"How is a $118 billion structural deficit, $35 billion in Medicare Part D, and a theoretical end to the Iraq presence forcing Barack Obama to spend nearly $1 trillion in 2018? How is it forcing him to spend roughly $650 trillion more than he takes in in 2012? This is not Bush's fault. And you know what? Even if it were Bush's fault, who cares? It's like those people in their thirties who spend the whole decade in therapy and get into long weepy conversations over bottles of wine about how they can never have a healthy relationship because their father was so cold and distant, and their mother was a perfectionist harpy.
I mean, hey, it sounds like your parents were terrible. But this is not actually very useful information. Dad could get down on his hands and knees and admit that he was the most horrible father in the entire world, and beg for your forgiveness, and guess what? You're still lonely and balding and drinking way too much mid-priced Chardonnay."
-- Megan McArdle, kicking the shit out of Barack Obama, his deficit, the Left, therapy-goers, and even wine drinkers - a whole shitload of whiners - ready to be shipped across The Atlantic.
It's none of those things because it's an incoherent rant. And even top conservatives are forced to pay lip service to Obama's oratory skills so already Megan is appearing relatively unreliable as an authority.
ReplyDeleteShe is doing exactly what I did when Bush II was in power. Ronald Reagan, a Republican, brought down the first trillion dollar budget. W beat him with a two trillion dollar budget and then a three trillion dollar budget. These amounts did not include discretionary spends on the twin war on terror effort. So here we have record spending and conservatives say that America is a rich and profitable country and can always make more money.
Oh how quickly/they change their tune
Stop, o logical ones, and think a minute. Surely the question here isn't whether the money gets spent on the AIDS effort in Africa or fortifying the levys or raising the capital for Freedom Centre. The fact is, it still gets spent. And if the rich, the ones who are purportedly bringing everyone the high life by their enterprise, are now paying less tax, where is the money to fund all this coming from?
Well I'm glad you defenders of liberty asked. Saudi Arabia who whip rape victims or threaten to. And China whose human rights record rolled under those tanks in Tianemen Square.
And these are loans, not gratuities. That all cost you folks. Every penny. Why isn't that spending in 2012 if it is a future debt? Your proposition makes no sense.
MacArthur's idea to bomb China may have been considered dangerous enough in his day to relieve a five star war hero general of his command, today it would be unthinkable.
US discretionary spending. Or non-discretionary spending as the case may be. is a problem of the extravagance at all levels. At trying, striving, yearning to go bigger and gulping resources as you go. You can say that this contributes to deal making and revenue raising and you may be right. But we are talking about 'wasting' resources here.
I suspect, and correct me if I'm wrong, that that real impetus here is not how much is being spent, but what it is being spent on. If you'd rather Halliburton got the tax dollar than healthcare raise your hand.
There's nothing but an idealogical difference on that issue, but this isn't moaning and wailing about what the last lot did, it's getting on and doing a whole nother thing with the same sort of money. If it falls on its ass then you'll go under. If McCain Palin had kept the troops operational and ticked through that much money every week then you'd have drained the coffers that way.
This way potentially less people will die abroad and at home. And who knows what a stimulus package that is more inclusive might do.
What this rot has to do with balding children of the revolution I don't know.