Posted on 02/16/2010 6:43:52 PM PST by kristinn
Using his strongest language to date, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) continued to sound the alarm about the dangers Barack Obama's budget policies pose to the fate of the nation in a speech given today to the New England Council in Bedford, New Hampshire.
The Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee has been speaking out in very stark terms about the effects Obama's trillion dollar deficits and out of this world spending will have on the near and long term future of the American people.
The Union Leader quoted Gregg as saying Obama's fiscal policies will lead to bankruptcy for the nation.
Gregg took aim at the President's $3.83 trillion proposed budget, which the Senator claimed would lead to economic disaster.
"We are right now, unquestionably, on a financial course which is unsustainable, which If we continue on this course, will lead our nation into some level of fiscal bankruptcy."
The AP quoted Gregg as saying Obama's policies will likely cause a "horrific event."
"The threat is that five to seven years from now we're going to have to substantively devalue the dollar, creating an inflationary event which would be a horrific event for the American people ... or alternatively, we will have to raise taxes so dramatically to catch our tail here on the spending side that we will basically crush productivity."
Gregg used slightly less alarmist language when he wrote in Investors Business Daily in June 2009 of his concerns about the ruinous debt Obama was planning for the nation.
Right now we are on a perilous and unsustainable fiscal course, which, if left unchecked, will lead to some disastrous results — devaluation of the dollar, massive inflation and a confiscatory tax rate on our children that will destroy any hope for the same economic opportunities and lifestyle that we have enjoyed.
Gregg's proposal for a bi-partisan Congressional committee on debt reduction was recently waylaid by partisan brinksmanship.
Gregg is retiring at the end of the 111th Congress after serving three terms as senator.
I won’t be able to get out before the Great Fall. Yes, when the rich start getting out of town, something wicked this way comes.
Any lawsuit instituted without proper reason invites a counter-suit that will cost you dearly.
In the link I provided there is this quote:
“Constitutional Authority”
“At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, impeachment was an established process in English law and government. The Founding Fathers incorporated the process, with modifications, into the fabric of United States government. The Constitution, however, only provides the framework-the basic who’s, why’s, and how’s. The remaining procedural intricacies reside in the internal rules of the House and Senate.”
The U. S. Code includes the LAW process for implementing the impeachment process.
All of our laws were originally based on English Laws.
Can't say as I do, because I only read the book, didn't watch the movie. And Clockwork Orange, I threw that book away, couldn't make any sense out of it. I was more into Isaac Asimov nonfiction.
Mel Tappan might be a little more germane reading, all things considered.
I think Gregg is hamstrung by the MA liberals that have flooded into NH. He is retiring, and I wouldn’t expect much from him, or most of his colleagues for that matter. People in NH may have already repudiated their state motto.
No parsy, they haven't. Not even close....as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have proved in spades. In fact, compared to the current administration, Bush and the Repubs through 2006 were miserly.
BTW, I'm way past glum...this is the worst economy I have seen in my 35 years in business, and there is no hopeful sign on the horizon.
“It is not hyperbole to call what Congress and the President are doing, treason.”
How can Democrats be treasonous? They are so brilliant, smart, intellectual and god-like.
/s/
IMHO
I’ve never heard Keyes retract his statement.....So I guess the 2004 AP Kenyan article is a fake also...Even though it is still listed in the archives......http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
For every Barney Franks you have two Phil Gramms IMHO. While the Dems are spending it poorly and running up costs with idiotic nonsense like “Crap and Played”, the GOP is busily cutting taxes while not addressing spending, or leaving the wealthy classes free to loot the heck out of America.
parsy, who used to be a Republican but repented
Yes, they cut taxes to take us out of recession, as opposed to lining their supporters pockets with billions as in Porkulus. Cutting taxes worked, porkulus didn't.
For the four years Republicans and GWB had control, the Democrats are the ones that submarined any budget cuts. Just google "George Bush budget cuts". He proposed some every year, and the Congress could not deliver because of Dems.
leaving the wealthy classes free to loot the heck out of America.
That is simply playing the class envy card. Anyone in the US under the right circumstances can become a member of the "wealthy classes".
It’s stupid and assinine to be afraid of a word.
And, its not class envy about 1% or 2% of the country controlling like 50% or more of the wealth, it's more like class terror. When the rich get too rich, bad things happen, and everybody else in a country seems to pay the price. parsy, who can't eat cake on his diet
Kackikat:
Good article. Thank you!
-Hale
Bingo - and that's been my problem with the GOP in a nutshell - they ALWAYS let the socialists set the ROE.
As I posted to Mr. Monterrosa-24, it's stupid and assinine for any of us to be afraid of a word. They'll call us that anyway, so why let it concern us?
Here's the way THAT exchange should always end (and believe me, it works...{wink, wink}...
Libidiot to Hale: "You're a Racist!!!!!!" [Eyes bulging out of head, veins standing out on neck, foaming flecking the edges of the lips...various piercings and tatoos all a-quiver with Righteous Liberal Rage].
Hale to Libidiot: "Yup...[calml, cool, collected], and YOU, sir or madam, have been a f*cking idiot for most of your worthless life, you still ARE a f*cking idiot, and you most likely will always BE a f*cking idiot, and proof that abortions don't always work. So we're even."
Stand back, watch the hilarity ensue...
Dude! You da man!
A freind of mine was checking out in some consumer electronics place, and the checker was the typical tattooed metal-detector-incompatible twenty-something. My friend leaned over and with a tone of kind concern asked “Did you know there’s a bunch of metal stuff stuck in your face?”
That same 1 to 2% pay over 60% of the taxes in this nation also.
One picture is worth:
Here is a post with the truth about Republican spending the last eight years with a few more pictures:
Bush’s tax cuts caused the majority of the deficit, but it did what was intended, getting us out of recession. At least he did the right thing by cutting taxes instead of doing a trillion dollar porkulus.
Also, Bush never had more than 18% of the budget to cut. The rest was defense, interest on the debt, and entitlements. What cuts he asked for, were mostly blocked by the Democrats, although he did get some budget cuts every year except the last two IIRC (even though the budget increased).
Yes, he did increase spending on defense, but it was badly needed. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost, but they were only about 5% of the budget annually. He also was responsible for NCLB and Medicare part D, but both have been successes. NCLB forced teachers to prove they were educating kids (that is why teachers to a person hate NCLB), and Medicare part D has come in 40% under budget. Both were campaign promises that he kept, and both were far less expensive than the Democrat’s proposals.
For the last three months of his term, he believed he had no choice but to bailout the financials with TARP. He also had to work with Pelosi to get anything passed at all. I was not happy with the authorization to bail out Wall Street, but it worked. It prevented a catastrophe. We didn’t know at the time of the $550 billion dollar run on our money markets, but the President did. FWIW, of the 700 billion authorized, there is about 250 billion outstanding, and more will be paid back if Obama allows it. Bush believed he had no choice, and I agree. I understand though, why many do not.
When you add in the challenges from Enron and the dotcom bust, 9/11, all of the natural disasters under his term (and there were a bunch of them...five hurricanes including Katrina in 2005 alone), and the war on terror, and the financial collapse, GWB and the Republicans actually were conservative in their spending, even though the debt doubled in eight years (5 Trillion).
In fact, because of GWB’s business friendly policies of holding down taxes and regulations, our GDP grew rapidly enough to keep government spending in the 18.5-20.5% of the GDP, below average for the last thirty years. If not for the real estate collapse, our budget would have been balanced in 2008...it almost made it in 2007. The debt to GDP held steady at about 60% of GDP, about the same as 1990-1996.
It is mostly the paulites that keep tagging GWB as such a huge spender, but they are wrong. They discount the fact that for six years Democrats voted as a block against everything Delay and Bush tried to do with the budget, and the incredible demands on the government in the same time period.
On the other hand, Obama’s spending (just in the budget) may exceed 35% of GDP. He may well double the debt in his first term (10 trillion). There really is no comparison between the massive spending we are seeing now, and the previous administration’s. Unfortunately, Republicans voting as a block cannot affect Obama’s budgets, as the Dems (with the help of a few RINOs) could GWB’s.
Tom Delay told conservatives that Republicans did the best they could, and it was the truth. With Obama and the Democrats having shown their true colors on spending the last three years, it is time to quit trying to paint GWB and the Republicans spending as somehow the same. It wasn’t, and it is easy to prove. A good example is conservative’s throwing Republicans under the bus for $44 billion in earmarks, about 2% of the budget in 2005. In place of them, we have Pelosi who won’t even talk about earmarks, and a porkulus bill that will spend $300 billion on exactly the same type of projects. 44 billion was not an exorbitant amount, it was just presented that way as a Democrat talking point.
Certainly spending was far higher than what libertarians would prefer, but now we need to acknowledge the realities of the Bush Administration’s fiscal policy.
This theme keeps coming up, and it only helps Obama cover the staggering amount of spending he and the Dems are doing, spending that will destroy our country.
Here are the links to back this info up.
Bush’s tax cuts caused the majority of the deficit,
Economy Pays Price For Bush Tax Cuts.
Their conclusions were totally wrong as proven by the explosion in revenue in 2005-2008, but their numbers on the revenue loss until 2004 are valid.
and entitlements
Bush never had more than 18% of the budget to cut.
although he did get some budget cuts every year except the last two
I couldn't find one link that lists them all, but most are in the google search.
he did increase spending on defense, but it was badly needed
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost, but they were only about 5% of the budget annually. (The cost was not included in the budget, but this gives a good understanding of how little was actually spent).
897,000,000,000 war cost divided by 20,359,000,000,000 budgets from 2002-2009= 4.4%
Medicare part D has come in 40% under budget.
Medicare Part D Comes In Under Budget
We didn’t know at the time of the $550 billion dollar run on our money markets,
2008 TARP bailout was prompted by fears of 5 Trillion dollar bank run
there is about 245 billion outstanding, and more will be paid back
even though the debt doubled in eight years (increase of 5 Trillion).
Notice it tripled under Reagan, and nearly doubled under Clinton.
our GDP grew rapidly enough to keep government spending in the 18.5-20.5% of the GDP,
If not for the real estate collapse, our budget would have been balanced in 2008
The debt to GDP held steady at about 60% of GDP, about the same as 1990-1996.
There really is no comparison between the massive spending we are seeing now, and the previous administration’s.
I am bumping your reply for later. What with the nut job in Austin, I will save this for when I have more time to give it the attention it deserves. Please forgive me.
parsy
Thanks for the consideration of my post. Now that the Dem's true fiscal colors have been revealed, an honest contrast between Repubs and Dems can be made.
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.