Skip to comments.An alternative to neocon nonsense
Posted on 07/24/2011 5:52:11 PM PDT by Coleus
Listen to what Michele Bachmann has to say at the 1:08:50 mark of this video. She honestly appears to believe we could direct the secretary of the treasury to pay off all "pay off all debts of the United States, all interest, all obligations" now. (Note: I inserted the exact language and employed the italics because I noted that in the comments section various Bachmannites were claiming she called for paying off only the interest. If you can't understand plain English, this is not the blog for you.)
She then goes on to say she would balance the budget. Huh? The debt is $14 trillion. We'd have to dedicate every cent of federal revenue for seven years to pay that off. That would mean the entire budget would have to be funded by - you guessed it - borrowing. This is not an exception. This is the rule. She says stuff this dumb every day. Are you the sort of person who excuses this sort of thing because you think her heart's in the right place?
Then you are the sort of person who should not be allowed to vote. DOUBLE-DITZ ALERT: Also, watch the video below and try to guess who used to be an IRS enforcer:
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.nj.com ...
I’ll take my chances with her over any of the RINOs running.
Okay, here’s my personal “Double-Ditz Alert”: Balancing the budget is NOT the same as paying off the entire national debt. The budget is annual, whereas the debt is cumulative.
Bachmann has my vote as of now.
Well, what does this person think about those who voted for obamma?
Won't make it to Iowa.
This idiot can't see that if you repeal, cancel and abolish all the policies, programs and executive departments that are causing the debt, the budget could be balanced in almost no time.
When she says “pay the debt or debts”
or not defaulting on the debt
it means paying the interest to our bond holders on time in the context
of debt ceiling.
There has been a lot of talk on the 14th Amendment where it says
the debt of the US shall not be questioned. That led to President Clinton
and other liberal lawyers saying Obama could just unilaterally raise
the debt ceiling.
Please. I think a lot of people want to paint women politicians
in a certain way.
I think she would be a better Treasury Secretary than Tim Geithner.
Geithner was a fool today on the Sunday talk shows and did not
have the right demeanor. he played class warfare more than Obama has
the past two weeks. We ain’t looking for scoring political points Tim from
ya. We need competency.
This star ledger guy is reminiscent of a living room quarter back who knows ALL the plays to win the super bowl with a 3rd grade education behind him.
Mulshine exposes himself and his political kind as commies. Anarchists cleared the way for commies in Europe, too.
No thanks. Weak blog is weak.
P.S. He forgot to complain about her migraines.
From what I gather, Ron Paul would cut all ties and support to Israel.
For me and my house, ‘nough said.
“she would balance the budget”
That is not remarkable. There are a lot of conservatives that would balance the budget, slashing the fat in D.C. left and right. The problem is, there are not enough conservatives in Congress.
But Michele is one of them and she would work to balance the budget.
That’s one of the reasons I support her.
Balancing the budget would not be that difficult; we need to do more than that to reduce the debt.
Gotta' stop the leaking before you can bail out the water.
In 2009, 2010, 2011, spending increases were 17.9%, -1.7% and 10.5%, respectively.
Revenue increases of those years were -16.6%, 2.7% and 0.5%.
Spending over revenue percentages were: 67.1%, 59.8% and 75.7%.
A huge $1.4 trillion budget gap was opened up in 2009 - and it just won’t close ! Eeek !
If the Federal government keeps spending 60% to 75% MORE than it takes in, it will not be able to borrow, it will simply be creating money and spending it, which is basically what it is doing now.
That being said, if Revenue jumped up, from just over $2 trillion (what it is now) to about $3.8 trillion (about what government spends now), then the spending would be reasonable, because there would be no deficit and the government would not be forced to borrow or print money.
Trouble is, while Dems and many Repubs believe that revenue can be somehow magically double in the near future, like getting blood from a stone, this is not realistic given how distasteful it is to start a small business within the U.S. in most industries (and I used the term loosely, because “industry”, as in manufacturing, is, of course, running away from unions and regulation rather quickly).
The only solution is two-pronged - lower Federal spending and less intrusive, less nanny-state Federal government.
If Federal spending is actually really slashed by $1.4 trillion in just the 1 year - 2012 - to get rid of the deficit completely, that’s reasonably good news. However, without also reducing the size and scope of government, we will only see reasonably good economic performance, given the headwinds the Federal government creates for business with all of it’s statist machinations.
It’s important to note that real productivity is the primary determining factor in standard of living. It makes eminently more sense to expect work, ergo, productivity, from the 18-64 year-old segment of society as opposed to the elderly, or over-65 segment.
Some of the over-65 segment have not prepared financially for retirement sans social security, and they rely heavily upon it to pay for their essentials of food, housing, transportation and medicine (notice I left out clothing and placed medicine last). The did this because they relied on an implied promise by the Federal government that they could use those programs as a fallback in case they had managed to accumulate no other assets by the time they reached 65. The Federal government, over the last 40-50 years, has constantly made a huge point in the media of how those programs were rock solid and could be relied upon - and they were making this promise to what are called NON-ACCREDITED INVESTORS. The Federal government itself regulates to the point of insanity what can and can’t be said, promised and offered to NON-ACCREDITED INVESTORS in terms of investments, giving them far fewer options than accredited investors. So, the Federal government was the biggest culprit in creating the lie that perhaps a person could “get by” on social security and medicare in retirement.
IMHO, in light of these issues, it would be far preferable from a common sense standpoint to cut Federal discretionary spending by $1.4 trillion, curtailing purchases, eliminating whole departments and laying off Federal employees, rather than making any reductions in payments under the social security and medicare for current retirees. The under-65’s that work for the Federal government will need to work in the coming decades - and they can produce real value if they go to work in the private sector. The over-65’s are much more limited in their work options from here on out and ought simply to have their programs continue to the extent possible.
I personally think that SS and medicare can and should be phased out over time with those functions going to the private sector.
what about those who voted for Soetoro?
I think I would immediately go after the agencies that directly kill jobs and eliminate or strip them to the bare bones. Things like the EPA, DOE, OSHA etc. I’d kill funding for high speed rail, smart grids, and rural internet, alternative energy etc. The national endowment for the arts would be gone, taxpayer dollars going overseas would be severely restricted. I would pick a fight with the UN and do everything I could to get them out of America. I’d stop taking social security out of those entering the workforce while paying off those leaving the workforce.
At the same time I would push “localization”. That means defederalizing schools, using federal highway funds for interstate highways and bridges only. The states and counties would be responsible for their own roads. I would eliminate FEMA and go back to the old civil defense system. I would let the state and local people decide on oil and gas drilling
I would eliminate the TSA and let the airlines hire their own security. I would eliminate the BATF and DHS while letting the FBI resume those duties.
Ya know, come to think of it. Maybe you should just make me emperor for a predetermined period of time.
Have to agree with you, unfortunately. If she believes what she`s saying she isn`t smart enough for the job, and if she doesn`t, why is she saying these things? Howard Dean was doing well, too—until he wasn`t. A few more mind-bogglers like these and she will have guaranteed an early retirement from politics. Wasn`t she just elevted to Congress? I thought when Obama started running in his first term that was a bad thing, but it`s different now, I guess.
Nice job Pieter.
The author is nitpicking semantics and choosing to play the “depends on what the meaning if ‘is’ is” game. I’m quite certain form watching previous interviews, and reading her actual opinions, that Bachmann is considerably more economically literate than he. Every president over the last 50 years has had stumbles that make her look like Einstein in comparison. The ones before had them too, but that was before the press turned 100% sensationalist, so they weren’t reported.
Lilliputians Unite! Pffft.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.