printObama is right; the Bush administration has been one of the most fiscally reckless administrations in American history. Obama pointed today, in particular, to the never-ending spending on the occupation of Iraq.
What is Obama’s antidote to these wrack and ruin policies that have given us deficits and an upward of $9 trillion in national debt, causing prices of all commodities, gas included, to soar?
Hussein’s solution is not to stop spending, but to spend that money AT HOME. What money? Didn’t you just say, Sir, that there is no money to spend?
Of course, “A debased dollar, price inflation, dwindling availability of seed capital, malinvestment and speculation (bubbles)—these are some of the consequences of the government’s promiscuous spending and inflationary practices.”
“The first stage on the road to recovery is to pinpoint the problem and take responsibility for it. You’ve spent more than you’ve produced and have switched to living on credit. Having exhausted your creditor’s good will, but not your insatiable appetites, you turn to counterfeiting cash in the basement—that’s where the U.S. finds itself today.”
“The second stage in getting solvent is to quit spending and borrowing, live within your means, and start paying down what you owe.”
Yet deficit spending is the centerpiece of Obama’s domestic policies.
And the band of fools plays on…
Update (June 11): On who ought to have the vote:
“A sizeable majority of the people ‘receives in disbursements more than it pays in taxes.’ The minority funding the orgy ‘pays in taxes more than it receives back in disbursements.’ The latter, not the former, should have the vote.”—ILANA (April 24, 2007)
&
“Taxpayers ought to have the vote, not so tax consumers. And that goes for politicians, who pay taxes out of what they loot from the taxpayer.”—ILANA (April 24, 2007)
Well, the poor do have to be bought off with the money looted from them directly or indirectly via the government-backed banking cartel. If not, we could have serious social unrest.
Many of the social programs in the US have their roots in the New Deal. This resulted from the Great Depression which Ben Bernanke admits is the Federal Reserve’s fault.
So, a dishonest banking system leads to economic collapse which leads to programs to help those hurt by the collapse.
Dr. Ron Paul is a compassionate man who understands these things and will attack the roots of the problem without letting the poor starve in the meantime.
Obama, I am afraid, will just attempt to compensate the victims without dealing with the system that victimizes them.
So BHO wants to lower the gas tax at the pump, but hit the oil companies up for a windfall tax. That is completely disngenuous pandering to the economically illiterate.
I’ve always felt that those receiving public assistance of any type should have their voting rights temporarily suspended until they are no longer on the dole. This would eliminate a lot of incentive to pander to them by politicians. It would also serve as a reminder to them that they exist at the discretion of the voters that are giving them their money.
[During the times of the founders only property owners voted. This was a philosophically sound position to classical liberals of the 18-19 century. It still is. Please use a valid e-mail when posting.–IM]
The fiat money issue is the elephant in the room that everyone tries to ignore. McCain admits he knows nothing about economics, yet airs ads saying he will fix all the problems (how? – no answer). Obama demonstrates he knows nothing of economics by airing blather about more checks going to the people. It doesn’t matter much who wins. The system is heading towards a mathematical meltdown, and the panic lending to the banks themselves demonstrates it. All efforts now are being put towards dribbling the bad news out so as not to cause panic. And there is plenty more bad news coming. The only question is whether I will have to flee this country in order to make a living.
–John–
“I’ve always felt that those receiving public assistance of any type should have their voting rights temporarily suspended until they are no longer on the dole.” ANIDEA
Anidea,
I used to think this too. But by this logic everyone who benefits from fractional reserve banking, for instance, should be disenfranchised.
For instance, if one borrows money from a bank, he increases the money supply by the amount of his loan. Thus, he is stealing by inflation with government approval. The analogy is borrowing from a counterfeiter. But if he doesn’t borrow, how will he accumulate enough money by saving given artificially low interest rates?
Many of the poor, most of them, I would hazard, would not be poor if we had had an honest banking system since 1913.
We are in a diabolical system where most are either victims of or victimizers by the government-backed banking cartel.
And for your general amusement, the Democrats, along with a few equally clueless Republicans, wanted to raise taxes on the oil companies as a way of helping us with soaring energy costs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/business/11congweb.html?hp
The fact that this would increase energy costs makes no difference for the majority of Senators. Cluelessness is a disease.
Can anyone think of how the country benefited from Jorge, Destroyer of Economies, huge increase in federal spending? Iraq only makes up one third of the increase and I can’t see any benefit to the rest of that money. Roads aren’t better, poverty isn’t down, unemployment grows worse and the military is suffering from equipment shortages. So someone, anyone, tell me where the money went and how did we benefit? And to top it off Barry wants to raise taxes for more of the same.
On Anidea’s comment – it would be quite interesting if public employees, federal and state contractors, welfare recipients, student loan recipients, Social Security/Medicare recipients, etc…. were disenfranchised. Only a few people would get to vote but it would likely be an improvement. Which just shows an example of Pogo’s Maxim “We have met the enemy and it is US.”
Concerning John Danforth’s comments: what I am not certain of is whether all the BAD (e.g. funny) money/debt floating around will lead to a gradual leaking of the air from our tires or a catastrophic collapse. Neither is worth looking forward to but the $ 3 Terabuck
Liberation-of-Iraq, the 2% Fed loans to prop up the bank-mortgage-housing bubble, the Social-ist inSecurity / Medicare promissory state – will come back to haunt us. I do note that the real inflation is not the 3% “cost of living” CPI and so this constitutes a silent tax and budget cut on people behind their backs.
[I’ve recommended that only those who pay taxes, not consume them, be granted political rights. Maybe someone better adept at a search can find that citation for me.—IM]
Today, democracy is seen as a sort of prime virtue against which all other political values can be measured and compared. When you say “democracy”, what people have in mind is another word that means “good government” instead of “public ownership of the means of government operation (which inevitably leads to public ownership of the means of production)”.
Speaking of spending all that money at home, would 9 trillion dollars be sufficient reperation for slavery?
“On Anidea’s comment – it would be quite interesting if public employees, federal and state contractors, welfare recipients, student loan recipients, Social Security/Medicare recipients, etc…. were disenfranchised. Only a few people would get to vote but it would likely be an improvement.”
If this policy was implemented a while ago we wouldn’t have so many people on the dole. I would argue that disenfranchisement would not be as widespread as it would be today. Yet, such a policy today could be helpful if for no other reason that it would give taxpayers more say in how their money is spent. As our society moves towards more takers than producers the problem of pandering for handouts is just going to accelerate.
Regarding ANIDEA’s 2nd comment – keep in mind that the “people on the dole” who INFLUENCE the system are not the sterotypical welfare illiterates but rather: baseball franchise owners, agribusiness executives, admirals, Lockheed-Martin “program managers”, DEA agents, university presidents, …. – mostly hardworking parasites living off the taxpayers (and paying some taxes back themselves) – who will expand their business (or government agency) by influencing their friends in Congress/White_House to pass more laws / appropriations / regulations on their behalf. {I hope you are not under some right-wing illusion that welfare mothers control this country}.
The metro area I work in – Washington DC – is the holy Mecca of parasitism – with the lower class parasites in the “ghettos” and the upper class parasites in their McMansions – most of it courtesy of “our” government {which, regrettably, includes myself}.