Posted on 09/11/2012 9:33:30 AM PDT by Kartographer
Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh on Monday said that a second term for President Barack Obama would lead to the collapse of the the U.S economy.
“We’re spending a trillion dollars we don’t have on welfare. It’s not that we’re taxing producers and redistributing the money. We’re borrowing it; we’re printing it. We don’t have it! Over a trillion dollars a year,” Limbaugh said.
“There’s been $5.5 trillion added to the national debt in 3-1/2 years by this president. There just isn’t the money for this. At some point (and it’s sooner rather than later) there will be a collapse,” he added.
And in regards to the amount added to the national debt: he’s not exaggerating. That’s the actual amount that has been added since 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Obama would probably cut military faster than Romney, but there should be room to cut if the wars end. Remember Bush was keeping the war costs separate for that reason.
Limbaugh has Obama pegged well before the 2008 election, and in the post-2008 inauguration period, he was the only one to say it...he knew what Obama’s goals are and called him on it.
On the birth certificate issue...everyone has run from it, even our most outspoken advocates. Pretty much not going to matter much between now and November 6.
could be... I’m thinking the collapse will come 2016...2 years after this Zerocare kicks in. If he wins, this Zerocare is here to stay, and that’s the ballgame folks. There is NO way this Zerocare can be paid for... no way.
The student loans are a nothing but a hair on a flea compared to the entire dog of a mess Hussein has put us in.
I don’t see how we can avoid a collapse, but when the SHTF, a lot will depend on who controls the military and who controls the local police.
Credit is the new money. The US is a Creditalist country, no longer Capitalistic.
I want to agree with you but I am reminded that there are still 3 dozen or so czars out there just waiting to take the reins of power after the collapse. To perfect the progressive revolution they will need to be in office.
Here’s a lot of detail on the economic plan:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/energy
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/spending
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/regulation
But Whether Obama gets re-elected or not won't have much of an effect. What it WILL have an effect on is how we as a nation go about fixing the mess. Obama and the DIMWHITcrats will use it to institute draconian Socialist regulations and programs. If the Republicans win they'll do the same thing but claim its a Conservative thing to do in this hour of need.
That’s about as safe a prediction as “the Houston Astros are gonna lose 130 games in the American League next season”.
There's a lot of money on the sidelines out there, but too much uncertainty regarding who we are going to be as a nation. In the past, investors would wait a bit to see about things like capital gains rates etc. Now, they are actually waiting to see who we are going to be as a nation. If reassured that we are going to continue to be a capitalist nation based on individual creativity and effort, they will be all in rather quickly, and this can turn around fairly quickly.
On the other hand, if they feel we are going to continue down the path toward societal homogenization, with ‘winners’ only in politics, sports, and the entertainment industry, and the rest of us one big indistinguishable mass of ‘fairness’, they will figure out something else to do with their money, and their efforts - and essentially try to find a way to ‘go Gault’.
Hopefully, none of this will come to pass, because the ill-informed ideologue in chief will be handily defeated and be essentially humiliated - which he deserves for the hate that he spews. Incidentally, there is no more dangerous and deep hatred than that which is held for a lifetime and that is externally restrained. That is what is at the core of someone who thinks that all injustice in the nation and the world is embodied by a specific group of people (successful non-minority Americans). Sadly, many of us thought we were past identity politics and ideology, me included.
Just because the Cold War is over doesn't mean the communists gave up. Their mantra was "Burn, baby burn" and what better way to achieve that than a total worldwide economic collapse?
Straight up payback for Schumer's IndyMac 'letter'.
What the communists really want is for America, Europe and Japan to collapse together under the crushing load of debt. Economies come to a halt, nobody is able to pay rent or mortgages and the governments step in and nationalize housing.
The energy plan is moving in the right direction, but I'd like to see it more aggressive. A two year approval process for a new reactor at an existing approved site still seems ridiculous. At that rate, Mitt might be approving some new reactors before his first term is up, but nothing will be built.
His trade plan is still weak. It's focused on opening new markets and reducing trade barriers. When that's the problem. We've lowered our trade barriers so far that countries with excess and very cheap labor like China simply take our jobs.
We had import tariffs from the start of our country until the 1980's free trade mania that served us well. Now we've export an amazing amount of jobs and imported cheap labor to boot.
Mitt doesn't talk at all about protecting our market.
Mitt does at least acknowledge China is abusing the relationship, but it's clear Mitt just wants China to play by the rules. He still wants a completely open trading relationship with China. And that's not wise when we have unemployment. We need to protect our market until our own people are gainfully employed. Then we can consider how best to use cheap labor abroad.
Mitt isn't going to roll back much of health reform. After all he authored Romneycare. At best, I expect him to change the mandate from a tax penalty to a tax credit with an associated increase in general taxes to cover it. That'll make it more palatable, because we are used to tax credits, but in effect, it will be exactly the same.
He may make ObamaRomneycare a voluntary state program rather than a federal program, but he will offer federal purse strings large enough that no state can refuse them. So again, it's mostly semantics. The cost isn't going to improve. And he's still got to pay for the Bush drug program. So I'm not seeing economic gains from healthcare.
Romney is not going to be able to cut enough regulations to make a difference. And most of them are automated now anyway. And even if he could eliminate all regulations, it wouldn't make a difference in the outsourcing. Companies like to complain about taxes and regulations but cheap labor is why they are outsourcing, not taxes and regulations.
And while I certainly agree that cutting government spending is necessary and will help long term. If it's done short term before the structural issues of trade and energy are addressed, it may send us over the cliff faster.
The energy plan is moving in the right direction, but I'd like to see it more aggressive. A two year approval process for a new reactor at an existing approved site still seems ridiculous. At that rate, Mitt might be approving some new reactors before his first term is up, but nothing will be built.
His trade plan is still weak. It's focused on opening new markets and reducing trade barriers. When that's the problem. We've lowered our trade barriers so far that countries with excess and very cheap labor like China simply take our jobs.
We had import tariffs from the start of our country until the 1980's free trade mania that served us well. Now we've export an amazing amount of jobs and imported cheap labor to boot.
Mitt doesn't talk at all about protecting our market.
Mitt does at least acknowledge China is abusing the relationship, but it's clear Mitt just wants China to play by the rules. He still wants a completely open trading relationship with China. And that's not wise when we have unemployment. We need to protect our market until our own people are gainfully employed. Then we can consider how best to use cheap labor abroad.
Mitt isn't going to roll back much of health reform. After all he authored Romneycare. At best, I expect him to change the mandate from a tax penalty to a tax credit with an associated increase in general taxes to cover it. That'll make it more palatable, because we are used to tax credits, but in effect, it will be exactly the same.
He may make ObamaRomneycare a voluntary state program rather than a federal program, but he will offer federal purse strings large enough that no state can refuse them. So again, it's mostly semantics. The cost isn't going to improve. And he's still got to pay for the Bush drug program. So I'm not seeing economic gains from healthcare.
Romney is not going to be able to cut enough regulations to make a difference. And most of them are automated now anyway. And even if he could eliminate all regulations, it wouldn't make a difference in the outsourcing. Companies like to complain about taxes and regulations but cheap labor is why they are outsourcing, not taxes and regulations.
And while I certainly agree that cutting government spending is necessary and will help long term. If it's done short term before the structural issues of trade and energy are addressed, it may send us over the cliff faster.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts
"The Revolution Was" portrays FDR's New Deal as "a 'revolution within the form' that undermined the American republic". It was one of many essays by New Deal critic Garet Garrett (February 19, 1878 – November 6, 1954), born Edward Peter Garrett.
No crisis goes to waste?
"The scientific study of revolution included of course analysis of opportunity. First and always the master of revolutionary technic is an opportunist. He must know opportunity when he sees it in the becoming; he must know how to stalk it, how to let it ripen, how to adapt his means to the realities. The basic ingredients of opportunity are few; nearly always it is how they are mixed that matters. But the one indispensable ingredient is economic distress, and if there is enough of that the mixture will take care of itself.
"The Great Depression as it developed here was such an opportunity [that was not wasted] as might have been made to order. The economic distress was relative, which is to say that at the worst of it living in this country was better than living almost anywhere else in the world. The pain, nevertheless, was very acute; and much worse than any actual hurt was a nameless fear, a kind of active despair, that assumed the proportions of a national psychosis."
. . .
"This revolutionary elite was nothing you could define as a party. It had no name, no habitat, no rigid line. [There was a Communist Party but it was too obvious, too crude.] Nobody could say that about the elite above . . . What it represented was a quantity of bitter intellectual radicalism infiltrated from the top downward as a doctorhood of professors, writers, critics, analysts, advisers, administators, directors of research, and so on — a prepared revolutionary intelligence in spectacles . . . there was a shibboleth that united them all: "Capitalism is finished." [and one idea] the idea of a transfer of power. For that a united front; after that, anything. And the wine of communion was a passion to play upon history with a scientific revolutionary technic.
. . .
"[The aims of the recovery from the Great Depression could be considered two sides of a coin] One side only would represent the revolutionary intention. The other side in each case would represent Recovery — and that was the side the New Deal constantly held up to view. Nearly everything it did was in the name of Recovery. But in no case was it true that for the ends of economic recovery alone one solution or one course and one only was feasible. In each case there was an alternative and therefore a choice to make."
This revolutionary elite has no name, no habitat, no rigid line just a bitter intellectual radicalism infiltrated from the top downward as a doctorhood of professors, writers, critics, analysts, advisers, administators, directors of research, and so on — a prepared revolutionary intelligence in spectacles.. hey! that sounds like..
Richard Carlson: . . . a zombie has no will of his own. You see them some times, walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.
Bob Hope: You mean, like Democrats?
"Ghost Breakers" (1940)
Brass and lead, brass and lead.
I fear myself ending up “retiring” in a soviet styled dormitory, and I would probably be one of the “lucky ones”.
There’s no need for a government that has Tax Revenue in the trillions to borrow one cent.
There simply is no NEED for the government to borrow in today’s economic situation.
Every Federal borrowing (let’s refer to them here as bonds) represents one thing: a claim on Tax Revenue.
The government only has a few months spending in Cash on Hand. It simply does not have piles of cash. It borrows like a person who buys food and gasoline with a credit card, then pays the minimum payment - it lives hand to mouth.
Who wants the Treasury to issue bonds - our representative goverment - most members of Congress.
They - being the ones who authorize the government to spend - are the gatekeepers to trillions of taxpayer dollars.
The largest American publicly-held corporations, as well as all sorts of foreign entities, and American populist special interest groups, fall all over themselves getting members of Congress to pass laws that open the Federal money spigot and point it in their general direction.
The government is almost entirely corrupted in this way.
Collapse ? Well, a three-way fight will ensue between the largest holders of Treasury bonds, the taxpayers and the recipients of government largesse. The holders of government debt wind up taking some writedowns on the debt they own, because new buyers of government debt are always needed to provide cash, and eventually they will stipulate such terms, realizing that there will come a point where the cash they pay for new bonds can’t even pay the interest on bonds outstanding. The buyers of new issues of bonds don’t want to put their hard-earned cash into a debt ponzi.
Government politicians and many people today do not understand the bare bones, ultra-simple fundamentals of life, because they’ve listened to so much communist propaganda claptrap in school and in the media for so many decades. People and businesses, i.e., the entire private sector, only has money that they Earned. That’s the only real way to acquire money - earn it. Cash that is borrowed comes with the requirement to pay it back - it has not been earned.
This is where the idea of redistribution goes awry: the only way Johnny taxpayer gets money is by earning it. And then redistributionists want Johnny to simply give money to others for nothing in exchange - the recipients will not have “earned” the money. Instead, they will be rewarded with money for doing nothing.
We see this playing out in Europe now. Politicians in a delusional state of mind, not wanting to admit that they have spent too far out in front of Tax Revenue to be able to avoid default. It’s like borrowing from your local loan shark. The way the deal works is that he makes sure that between how much you borrow, what interest he charges, and how small your weekly payment is relative to what you owe, that you will be indebted to him for your whole life. With a nation of taxpayers, however, there is no escape of death, for there are other taxpayers who follow those who die.
Now, as long as the corrupt government “spending” continues, the government will simply print new bonds, say they’re issued and someone like a large bank or central bank has “bought” them, accept cash from the buyer, and instead of paying down existing debt - the government pays only interest and spends the rest !
Government bonds are NOT an investment in the true sense of the word, since the money is not invested in a business venture which will pay back the bonds. The money is spent by government; it’s an expense outlay for the costs of running a government, not a capital investment.
A capital investment requires that the asset purchased can be used to generate a future cash flow.
The payback of government bonds does not come from a government business venture, it comes from Taxation.
If a majority of members of Congress could only decide to stop buying votes with populist spending, and to stop their constant and damaging market interventions, and eliminate all but the essentials, the government would have hundreds of billions every year surplus which could be used to retire debt permanently.
The government would never have to borrow again except possibly in times of war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.