My thinking has been in a state of backwardation lately because I just can't get past this game of charades that Congress and the President are playing concerning the budget. Nomi Prins wrote something kind of funny about it the other day; to wit, two firemen are standing on the sidewalk across the street from a burning house, and they're arguing about whether it would be better to use a teaspoon or a teacup to put the fire out. Think of one as the Democrats, the other as the Republicans, and that captures the essential absurdity. President Obama has talked about eliminating "$1 trillion" from the budget; however, he's talking over the next ten years. The Republicans want to cut $100 billion this year, if they can find some place to start. I'm not seeing the real difference between these two futile gestures.
February 17, 2011
February 14, 2011
It took me a while to catch on, but I think I've figured it out. In his new budget proposals, President Holograma has forecast really awesome numbers for federal revenue over the next few years which will gradually eliminate the deficit and restore America to prosperity. Since I can't really see how this can be accomplished with the materials at hand, you know, just looking around at the jobless situation and rather ungraciously noticing that the actual number of full-time jobs in the US of A is about the same now as in the year 2000 (about 130 million), I'm tempted to ask a question with the same initials as Win The Future, only different. I mean, how can the O-Admin project revenues for the feds of over $3.0 trillion for the fiscal year two years from now, and then rising sharply to $3.5 trillion right after that, when income currently is scraping along the bottom at under $2.2 trillion? That's a 50% increase in revenue in two years, and 75% a few years out!