Only a leftist/progressive/liberal can take a smaller increase and call it a decrease! That’s true whether the leftist/progressive/liberal is a Democrat or a “Moderate” Republican.
A smaller increase is an increase!
According to the Monthly Treasury Statement, federal spending in the first five months of the 2013 fiscal year was $1,504,547,000,000 .00, up from $1.473.999.000.000.00 in the first five months of fiscal 2012. That’s an increase of $30,548,000,000.00.
That’s an average monthly increase of $300,909,400,000.00! If the government maintains that average pace for all 12 months of the fiscal year, it will spend a total of $3,610,912,800,000.00!
President BO (the amateur president) has failed to present a viable budget that addresses this obnoxious government spending. The Senate has refused to do their job and present a budget that deals with the issue. So far, only Paul Ryan has offered a real proposal that would help bring government spending under control.
This country’s finances are in a mess. If we don’t clean up the mess, we can’t survive. Liberals pretend that we can. They make wild, illogical arguments that government spending can go on increasing ad infinitum without consequences. After all, they really care about future generations.
Sure they do.
We fail to reign in government spending at our peril.
4 comments:
It's the Good Old Democratic way.
Only a leftist/progressive/liberal can take a smaller increase and call it a decrease!
-----------------
I have no idea who you think is doing that. Certainly not the progressive posters on your blog.
Myself, keep the rate of expansion under the rate of growth + inflation and this is not a big problem.
Clinton managed that and Obama is approaching that goal with the strengthening economy.
Now, if you wish to argue that cuts are in order when the economy is healthy, I won't argue but they are not appropriate at the moment.
The economy is strenghtening. Witness your new job.
A smaller increase is an increase!
I'll use your grocery analogy from a few posts ago to illustrate why you're wrong.
Say you live in a big household. Your food budget would rise with the rise of the price of food, which is 3% this year. You want to cut spending, so you budget a 1% increase. In raw dollars, it's an increase but but you get 2% less food. On top of that, the population of your house goes up when someone has a baby. A little less food per person.
Then you decide that two people in the house that make vastly more money than the other occupants should contribute less than the others because, well, they're rich and you don't want to upset them. Even though they avail themselves to all the benefits of living in that house. Now you have to borrow to meet the food budget which is an increase from last year but everyone gets a cut in the amount of food.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's closer to reality than yours. BTW, you might want to check your numbers. An increase of $30.5B over 5 months doesn't translate to a $300.9B monthly increase. Probably a misplaced comma.
next case!
Post a Comment