believe this shit you are either even more gullible than I think you are or really a leftist pretending to be a libertarian.

    Thumb up 6

  8. Mississippi Yankee

    Seriously, I hope you were just joking, because if you really believe this shit you are either even more gullible than I think you are or really a leftist pretending to be a libertarian.

    I’ve heard someone else say that before…
    Oh wait, that was me.

    Thumb up 2

  9. Hal_10000

    Yes. It’s all Obama’s fault. The fiscal crisis that plunged us into recession and swelled the deficit by hundreds of billions? All Obama’s fault. The loosening of requirements for food stamps and other public assistance that took place in 2006 and blew up in our faces in 2009? All Obama’s fault. The two wars that drained a trillion and are likely to cost five trillion more in benefits and healthcare before it’s all over? Obama’s fault. The tax cuts that dropped tax rates to 15% of GDP, about a quarter less than the historical average? Obama’s fault.

    All Obama’s fault. And Pelosi’s.

    Oh, except that the federal budget deficit has fallen from a high of $1.4 trillion in 2009 to a $900 this year thanks to the GOP “selling out” to Obama. That’s clearly not Obama’s doing. Nope. Nothing to do with it.

    Thumb up 1

  10. Hal_10000

    Obviously, $900 billion in deficit is still $900 billion too much. But we have to deal with the world as it is, not the world as we wish it were. We have a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate and tens of millions of seniors who vote like hell. Massive cuts in spending are simply not going to happen so we must we pretend that they are? The incremental approach has cut the deficit by a third and cut trillions off the CBO projections (which you poo-poo now but play to the hilt when they’re bad). We’ve at least moved the ball out of our endzone. If the President is willing to give us the middle of the field, let’s keep pounding it.

    Thumb up 0

  11. Dave D

    AMAZING how 1.4 trillion has become the performance standard. Something in there about “stimulus” HAD to contribute to the huge numbers 4 years ago. I think we are seeing effectively permanent budget numbers the last two years. When these fuckers get below Bush’s biggest defecit (~400 bilion, WITH a major war going on), I’ll be mildly impressed at the start………

    Thumb up 5

  12. Hal_10000

    AMAZING how 1.4 trillion has become the performance standard. Something in there about “stimulus” HAD to contribute to the huge numbers 4 years ago. I think we are seeing effectively permanent budget numbers the last two years. When these fuckers get below Bush’s biggest defecit (~400 bilion, WITH a major war going on), I’ll be mildly impressed at the start………

    Let me think about if there was some difference in the country between the height of the real estate bubble and the greatest crash since the Great Depression. Bush’s $400 billion deficit was an illusion. Our structural deficit was much closer to $1 trillion but the real estate boom hid that.

    Also 2009 was a least paritally a Bush fiscal year. Knock $300 billion stimulus off that and you’re still left with $1 trillion in bush deficit.

    Thumb up 0

  13. AlexInCT *

    Yes. It’s all Obama’s fault.

    WTF are you talking about, Hal? This is a systemic problem with our leadership, But you have to be insane, stupid beyond belief, a fucking leftard shill, or all three to not see that Obama has taken everything wrong about our government and its bad habits and put them on growth hormones and steroids, dude.

    You may be historically challenged, but I remember the leftards howling and tearing their hair out about the evil deficit years of Boosh, whom I am sure would have loved to get away with even a half a trillion dollar deficit for but one year of his budgets. Obama has done this every fucking year and, yet here we have people like you pretending that’s all not so bad, but actually a step in the right direction.

    The fiscal crisis that plunged us into recession and swelled the deficit by hundreds of billions? All Obama’s fault.

    Someone’s panties are in a bunch, and methinks the reason why is obvious. The fact is that the crisis you want to pretend doesn’t belong to these fuckwads came about because socio-engineers, and these people tend to be predominantly the team blue ideologues, which includes Obama, think they can defy the laws of human nature, economics, and reality. Even if we throw you this bone and pretend your stupid canard has any validity, when do we finally get to blame Obama for the fact that everything they have done and continue to do has done nothing but make things worse? When do we get to say that considering how fucking much howling, hair pulling, and clothes tearing the leftards did when another statist that wishes he could have gotten away with a fraction of what Obama is doing, yes I am talking about Boosh, that all leftists are god damned lying scum when it comes to their claims of caring about fiscal discipline?

    BTW, for a libertarian your head seems to be burred so fucking far up leftist’s asses that I am surprised you can breathe. There is no way to ever think or justify anything related to our economic situation that team blue has been doing for the last 5 years as anything but horrific, and anyone pretending they are taking a step in the right direction is a maroon.

    The loosening of requirements for food stamps and other public assistance that took place in 2006 and blew up in our faces in 2009? All Obama’s fault.

    I wander who controlled the House at the time these “loosenings”, and consequently the bigger deficit years of the Boosh tenure, then? Not really. I am just being facetious. And before you try to pretend that I am defending the other side or Boosh, let me tell you that you are getting it wrong. My point is about the hypocrisy, especially from people like you.

    The two wars that drained a trillion and are likely to cost five trillion more in benefits and healthcare before it’s all over?

    You got statistics to back that $5 trillion claim up? I smell bullshit. And as far as I am concerned the cost of those wars was a bargain, even if the real cost happens to your $5 trillion claim, compared to the bullshit and unconstitutional vote buying socio-engineering spending our government engages in that now looks to straddle us with over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, with some putting that number far higher.

    BTW, let me remind you that Obama added more wars and is spending more than we did under Boosh, but you seem to only have a bone to pick with Boosh. You true colors show.

    The tax cuts that dropped tax rates to 15% of GDP, about a quarter less than the historical average? Obama’s fault.

    Yeah, because as a good libertarian we all know that the problem isn’t the fucking out of control spending, regardless of who is doing it, but the fact that government doesn’t shouldn’t be able to confiscate so much more of people’s money to keep leviathan alive and growing.

    Literally you gave me the usual collectivist laundry list of excuses, albeit minus the usual other conspiracy theories, there Hal. Think hard about that.

    Oh, except that the federal budget deficit has fallen from a high of $1.4 trillion in 2009 to a $900 this year thanks to the GOP “selling out” to Obama. That’s clearly not Obama’s doing. Nope. Nothing to do with it.

    Fuck me sideways, what a pile of bullshit. What budget? I will remind you that we have not had a budget for the going on 4 years now. And those numbers are about as fake as they come. It’s a bunch of lies and a whole lot of accounting gimmicks that seem to impress math challenged idiots. Have you no shame?

    Hey look! These fuckers are burning down the house, but because they have somehow convinced people that they are pouring less gas on it to keep the fire going than they originally intended, they are heroes!

    All I can say is “WOW!”.

    Too much reality to cope with Hal.

    Oh, fuck that gave me a good laugh. CM, thanks for never disappointing. Funny how someone as disconnected as one can be from reality thinks he should be lecturing others on reality.

    Thumb up 4

  14. Hal_10000

    BTW, for a libertarian your head seems to be burred so fucking far up leftist’s asses that I am surprised you can breathe. There is no way to ever think or justify anything related to our economic situation that team blue has been doing for the last 5 years as anything but horrific, and anyone pretending they are taking a step in the right direction is a maroon.

    Once again, anything other than “It’s all Obama’s fault! He’s the anti-christ” is having my head up his ass. Right.

    I wander who controlled the House at the time these “loosenings”,

    Republicans. The farm bills they passed. (http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/23/bush-and-obama-the-food-stamp-presidents) But I guess that was Pelosi and the Democrats travelling back in time to do that.

    You got statistics to back that $5 trillion claim up?

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/iraq-wars-ultimate-cost-much-higher-than-first-thought/

    That’s when you included future veterans and survivor benefits for the thousands killed and the tens of thousands wounded. I also like how you link to an article that claims we *don’t* have $100 trillion ln liabilities.

    Yeah, because as a good libertarian we all know that the problem isn’t the fucking out of control spending, regardless of who is doing it, but the fact that government doesn’t shouldn’t be able to confiscate so much more of people’s money to keep leviathan alive and growing.

    As a good libertarian, I don’t believe you cut taxes and raise spending. You cut spending first and then, if you’re running a surplus, you can cut taxes. Starve the beast, as I have shown, only increases spending because people think they’re getting government on the cheap. I’m also a realistic libertarian, who realizes that 40% budget cuts are not going to happen.

    Alex, you need to make your mind. Are the budget numbers real or phoney? You quote them whenever they suit your “Obama! Democrats! Pelosi! 11!!!” diatribes. But then you want to ignore them whenever they undermine the point you’re trying to make. So you’ll scream that we have $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, then say it’s bullshit when I point out those liabilities have come down. You’ll shout that our deficit is a trillion dollars, then say the numbers are bullshit when I point that it isn’t. Which is it? Does reality exist or not?

    This has nothing to do with supporting Obama or the Democrats or lefty bullshit. I think I’ve made by dislike of them perfectly clear. This has to do with reality. Democrats control the White House and the Senate. Even if cutting spending 40% were a good idea, it’s not going to happen. You might as well be asking for the budget to be solved with platinum coins.

    In the realm of the possible — despite fierce opposition for Obama, the Democrats and all their buddies in the media — we have cut 1/3 off the budget deficit. Despite them, our long-term fiscal picture has improved from “Fuck Me!” to “Ay, Caramba!”. Despite them, the first trims to Social Security in seventy years are on the table.

    The welfare state wasn’t built in a day. It won’t be brought down in a day. The Republicans should maintain opposition to any more “stimulus” spending. And they should hold out for real tax reform, not this loopholes for rich people bullshit. But fuck a duck, man, you have Kenyan Communist Barack Hussein Obama passing flat spending budgets and proposing cuts to Social Security. Realize when you’re winning.

    Thumb up 2

  15. Hal_10000

    Dave, in Bush’s final budget, the deficit was $1.1 trillion (2009 – Obama’s stimulus). The $400 billion deficits — and I warned about the this at the time — were masking deeper structural problems. Because the housing bubble was at is peak, the feds were collecting a gigantic amount of revenue. And they will still running debts. They were like a banker who is getting big Christmas bonuses every year and still running big debts. Once the bonuses stop coming in, he’s suddenly $100,000 in the hole. Once the false boom was over, a half trillion hole opened in the budget.

    This happened at the beginning of the decade too and with every state. Colorado missed the first debt crisis because they had TABOR, which put srict limits on spending hikes.

    Thumb up 3

  16. AlexInCT *

    Once again, anything other than “It’s all Obama’s fault! He’s the anti-christ” is having my head up his ass. Right.

    Except I never said it was all Obama’s fault, Hal. My first point is that it is the nanny staters fault, on both sides, but predominantly on the side that wants to socio-engineer equality of outcome. My second point was that when Boosh did but a fraction of what is happening under Obama, the left howled in rage and called it fiscal irresponsibility. Now that their guy has put that shit on steroids and is wrecking the country at a record pace, suddenly they all have excuses for why this isn’t important, or worse, why we are doing much better based on accounting gimmicks and tricks with mirrors.

    And I do not believe Obama is the anti-christ, but I am now convinced that nobody can be as narcissistic and inept as he is and that what is happening is by design, whether it is to actually destroy the country’s economy or because these idiots really think what they are doing is the answer, despite all the proof to the contrary. I am however going to grant you that I think anyone that pretends these accounting tricks where they propose a growth of 6.2 percent, then drop it to 5.8 percent amounts to any sort of real cost cutting, has their head up their ass, because you have to be insane to make the argument this is anything but more of the same spending of money we don’t have.

    Republicans. The farm bills they passed. (http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/23/bush-and-obama-the-food-stamp-presidents) But I guess that was Pelosi and the Democrats travelling back in time to do that.

    What that article fails to mention is that Obama is just 5 years into his 8 year term, and that at the current pace he will tack on at least 40% to the final numbers they attribute to Boosh. And fuck you for making me have to defend that nanny stater Boosh and his economic bullshit spending.

    That’s when you included future veterans and survivor benefits for the thousands killed and the tens of thousands wounded. I also like how you link to an article that claims we *don’t* have $100 trillion ln liabilities.

    Actually I linked to it as a poor excuse for trying to explain away the fact that we do have $100 trillion in liabilities. I figured that would have been obvious, but I should have used a clue bat to point out that seeing it was an article from a liberal in a liberal source, and his explanation of why this isn’t so being based on the same accounting tricks that allow people to claim a reduction in insane projected growth to just stupid crazy is a cut, would make for a hearty laugh. That’s why I linked the 2nd article, where the amount is far higher and not based on the bullshit accounting we see permeating all things liberal. Kind of like how Obamacare saves money by robbing Medicare and then that money robbed from Medicare is double counted as a saving.

    And that link you provide estimates that the total cost, that is the $1 trillion spent and any future costs will be close to $4 trillion. By my math, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that number you cite then ought to be $3 trillion over and above the actual cost of the war. Maybe you added instead of subtracting to get that $5 trillion? I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but considering how you think a miniscule decrease in the projected increase in spending amounts to a cut, I am not sure if I am doing the right thing. Anyway, that all having been said, , I will repeat this again, this expenditure is actually something the constitution allows for, so if given the choice I would take it 9 out of 10 times over anything else. At least these people earned that money.

    As a good libertarian, I don’t believe you cut taxes and raise spending. You cut spending first and then, if you’re running a surplus, you can cut taxes. Starve the beast, as I have shown, only increases spending because people think they’re getting government on the cheap. I’m also a realistic libertarian, who realizes that 40% budget cuts are not going to happen.

    Good luck with this pie-in-the-sky dream of yours Hal. As the last few decades have shown, cutting taxes increases economic activity and growth, but government never cuts spending. Never, fucking ever. So I for one am going to always oppose any more tax increase until government cuts – real cuts not reductions in spending increases – their out of control spending. Contrary to the belief that the money belongs to them it is my money, and I am tired of politicians pissing it away doing things that steal my freedoms and make me worse off. And any libertarian that thinks 40% budget cuts are not realistic and accepts the status quo isn’t much of a libertarian. I thought libertarians, at least the ones I share this concept with, want the smallest possible government. In fact, the ones I interact with want an 80% cut.

    Alex, you need to make your mind. Are the budget numbers real or phoney? You quote them whenever they suit your “Obama! Democrats! Pelosi! 11!!!” diatribes.

    This is lame even for you dude. WTF is your point? We have not had a budget passed in 4 years. Are you disputing that? We have also not been able to get a good grasp on how much these people are spending, and any and all projections of things getting better have been so wrong as to basically leave anyone with two firing neurons with nothing to conclude other than we are permanently getting shafted by the overspending. Fuck, how stupid or dishonest do you have to be to pretend that things are getting better because these assholes use accounting gimmicks to hide the fact they are spending way more than we have and can afford? You can pretend the problem is with me, but methinks that since your only compatriot on that journey is CM you might need to do some soul searching.

    But then you want to ignore them whenever they undermine the point you’re trying to make.

    Ignore what? Projections that are not true and continue to be bullshit every single year after year? Or do you mean the accounting gimmicks they want to pass off as cuts that are not really cuts? Or maybe the fact that they are tacking $1 trillion plus each year of new debt, while printing dollars like it is going out of style and causing the dollar to drop 40% in value? Maybe you mean that they are creating even more entitlement obligations and pretending they will save us money? I am not sure what I am ignoring other than the lies you buy right into.

    So you’ll scream that we have $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, then say it’s bullshit when I point out those liabilities have come down.

    LOL! Those liabilities have come down? Are you for real? So hypothetically what you are telling me is that I am an idiot because I am not nuanced enough to grasp that if we are going to choke on $80 trillion of new debt and die, it is a better thing than chocking on a 4100 trillion one. Got it.

    You’ll shout that our deficit is a trillion dollars, then say the numbers are bullshit when I point that it isn’t. Which is it? Does reality exist or not?

    Considering your numbers come from a projection they hope comes true, but when we look back at what the deficit actually was, it always exceeds that projection, I think I am justified in saying it is bullshit. I am willing to bet you a ten spot that when we get the real numbers for this year, minus the gimmicks, they will have yet again spend over $1 trillion. And next year will be the same, unless spending goes higher while new taxes drag economic growth even further down into the shitter.

    This has nothing to do with supporting Obama or the Democrats or lefty bullshit

    Well I would not accept this kind of accounting gimmick as a cut from either democrats or republicans, and since it is being done by team blue, led by Obama, if you are supporting it or pretending it is a cut, when it clearly is not a real spending cut, you are shilling. Sorry dude.

    In the realm of the possible — despite fierce opposition for Obama, the Democrats and all their buddies in the media — we have cut 1/3 off the budget deficit.

    Yeah, just like Obamacare is going to actually reduce the deficit and spending. Heh.

    The welfare state wasn’t built in a day. It won’t be brought down in a day.

    You are correct, but that is because it will collapse in the span of a few days or weeks once the unsustainable finally hits the fan. If you were implying that these people are doing things to roll back the welfare state, I am going to again have to point out your nose is growing Pinocchio. The left will never dismantle or allow the dismantling of their gravy train. They would rather see the country collapse like what happened in the USSR, than give up their lucrative schemes and scams.

    Realize when you’re winning.

    When we do some actually real cutting I will be winning. This smoke & mirror show isn’t any kind of win at all. It smacks of me being told I should be happy that they only put two 9mm slugs into the back of my head instead of emptying the entrie clip of an AK-74 (the new chinese model). The end result is still that I am fucked.

    Thumb up 1

  17. AlexInCT *

    Dave, in Bush’s final budget, the deficit was $1.1 trillion (2009 – Obama’s stimulus).

    First off, if you are discussing Boosh deficit spending, you mean TARP right Hal? Because the Obama stimulus wasn’t passed under Boosh’s watch, but under Obama’s, whom signed it into law in 2009, making it go into the next years’ budget. So no, Boosh had nothing to do with Obama’s stimulus.

    And I would like to point you to this article on Boosh vs. Obama deficits which clearly illustrates Boosh’s deficit spending which had been going down after the top numbers in 2004 (at just under $400 billion) only jumped once, after 2006 (what happened then??), in 2008, and again only for $ 400 billion. So where do you get that $1.1 trillion number from? Is that an aggregate of all deficit spending under Boosh for 8 years? Because if that’s how you want to play it then please have decency to compare it to the aggregate deficit spending under Obama, which so far totals 5 times as much, and has 3 more years to go. you need to stop living in CM’s reality.

    And I remember distinctly that the Boosh WH asked for $350 billion for TARP only to have Pelosi’s house tell them they were spending $750 billion, and to take it or bend over. If the WH had gotten its way and only pissed away $350 billion of our tax payer money, the deficit spending number for for 2008 would have been $50 billion. Think about that.

    Please do not for a second believe that I am justifying deficit spending under Boosh, BTW. It was wrong then too. The point is that the howler monkeys that decried Boosh as a fiscally irresponsible monster that was straddling our children with all that debt are also the same fuckwads today pretending Obama making Boosh look like a piker is no big deal. That’s the point and reality only hacks will argue against. Things are not getting better, despite the propaganda they would like us to believe.

    Thumb up 2

  18. Hal_10000

    The Heritage graph is bullshit because FY 2009 was a (mostly) Bush year. His budget proposal, passed by Congress in 2008 with Obama’s stimulus attached to the final authorization bills in 2009. That had a nominal $400 billion deficit. Actual $1.4 trillion.

    Thumb up 1

  19. AlexInCT *

    The Heritage graph is bullshit because FY 2009 was a (mostly) Bush year. His budget proposal, passed by Congress in 2008 with Obama’s stimulus attached to the final authorization bills in 2009.

    So what you are saying is that smart presidents should simply pass a law that tacks trillions to the last budget of their predecessor, since they can pass blame to them anyway? Check.

    Sounds desperate to me, but then again, that’s what you have sounded like consistently on this thread bro.

    Thumb up 2

  20. Hal_10000

    Facts hurt, don’t they? The idea that Bush’s deficit peaked at $400 billion and Obama made them trillion is so part of the Right Wing Echosphere that the simple *fact* that Bush’s last passed budget had a trillion dollar deficit gets downvoted to hell.

    Thumb up 1

  21. Mississippi Yankee

    Loving this thread.

    No, you’re just a masochist. You only come here for the donkey punches, and the down-votes

    Thumb up 1

  22. AlexInCT *

    Facts hurt, don’t they?

    Which facts are those? That you are dumb enough to fall for accounting gimmicks and to then defend people that are spending us out of existence? Or that you are pulling shit out of your ass to defend the indefensible?

    The idea that Bush’s deficit peaked at $400 billion and Obama made them trillion is so part of the Right Wing Echosphere that the simple *fact* that Bush’s last passed budget had a trillion dollar deficit gets downvoted to hell.

    Spoken like a true collectivist dude. Your real colors are showing. Actually, the conceited and false idea that a president can pass off blame for a trillion dollars of pissed away tax payer dollars on his predecessor, simply by tacking on extra spending to the budget of his predecessor, actually being seen as vindication of destructive and idiotic lefty politics, only passes as a fact with idiots. But then again, that’s being redundant. From Wilkipedia:

    The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub.L. 111–5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, was an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.

    Just so there is no doubt left about what you are doing here. Let us look at the facts you think are on your side. The ARRA you want to blame Boosh for was passed into law by Obama and the 111th congress, both seated after the 2008 elections. They tacked it to the budget that was passed for 2009 by the previous congress, effectively overriding Boosh’s signature of said budget.

    Basically what we have here is that you have seized on a technicality, another accounting gimmick, Hal to make the ludicrous case that Boosh too had trillion dollar annual deficit, so the other trillion dollar plus deficits of the next 4 years don’t mean team blue, but especially Obama, are fucking the country over. How pathetic but predictable.

    As I point out: the next time a republican takes over from a democrat he should tack $ 5 trillion, heck, go for $10 trillion, to that democrat’s last budget, and have people like you come defend the argument that the problem was said democrat’s budget being deep in the red. The thing is that I doubt you will be defending that then because it doesn’t help team blue.

    Loving this thread.

    That’s because you are simply too stupid to see that what you think is some kind of moral or other vindication of the idiocy you believe in is nothing but proof you are a fucking idiot CM. But what’s new about that. Truth never gets in the way of collectivist ideologues as certainly you, and now even Hal, clearly seems to show.

    Thumb up 2

  23. Hal_10000

    Dude, did you read anything I wrote? You’re talking about the stimulus again? You’re like a broken record. I corrected for the stimulus. Look, I will spell this out very simply:

    In 2008, George W. Bush passed the FY2009 budget that, in principle, had a $400 billion deficit.

    In 2009, Obama passed ARRA, which added $300 billion in spending and tax cuts to Bush’s FY09 budget. That $800 billion is a ten year figure. I know this because, at the time, I pointed out that the stimulus spending would be used as a baseline, so the actual stimulus was more like $3 trillion.

    The final tally, at the end of FY09 was a $1.4 trillion deficit.

    You see that? You see how $1.4 trillion FY 09 deficit – $300 billion Obama spending is still more than a trillion dollars?

    Now why did the deficit come in over a trillion more than expected? Three reasons:

    1) The recession caused revenues to drop by $600 billion. The initial budget figures were based on a continued investment bubble and Bush and the Republicans and Democrats had spent years spending like that bubble was going to continue forever.
    2) Obama’s ARRA added $300 billion in spending.
    3) Automatic stabilizers like the food stamp program that Bush and the Republicans expanded added another $100 billion in spending.

    Again. $1.4 trillion. $300 billion is on Obama, $600 billion on the economy, $100 billion on stabilizers (i.e., welfare), $400 billion to start.

    (Incidentally, this is part of the reason I think the “Bush turned a surplus into a deficit theme is a bit mixed since revenues dropped partyl because the .com bubble burst.)

    Let’s go further. Here are the spending figures with % increases each year. I’ll go back 20 years, so you can get the trend

    Bush and Democrats

    1990 – 1.25 trillion (+9.5%)
    1991 – 1.32 trillion (+5.6%)
    1992 – 1.38 trillion (+4.5%)
    1993 – 1.41 trillion (+2.2%)

    Clinton and Democrats

    1994 – 1.46 trillion (+3.5%)
    1995 – 1.52 trillion (+4.1%)

    Clinton and Republicans

    1996 – 1.56 trillion (+2.6%)
    1997 – 1.60 trillion (+2.6%)
    1998 – 1.65 trillion (+3.1%)
    1999 – 1.70 trillion (+3.0%)
    2000 – 1.79 trillion (+5.3%)
    2001 – 1.86 trillion (+3.9%)

    Bush and Republicans

    2002 – 2.01 trillion (+8.1%)
    2003 – 2.16 trillion (+7.5%)
    2004 – 2.30 trillion (+6.5%)
    2005 – 2.47 trillion (+7.4%)
    2006 – 2.66 trillion (+7.7%)
    2007 – 2.73 trillion(+2.6%)

    Bush and Democrats

    2008 – 2.98 trillion (+9.2%)
    2009 – 3.52 trillion (+18.1%) *Obama stimulus also (+11.1 w/o)

    Obama and Democrats

    2010 – 3.46 trillion (-1.7%) (+7.4% if you bring in stimulus from 2009)
    2011 – 3.60 trillion (+4.0%)

    Obama and Republicans

    2012 – 3.54 trillion (-1.7%)
    2013 – final number likely around 3.5 (-1.1%)

    Let’s break that down:

    Bush and the Democrats: annual increase of 5%
    Clinton and Democrats: annual increases of 4%
    Clinton and Republicans: annual increases of 3.5%
    Bush II and Republicans: annual increase of 6.7% (!!)
    Bush II and Democrats: annual increase of 10.2% (!!!) (discounting stimulus)
    Obama and Democrats: annual increase of 1.1%, 5.7% if you count stimulus
    Obama and Republicans: -1.5% so far

    Let’s see where the wheels came off, shall we? And lets see what has happened over the last three years. If the budget number can be held at $3.6 trillion, we will be in balanced by FY 2016 or 2017. if you can hold it to 1% increase, you will be balanced by FY 2018 or FY2019. Long term, that will mean nothing without entitlement reform (which, here’s a funny thing, was just put on the table). But we are getting there.

    This, incidentally was what Thatcher did to balance a budget that was in an equally perilous position: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/the-legend-of-margaret-thatcher/

    Truth never gets in the way of collectivist ideologues as certainly you, and now even Hal, clearly seems to show.

    I oppose socialized medicine. I oppose collective solutions to global warming. I oppose expansion of state power in the War on Terror. I oppose expanding welfare. I oppose expanding Social Security. I think Medicare and Medicaid are rolling disasters. I oppose eminent domain. I despite budget deficits.

    But, hey, I said the President’s proposal is a step in the right direction! COLLECTIVISM!

    Thumb up 2

  24. AlexInCT *

    I oppose socialized medicine. I oppose collective solutions to global warming. I oppose expansion of state power in the War on Terror. I oppose expanding welfare. I oppose expanding Social Security. I think Medicare and Medicaid are rolling disasters. I oppose eminent domain. I despite budget deficits.

    Then why, pray tell, do you keep defending accounting gimmicks used by assholes to pretend they are doing anything to fix any fo these things you oppose? Why do you feel compelled to defend the left for pretending Obama is making things better when it clearly is a shell game? I know you hate Boosh for some insane reason, but only someone with some serious issues would pretend Obama is better in any way. I think Boosh was a fucking disaster, a nanny stater, and the worst thing that could have happened to fiscally conservative people and this country economically at that time, but given the choice I would pick Boosh over ALL, you read that right, ALL fucking democrats in the last 15 years. And that’s because I know not a single one of them would do any better in that respect, and the majority of them would do far, far worse. Case in point the last 5 years.

    I hate that my fucking choices are die hard collectivists, be they downright anti-capitalist marxists or nanny stater fascist-lights, hell bent on socio-engineering equality of outcome while lining their pockets and their friends pockets with tax payer funded largesse, despite all the evidence of how impossible and destructive this shit they keep foisting on us is, or idiot nanny staters that aren’t as fanatical in their devotion to Leviathan. We cannot keep doing what we are doing right now, no matter how hard we ignore reality, it will assert itself in the end. And the longer we let this charade go on, the more painful and harsh the coming collapse will end up being.

    Thumb up 1

  25. CM

    But, hey, I said the President’s proposal is a step in the right direction! COLLECTIVISM!

    It’s truly pathetic.

    Well done Hal.

    Thumb up 1