The ABCNews article on the national debt hitting $15 billion focused on Democratic claims of Republican intransigence in debt negotiations, and all but ignored the government’s appetite for spending, an appetite which has grown significantly, first, under the Democratic Congress during the last two years of George W. Bush’s second term and then, at an even greater pace when Democrat Barack Obama became president.
While ABC dwelt on the failure of the supercommittee to reach a consensus on reducing the deficits, Republicans meanwhile have focused on the superspending since Democrats gained power. Quoting from a “handy guide” that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office sent out, Jennifer Rubin notes some debt milestones:
- $8.67 trillion: Democrats take control of Congress, January 2007
- $10.62 trillion: President Obama’s Inaugural, January 20, 2009
- $10.789 trillion: Stimulus bill signed into law, February 17, 2009
- $12.351 trillion: President’s weekly address on the merits of “pay as you go,” February 13, 2010
- $14.305 trillion: President’s weekly address where he said “I believe we can live within our means,” April 16, 2011
She also provides a video that the fetching chairman of the House Budget Committee prepared:
RELATED (also from Jennifer Rubin):
Supercommittee member Rep. Jeb Hensarling or member Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.):“I’m still waiting for a new offer to be put on the table.. . . Should that offer come, I am more than happy to negotiate around that offer.”
Why should the GOP be the first to place a plan on the table? The Democrats have not put a budget in place for nearly a 1,000 days. This whole super committee is a farce anyway because when it can’t/won’t come to an agreement, the “automatic” cuts begin…in 2013. Meantime, plenty of time to rack up more debt. This is a lazy president who is content to let others do the work for him so he can play/campaign all the live long day. We are in deep doo doo.
The financial and economic fate of the Republic hangs in the balance as the Super Committee fails in it’s charge, and where’s the President? …Mooning-about adolescent haunts in a far-away land wearing a batik shirt and sandals gathering coconuts. Are there ANY adults left in Washington anymore?
A national leader would lock the Committee in a room or perhaps a cabin at Camp David similar to JP Morgan’s locking the leading bankers of the day in the Morgan Library til they compromised and resolved the Panic of 1907.
Ours? On vacation with the kids….
I do not disagree with Mary’s sentiments. Especially, the deep doo doo part.
We seem to be reticent to come to the realization that “fundamentally transforming America” depends on the help of organized chaos and the undertones of class warfare that is kept simmering on the edge of seething.
The “rich” have options that their wealth accords them. They can bail. Plenty of other countries will be glad to have them. Ask the English. Furthermore, if they stay connected with “the new order” they will be accommodated. (Sweden has earned all manner of accolades for being the socialist Heaven on Earth. However, it has not been able to erase the wealthy class, which thrives in spite of all efforts to bring it down. That is because the reality of the necessity of a vibrant economy to tax concedes the requirement of inspired risk takers. Deng Xiaoping had the same epiphany when he declared: “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.”)
So, the rich will find a way to skirt the government. They are, in fact the progenitors of the government rules which most protect them. They will buy off Obamunists or take seats in the politburo. Many are already in place, particularly in the Senate where they can take care of their own needs.
The welfare class is all but addicted to government hand outs and the Obamunists have upped the handouts and kept the promises flowing. The Occupy crowd is screeching about “equality” which is as amorphous in the ears of the beholders and was “hope” and “change.” That is good for chaos. Have the useful idiots all demand the same thing which no one can define.
The middle class is where the pressure of fundamental transformation plays out. The unions have to be fed. The unemployed have to be paid. The failed risk taker has to be ignored. If your small business failed, go work for the government. The government only bails out team players.
The economy has frozen up, because the risk takers are hedging their bets and dealing with plans for survival or staving off bankruptcy.
Obama may not be anything more than the willing figurehead for the socialist cabal that is hard at work. Obama is a climber and he has caught the brass ring and has free rides on the merry-go-round of insider wealth for life. He would like four more years of the ultimate life style before having to settle for hitching rides on corporate jets.
Communism promises immediate gains for those who have little to risk except their welfare. The movers and shakers are experts at gaming the system, so they are relatively comfortable that they can carve a future by participating in structuring the rules. The middle class is reduced to a nation of shopkeepers and clerks who survive by walking the treadmill which the government puts under their feet.
So, in the end, we still end up with the same differences, but freedom and free will have been shuffled around and there are new ways established to get a seat at the table.
Obamunists cares nothing about the deficits. They don’t need to. The sane people promise austerity and a hard road back to solvency. What is the magical selling power to that?
We have reached the point where the voters are closely divided between those relying on government largess and those who want freedom. The deficits and chaos serve to inspire nothing. Those dependent on government largess measure everything by what more they can get. Austerity is not in their immediate best interests.
It seems to me that crony capitalism is bad during dust bowl days, but acceptable during salad bowl days. People need to make up their mind. But it’s admittedly hard. When times are good and everyone is doing well and there is plenty to go around, it’s easy to allow it to slide.
A liberal friend of mine demanded I read a book called “The Wrecking Crew,” by a NY Times reporter. I dutifully followed the lady’s demand to learn all about the horrors of the Bush years. On page 5 was this sentence: “…, and they have deliberately piled up an Everest of debt in order to force the government into crisis.”
After I got done laughing, I inquired of the lady: “So what would you call the Himalayas of debt Obama and the Democrats have piled up? The Demolition Brigade?” I have yet to get an answer. Either I stumped her, or like most liberals, she is for and against the same thing and how dare I question her.
It’s like the Occupy group — they are “against” the 1%, but it seems many of the 1%ers are for the Occupiers — and the Occupiers like 1% Nancy Pelosi. I heard, the other day, Matthew Brodderick, simply laughing along with Joy Behar recently about how they were the 1%, had no intention of leaving it, and they were “for” the Occupier’s goals — which, as near as I can determine it are: Total government control of the economy and banks, and No government control of the economy to the point there are no banks, work or cash — that is, both Communism and Anarchy. It is thus impossible to argue “against” the liberals — for they are for/against the same thing — and you must always be wrong, for they are right, so there. It’s amazing to behold these mush heads push their drivel, and they do try so hard, until upon presentation of their conundrum of liking opposites they tell you to shut up.
The Super Committee is at an impasse. The Democrats have a one track mind, raise taxes. The fear is that Republicans want to cut entitlements, which now consumes a large part of the budget. I hear very little about tax reform, especially closing the tax loopholes that has provided ¨welfare for the rich¨. On several occasions I have commented on an 1998 article in Fortune Magazine which enumerated the number of agencies duplicating services that Newt Gingrich and the Congress left intact, which the author contends that they reneged on their promise to shrink the size of government. At the time the article was written the number was over 600. As Milton Friedman showed in his book FREE TO CHOOSE, agencies give birth to additional ones. The Super Committee should see how many they can consolidate; saving money on salaries, supplies, and rent if those agencies are not in federal buildings. Most of the jobs created by the stimulus were government jobs. If they aren´t necessary, dismiss them. Then there is foreign aid. Why are we sending millions, if not billions, to oil rich countries that are exporting to us at top dollar? And here in El Salvador, Obama is sending a half a million to fight organized crime and drug trafficking. Finally, I would like to see the Super Committee review congressional expenses. Can they downsize their staff? Also, legislative perks should be analyzed to see if some of those are pure luxury and egotistical. If so, eliminate them. They just might find, that in all of the thing mentioned, the their goal is with reach. We all have to practice fiscal discipline and at time austerity.
It appears that the majority of the recipients of ¨welfare for the rich¨ support Democrats. If tax loopholes are closed I wonder if they will scream and moan. That´s when I want to hear Joe Biden telling them, ¨paying more taxes is patriotic.¨
This is a hoot: Watch Obama’s tax-hiking “patriotic millionaires” refuse to contribute one red (so to speak) cent of their own money, to actual U.S. deficit reduction:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/17/patriotic-millionaires-demand-higher-taxes-but-unwilling-to-pay-up-video/
They want to raise taxes on *other people*. Like many Democrats – whether poor, or billionaires – they want to fund their politically-correct dreams at others’ expense.
Funny, ILC, I was planning on doing a post saying I will not take seriously any of those so-called Patriotic Millionaires unless they each voluntarily agree to pay an amount no less than 1% of the total gross income (in addition to their existing tax) to the federal government.
If they want to be seen as “real Patriots” let them volunteer 10% of the net-worths, including the value of their family trusts. Then maybe I’ll take them seriously…..
Whoops I posted my earlier comment on the wrong thread.
Well, I guess you can’t expect congress to do anything real – I mean, they have to waste their time doing things like re-affirming “In God We Trust” as the national motto.