Geithner: Spending Cuts Off the Table Because We (Government) are Simply Too Important...

polifrog


The Right Scoop:

Geithner: U.S. fiscal situation ‘unsustainable’, but we can’t ‘just cut things’:

The assumption here is that government is more important than the citizen despite the fact that government is financially dependent on the citizen's productivity.

One of the largest falsehoods of our time is the notion that government productivity can drive a nation toward prosperity despite government being a dependent.

out

Political Math...

polifrog






out

Increasing Revenue Via Increasing Debt Without First Increasing Productivity...

polifrog

H/T Guarino:

I believe it is important to note the difference between an increase in productive capacity and an increase in revenue.  The additional job would serve to increase revenue by way of increased productivity.

What is the government parallel to increasing revenue by way of increasing productivity? There isn't one.  Increasing  taxes lowers productivity while having questionable revenue results.  And while  increasing revenue by way of debt is does unquestionably raise revenue, it does leave us with a diminished future.

And, of course, in the end the fellow gets his increase in revenue without first doing the hard work of increasing productivity. 

No education or home for the little girl...



out

On That Debt...

polifrog




At least some of Krugman's fans have questions or one...

So that brings us to our big question for Prof. Krugman:

Why isn't today fundamentally different from post-World War 2 in key ways that make the comforting post-WW2 analogy flawed?

Namely:

• Today there are massive consumer debts that didn't exist after World War 2
• Today there are massive European debts that didn't exist after World War 2
• Today there is massive global manufacturing over-capacity, whereas after WW2 much of the world's capacity had been destroyed (and needed to be rebuilt)
• Today, there are (fewer) massive lending programs like the Marshall Plan with which we loaned customers money with which to buy our products (Admittedly, the Fed and ECB are trying their damndest, but as you point out, they're pushing on a string).

If Prof. Krugman can explain why none of these differences matter, we'll be more persuaded that the U.S. won't be completely screwed by its huge debt load.
In the meantime, although we support the idea of a huge infrastructure spending program, we're worried.

out

Felonious Munk Debt Rant...

polifrog




My apologies for my lack of commentary and my reliance on quips and video but I am currently distracted by obligation. I will remain so through early next week.

Felonious (NSFW) Munk:






out

Budget Busting Baseline Budgeting ...

polifrog



Baseline budgeting was consummated with passage the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 in the immediate wake of the resignation of Nixon and assumes a fixed growth in the federal budget below which even budgetary growth is considered a "cut".

How does it work?

Lets say the current budget is $10 and under baseline budgeting next year's budget is assumed to be $15. But after a flurry of activity impossibly deep cuts are made in the next year's budget that brings it down from $15 to $14. Voila, budget cuts that result in an increase in the budget from $10 to $14.

Lets look at a chart of how often the debt limit has been raised since 1940:




Baseline budgeting seems to have been a mistake.

Rush:











out

David Price (NC-4) Diving beyond Debt and Morality

polifrog


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow David Price and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way through the use of situation 4.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for Bob Etheridge to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.



out

Rep Bob Etheridge (NC-2) Diving beyond Debt and Morality

polifrog


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

Bob Etheridge does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Bob Etheridge's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Bob Etheridge finds a way in situation 4.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

Bob Etheridge, a grade school economist.



out

GK Butterfield - Diving beyond Debt and Morality

polifrog


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow GK Butterfield and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

GK Butterfield does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. GK Butterfield's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet GK Butterfield finds a way.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for GK Butterfield to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

GK Butterfield, a grade school economist.



out

Brad Miller NC-13 Diving beyond Debt and Morality

polifrog


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

According to Rep. Brad Miller

It is inexcusable that in a country as prosperous as the United States, so many of our citizens are not able to afford health care...

Brad Miller does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Brad Miller's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Brad Miller finds a way.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

Brad Miller, a grade school economist.



out

Rep. Brad Miller's Frightening Debt Spending....

polifrog


I was not concerned with our national debt situation in the 80's and felt vindicated by the success the Gingrich congress had in bringing it under control in the 90's. The financial discipline was difficult to maintain, though, due to events such as 9/11. Then just as the deficit was being brought under control once again Pelosi , Reid and Brad Miller gained control of our nation's purse. They have since brought this nation to the brink financially.

• $13 trillion financial bailout
• Stimulus
• Tarp
• Auto Bailouts
• Etc.
  

Graham Summers notes three horrifying facts about the national debt, as posted at Nathan'sEconomicEdge. Simple and telling charts at the link.

#1: The US Fed is now the second largest owner of US Treasuries.

That’s right, this week we overtook Japan, leaving China as the only country with greater ownership of US Debt. And we’re printing money to buy it. Setting aside the fact that this is abject lunacy, this policy is trashing our currency which has fallen 13% since June… as in four months ago. Want an explanation for why stocks, commodities, and Gold are exploding higher? Here it is.
#2: “There are only about $550 billion of Treasuries outstanding with a remaining maturity of greater than 10 years.”

This horrifying fact comes courtesy of Morgan Stanley analyst David Greenlaw. And it confirms what I’ve been saying since the end of 2009, that the US has entered a debt spiral: a time in which fewer and fewer investors are willing to lend to us for any long period of time… at the exact same time that we must roll over trillions in old debt and issue an additional $100-150 billion in NEW debt per month in order to finance our massive deficit.

And only $550 billion of the debt we’ve got to roll over has a maturity greater than 10 years!?!?

So we’re talking about TRILLIONS of old debt coming due in the next decade. The below chart depicting the debt coming due between 2009 and 2039 comes courtesy of the US Treasury itself. In plain terms, we’ve got some much debt that needs to be rolled over that you can’t even fit it on one page and still read it.

#3: The US will Default on its Debt

… either that or experience hyperinflation. There is simply no other option. We can NEVER pay off our debts. To do so would require every US family to pay $31,000 a year for 75 years.

Bear in mind, I’m completely ignoring the debt we took on with the nationalization of Fannie and Freddie, AIG, and the slew of other garbage we nationalized or shifted onto the Fed’s balance sheet. And yet we’re STILL talking about every US family making $31,000 in debt payments per year for 75 years to pay off our national debt.

Obviously that ain’t going to happen.

So default is in the cards. Either that or hyperinflation (which occurs when investors flee a currency). Either of these will be massively US Dollar negative and horrible for the quality of life in the US. But they’re our only options, so get ready.

polifrog

Living Off the Plates of Others -- A Generational Conflict...

polifrog


The Hippies are, and have been "The Man" for some time now. Our national debt problem is their pig, but they refuse responsibility for this or anything else. Firmly ensconced in moral relativism they selfishly support choice over life, they choose debt over thrift, they choose "The Man" over liberty, and they push poverty on all, but themselves.

Today's generation is taking notice.





The majority of the boomer generation could never stop thinking of themselves. First rejecting the thrift, success and sacrifice of the greatest generation then engorging themselves on a combination of free love, consumerism, and me-ism. Nothing satiated the boomer gerneration; not even their incessant self aggrandizing through the media. They were lost in an endless maze of perpetual desire and unable to find contentment. Now with the bill for all their excess firmly on the table, they pass it on to subsequent generations. Once a hippie, now the man -- perpetually living off the plate of another.

Never before has our country seen such a worthless, selfish, shiftless, horrible, or gluttonous group of malcontents so intent on shifting their individual responsibility to society as the generation that followed the Greatest Generation.

They truly are --- The Worst Generation.





out

Rep. Brad Miller Diving Beyond Debt and Morality...

polifrog


... it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

-------

It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

According to Rep. Brad Miller

It is inexcusable that in a country as prosperous as the United States, so many of our citizens are not able to afford health care...

Brad Miller does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Brad Miller's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Brad Miller finds a way.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

Brad Miller, a grade school economist.


(a repost)
out

Cavuto on the Spawn of Bastardized Keynesian Theory...

polifrog


Over almost a century Bastardized Keynesian Theory has become the Wmap of public spending policy; it has become the dark energy behind our ever expanding national debt, and is at the heart of our current economic malaise.


Cavuto doesn't mention Keyens, but the connection is obvious.




Clowns to the left, clowns to the right
Swimming a sea of Theory
No land in sight.



out

Brad Miller's Indentured Servitude Of Individuals, Of States, and Of Our Nation....

polifrog


Update:

Polifrog apologizes for prematurely posting the following as a rough draft. Accidents happen.

The cast system of perpetual government assistance created by liberal logic didn't stop with classes of individuals enticed toward a cycle of poverty. Currently it is metastasizing into a similar system of state indentured servitude to the federal government in part due to North Carolina's growing debt and dependency on federal assistance due to that debt.

NC has, to a large degree, become a dependent state due to our state's Pavlov like votes for Brad Miller, a politician who pushes bills through congress that "help" states that spend more than they take in. This "help" does not serve the long term interests of the states, though. A state, like an individual or spoiled child, will never learn fiscal discipline if the negative results of their profligate sending is never felt. This liberal feel good legislation dooms these states to more spending and dependency on the federal government for new rounds of bailouts. Of course, with dependency comes federal manipulation of state affairs and further dissolution of our federal system. Texas recently gave the federal government the bird due to these polices. Good for Texas. NC's delegation of panty-wastes leaders could never muster the strength to do the same.

Not only does Brad Miller put today's citizens further into debt, but he supports legislation that creates debt in perpetuity for generations to come. Brad Miller put 1/6 of NC' s economy under federal control and is forcing the unborn generations who survive Miller's abortion killing fields to foot the our bills for those who don't make it to birth. The results of this combination of excessive government spending combined with a scourge of abortions can be witnessed today in a Europe that has grown dependent on culturally insensitive Muslim immigration to keep their populations from collapsing. The Europe we know today, the source of western civilization, is dying due to liberal ideology.

It is not just Brad Miller that supports NC dependency. NC has become an indentured state by giving its support to Bev Perdue as well, a politician who gladly accepts federal funding. These handouts are often required to be used on new spending only. This creates a new baseline for next year's spending when there is no federal handout. This further pushes NC toward insolvency and dependency by growing next year's budget with this year's spending. Brad Miller helps with the creation and passage of such bills in congress and Bev Perdue gladly signs our state into Brad Miller supported indentured servitude to the federal government. According to LincolnTibune:

The implications of the 2010-11 state budget will be felt heavily next year. By relying on more than $1.5 billion of non-recurring federal stimulus funds and $1.3 billion in temporary tax revenue to help balance the 2010-11 budget, North Carolina lawmakers and Gov. Perdue are setting up North Carolina for a major state budgetary crisis in 2011-12. Absent those two significant sources of funding, state budget writers will be facing a revenue hole of $2.8 billion when they reconvene next year to craft the 2011-12 state budget.

The national implication of this liberal reliance on dependency and debt can seen starkly on the graphs below. Obama supporting states have twice the debt per capita debt than the non Obama voting states.

According to Moody’s, the average state per capita debt of the 28 Obama states is $1,728 while the average debt in the 22 McCain states is less than half, at $749. This information alone says a lot about voters and their attitude towards government and debt. Voters with a propensity to elect politicians who burden future generations who can’t yet vote with huge debts voted for Obama while fiscally responsible voters generally voted for McCain.

Although states can turn to the Federal Government for relief, our national government has only nations outside our boarders to support its debt. This national reliance on debt to fund government growth increases our dependence on unreliable international sources and calls into question our future as a nation. Brad Miller, Bev Perdue and other of their ilk are forcing unborn generations of Americans who survive the gauntlet of Brad Miller's Congressional supported abortions into a nation with a questionable future.



[edited for clarity]
out

DC Is Not Broken, Just Broke

polifrog


No comment from Polifrog... just a few quotes from a single politico opinion piece by Tim Pawlenty:

But rather than getting the government’s finances under control, Obama and his allies in Congress poured gasoline on the fire with trillion-dollar boondoggles.

...

At the end of 2008, just before Obama took office, the federal debt was about 40 percent of our nation’s total economy. Now, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, the debt will explode to 62 percent of our economy by the end of this year.
...

If we consider off-budget liabilities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, underfunded entitlement promises and the budget effects embedded in the Democrats’ new health care bill, the fiscal picture gets even worse.
...

In a bizarre development, the Democratic-controlled House won’t even pass a budget for the first time in decades. Any family or business knows you can’t live within your means without a budget. Congressional Democrats have now announced they won’t even try.

...

Sacrifice. Americans have sacrificed enough; it’s time for government to sacrifice for a change. When Washington Democrats talk about balancing the budget, they speak gravely about painful choices and sacrifice — but what they mean is tax increases. In other words, we sacrifice so they can spend.

And in a final related quote from Obi's Sister via The Anchoress:

While the honeymoon has been over for a while, inside sources whisper that Obama is now sleeping on America’s couch. It won’t be long before he’s kicked out of the house and asks his secretary find him a place to live.

out

Where the Debt is...

polifrog


Via instapundit,

The Economist gives us an interactive debt map of the world.





out

Social States and Debt -- A reality

polifrog



I would gladly pay you Tuesday for a burger today... If we all do it we can call it free trade and hey, it's politically correct too!



If we aren't headed for a second leg down in the image of the Great Depression, we are at best driving head long into an extended ObamaDebt fueled morass.

out

Brad Miller NC-13 Diving beyond Debt and Morality

polifrog


It is a no-brainer....free is expensive, while a cost is less so.

This is a result of a duality in human nature, industriousness and laziness. Assuming a basis in law and property rights societies organized such that they harness the industriousness of humanity find wealth, while societies organized such that laziness is coaxed from their citizenry, yield poverty.

Here is why...

---Situation 1
A person spends their own money.
In this case a person sells a piece of their time on earth to earn money. With those dollars that person naturally makes judicious choices in respect to the spending of those dollars. When the whole of society spends judiciously and wisely, the resulting pressure on suppliers forces them to produce what end users want and forces the costs of goods to drop. Thus a cost makes a society efficient, lean, inexpensive, and above all moral.

---Situation 2
A person spends money that person did not earn.
The value of the dollars in such a person's possession are lessened as they are unearned dollars. That person will, by nature, not spend those dollars as judiciously as the individual in situation 1, but they do spend the dollars on those things they need and desire. This lessens the pressure on suppliers to keep costs down and efficiencies high, but, at least, the suppliers cater to the needs of society. We see this in charity. We also see it in the form of welfare.

---Situation 3
A person spends dollars they did not earn and they spend those dollars on others.
This is the worst of the three situations. The value of the dollars to the spender is less than in situation 1, but the impact of these dollars on society are worse than in situation 2. In this case the dollars are not spent by the end user, but rather a middle man whose interests are not interests of the end user, thus the suppliers cater not to the end user, but to the middle man. This skews what is produced by the producers away from the needs of the end user and toward the middleman, but most perniciously, this situation turns the end user into, not just a business cost, but an unproductive business cost to be minimized. Lastly, too much of this situation in combination with situation 2 results is a very inefficient society that leads to impoverishment as the price of goods rise. The citizenry, of course, still pays for the goods through their ever increasing taxes. Breaking the back of capitalism by divorcing the influence of the end user over the producers. In a word...immoral.

Unfortunately, our country is now saddled with a Situation 3 program in ObamaCare. Government will be buying goods for people with other people's money. Somehow Brad Miller and Barak Obama believe immorally restructuring our health-care so that the end user becomes an unproductive business cost is the bees knees.

According to Rep. Brad Miller

It is inexcusable that in a country as prosperous as the United States, so many of our citizens are not able to afford health care...

Brad Miller does not understand that Situation 1 economics created the wealth we enjoy through its moral application of human industriousness. Brad Miller's support for ObamaCare suggests his support for the immorality of Situation 3 economics, increased debt, and national lethargy.

As an immoral situation 3 program, ObamaCare is inherently inefficient and immensely costly to a society, but President Obama had this to say by way of ABC....

President Barack Obama says he did a full court press for a health care system remake because "this country was going to go bankrupt."

How can a president expect anyone to believe such blithering nonsense? He may as well be convincing the citizens of the US that Guam is in danger of capsizing.



Considering that much of Washington's current budget will be funded through debt spending, and the addition of ObamaCare will serve to exacerbate the problem, we should consider a 4th spending situation not mentioned by Milton Friedman. The moral bankruptcy required to lead a nation in this direction is almost beyond comprehension, yet Brad Miller finds a way.

---Situation 4
A person spends dollars (not yet earned and not yet taxed from the unborn) on the currently living (for votes).
This combines the worst of situations 2 and 3 and then removes a representative's accountability to their voter's wallets. There is no accountability when a representative is picking the wallet of the unborn.

I guess it is a small thing, though, for Brad Miller to pick the wallets of the unborn when he supports the picking of their lives by way of abortion.

Brad Miller, a grade school economist.



out