G.H.E.Y. IN. H.D.

"God Hates Euroranger, Yes INdeed He Does"

  • February 2018
    S M T W T F S
    « Feb    
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728  
  • Advertisements

Posts Tagged ‘deficit’

No Cure For Stupid

Posted by Euroranger on November 12, 2012


As I mentioned last week, I wanted to take a few days to digest the recent election activity and then comment on it.  I’ll spare you all from a rant and tirade about how the election turned out, who did underhanded what to whom and so on and so forth.  You can find those a dime a dozen on the intarwebz and I strive to deliver a somewhat fresh (or at least different perspective) on not so much what happened but what it will mean to our country.  To that end, after a week of somewhat erratic contemplation, I have come to two conclusive opinions:

Franklin et al

These guys actively modeled our country on the Roman Republic. They even knew that one day, we’d screw it up just like Rome managed to.

1./ The decline of the American Republic is at hand – Well, THAT sounds all doom and gloomy, doesn’t it?  Exactly the kind of bombast you’d expect from some dyed in the wool, hard core conservative, right?  Well, my assertion is based on history and not partisan politics.  I don’t really care who won the election…what I care about is who was elected, what those people have demonstrated over the past several years and what it means to America’s future.  What I’m talking about, of course, is our national debt.  Currently, the national debt stands at (get this) $16,260,696,626,397.55.  I kid you not.  I got that figure from here.  Said in plain English that’s “sixteen trillion, two hundred sixty billion, six hundred ninety six million, six hundred twenty six thousand, three hundred ninety seven dollars and fifty five cents”.  However, by the time you read that number out loud it was already obsolete by nine million additional dollars or so.  Yep, we here in the United States pile up debt by the assload like nobody else.  Anyway, everyone knows (or thinks they do) that the debt is one big ass number, right?  Well, it is and most people think it’s always been this big.  But the word “big” in this context has dramatically changed over the past 5 years.  This year, we’ll add another $1.5T or so in new debt.  Prior to President Obama taking over though, our deficits were more in the neighborhood of 200 to 400 billion per year.  Truly bad numbers back then to be sure…but those numbers are less than 1/3 of what we’re doing these days.  Go back even further to the last time Congress claimed to get serious about controlling the debt and budget deficits and you see deficits of less than $200B per year.  Just so we’re clear: days where we ran deficits around $200B = shit’s serious enough to enact legislation to try and control Congress spending like a drunk sailor on shore leave.  Days where our deficits are more than 6 times that much = meh, who cares (aka: “today”).

Since you’ve read this far, you’re probably wondering: how does this equal the decline of the American Republic?  It’s not complicated but it does require understanding how the process for funding our debt works and accepting that history has a tendency to repeat itself.  Our debt is funded by our treasury issuing something called “T-bills” or treasury bills.  The government makes such bills available for purchase and buyers of those bills receive a guaranteed modest amount of interest on their investment.  That means that for every dollar the government borrows, it ends up paying like $1.10 or so which is the original debt plus the t-bill’s interest.  Governments, private firms, banks and individual investors buy t-bills because their return is guaranteed.  However, “guaranteed” is the sticky point here.  Every country issues debt bonds (t-bills) to fund their debts, public works projects, etc.  Every entity that issues such a debt bond receives a debt rating from several international ratings agencies.  This is basically nothing more than an assessment of the risk of that issuing country making good on their guarantee to repay.  For countries that’s called their “credit rating”.  On August 5 of 2011, for the first time in the history of our country, our credit rating was reduced by first one then all the major rating agencies from AAA (outstanding) to AA+ (excellent).  The reason this happened was explained as two main reasons: our debt to revenue ratio and our political gridlock (Dems and Repubs not playing nice together).  In short, what the international ratings agencies said to investors worldwide was “while we still like America as an investment, they’re not as solid as they used to be and they don’t appear to have a plan to improve the situation”.

What does this have to do with the American Republic?  Just this: we just re-elected both a president and a Congress who, collectively, have added somewhere north of SIX TRILLION DOLLARS IN NEW DEBT IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS.  Re-elected.  That means, that despite the fact that we all supposedly knew how bad the debt was, we still returned the same buffoons who have proved they can’t and won’t control their spending.  Alright, you might say, but still…what does that have to do with the health of the Republic?  Just this: the only real parallel we have to historically compare ourselves with is the Roman Republic that disappeared in 27 B.C. when the Roman Senate granted exceptional ruling powers to one man (Octavian) who proclaimed himself Augustus and became, in essence, a Roman emperor.  To understand why this happened and why it’s a parallel to our situation you only need to know the the Roman Republic was experiencing many of the same types of pressures we are today:

– rapid expansion from a small entity to a large, world spanning nation (the United States only really became the world spanning nation in 1945 after the end of WW2)

– both nations maintained large, well funded armies (Rome because they were conquering the world, ours because we can no longer allow Europe the luxury of fighting amongst themselves every other generation now that we have atomic weapons) that placed a drain on the nation’s finances

– both nations polarized into conservative and popular (liberal) factions where the former derived power from the elite class while the latter looked to the lower classes for support, dividing the people and classes into what seemed like warring factions

– both experienced eras of huge social upheaval.  For Rome it was the importation of millions of slaves who took over the menial work of nearly everyone while in the United States we preside over the continual destruction of the traditional family while redefining both societal and gender roles for men, women, adults and children

With society changing at such a rapid pace, the demands of the nations required more and more revenue.  Rome acquired theirs via conquest and higher taxes.  Already in the United States, the call has begun for higher taxes to support lavish social entitlement spending.  In Rome’s case, taxes then were sold as “patriotic” and many people paid them gladly.  However, they eventually discerned that their taxes were being misspent and wasted and many stopped paying their taxes.  In other words, Rome couldn’t fund their debts.  That coupled with the rapid remaking of society, gridlocked politics and no real reasonable solution in sight was when people started thinking that their only salvation was to turn everything over to a single person who would have absolute power.  In the United States, we already have the fiscal hole we’ve dug ourselves and the societal upheaval.  We lack only the rapid shutoff of financial solutions for our spending.  Should our debt and deficit problems remain unaddressed, the rating agencies will have no choice but to downgrade our credit rating yet again.  Do that enough times and suddenly you have a scenario where the United States can no longer find buyers for our t-bills.  If you think this is impossible, you have only to look at Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and a host of others around the world to see the lie.  There is nothing special about the United States that magically insulates us from economical reality.  If we keep on this path we will eventually be truly broke…and then rather than a dictatorship, we’ll have another revolution.  Either way, it’s the end of the American Republic…and our re-affirming election last week means we’re at least another 2 years away from even starting to address the problem responsibly.

White Obama

Don’t tell me this isn’t every Democrat strategist’s wet dream

2/ The Democratic Party may not nominate another white male for president again – There.  I’ve gone ahead and said it.  Democrat white dudes winning the nomination may never happen again.  While to some that may sound racist, I submit that a suspension of social outrage is in order while we examine the election’s demographic breakdown.  That link goes to demographic results that are, well, fairly stark in terms of demographic politics.  To put it bluntly: if you were white you voted for the Republican to the tune of nearly 60%.  White voters in this country made up 72% of all those casting votes and Obama got just 39% of you.  And yet, he won the general election by 3%.  How is that?

He won because he carried blacks by 93%, hispanics by 71% and asians by 73%.  That being the case, what does that mean?  Well, let’s look at the last times Democrats ran white men as their candidate: Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000.  Both men ran against Bush who, by all reasonable accounts, was vulnerable in both elections, yet he managed to win.  The numbers though, tell the tale:

In 2000 the non white vote was 19% of the total.  In 2004 it was 23% and in 2008 it was 27%.  In none of the elections (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012) did the Democrat candidate carry the white vote despite it making no less than 72% of all votes cast.  The Democrats lost the elections in 2000 and 2004 by close margins.  In fact, in each year except 2008, the white vote decreased for the Democrats each election.  While Al Gore carried 42% of the white vote in 2000, Obama got just 39% of the vote in 2012.

What it means is this: the Democrats know (or should know) that they cannot win the presidency by counting on the white voter.  That voter has become ever more hostile to their message over the years (albeit gradually as Clinton carried only 44% then 39%)…but the white voter is losing influence in this country to the hispanic voter bloc.  While I was aware of these numbers somewhat (I didn’t know their exact breakdowns), last week I asked myself a fairly straightforward question and didn’t like the honest answer: if Obama had been a white male running on the record of his deficits, poor employment numbers and such, would he have been re-elected?  The answer to that, I believe, is “not a chance in hell”.  I have to say, given that the minority vote in this country (especially black and hispanic) is so skewed by the race of the candidate, that the Democrats will eventually come to realize that they won’t win the presidency unless their candidate is a minority or is female (although no polling back in 2008 showed Hillary doing well should she have won the nomination).  That, to me, is a rather sobering thought.  White voters have split between Democrats and Republicans fairly reliably regardless of the ethnicity of the Democrat candidate.  Not so for blacks and hispanics.  This suggests a low level racial component when campaigning for minority votes would not only be advisable but beneficial.  It also suggests that, for a block representing more than 1/4 of American voters, issues and platforms matter less than the race of the candidate does.  In fact, if these numbers were somehow reversed and showed a race bias on the part of white voters, I shudder to contemplate the volume of the racial protests that would follow.  However, in this current era of media-sponsored political correctness, not only will there not be a protest, the very existence of these numbers won’t even be mentioned and if they are mentioned, they’ll be summarily dismissed.

Except, I expect, by the king makers in the Democratic party who are just as good with such numbers as I or any of you would be…and they look for any edge they can get in the biggest political game on the planet.  Oh, and by the way, for the time it took me to write this post, the United States added an additional $227 million dollars in debt.  Nice, huh?

My name is Euroranger and I approved this message.

Advertisements

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Please make it stop

Posted by Euroranger on February 14, 2012


Obi Wan the Wise

Also, this is not the Hope and Change you were looking for...but it can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

So, just a quick word today on something I kinda need to get off my chest.  I’ve made no secret of my dislike for Barack Obama’s presidency.  I didn’t drink the Kool-Aid like so many of my fellow Americans did 4 years ago.  I didn’t fall for all the Hope and Change slick marketing bullshit like so many did.  I didn’t go and cast a vote one way or the other based solely on the race of one of the candidates like so many did.  Barry is a product of the Chicago political machine and as Obi Wan once sagely observed, “you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.”  He also immediately followed that up with, “We must be cautious” but I guess nobody stuck around long enough to give THAT warning any real thought.  Anyway, despite my absolute misgivings over putting a complete political novice in charge of the world’s most prosperous and powerful country, for the sake of that same country, I really wished I was wrong and that he’d turn out to be at least not a complete unmitigated disaster of a president.  However, as we all know now, the only thing Barry’s managed to accomplish with his presidency, to me so far, is to make Jimmy Carter’s presidency look not quite as bad by comparison…and that’s not a good thing.  This all gets spit out here today because of the budget Obama squatted out a couple of days ago and, well, it really just pisses me off.

Why angry?  Well, let’s start with the nearly universally accepted acknowledgement that this budget will never be passed.  That’s right.  Barry knows it.  Both sides in Congress know it.  Every credible media outlet bothering to comment on it knows it.  Quite simply: it’s not a budget…it’s a campaign platform.  In other words, it’s outright lies.  The man is STILL the president of this country for almost another entire freakin’ year and something as serious to the country right now as our collective finances…and he completely abandons leadership and responsibility in favor of fucking campaigning.  Goddamn it Obama you asshole, YOU’RE ALREADY THE FUCKING PRESIDENT, START DOING THE GODDAMNED JOB!  I don’t think it’s too much to ask that this pathetic excuse for an entirely two-dimensional, manufactured, Chicago stuffed shirt grows a brain, spine or balls and does the job the idiot majority of the voters in this country elected him to do 3 years ago.  I mean, for crissake, when he won last time he won a FOUR year job.  It’s still got a year to go and he’s simply abandoning the job and diverting his attention to ask us to give him the same job for four MORE years?  How about you do the job you’re supposed to be doing now, do it well and, hey guess what?…people will re-elect you because you’re doing a good job.

Obama facepalm

"Oh shit...math. They told me there'd be no math."

But you’re not, you never intended to and this (our collective future) is just one goddamned great big game to you, isn’t it?

You said 3 years ago that you’d halve the debt.  When you were sworn in as president on Jan. 20, 2009 the debt held by the public was $6.3 trillion.  The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (your own guys!!!) estimates that the debt held by the public will be about $12.8 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2013.  Half of $6.3 trillion would be $3.15 trillion.  Gee Barry, you only missed the mark by $9.65 trillion dollars!  Thaaaaat close.  You didn’t halve the debt, YOU FREAKIN’ DOUBLED IT!!!!  How does the most powerful man in the world not know the difference between “multiply” and “divide”?

So, after last year’s wildly popular, record setting $3.73 trillion budget proposal (I have to describe it as “wildly popular” because English simply doesn’t have an adequate term to relate the concept of “what-the-hell-is-the-matter-with-you” outrage) and huge public backlash against such ridiculous economic recklessness, what does the president’s budget this year look like?  Oh, it’s merely a $3.7 trillion budget adding an additional $1.3 trillion in new debt.  Keep in mind, the entire debt up to Obama’s presidency was $6.3 trillion.  His budget last year (2012) produced a $1.327 trillion dollar deficit and this one (2013), if passed (which, to be fair doesn’t have even the theoretical snowball’s chance in hell) would add another $1.3 trillion.  The magic of his first two years?  Yeah, that was $1.267 trillion (2010) and $1.560 trillion (2011). Hoping that Barry’s adding/subtracting skills are magically better than his multiply/divide confusion, that’s $5.454 trillion in new debt…IN JUST FOUR YEARS!  It took us 230+ years to amass $6.3 trillion, Barry would stack up an additional 87% to what was there when he took office…in just his first administration.

I have to break this part out so it doesn’t get lost in all the clutter.  In each of Obama’s 3 recorded years and his now one requested year, his budgets have never produced LESS than a $1.2 trillion debt.  But since I’m about to compare him with his immediate predecessor (whom he initially blamed for all this) we need to use similar measures and for that I need to express the Obama budgets in Bush era budget terms.  Barack Obama’s budget debts:

  • 2013 – $1300 billion (proposed)
  • 2012 – $1327 billion (all the rest are actual from here down)
  • 2011 – $1560 billion
  • 2010 – $1267 billion

Bush’s last 4 budgets by contrast:

  • 2009 – $1413 billion (that’s actual…his submitted budget had just $407 billion)
  • 2008 – $455 billion
  • 2007 – $161 billion
  • 2006 – $248 billion
Deficit chart

If you're like Barry, numbers can sometimes be hard to grasp. How about a picture? Does a picture help?

Those are pretty stark numbers folks.  Look, let’s be clear here for a moment: while I don’t by any means like Barack Obama as a president, I didn’t much care for Bush either.  But the hard evidence is that in Bush’s last 4 years his TOTAL submitted budgets added less to the debt than any ONE of Barack Obama’s last three SINGLE years.  That means that 3 years of Obama budgets are worse, debt-wise, that TWELVE years of Bush’s worst.  People flat out hated Bush and thought he was dumber than a stump…but is this brains by comparison?  Really?

Finally and personally, while Barry has yet to find a program he can’t resist throwing bushels of borrowed money at, this proposed 2013 budget of his, while claiming to highlight “new manufacturing and new sources of energy and new skills and education for the American people” actually CUTS NASA’s budget…which was already just $18.7 billion for 2012 to $17.7 billion for 2013.  For crying out loud, one of the few government programs that has ever done anything to further the human condition and this jackass can’t figure out how to fund it to the tune of better than 1/2 of one freakin’ percent of the entire federal budget?  For instance, he proposes a cut for Mars exploration of $226 million or 38.5%.  Lopping nearly 40% off scientific exploration and our future as a species in space…from the asshole whose administration gave Solyndra $535 million?  This idiot shouldn’t be trusted with his own milk money much less the finances of the United States of America.

Anyway, the entire upshot of all this (get this) is the generally perceived wisdom in the media (which has got to be a bigger oxymoron than any of us realize reading that) that this budget is Barry’s campaign platform for the 2012 election.  Pause a moment and think on that.  Obama introduces a budget solely as a political move (it’s not meant to actually, you know, run the frickin’ country…it’s solely for his personal quest to get re-elected) and it’s this gawdawfully bad.  I mean, if it’s anyone with a clue, he introduces a budget that he could point at and say “I’m working hard here to get the job done”.  But no.  Not Barry.  This document is analogous to a slacker at work, in the week before his annual review, showing up at the office in his bathrobe and then proceeding to take a nap in his office.  Not hustle and get some important work done to show he’s competent and capable.  No, double down on everything he’s done wrong to that point and go all in.  Mind you, maybe Barry IS intelligent enough to know that his record to this point is so absolutely awful that nothing he can do this late will save it…so he abandons doing the job at all and goes full balls out on a smoke and mirrors (Hope and Change again anyone) marketing campaign.

You see, while I don’t much care for any of the Republican candidates, literally anyone would be better in the Oval Office than this failed Chicago community organizer.  I don’t know if we can take another 4 years of him.  I know we certainly can’t afford it.

My name is Euroranger and I approved this message.

Posted in In the news, Politics, Science, Space | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Budgeting – Three Card Monty Style

Posted by Euroranger on February 14, 2011


Stupid people

Only when dollar bills become as sharp as ninja shuriken would this picture represent some kind of progress for the country.

Quick post today on one of the things that’s most wrong with our country.  There are two types of wrong people in the world: people who do the wrong thing even though they know better and people who do the wrong thing because they didn’t know better.  This is quick example of that second kind.

Lots and lots of people have opinions about all kinds of things.  By and large, most of those people are sane, level-headed normal folk like you, and most of the time, me.  How then on issues like politics do we have such a sharp divide in the United States?  When you encounter someone who disagrees with you on what you think is a fundamentally easy issue to agree on, have you ever considered that they’re simply not just brain-numbingly stupid?  People form their opinions using two tools: the facts and their values wherein they weigh the facts and determine the facts’ importance to them in coming to an opinion.  It’s easy to understand that not everyone shares the same values.  However, it’s not too obtuse to suggest that collectively, our values in many areas are pretty much the same.  If you accept that most Americans’ values on most things are fairly similar then it’s the facts portion of the formula for deriving an opinion that might could be the culprit.

For a long time certain groups in the country have railed against the bias of mainstream media and suggest that the facts are selectively delivered (or omitted) and accompanied by a large dose of political bias on the part of the journalist.  I happen to be a very discerning reader of the news and I do see this quite often…and today provided an excellent example of that.

Case in point: the president delivered his proposed 2011-2012 budget today.  I’d like you to read the Associated Press story on this budget that I just read via my Yahoo homepage a few moments ago.  If you’d prefer to skip it, I’ve helpfully bullet noted all the actual pertinent news the article contains (and some that it doesn’t but should) afterward:

Obama unveils $3.73 trillion budget for 2012

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer Martin Crutsinger, Ap Economics Writer 2 hrs 2 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is sending Congress a $3.73 trillion spending blueprint that pledges $1.1 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade through spending cuts and tax increases.

Obama’s new budget projects that the deficit for the current year will surge to an all-time high of $1.65 trillion. That reflects a sizable tax-cut agreement reached with Republicans in December. For 2012, the administration sees the imbalance declining to $1.1 trillion, giving the country a record four straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.

Jacob Lew, Obama’s budget director, said that the president’s spending proposal was a balanced package of spending cuts and “shared sacrifice” that would bring the deficits under control. Appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Lew said that Obama’s budget would “stand the test that we live within our means and we invest in the future.”

Senior administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the formal release of the budget, said that Obama would achieve two-thirds of his projected $1.1 trillion in deficit savings through spending cuts including a five-year freeze on many domestic programs.

The other one-third of the savings would come from tax increases, including limiting tax deductions for high income taxpayers, a proposal Obama put forward last year only to have it rejected in Congress.

The Obama budget recommendation, which is certain to be changed by Congress, would spend $3.73 trillion in the 2012 budget year, which begins Oct. 1, a reduction of 2.4 percent from what Obama projects will be spent in the current budget year.

The Obama plan would fall far short of the $4 trillion in deficit cuts recommended in a December report by his blue-ribbon deficit commission. That panel said that real progress on the deficit cannot be made without tackling the government’s big three entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — and defense spending.

Obama concentrated his cuts in the one-tenth of the budget that covers most domestic agencies, projecting $400 billion in savings from a five-year freeze in this area. Some programs would not just see spending frozen at 2010 spending levels but would be targeted for sizable cuts.

Republicans, who took control of the House in the November elections and picked up seats in the Senate in part because of voter anger over the soaring deficits, called Obama’s efforts too timid. They want spending frozen at 2008 levels before efforts to fight a deep recession boosted spending in the past two years.

They are scheduled to begin debating on Tuesday a proposal that would trim spending by $61 billion for the seven months left in the current budget year, which ends Sept. 30. They also have vowed to push for tougher cuts in 2012 and future years.

“Americans don’t want a spending freeze at unsustainable levels,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. “They want cuts, dramatic cuts.”

The president’s projected $1.65 trillion deficit for the current year would be the highest dollar amount ever, surpassing the $1.41 trillion deficit hit in 2009. It would also represent 10.8 percent of the total economy, the highest level since the deficit stood at 21.5 percent of gross domestic product in 1945, reflecting heavy borrowing to fight World War II.

The president’s 2012 budget projects that the deficits will total $7.21 trillion over the next decade with the imbalances never falling lower below $607 billion, a figure that would still exceed the previous deficit record before Obama took office of $458.6 billion in 2008, President George W. Bush’s last year in office.

Administration officials project that the deficits will be trimmed to 3.2 percent of GDP by 2015 — one-third of the projected 2011 imbalance and a level they said was sustainable.

While cutting many programs, the new budget does propose spending increases in selected areas of education, biomedical research, energy efficiency, high-speed rail and other areas Obama judged to be important to the country’s future competitiveness in a global economy.

In the energy area, the budget would support Obama’s goal of putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015 and doubling the nation’s share of electricity from clean energy sources by 2035.

The budget proposes program terminations or spending reductions for more than 200 programs at an estimated savings of $33 billion in 2012. Programs targeted for large cuts included Community Development Block Grants, trimmed by $300 million, while a program that helps pay heating bills for low-income families would be cut in half for a savings of $2.5 billion while a program supporting environmental restoration of the Great Lakes would be reduced by one-fourth for $125 million in savings.

The biggest tax hike would come from a proposal to trim the deductions the wealthiest Americans can claim for charitable contributions, mortgage interest and state and local tax payments. The administration proposed this tax hike last year but it was a nonstarter in Congress.

Obama’s budget would also raise $46 billion over 10 years by eliminating various tax breaks to oil, gas and coal companies.

While Obama’s budget avoided painful choices in entitlement programs, it did call for $78 billion in reductions to Pentagon spending over the next decade by trimming what it views as unnecessary weapons programs such as the C-17 aircraft, the alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the Marine expeditionary vehicle.

Administration officials said that the savings from limiting tax deductions for high income taxpayers would be used to pay for keeping the Alternative Minimum Tax from hitting more middle-class families over the next two years.

Another $62 billion in savings would be devoted to paying to prevent cuts in payments to doctors in the Medicare program over the next two years. Congress has for several years blocked the cuts from taking effect.

The budget will propose $1 billion in cuts in grants for large airports, almost $1 billion in reduced support to states for water treatment plants and other infrastructure programs and savings from consolidating public health programs run by the Centers for Disease Control and various U.S. Forest Service programs.

The administration will also propose saving $100 billion from Pell Grants and other higher education programs over a decade through belt-tightening with the savings used to keep the maximum college financial aid award at $5,550, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the budget’s Monday release.

The surge in deficits reflect the deep 2007-2009 recession, the worst since the Great Depression, which cut into government tax revenues as millions were thrown out of work and prompted massive government spending to jump-start economic growth and stabilize the banking system.

Republicans point to still-elevated unemployment levels and charge the stimulus programs were a failure. The administration contends the spending was needed to keep the country from falling into an even deeper slump.

I know that’s a long article but what did you glean from all that?  Did you know that the tone of the article is set within the first sentence and paragraph and that most people will reiterate the general message of those words as though that was the facts the article delivered?  It’s true and it’s manipulation at it’s worst in this case.  Let’s re-read that first bit again:

President Barack Obama is sending Congress a $3.73 trillion spending blueprint that pledges $1.1 trillion in deficit savings over the next decade through spending cuts and tax increases.

Stupid people

How's all that "Hope and Change" bullshit feel now? Were you really that gullible? Next election, could you make an effort to remember that your own judgement isn't to be trusted? Thanks! Sincerely, the rest of the U.S.A.

Reading that, one might think that the president delivered a budget aimed at fighting the federal deficit and finally getting the message that we cannot afford to be spending borrowed money like it’s going out of style.  However, if you carefully read the article again a second time you will be exposed to these facts…although perhaps not truly appreciate their import in face of the article’s initial claim of “deficit savings”.  Some of those facts are:

  • He’s introducing a $3.73 trillion budget.  Know what the budget was last year?  The year voters supposedly got fed up with big government spending?  The election wherein Obama claimed “he gets it” and heard the will of the American people?  It was $3.456 trillion.  That’s right…Obama saying he gets it means we add another 7.9% to the friggin’ already bloated budget.  Remember now…the nice writers at AP told us this budget will result in “$1.1 trillion in deficit savings”.  How the hell is that?  IT’S A BIGGER BUDGET IN A YEAR WHEN TAX REVENUES ARE DOWN!  Increasing the spending when you’re not increasing what you bring in is called a deficit!
  • In fact, despite AP’s initial claim that the budget somehow (presumably through the use of magic) will result in $1.1 trillion in deficit savings, they do go on to admit “that the deficit for the current year will surge to an all-time high of $1.65 trillion“.  However, they manage to explain that away with the next line: “That reflects a sizable tax-cut agreement reached with Republicans in December”.  In case you’re keeping track at home: largest budget ever in history introduced, largest deficit in American history proposed, it’s all the Republicans’ fault for not letting the federal government tax us even harder.  Of course by “us” I mean those nasty rich people…so not really us.  It’s okay to be discriminatory as long as it’s on the basis of the rewards of success, regardless of how you manage to succeed.  American dream indeed.
  • This one needs to be quoted in its entirety because to chop it up would allow all the comedic gold to escape: “Jacob Lew, Obama’s budget director, said that the president’s spending proposal was a balanced package of spending cuts and “shared sacrifice” that would bring the deficits under control.”  Note to Jacob Lew: “balanced” doesn’t actually mean what you and Barry apparently think it means…not when “balanced” to you guys means a $1.1 trillion difference between what we take in and what we spend.  How the hell does anyone not currently suffering from a seeping head wound believe that a $1.1 trillion shortfall means bringing such shortfalls under control?!?!

The rest of the article contains the usual left leaning blame laying for and obfuscation of Obama’s horrifically outrageous budget and the fact that he obviously DIDN’T get it this past November.  The writers even quote the blue ribbon deficit commission that recommended somebody someday having to address the big three budget killers: “that panel said that real progress on the deficit cannot be made without tackling the government’s big three entitlement programs — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security“…but then simply couldn’t resist tossing in their entirely personally opinion based 4th item “and defense spending“.  It’s almost as if by quoting a legitimate study’s findings that mentions THREE programs that they believe nobody that reads their tripe will notice that FOUR quoted items isn’t THREE…but they might come away with the mistaken impression that the deficit panel included defense spending as one of the Big Three.  Hey, it’s just news…what’s a little political opinion, right?  Not like news should be objective and unbiased, right?

Look, I’m piling on Barry because it’s his budget.  I didn’t vote for the fraud but I am an American and I hate to see the future of our nation sold down the river by any president regardless of party affiliation…and this one is doing just that.  We don’t need MORE spending.  We need LESS.  Do you expect to get a 7.9% raise in your paycheck next year?  Well, if you didn’t what the hell are you doing?  Barry believes the government should get one…or at least will spend like they will (hint: they won’t).  You would think that this complete failure as a president would take a lesson from what’s happened in Tunisia and Egypt lately and realize that people have a limit.  In their cases, it was dictators.  In ours (as we demonstrated around 230+ years back) it’s fiscal repression by a government who can’t seem to be concerned with what they’re doing to the people they govern.  We’ve done it once and at the rate we’re going, we’ll end up having to do it again.

What’s almost worse though is that the mechanisms we the people are supposed to use to know what’s going on (a free and unhindered press) were at some point co-opted by those who seemingly cannot deliver a news story without trying to slant it to deliver some kind of political message.  And this is the AP.  I have to tell you, Reuters is unashamedly worse.  I can hardly read a new story coming from Reuters anymore without hip waders and a healthy fresh breath before I slosh on in.  How are Americans supposed to form an educated opinion on their own when the news they receive comes pre-tainted with this crap?

My name is Euroranger and I approved this message.

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »