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!

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!