Saturday, December 15, 2012

Miscellaneous 157

1) If the federal government cut foreign aid by 20%, that would save the treasury $10 billion. If they cut agricultural supports by 20%, that would net them another $4 billion. And if they closed unnecessary foreign military bases, that would save them $12 billion (Rumsfeld's numbers, not mine). All together that would be another $26 billion that you could add to the $60 billion from previous posts (capping the mortgage interest deduction and having Medicare negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies) for a total of $86 billion. This isn't rocket-science, people.............2) I also think that we really need to look at that payroll tax holiday. That one item alone is costing the treasury $110 billion a year and, even if we scaled that back 20% (and, yes, we could graduate this in favor of the working and middle classes), that would be an additional $22 billion in savings and a subtotal now of $108 billion.............3) I've been pretty critical of FDR and Obama lately and so let me do a little turnabout here. Herbert Hoover, a Republican, increased federal spending by an unprecedented (for peacetime) 47% (11.8% average per year) during his four years. George W. Bush, another Republican, increased federal spending 61% (7.6% average per year) during his eight years. And Gerald Ford, yet another Republican - he, unfortunately, was the original pioneer of this idiotic tax-rebate concept (tax-cuts generally lead to economic growth only when the marginal rates on productive behavior are permanently lowered). This whole notion that only Democratic Presidents have engaged in wasteful spending and government interference is a purely false one and if I've ever even implied that in the past then I apologize.

4 comments:

Unknown said...

Republicrats at work. They talk the talk, but never walk the walk and then the so-called "failure" of the free market gets blamed on idiots like Bush when they supposedly spent more on social programs than Lyndon B. Johnson ever did. By spending standards, Bill Clinton sounds a helluva lot more fiscally conservative than Bush ever was. Clinton also signed NAFTA, which I also don't understand the controversy behind.

http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush

I doubt Mr. Bush even had that much business experience in terms of working his way up from the bottom to the top of the companies he ran.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You're absolutely right, Roberto, and the numbers bear you out. Spending on HUD, education, transportation, and HHS all skyrocketed under President Bush and the man's successor has clearly taken the bataan from him.......And the sad thing is that you and I could probably sit down over a pot of coffee and cut the deficit by a couple of hundred billion dollars and it wouldn't be all that hard....This and all the while those morons in Washington can't accomplish squat.

Les Carpenter said...

I'm coming to the conclusion it is an incurable disease.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The cause being not bacteria, though, but stupidity.