Just Ducky

Click To Enlarge

With their debt ceiling agreement, Congress touted the nearly $1 trillion in spending "cuts" as a sign they were ushering in a new era of fiscal responsibility. But is this really the case? In addition to the spending reductions, the deal included a spending cap on discretionary outlays. Putting a cap on how much the federal government can spend? Sounds reasonable.

But what good does a spending cap do if Congress just ignores it and spends more? And even if they did operate within the cap, where does it get us if the spending cap just increases from year to year?


h/t: Bankrupting America


  1. Creative accounting has long been a mainstay in Washington. The terminology has just gotten a lot more flowery, that's all.

  2. Between the big three expenditures - the military, Medicare, and Social Security - Medicare and the military are the problem. SS can take care of itself. Medicare fares at the hands of the AMA, Big Pharma, and Big Insurance. That could be fixed, and most Americans would be happy to see it happen, but our bribed government will not install a national healthcare system.

    The military is another matter. It is self-perpetuating. It must be seriously curtailed.


  3. >the military, Medicare, and Social Security

    The only one of those that is legitimately a part of the federal government is the military. Get rid of everything the government has no business getting involved in, and there is no debt. Instead, we would have liberty. Fancy that.

  4. Bastiat, you never fail to disappoint.

    SS and Medicare are necessary and sustainable and smart and right.

    Our ridiculous military empire will be our downfall.

    It's a terrible shame thst otherwise "libertarians" like you are such stupid jingos.


  5. Donald in Bethel, CT says:


    Did you actually use the word "sustainable"? Both SS and Medicare are sucking this nation dry. Hardly sustainable, unless you would consider that me receiving 10 dollars a month by the time I can get SS benefits (which I never wanted in the first place) as being sustainable.


    I wonder sometimes, as I read the Second Amendment, if the Founders were strictly speaking about State militias, and had not considered a Federal military. Do you have any thoughts on this? Should we have a Federal military? Is one needed? What if we had a Federal military whose volunteers were aid by their respective States and not from the Federal government? I'm working this one out in my head, so any input you have would be cool.


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

Looking To 2016...

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