For the record, President Obama's budget projected a deficit of $1.6 trillion for this year, after a deficit of $1.4 trillion last year, while the deficit in Bush's last year totaled $459 billion. If President Obama didn't want his soaring, record shattering deficits, he should not have increased federal spending by 25%, and federal welfare spending by one-third, in just his first two years in office.
The Republicans Never Spent Like This
The last budget adopted by a Republican-controlled Congress provided for a deficit of $161 billion in fiscal 2007. President Obama's budget for this year provided for a deficit ten times as large at $1.6 trillion. That is why Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) accurately told Obama earlier this year, "The annual deficits under the Republicans became the monthly deficits under the Democrats."
Deregulation is not to Blame
Overregulation contributed to the crisis by bludgeoning banking institutions into making bad mortgage loans, granting monopoly powers to rating agencies that labeled ultimately toxic subprime mortgage securities as AAA investments, and then forcing financial institutions to write the value of those securities down to almost nothing under "mark to market" regulations.I love this "green" zinger...
But the economics of President Obama's prosperity through "clean" energy plan is even more transparently nuts than the science. [...] First, the government provides enormous subsidies, just more bailouts actually, for businesses to pursue inherently unreliable and unworkable "alternative" energy sources such as wind and solar, the energy that powered the Roman Empire.All Energy Subsidies are not Created Equal
The U.S. Department of Energy reports that government energy subsidies amount to $0.25 per megawatt for oil and gas, $0.44 per megawatt for coal, $1.59 for nuclear, $23.37 for wind and $24.34 for solar. (Oil is actually not subsidized at all, but disfavored by punitive taxes.) And that was before President Obama's "investments" adding up to an additional $80 billion per year in federal "alternative energy" subsidies.Ferrara closes by observing how President Obama disparages the pro-liberty idea of an "Ownership Society," and instead embraces government dependency for all.
We should not be surprised that a red diaper baby disparages ownership and property rights, a view central to socialist philosophy all the way back to Marx.
7 comments:
Good article
Remember when we (us Republicans in Fly Over Country, you know, the Great Unwashed) thought that the Bush Administration was spending money like drunken sailors?
$161 Billion deficit, and we thought drunken sailors were running the White House in 2007. I remember thinking that as well; what the heck is this guy (MY guy!!??) doing!!
Obama and his $1.6 TRILLION deficit, in addition to his $1.4 TRILLION deficit last year makes those drunken sots of GOP sailors in 2007 look like stone, sober miserly judges.
This guy is killing us. Absolutely killing us. Literally. He's gotta go.
Now
There's a perfect pic out there for this article that's been around for a while. I've used it :)
He is the Pied Piper of the loons and the spending this group has created no one can afford nor pay off. Especially the people he's giving it all to. :(
Did you see the announcement by Gates regarding cutting defense spending, closing Joint Forces Command, and cutting DoD contracts by 30% over the next three years?
"There are no sacred cows", Gates said.
Unless you're a windmill manufacturer, photographing ants in the southwest Indian Ocean, or getting monkeys high.
Want to balance the federal budget? Try adhering to the 10th Amendment.
Ferrara is spot on; so too is Finntann. The idea of spending us into prosperity causes me to think such terms as Looney Left are justified. Everyone wants to talk about taxes: increasing them, cutting them … padding expense accounts with the proceeds, or giving spouse $100K (Pelosi) or $13 Million (Waters), but NO ONE wants to talk about spending cuts. Now I grant you that any time you get into a debate about spending cuts, it gets emotional really fast. I have no problem if Gates cuts spending in some areas in order to increase allocations to another. When I served on active duty, we had to prioritize our budget requests and spending allocations; we had to determine what was most urgent, and make a linear progression down to least important. When the budget was approved, we already knew where the annual disbursements were going. Why isn’t every department and agency of the government required to do that? Once THEY decide what is least important, guess what?
Our spending is limited by our income and credit ceilings. So too should government spending and credit be limited to its anticipated revenues. When congress goes over that limit, then we take the Speaker of the House to court for violating federal law. This is the only way we can manage spending and taxes. Everyone understands that emergency spending may be required from time to time … it should be the exception, not the rule. Right now, people are leaving high tax states (MA, NJ, CA) … and for good reason. Citizens are a resource for revenues —but there simply is no such thing as an unlimited resource. Our government, bastards to the last man, has never figured this out. I was hoping the first bitch would choke on her taco croissant while vacationing in Spain.
Ferrara is at his best here. I hope it becomes wildly viral
> the energy that powered the Roman Empire.
Hey, all that the "progressives" want us to do is to discard many centuries of technological progress!
It's possible that they know that those energy schemes are just energy scams, but they want us to be just a primitive as the third-world garbage holes that they love so much.
Post a Comment