The Obama Ten Year Outlook

America has just been given a glimpse into the future as crafted by President Barrack Husein Obama if you will. And the future looks VERY bleak.

First,  let me make it perfectly clear that the big government, liberal spending, so called conservative GWB must share a portion of the blame for our countries dismal and alarming fiscal mess. Lets be honest with ourselves, he started the deficit spending ball rolling and rolled it right into the lap of President Obama.

I  am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of  William Jefferson Clinton. However we should remember that he left ofice with a budget surplus. One can argue the merits, or lack thereof, as to how he got us there. The bottom line is he did.

Given we all recognize these historical facts it is time we move on. It is time the American electorate, and those they elected to represent us get past the partisan reality of modern politics and begin to put this countries LONG TERM INTERESTS first.

The ten year budget projection is frightening and should give all Americans reason for concern. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis is that President Obama's budget will lead to annual deficits of almost one trillion dollars. The CBO's projections are higher than the White House's number.

While the Obama team estimates annual budget deficits to average approximately eight hundred and fifty three billion dollars over the next ten years the CBO plus the figure at nine hundred and seventy six billion dollars. The difference is because the administration has a rosier picture of increased tax revenues.

The CBO expects less tax revenues because it anticipates less economic growth that does the Obama teams projections. Of course when we are dealing with deficit numbers this high, what's a billion here or there. After all, wasn't it Nixon who said we are all Keynesian's now?

All partisanship and joking aside these deficits are simply unsustainable over the long term. Regardless which big government and liberal spending party is in office. The entire federal budget must be put on the cutting room table and be scrutinized throughly and all pork, including subsidies to businesses must be cut.

I know there are many that will take aim at the bullseye  I am about to put on my back. But reality is reality and no amount of equivocation, as Ayn Rand would say can change reality. So here I go... tax increases must be considered as part of the prescription back to fiscal health.

Here's the catch however, at least in my independent conservative mind, real spending cuts must precede any tax increase. As I said above all budgetary items must be placed on the cutting table. That includes military spending and social welfare programs. This is the only road to restoring financial solvency to America and this is the only true bipartisanship path.

We can either make the tough decisions together that will strengthen our nation in the future. Or we can refuse to take the difficult and pass the problem on to the next and future generations. The choice rests with us as it always has. We have taken the easy way for too long. It is now time to do what reason demands of us. All of us, both the conservative and the progressive.

Should this nation fail to make the rational and logical decisions then events will make them for us. The results of which I am sure will not be pleasant and will likely lead to second or third world status. In the spirit of bipartisanship... both the past and present administration seem oblivious to the snowballing dangers to our national security.

President Jefferson your nation needs you. Is there anyone out there who is listening?

Via: Memorandum
Via: Left Coast Rebel

Comments

  1. RN,

    You said:
    "In the spirit of bipartisanship... both the past and present administration seem oblivious to the snowballing dangers to our national security."
    ------------------------

    I really cannot come up with anything to add to your post. You nailed it.

    Now hopefully we can move past the cliches and knee-jerk talking points of the Big Two and speak openly and rationally with one another.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don - Bipartisanship is a two way street and it seems as though independent conservatives travel that pathway more frequently and with greater ease than many on the left.

    Oso is one who I have grown to have respect for as at least he retains an open mind and listens and considers alternatives. A rare attribute in many on the left.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obviously, nothing will change until the first Tuesday in November. Up to that point, however, the fires that have broken out here and there in response to Obama's massive lurch to the left will likely be raging forest fires, and the right's voter turnout will probably be the biggest ever.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Most of the budget deficit is automatic stabilizers. Given an eventual recovery the deficit will shrink accordingly.

    As far as the greater economy goes, govt deficit spending is the only viable course. The private sector too deeply in debt to allow the government to cut back on spending.

    It would be wise for the politicians to prioritize discretionary spending. Slash military waste which doesn't benefit the economy, spend money instead on job creation.

    Keep in mind all our public debt is in USD, hence no chance of default.It won't all come due at once. Public debt is always rolled over, it's like that with all nations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Les I forgot to add - at the risk of sounding like a Republican:)- I don't feel there's a need to raise taxes at this time, since tax revenue will increase anyway once employment rises. Being optimistic here. Maybe corporate taxes could go up I guess,it's my understanding that when corporate tax rates go up investment in capital (and wages)goes up since most businesses would understandably rather sink profits back into the business rather than fork it over to the govt.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Oso,

    You said:
    "As far as the greater economy goes, govt deficit spending is the only viable course. The private sector too deeply in debt to allow the government to cut back on spending."
    ---------------------------------------

    I'm trying to wrap my head around your reasoning here.

    At what point, when a person is in debt, is it wise to spend money they don't have?
    I am no financial whiz by any stretch of the imagination, but even I understand that concept. Oso, am I out-of-line to take from your comments that you believe government can make all the Nation's problems go away by throwing enough of our money at them?

    And as to the government rescuing the private sector through spending, wow! I really don't get that one, sorry! Could you put your thoughts on this issue into words for me to digest?

    Private sector businesses should be allowed to fail. Bush and Congress, in 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?_r=1), spent billions of our American taxpayer money to "save" and "bailout" failing American car companies who, quite honestly, dicked-up and then ran to Uncle Sam like paupers and victims. It was not only embarrassing, it was infuriating. This attitude is, IMO, un-American.

    Americans strive, fight, and never ever relent. Having Uncle Sam bail anything out is a travesty and a sad commentary on the entitlement mentality so prevalent today.

    Please do not take that as a personal attack upon yourself, Oso. I do not know you outside of RN USA, so I could hardly speak to your character. However, it does sadden me to see you espouse such a mindset that government is the solution.

    Lately, government is the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Donald,
    of course I don't take it as a personal attack, that's only if you say things about the Dodgers or Raiders!

    My first reply somehow disappeared into cyberspace when I hit preview so I'm gonna try to reconstruct it.

    Let me address the last part first, the Bailout. I believe we are essentially in agreement here.
    Because the separation between commercial and investment banks was lifted, in some cases payment processing (payroll/inventory purchase/short term borrowing) passed thru the big institutions. I believe they should have been propped up, for the greater good.As for those involved in speculation, the insolvent ones should have been allowed to fail.It would have caused havoc in the stock market but ultimately I think knowing the institutions still standing were viable would have quickly restored investor confidence.

    Regarding the govt throwing $ at the problem,I kinda am saying that but please bear with me as I try to explain my reasoning.

    Our economy is made up of a govt sector and private sector (households/business/foreign trade) and must ultimately balance out, if one sector net saves the other must net spend. Slick Bill balanced the federal budget, so tax revenue exceeded govt spending. This put pressure on the private sector to increase spending, hence the tech boom/bubble/recession handed to GWB.

    Now what we got got is a badly in debt private sector.People/business need to pay down their debt plus build up their saving. So since the private sector isn't spending but saving,Aggregate Demand(consumption/inventory)must be fueled by govt sector spending.

    Historically it has been best to grow our way out of debt,by growing the economy so instead of cutting debt level you cut the debt to GDP ratio.

    I realize two people can look at the same thing and come up with completely different yet workable solutions. I'm a phone tech, I read both liberal and conservative economists to come up with my way of looking at things.

    I'm sorry this is such a long-winded reply;I wanted you to understand there was a reason behind my thought process rather than just expecting the govt to throw $ at the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm all for spending cuts, but we both know it's not going to happen. The misnamed Department of Defense garnered 5 Trillion under Bush. The DoD budget, despite the Fox News Liars, has gone up under Obama.

    The DoD and Pentagon will never let their budgets shrink and every President knows if he actually did cut into them, he'd have a grassy knoll waiting for him...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gene - We must absolutely maintain a strong national defense. However there is a difference between maintaining a strong defense and funding an interventionist foreign policy around the globe.

    Dwight D Eisenhower had it exactly right in 1961 when he warned against of the Military Industrial Complex.

    It is to bad that every succeeding administration, beginning LBJ has ignored the wisdom of a Republican that was a republican when it really meant something.

    As to your conspiratorial closing comment, you just might be right on this one. Although I would assume should the occur it would be funded by the industrial side of the equation with a complicit wink fro the military side. Having said this I am not big on conspiracy theories.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oso - I am certainly no financial expert and don't pretend to be. It does seem however that you have bought into the Keynesian economic theories that have gotten into this mess.

    A household is a microcosm of a larger economy.

    Following your reasoning if I were in financial difficulties I would increase reliance on credit, balloon my personal budget deficit, and plan that when things improved and I was pulling in money from overtime or rebounding return on my investments my deficit would eventually take care of itself.

    Oso, I realize that my response is an oversimplification. I simply struggle to understand how a government with over 106 trillion in under or unfunded liabilities and a 12 + trillion dollar national debt can expect to sustain it forever. Which seems to be the mindset of politicians and government officials on both sides of the aisle.

    As you said history shows us growing our way out of dept worked best. Until we all became Keynesian advocates. Deficit spending works in theory, in practice it is IMO quite another reality looking long term.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fredd - Unfortunately you are likely right. We can only hope that come November things actually change for the better.

    I fear the old saying... "The more things change the more they sat the same."

    It remains to be seen if their are ANY politicians that have integrity and speak with and honest voice.

    It is why we blog I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi RN,
    Your analogy of a household spending on credit then relying on future OT/investments to pay it back down and comparing it to my example does indeed show the pitfalls of profligate spending.

    But one difference is, a household or business (or a state I guess) has to earn before it can spend.Either it earns or dips into savings or borrows. A sovereign government can create money. Since the US is no longer bound to gold and the dollar floats there is no outside constraint on money creation.

    As the economy recovers tax revenue and people going off unemployment will lessen the deficit.Private spending will then pick up so govt spending can come down.

    At that point inflation may become a concern as well as fear of govt debt crowding out investors but that's in the future.

    Anyway, that's the way I look at it but like I mentioned in a reply to Donald I have the same economic training as my cat-none. Simply based on liberal (pun intended)use of a library card.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oso - A quick thought is that when he economy recovers and people are back to work (I doubt however we will ever again see 3-4% unemployment) and private spending picks up not much will happen.

    The government that will continue to grow under the new world order mentality and the increasing US socialism under Obama (and likely future administration).

    The answer to the problem will be to increase government spending, raise taxes, and deficit whatever the government feels necessary to keep an economy and national economic house built on sand afloat.

    I am not holding my breath for real economic growth to return anytime soon to America. Perhaps if we could find the will to rebuild our manufacturing infrastructure and stop exporting jobs to foreign countries, and actually determine favorable trading policies to the US perhaps I will change my mind.

    The current generation of policy makers on both sides of the frigging aisle are "lost in a cloud of euphoric self denial."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Deregulation and lack of government oversite led to our problems today. Just as savings and loans were deregulated in the 80's costing taxpayers billions. This time it was trillions. The alternative was depression. And that assessment came from economists from both political persuasions.


    I keep saying before the day is through every one of you, and that includes you Donald, will demand government do something about something. Responsible government doesn't cost a dime because it saves us far more than we spend on it f run correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Truth - You said... "Responsible government doesn't cost a dime because it saves us far more than we spend on it f run correctly."

    I speak only for myself, on this statement we can agree to agree.

    Where we will disagree is that I subscribe to the notion that limited government, with the least intrusion into private business and an individuals personal life works by far more effectively than that which you espouse.

    Let me assure you that I understand the destitution that poor economic times can result in. My grandfather and grandmother lived through the Great Depression and experienced the dislocation and hardships that it brought with it first hand. My point here is that they never, not once asked for nor excepted help from the government. Relocation, bouncing around to locate whatever work was available the did. Accept welfare or live off the government teat ABSOLUTELY not.

    My grandparents epitomize that which America once stood for. I am of their blood and spirit and as such do not pretend to tell me what I (and millions like me) might do if we experience further economic troubles.

    Responsible government may not cost a dime-as you say. Our government however has been irresponsible going back to Richard Nixon and moving forward from there. GWG was the worst with respect to fiscal responsibility.

    This of course is only one man's opinion. The fact it is true I suppose is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Truth 101,

    You said:
    "I keep saying before the day is through every one of you, and that includes you Donald, will demand government do something about something. Responsible government doesn't cost a dime because it saves us far more than we spend on it f run correctly."
    ------------------------------

    Not me, ever. But I appreciate the confidence you have in your prediction.

    I will live in a cardboard box and eat cigarette butts before I willingly abdicate my personal freedoms to suckle on the teats of the Federal government.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey Don,

    I used to manufacture corrugated boxes before I became a manager of the facility that manufactured them.

    If it should ever become necessary maybe you and I could go into manufacturing of low cost wax impregnated corrugated material to build houses.

    JUST A THOUGHT. :-)

    Long Live American Capitalism and the Republic!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Donald,
    Cigarette butts have no fat and are rich in fiber. You may be onto something man!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.



Top Posts

Recommended Reading, Thomas Piketty’s best-selling new book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”...

Our Biggest Creditor {China} Tells Us "The good old days of borrowing are over"

Voltaire's Wisdom...

Mayor Bloomberg Standing Against Goosestepping Insanity...

Donald Trump, Suffering From Dementia of Is He Just a Pathological; Liar?...

The Fingers of God...