Click here to view the embedded video.

Best slap-you-back-into-reality quote:

“Every British child will be born owing 20,000 British pounds.”

And that’s just in the UK – gee, wonder what it’ll be like here in the U.S. - $50,000, $100,000 per newborn? 

As Parliament is saying, we in the US also cannot spend our way out of a recession. Just as if you were in massive credit card debt, it would be ill-advised for you to borrow nearly three times against your debt and head down to the local gambling boat to “invest” your way out of debt. The likelihood of your success is extremely low with the risk of massive failure at an extreme high. This is what we call in the real world – NOT. GOOD. PRACTICE.

Also, this post is coming at a time when I’m right in the middle of reading Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. Classic.

Common Sense Question of the Day

If you have $1 million and had to pick only one of two industries to choose from to invest in which of the following would you choose?

A) The Least Producing/Productive Sector
B) The Most Producing/Productive Sector

How many of you chose ‘A’ – anyone, anyone? Bueller?

Exactly. Which is why I find it amusing that people encourage the expansion of government. In the history of government, particularly the US, we have yet to find one public agency, association, division that is more advanced (better organization, better customer service, better benefits its employees, increasing purchasing power of its customers, grows in scope faster) than its private counterpart.  That’s not to say we should do away with government or I don’t support any programs. I just don’t support it on a socialistic scale, which is where this spending pattern is headed. Particularly when expanding government comes with destroying capitalistic industries.

I growing tired of the practice rounds with this presidency. The first 100 days of the presidency is not an exhibition period. He said he wanted to the job, he said “Ready From Day 1″ yet massive failures continue, people’s confidence is dramatically dwindling, and reluctant vocal supporters are defending their guy with a “At least he’s tryyyying.” Which BTW – where was the he’s trying sympathy their last six years with Bush on the war against terrorism – Hmmmm.

And a quick word to the Republicans in Congress – start standing up like Daniel Hannan. The people will support you. I did with Aaron Schock (R-Ill.). Speak up for us out there – that’s why you’re in the Beltway and I’m kickin’ it in a cube farm in Chicago.

Most governments receive their money from taxation revenues, which in the US generally comes from income tax, direct withholdings (Social Security tax, Medicare tax), tax collections from corporations, retirement tax, property taxes, death taxes, inheritance taxes and capital gains tax (like you’re 401k or selling of YOUR assets).  

Okay, on to the email -

All this talk about “stimulus packages” and “bailouts”…A billion dollars… A hundred billion dollars… Eight hundred billion dollars… One TRILLION dollars…

What does that look like? I mean, these various numbers are tossed around like so many doggie treats, so I thought I’d take Google Sketchup out for a test drive and try to get a sense of what exactly a trillion dollars looks like.

We’ll start with a $100 dollar bill. Currently the largest U.S. denomination in general circulation. Most everyone has seen them, slighty fewer have owned them. Guaranteed to make friends wherever they go.

A packet of one hundred $100 bills is less than 1/2″ thick and contains $10,000. Fits in your pocket easily and is more than enough for week or two of shamefully decadent fun.

Believe it or not, this next little pile is $1 million dollars (100 packets of $10,000). You could stuff that into a grocery bag and walk around with it. 

 While a measly $1 million looked a little unimpressive, $100 million is a little more respectable. It fits neatly on a standard pallet… 

And $1 BILLION dollars… now we’re really getting somewhere…

Finally, we’ll look at ONE TRILLION dollars. This is that number we’ve been hearing so much about. What is a trillion dollars? Well, it’s a million million. It’s a thousand billion. It’s a one followed by 12 zeros.  (Note: This is literally $1,000,000,000,000.00)

You ready for this?

It’s pretty surprising.

Go ahead…

Scroll down…

Ladies and gentlemen… I give you $1 trillion dollars…

(And notice those pallets are double stacked.)

So the next time you hear someone toss around the phrase “trillion dollars”… that’s what they’re talking about.

_______________

To top this post off, keep in mind that if you take that trillion and triple it, then you’ll get Obama’s projected budget in ADDITION to the porkulus and the $500 million appropriations bill passed the other week. I mean does it get any clearer than this when the Congressional Budget Office states that President Obama’s budget plan will “increase the federal deficit by $2.3 trillion more over 10 years than the White House had claimed” ??? And the CBO is not some right-wing conspiracy think tank. They are an independent, objective, non-partisan budget advisory. I’m all for questioning things when they come via a partisan think tank, but this is clear cut evidence that this spending is out of control. And I don’t want to hear the “well, Obama, inherited a $1 trillion deficit.” Umm, that poor excuse doesn’t authorize tripling our debt. Only a buffoon would use that weak argument to back up their point. And I’m not even getting into to detail about the evidence out there that shows Obama has underestimated his spending proposals to the public by at least $1.6 trillion – so get ready folks, there’s probably more spending proposals to come.

But to the “inherited debt” defense, as Christopher Buckley stated, Obama asked for the job on the notion that he would clean up Washington and provide a “pay-as-we-go” style management to the budget. He acknowledged there was an economic crisis and growing national debt – and used these fear politics to make the smoke & mirrors case that he could fix the deficit and restore the economy. This was his rebuttal during the debates when McCain warned us about Obama’s predictable behavior of supporting massive spending and that this practice would only continue once the Unicorn Princess took the office. Obama said that wouldn’t be the case in his administration even though there was evidence he had proposed $1 billion in earmarks during his very short federal Senate tenure. If you don’t believe me look it up in the debate transcripts.

But now all of a sudden his supporters are acting like Obama was blind-sided by the “inherited” debt. Umm, riddle me this – where is the logic in the following….

Pre-election stance: “There is massive govt. debt and I’m not George Bush and will clean up the debt by a pay-as-we-go management of the budget” 

Post-inauguration stance: “The growing debt is not my fault because I ”inherited” a bunch even though the proposed spending not even with the first 100 days of my administration is triple that of the amount I “inherited,” AND in fact is more than what all other U.S. president have spent COMBINED.”  

Again, liberals – where is the logic? Gee, Obama suuuuuure was right in his arrogant claim that he has “done more in 30 days than any other president,” but not right in the way he and his supporters probably hope.

Somebody should send the White House a Budget-FAIL t-shirt. Wake up, people!

When certain Presidents talk about “the best economists around” I’d have more faith in just their words that defend their economic policies if I knew they were referring to great men like Milton Friedman and not an economist hack like Keynes.

So the next time somone is complaining about capitalism, corporate greed, the myth of the wealth gap or the failed 40-year war on poverty, just direct them to this clip and ask them to show you an example of an economy where their false utopia of fairness exists.

Get ready for round two of YET another spending bill. Another one after the President decided to sign off in secret (cough*more transparency, yeah, right!*cough) last night what he deemed an “imperfect” appropriations bill because it had too many earmarks. (Side rant: I love how now he acknowledges ‘earmarks’ after claiming the ‘no earmark’ defense on the last bill which was nearly 80% earmarks)

As Ed at HotAir notes, wasn’t the first stimulus supposed to create 2, err, 3, uuuuh, I mean 4 million jobs according to President Obama. So why can’t we wait at least ONE MONTH to see how it’s going before our government forces us to flush more money down the drain???  Oh, that’s because it turns out they don’t know what they’re doing or even saying when they are selling their “projections for the stimulus plan.” Remember with the first stimulus when President Wizard said we need to stop asking questions because they’ve got the best economists around – Gee, real glad he never got around to answering the tough questions for the American public who’s funding his pet projects.

“I think our focus is ensuring that that money gets out there as quickly as possible so that we can get our economy turned around again.”

Again, want a direct impact on how to get money in the economy without forcing taxpayers to give up their money before receiving any (and really IF any) benefit after it circulates through the government. Geee, what worked  in the 80s when we faced a very similar recession…Oh! That’s right – tax cuts, especially many for small businesses. And it’s estimated that 40 million jobs were created as a result of Reagan’s tax cutting policies. I’m sure if you state that to a liberal they’ll be real quick to tell you how supply-side economics are a failed policy. Ummm – let’s take a trip down memory lane on government spending vs. tax cuts, shall we?

Say it with me – Hooooope & Chaaaaaange!

Oh, and looks like most of Americans except the ones in the Beltway are not fans of the additional proposed spending (according to Rasmussen)

Just 27% of voters nationwide favor passage of a second economic stimulus package. The latest Rasmussen Reports nationwide telephone survey found that 55% are opposed and 19% are not sure.

During the election last year, it was a weekly occurrence that Obama would throw some “acquaintance” (i.e., close family-friend, personal advisor, mentor for 20+ years) under the bus in order to save his reputation with independents and basically score votes. Trust me, the far leftists could care less on who their nominee cohorts with as long as it’s not somebody who is smart enough to figure out that Saddam Hussein IS NOT the Abraham Lincoln of Iraq.

Anydelusion, a lot of conservative pundits were notorious for jumping ship and defending Obama as well as their upcoming vote for him. They believed he was the “change” that Washington needed or the “hope” of a new era of politics – we conservatives who criticized him were just party poopers of history being made (ooookay!). Where they saw unicorns and fairies, we saw a smooth-talking, used-car salesman type of campaign rhetoric that didn’t match up with Obama’s political votes/positions and policy legislation.  Where they saw themselves as being bi-partisan and not allowing race to get in the way of an historic vote; we real conservatives saw traitors to conservative principles and our own falling for race-baiting tactics that used fear to manipulate people into voting for the Democratic candidate (”Don’t be a racist – vote Obama!”,  ”Why would you be against making history – better vote Obama!”)

So now those chiiiiiiiiickens are coming home to roost! Can I get a Aaaaaaaamen, Rev. Wright? Oh, too busy building your multi-million dollar mansion paid for by the donations of the oppressed folks you claim to be helping get out of poverty while you live like you’re on an episode of Lifestyles of The Rich and Famous? Okay, another time then.

Anyways, I guess buyers’ remorse isn’t just brewing with actual voters. It took a while but looks like some of those conservative pundits, the ones my liberal friends liked to use as “proof ” that Obama was the one to save (SAVE ME! SAVE ME, OBAMA!) our nation, are now thinking twice about their too-quick-to-judge votes.

Can I get a round of kool-aid shots for my friends Christopher Buckley and David Brooks???  Drink up, boys.

Here’s Buckley -

Hold on—there’s a typo in that paragraph. “$3.6 trillion budget” can’t be right. The entire national debt is—what—about $11 trillion? He can’t actually be proposing to spend nearly one-third of that in one year, surely. Let me check. Hmm. He did. The Wall Street Journal notes that federal outlays in fiscal 2009 will rise to almost 30 percent of the gross national product. In language that even an innumerate English major such as myself can understand: The US government is now spending annually about one-third of what the entire US economy produces.

Here’s Brooks -

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses.

Oh, Chris “Thrill Up My Leg” Matthews wants to get in on the free kool-aid shots to celebrate buyers’ remorse TOO???  Uh, he’s such a mooch. Okay, Thrill Boy, let’s hear it!

Let me tell you who we conservatives are:  We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

Booooooooooyah, CNN! What up noooow!  So much for Rush’s speech being “all about wanting the President to fail.” I’m waiting for the day the FCC can start fining these “journalists” for outright slander and libel.

Here’s more of Rush defining what it means to be a conservative and dispelling those caricatures the liberal media likes to skew us into.

Click here to view the embedded video.

And here he is closing it out. Sure does sound like your “typical-racist-homophobe-bigot-judgmental-crammingreligiondownyourthroat-conservative,” huh???  (rolling eyes)

Perhaps if our mainstream media oh, say, did their jobs for once there wouldn’t be the need for Rush to clear up the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Check out all the video at HotAir. And here is where the transcript is.

]]> http://www.unliberaledwoman.com/i-dont-stompi-battle/feed/ 0 http://www.unliberaledwoman.com/oink-oink-oinkgulp/ http://www.unliberaledwoman.com/oink-oink-oinkgulp/#comments Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:20:28 +0000 unliberaledwoman http://www.unliberaledwoman.com/?p=504 I’m betting $3 trillion total spending for this administration by end of March.  Just wait. That would mean an average of  $100 BILLION/day. Send me your bets – I’m curious what your money is on. Even though by the end of the Kool-Aid Administration none of us will probably have any money left to bet with. Ahhh – I suddenly feel all warm and comforted inside (snickers).

So the House today voted on another $410 spending bill. Yes, ANOTHER spending bill. Oh, the first one was just a “stimulus” and didn’t contain any “earmarks.” Or wait, then Obama said a stimulus bill WAS spending. Good grief, I love it when our political leaders play Russian Roulette with our money. Only I don’t get to play but sit in front of my computer cringing in agony.  Ummmm….I know you’re jealous, Smancy Pelotox!

As for the spending bill that passed the House this afternoon, there are literally almost 9,000 earmarks in it — and it still drew more than a dozen GOP votes. It’s an amazing testament to the confidence Obama and the Democrats have in their popularity right now that they’re willing to hit the public with another trillion in future spending so soon after dropping $800 billion on the stimulus and with another round of TARP on the way.

Plus on the horizon is a $600+++ billion healthcare “fund.” Ohhh, can’t freaking wait for those tax raises to come in. Yes, like when you, myself and anyone else who makes over $42,000/year got when the Bush tax cuts kicked in. I know it’s hard to get around that liberal propaganda talking point, but it’s true. And even those tax increases won’t hold off the massive spending and programs we’ll have to cover as long as the majority keep electing leaders who don’t know what it means to have a balanced budget.

Eventually, the foreign investors lending the federal government billions of dollars every week — to make up for the current gap between taxes and spending — will need a reason to believe that those loans will be repaid. Otherwise, they will begin demanding much higher interest rates. That could create a new financial crisis.

Double Gulp.

One of Obama’s ‘best economists around’ his chief economic advisor Lawrence Summers FELL ASLEEP during yesterday’s fiscal responsibility summit. Yes, I said FELL ASLEEP at the summit that Barry himself hosted.

The new era of change indeed. Here’s also some hilarious but common sense quips about Barry’s attack on those real leaders who are not taking the porkulus blindfolded while OINK!ing to the One with delight (via Political Crave).

Obama also stated that just because a few GOP Governors don’t like 2% of the bill doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t do what is right for the American People. WELL, I GOT A QUESTION OR THREE:

• Would you suggest that I not meet with someone who hits me in the face 2 out of every 100 times I come face to face with them?
• Should I do business with a bank who short changes me $2 out of every $100 of my money?
• Should I drink a glass of water that has only 2% arsenic in it?

You inherit a few trillion in debt and the path to being fiscal responsibly to cut that debt in half is to propose spending another $2 trillion not even 30 days into office. Hmmmmm….And everyone gets a unicorn by 2012 too!  (Image source – www.obamacorn.com)

Bobby Jindal (R-LA) shows us again what a fiscally-responsible and experienced political leaders looks like. He speaks in an informed manner using facts and logical justifications for making the decisions he did as a representative of his state’s citizens. He didn’t revert (like a certain President) to the tired old tactics of explaining his principles through elaborate, unsubstantial paraphrases that, when they haven’t manipulated people’s common sense, end on the note of “Look, folks, we know what we’re doing. I mean we’ve got the ‘best economists’ around. Just believe in what we say not in our actions.”

Like they said on HotAir, is it 2012 yet?  I’m totally going to order my Jindal supporter shirt.

Click here to view the embedded video.

For as much as I hear people complain about CEO-pay, private jets, etc for failing companies, I don’t hear nearly (or even close to it) as much outrage over our legislatures who participate in the same amount IF NOT MORE questionable spending activities. Here’s ABC building back some of their credibility exposing what our legislatures have been up to with OUR money (via Black & Right). Also, keep in mind that Congress’ approval rating is right now around 30%. Last year it reached a low point of around 10% – if that isn’t failing I don’t know what is.

If this was a one-time incident I would probably look past it, but there have been too many instances of this crooked behavior coming out of Congress for years (Smancy Pelotox’s private planes and SUVs to attend her “Save the Earth”-type rallies, Charlie Rangel’s tax evasion and his 5-star, first-class trips to spots like the Dominican Republic and Florida, or the current administration’s love for tax evasion). Yet, citizens don’t say anything about it and what makes it even worse is that this is our money they are playing “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous” with. At least the criticized CEOs are earning money through products and services, and the money used is typically from revenue brought in by customers that choose to pay for those products/services. The essential difference is that we are forced to pay in taxes, not by choice, to fund the outrageous spending acts by Congress.

So just think about this the next time you go to gripe about CEO pay, corporate spending, etc. There are always going to be some bad eggs out there whose behavior risks ruining the reputation of the 100,000s of CEOs/businesses who are doing things the right way. Everyone has the opportunity in this country to work your way up the corporate ladder – we shouldn’t throw stones at those successful businessmen who are having one rough year out of 20 successful ones but then not criticize the legislature who invokes this kind of psychological class warfare while engaging in the same “unacceptable” spending behavior as well.  If CEOs are crooked – then, yes they should pay the price. But just because you are a politician does not mean you are shielded by some Beltway forcefield created out of unicorns and excuses for the same behavior.