Obama’s policies would produce deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion for the next decade.
Remember: Just a couple of short weeks ago we were being assured of the infinite accuracy and trustworthiness of the CBO.
Stimulus package? What Stimulus Package? This was a huge $ trillion government spending scheme to put us so far into debt that Obama would have all the excuse he would need to tax us out of our brains, thus moving us way down the road to his Totalitarian goal for our country.
We're living in the Orwellian times when they call something the opposite of what it actually is:
- The "Stimulus” package grows government and depresses the economy (a REAL “stimulus package” would be a reduction of taxes instead of more government spending).
- The "Health Care" Bill will make our country sicker politically, culturally, medically, and economically.
So let’s quit playing the game of calling these things what they aren’t :
- It's the Unprecedented Government Spending and Growth Package (not "stimulus").
- It's the Weaken America Bill (not "health care" bill).
We don’t have worry because Obama’s Deathcare is gonna save us money :D
Evan Thomas [Newsweek Editor] has been sayin’ for like a year that BOTH significant tax increases AND significant budget cuts are the ONLY way that we can pull out of this death spiral ... Anyone who says otherwise is LYING !!!
Charles Krauthammer also posits that a 10% VAT might be on the way ...
No!
You mean we can’t just spend forever?
No!?
You mean we might be facing higher taxes in the future?
Say it ain’t so...
/sarc
They aren’t announcing this now without reason. Why didn’t they say such things over a year ago before the porkulis? Why not during the healthcare debate?
This is propaganda to prepare people for the VAT, and eventual tax increases. All in the name of “fiscal responsibility”.
Spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, plus defense programs and debt interest, will exceed the rest of the federal budget in 10 years if most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended. . .
How exactly is the extension or non-extension of the Bush tax cuts supposed to affect the growth of the listed programs relative to the rest of the federal budget? The relative growth of different categories of expenditure has nothing to do with tax rates. It sounds like the "non-partisan" CBO is using non-sequiturs to argue for not extending the tax cuts.
Of course, a supply-side analysis would show that letting the tax cuts lapse will decrease revenue due to the economic slow-down it will trigger (or exacerbate if the new Obama recession is upon us--let's accept their fake recovery, that way the new downturn is all Obama's not a 'double-dip' in the "Bush recession").
Can you say: “Value Added Tax”??
These people have no intention of cutting spending or limiting government in any way.
It’s going to be REALLY REALLY really unsubstainable when the rich hop on their jets out of here and burn their passports in Berne.
I like the idea of zero dollar budgeting under a balanced budget. This is as opposed to using the previous year’s budget for each program as a starting point.
You’d start with a hard figure for total budget. As in the Contract from America that limits all Federal spending to 20% of GDP.
Then you’d prioritize every item in the budget — with no amounts assigned yet.
Only after everything was prioritized would debate begin on how much each item was going to receive from appropriations.
That way, the supporters of the lower priority items would act to limit the costs of the higher priority items, for fear that there would be nothing left by the time their lower-priority items got their turn to feed at the public trough.
You’d end up with thousands of items of pork and obsolete programs at the bottom that got no funding.
Liberals and 0bama voters can't DO arithmetic. Sometimes I think they believe that mathematics was invented by the bourgeois to keep the proles down or some such insanity.