national debt

The rich get richer...

...and according to the President, "America doesn't succeed when the rich get richer..."

There's a little problem with that reasoning—it's called "math."

Yes, we all know that many Americans are functionally illiterate:

But many, including the President, are also functionally innumerate:

Indeed, a friend went to that well-known list of the rich getting richer, the Forbes 400, and just for fun, added up the wealth of the top 100—I know, we're getting into the realm of higher mathematics here, three-and four-column addition—and it came to just over a trillion dollars. Fabulous wealth, no? Shouldn't we just confiscate it and solve all of our fiscal woes?

Well, as we've blogged about here 18 months (and a couple of trillion dollars in debt) ago, all that wealth is a drop in the bucket relative to what we are spending—and borrowing—on a daily basis. 

In addition to innumeracy, maybe people can't suspend their disbelief—people simply can't believe that we're that far gone financially, that even instantly, magically confiscating all the wealth of the wealthiest among us and immediately applying it to our budgetary problems wouldn't fix things.

In fact, it would probably make things worse...the same mathematically-inclined friend points out that if you impoverish the rich at the federal level

  1. there goes the tax base for other taxing authorities such as the 57 states, and
  2. what do you do in year two? You can only go to that particular well once, after all.

And, seeing what happened to their rich compatriots, any other productive or potentially productive Americans would likely "go Galt." John Smith found that out in Jamestown in 1607—when it comes to human nature, there's nothing new under the sun.

But our idiot savant President thinks that none of that is an issue. Debt? What debt? So what if we have a little debt...after all, we just owe that to ourselves, right?


What we're doing is saddling our children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, grand-nieces, grand-nephews with debt that will keep them working for the government rather than for themselves for their entire lives...all to repay the excesses of the current and past generations, excesses that didn't arise out of compassion, but out of political expediency.

And even worse, if that's possible, is the money that we owe to creditors outside our own the Chinese Communists.

Yes, the Chinese Communists.  Sounds old-fashioned, doesn't it?  Didn't the Chinese see the error of their ways and morph into capitalists?

Not really.  They're big-C Communists who are not nice people (don't click on the link unless you have a strong stomach...what's been seen can't be unseen).

The Chinese would make a mafioso Vito-the-Legbreaker collector look like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.

This is where we're headed, folks:


h/t Tom.

Bringing a knife to a gun fight

Come on, guys.  This is what the other side is putting out—an ad, posted on the official Barack Obama campaign YouTube page this past Friday:

There's just one little problem: John Hinderaker at PowerLine says

...The ad is surprisingly ineffective, but it is also dishonest. At least one of the women who pose as “Republican women for Obama” is a long-time Democrat...

...There are liars; there are compulsive liars; and then there is the Obama campaign. If someone took the trouble to track the down the other women in the ad, they would probably find something similar. If you do that, please record your findings in the comments.

UPDATE: OK, I’ve broken through on this via Facebook. More of the women are fake “Republicans.”...

I can just hear someone on the left spluttering, "But the One can't be held responsible for the actions of people working on his campaign!"
And as we all know, the buck has to stop someplace:
So what do our guys do? At Politico:
“I know there are some people who do a very good job acting and pretend they’re something they’re not,” Romney said. “You get what you see. I am who I am.”
To press the point, he said the GOP would even try to turn Obama’s still-high personal favorability rankings back on him at its convention this week, by making the simple case to voters: nice guy, failed president.
Un-frickin'-believable. These people are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
This isn't simply a case of someone being an incompetent nincompoop (some would say a SCoaMF)—although that may also be true. This is a clash of world views: collectivism v. freedom:

Which do you choose—liberty or tyranny?

And Republicans...we're in dire straits. Based on data from the Treasury and the OMB, the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff under ranking member Jeff Sessions [R-AL] reports that in the last 4 years, the debt increased by more than it did in the previous 17 years.

Can't we take off the kid gloves now?


Sorry, Rich, but this is one time I have to disagree with you.  I seriously doubt that this was what Romney had in mind (great Photoshop, though  smiley  ):


No sympathy...

...the Gang of 12 was a turkey from the get-go and unconstitutional to boot—so it's a little hard to be heartbroken over this and by extension, this.

The "Gang of 12" is unconstitutional--period

At The Foundry yesterday:

The newly formed Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction holds its first meeting this week. The 12-member panel will gather at 10:30 a.m. Thursday for an organizational session, then meet again on Sept. 13 at 10:30 a.m. for a hearing on “The History and Drivers of Our Nation’s Debt and Its Threats.”

The committee is chaired by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and tasked with the goal of finding $1.5 trillion in savings to reduce the federal deficit. It’s not an easy goal, made even more challenging by the bleak future facing America.

The problem is Washington’s addiction to spending. For far too long both Republicans and Democrats have expanded government a pace that now threatens prosperity. Future generations of taxpayers are now on the hook for increasing levels of debt. The amount of debt per citizen will soon skyrocket...

Brian Darling, a senior fellow for Government Studies at The Heritage Foundation, wrote recently:

....The congressional Super Committee on the budget needs transparency.  It should operate with input from the American people.

The 12-member Super Committee was created as part of the legislation raising the debt ceiling.  It has been charged with finding $1.5 trillion in savings over the next 10 years.  Officially known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, it was set up for the purpose of providing “recommendations and legislative language that will significantly improve the short-term and long-term fiscal imbalance of the federal government.”

To provide transparency and to allow the American people to participate in this very important process, a few actions should be taken by the Super Committee.

First, each committee in the House and Senate are mandated by law to transmit recommendations to the Super Committee by Oct. 14.  All of those recommendations should be shared with the American public.

Next, there is no provision in the law mandating that the American people get to attend hearings or participate in the legislative process before the final report of the committee.  At a minimum, a draft of the final proposal should be shared with the American public before the committee’s final vote in late November.

The hearings should be public.  The law says that the Super Committee “may” hold hearings.  The law does not force transparency on the members of the committee.  Yet this legislative process needs to be open to the public to allow the American people to participate.  Secret meetings and closed-door negotiations have no place in politics today.

No kidding.  Unfortunately for Heritage, though, this kind of discussion merely legitimizes an idea that has no legitimacy to begin with.  They need to take a few courses from this guy:

As Santayana famously said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  What happened to SPQR? The Roman Republic devolved into the Roman Empire but the Roman Senate was kept around for show, to lull folks who weren't really paying attention into thinking things hadn't fundamentally changed.  Seem familiar?

Just sayin.'

Subscribe to national debt