Debt Day.
For those not quite in the know. Debt Day is the day that the federal government theoretically has spent all the money they collect for this years budget, therefore meaning that every dollar spent from that day forward adds to the national debt.
The federal governments fiscal year runs from Oct 1st to Sept 30th. which in my opinion is very intriguing consider: Our individual tax bill is accumulated from Jan 1st to Dec 31st, and our payment becomes official on April 15th.
Tale of the tape on Debt Day.
1998 - We had no debt day. We ended the fiscal year with a surplus.
1999 - We had no debt day. We ended the fiscal year with a surplus.
2000 - We had no debt day. We ended the fiscal year with a surplus.
2001 - We had no debt day. We ended the fiscal year with a surplus.
2002 - Debt Day was Sept 2nd. (only 28 days from surplus)
2003 - Debt Day was July 29th. (Two months from surplus)
2004 - Debt Day was July 27th. (Two months from surplus)
2005 - Debt Day was Aug. 14th. (A month and half from surplus)
2006 - Debt Day was Aug. 27th. (33 days from surplus)
2007 - Debt Day was Aug. 9th. (Almost two months from surplus)
2008 - Debt Day was Aug. 5th. (Almost two months from surplus)
2009 - Debt Day was April 26th (WHAT THE _____?)
Interesting point: Republicans held one or both, legislative and/or executive branch until 2009. Maybe there is something to the fiscally responsible republican party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to buy every liberal a T-shirt that reads. "All I ever needed to know, I learned in Kindergarten." Because every time I try to explain to them that outrageous government spending isn't good for the country, they come back with 'Well, Bush started it."
So I have started to get confused by this. Since their party is just merely continuing a policy set forth by the Bush administration are they saying that they believe the Bush administration was right about something, or are they saying Bush was wrong to start spending money, but because he was wrong first that means they can be wrong without blame?
Monday, April 27, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Winners and Losers
I remember growing up playing sports and games. The first thing I remember about this time was always being one of the last kids picked. (Maybe I shouldn't have grown up so stable.) The second thing I remember was there were winners and losers. (I was a party to both) The next thing that I remember is what i am going to write about today.
As a younger person I recall people losing a game and suddenly wanting to change the rules to make the game closer or even reverse the current rankings. Now if games are a predeccor to adult life. We play them to learn about rules and winning. We also play them to learn how to accept defeat and try again. But I have seen recently in the adult world a trend of wanting to change the rules because one side is losing.
A few years ago a man wanted to challenge the right-wing stranglehold on radio commentary. He created his own network Air-America. With a name like that and hosts with big names and huge followings this endeavor was too good to fail. Unfortunately it did fail. In the game of free airwaves, not enough people wanted to listen.
Left-wing talk radio was losing the battle. So what is the answer. Most people after a failure such as this would follow one of two choices. They would accept defeat and move on, either to another media or to something totally different. or They would try again, hopefully with a new and better plan.
But some on the left have learned the wrong lesson(or maybe never learned the lessons at all) while playing games growing up. If we are losing lets just change the rules. This rule change is called the "Fairness Doctrine". It is a rule change that will force station owners to air shows that no one in there listening demographic want to hear.
How can I be so certain that these shows are not wanted. Because capitalism works.
In this weeks news I read about more newspapers folding or retooling. Is this a bad thing. I am surprised environmentalist aren't cheering this, other than the majority of the papers are advocates of theirs. With more and more print media failing, this means less and less deforestation to make paper. But are these papers the exception to their rule.
The move away from print media may be a subject of a future blog.
In the future when someone is losing, be wary and vigilant in making sure they don't change the rules.
As a younger person I recall people losing a game and suddenly wanting to change the rules to make the game closer or even reverse the current rankings. Now if games are a predeccor to adult life. We play them to learn about rules and winning. We also play them to learn how to accept defeat and try again. But I have seen recently in the adult world a trend of wanting to change the rules because one side is losing.
A few years ago a man wanted to challenge the right-wing stranglehold on radio commentary. He created his own network Air-America. With a name like that and hosts with big names and huge followings this endeavor was too good to fail. Unfortunately it did fail. In the game of free airwaves, not enough people wanted to listen.
Left-wing talk radio was losing the battle. So what is the answer. Most people after a failure such as this would follow one of two choices. They would accept defeat and move on, either to another media or to something totally different. or They would try again, hopefully with a new and better plan.
But some on the left have learned the wrong lesson(or maybe never learned the lessons at all) while playing games growing up. If we are losing lets just change the rules. This rule change is called the "Fairness Doctrine". It is a rule change that will force station owners to air shows that no one in there listening demographic want to hear.
How can I be so certain that these shows are not wanted. Because capitalism works.
In this weeks news I read about more newspapers folding or retooling. Is this a bad thing. I am surprised environmentalist aren't cheering this, other than the majority of the papers are advocates of theirs. With more and more print media failing, this means less and less deforestation to make paper. But are these papers the exception to their rule.
The move away from print media may be a subject of a future blog.
In the future when someone is losing, be wary and vigilant in making sure they don't change the rules.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Statistics and Facts
I have have had it with statistics and facts. So few people have any clue how to use them or in some cases what they really are.
I am tired of people quoting statistics that the not only can not cite from where they acquired them but can't even explain their relevancy to there argument.
--- People born in the 21st century have it so much better than those born in the 20th century. Of those born after 1900 less then 10% still live today, yet over 90% of those born after 2000 are alive and well. ---
Wow that is an interesting statistic, but really has no reference that proves my initial point. But wow, doesn't it sound cool!!!
Often times a statistics relevance may be good but the use to defend your point isn't strong.
--- You drive carefully always, statistics prove that the majority of accidents happen within 5 minutes of your home. ---
This is one of my favorites, because although the fact backs up the assumption you should always drive carefully. It does not relate the entire story. Because statistics prove you do the majority of your driving within 5 minutes from your home. It would only be basic thinking to conclude the majority of accidents will occur where you do the majority of your driving. It would be almost as bad to say. The majority of car accidents involve cars. Or Pedestrians that walk in the middle of the road are more likely to be hit by traffic then those that walk on the sidewalk.
And yet these statistics have some semblance of truth, for none of them have I nor can I back up with any study or research I have done. This is what irritates me the most. People spouting out facts and statistics without quoting the source or the research. This leads to not only incorrect facts and statistics but often times purely fictitious ones.
--- 95% of High School Drop outs are Democrats ---
You figure out where that one fits in my rant.
I am tired of people quoting statistics that the not only can not cite from where they acquired them but can't even explain their relevancy to there argument.
--- People born in the 21st century have it so much better than those born in the 20th century. Of those born after 1900 less then 10% still live today, yet over 90% of those born after 2000 are alive and well. ---
Wow that is an interesting statistic, but really has no reference that proves my initial point. But wow, doesn't it sound cool!!!
Often times a statistics relevance may be good but the use to defend your point isn't strong.
--- You drive carefully always, statistics prove that the majority of accidents happen within 5 minutes of your home. ---
This is one of my favorites, because although the fact backs up the assumption you should always drive carefully. It does not relate the entire story. Because statistics prove you do the majority of your driving within 5 minutes from your home. It would only be basic thinking to conclude the majority of accidents will occur where you do the majority of your driving. It would be almost as bad to say. The majority of car accidents involve cars. Or Pedestrians that walk in the middle of the road are more likely to be hit by traffic then those that walk on the sidewalk.
And yet these statistics have some semblance of truth, for none of them have I nor can I back up with any study or research I have done. This is what irritates me the most. People spouting out facts and statistics without quoting the source or the research. This leads to not only incorrect facts and statistics but often times purely fictitious ones.
--- 95% of High School Drop outs are Democrats ---
You figure out where that one fits in my rant.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Congressional Approval?
With Congress' Approval rating still sitting south of acceptable one begins to wonder why, we the people, continue to vote the same people in again and again.
Do we believe it is the other guy, it can't be our guy that is messing things up. Let me pull back the current and reveal the truth. It is our guy, it is your guy. There are very few true congressmen.
It is my opinion that it is the job of your congressmen to make sure you, as their constituent, don't get screwed, it is not their responsibility to assure you get the biggest slice of the pie the can cut out for you.
I would say,and this is not factually backed, just my pure speculation, there is probably 1-5% of congress that truly takes their job seriously and do their job as it is written in the constitution. that means 1 to 5 Senators, and 4 to 22 Representatives that are looking out for America and it's future and not just the next election or payday.
Do we believe it is the other guy, it can't be our guy that is messing things up. Let me pull back the current and reveal the truth. It is our guy, it is your guy. There are very few true congressmen.
It is my opinion that it is the job of your congressmen to make sure you, as their constituent, don't get screwed, it is not their responsibility to assure you get the biggest slice of the pie the can cut out for you.
I would say,and this is not factually backed, just my pure speculation, there is probably 1-5% of congress that truly takes their job seriously and do their job as it is written in the constitution. that means 1 to 5 Senators, and 4 to 22 Representatives that are looking out for America and it's future and not just the next election or payday.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
I am an Extremist!?!
I have learned recently, that because I don't completely agree with the policies the present administration is setting into place, I am an extremist. I am not certain if my meager blog has yet caught the eye of federal officers, but I am sure it will.
What is my crime for being label as such. Well, I believe in the US Constitution. I believe it was set forth to separate powers between the National Government and the individual States. I believe the current administration is bulldozing that separation, by forcing States, Local Municipalities, and even Private Businesses to adhere to the rule of the federal government.
So I am an extremist, a radical, just like the country's founders. I feel honored to be in such company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can the American people be so lost in this economic downturn to miss this. Our government wants to spend nearly $4trillion dollars next year and our president is parading around a $100 million cut like it is something special. Don't get me wrong if the President can cut $100 million from his budget, I am all for it. Just don't brag about it like you are doing something amazing.
Seriously, let me try that. I think in my budget next year I am going spend $40,000. Oh wait, I only make $25,000 a year, so that isn't going to add up. Lets readjust my budget. $39,999.99, Let's see if that works.
What is my crime for being label as such. Well, I believe in the US Constitution. I believe it was set forth to separate powers between the National Government and the individual States. I believe the current administration is bulldozing that separation, by forcing States, Local Municipalities, and even Private Businesses to adhere to the rule of the federal government.
So I am an extremist, a radical, just like the country's founders. I feel honored to be in such company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can the American people be so lost in this economic downturn to miss this. Our government wants to spend nearly $4trillion dollars next year and our president is parading around a $100 million cut like it is something special. Don't get me wrong if the President can cut $100 million from his budget, I am all for it. Just don't brag about it like you are doing something amazing.
Seriously, let me try that. I think in my budget next year I am going spend $40,000. Oh wait, I only make $25,000 a year, so that isn't going to add up. Lets readjust my budget. $39,999.99, Let's see if that works.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Phrases Defined...(by me)
Nuclear Winter
I remember hearing and reading this phrase quite a bit when I was growing up. The environmental extremists used it to describe what all the pollution was doing to our weather. Too much smoke and debris was being thrown into our skies, preventing the suns light and heat from entering, causing a cooling effect on the earth.
This was only 15 to 20 years ago.
But now for some reason the same pollutants that seemed to cause global cooling are now causing global warming. I wonder how long until we go back to cooling or maybe these radicals will see the light and discover that these things happen in cycles and start to claim the cycles aren't happening. "Oh No, we have to stop global weather stagnation, The average temperature of the earth hasn't changed we must stop companies from producing stuff."
-Global Weather Stagnation- the next environmental wacko outcry.
Pursuit of Happiness
One of the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, or so says The Declaration of Independence. But what does it mean? How do we define it? Recently, There has been ramblings that it means everyone has the right to be happy. But as you can imagine, I don't agree. For the phrase is not simply "Happiness". but the "PURSUIT of Happiness".
So what makes you happy? You have the right to pursue that. There is no guarantee you will ever achieve it. That part is not endowed by our Creator. Only the pursuit. Unfortunately for many, pursuit requires action of their own. You must actually do something to gain that happiness you long for. It will not be provided for you, only the freedom to pursue it.
Supply-Side Economics - Trickle-Down Economics - Capitalism
These are all one in the same. Lately they have been demonized. They are held up as, what has caused the recent economic downturn. Cries for more regulation, as so called facts of capitalism failure run rampant. I would like to know, when has America fully embraced true capitalism. Every time I turn around someone, somewhere is putting a restriction on how someone else runs their business. You can not have true capitalism when there is any regulation. If capitalism is a failed system, I will freely admit it, but only after it is truly tried. We can not serve two masters.
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
No words in any American document have been misquoted or misrepresented then these. Often quoted as "separation of church and state" This phrase does not prohibit anyone from being religious, on the contrary this protects those that choose to be religious. It does not say our government officials can not abide by their religion, it only states those officials can not force anyone else to practice them. As a matter of fact, it actually protects their right to ask people to practice them. It also protects the right of those that wish not to.
War on Drugs - War on Terror
These two phrases although mean two totally different things, have one major thing in common. How does someone fight Drugs/Terror? Drugs are not a street thug, but a substance that's sole purpose is to distort one's reality and terror is not an enemy combatant, but rather a means and/or an ends to achieving a fearful response. Both have existed since the dawn of civilization(probably before) and will continue to exist until it's end(probably after).
So instead of waging war on drugs/terror, could we possibly start fighting their proprietors.
I remember hearing and reading this phrase quite a bit when I was growing up. The environmental extremists used it to describe what all the pollution was doing to our weather. Too much smoke and debris was being thrown into our skies, preventing the suns light and heat from entering, causing a cooling effect on the earth.
This was only 15 to 20 years ago.
But now for some reason the same pollutants that seemed to cause global cooling are now causing global warming. I wonder how long until we go back to cooling or maybe these radicals will see the light and discover that these things happen in cycles and start to claim the cycles aren't happening. "Oh No, we have to stop global weather stagnation, The average temperature of the earth hasn't changed we must stop companies from producing stuff."
-Global Weather Stagnation- the next environmental wacko outcry.
Pursuit of Happiness
One of the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, or so says The Declaration of Independence. But what does it mean? How do we define it? Recently, There has been ramblings that it means everyone has the right to be happy. But as you can imagine, I don't agree. For the phrase is not simply "Happiness". but the "PURSUIT of Happiness".
So what makes you happy? You have the right to pursue that. There is no guarantee you will ever achieve it. That part is not endowed by our Creator. Only the pursuit. Unfortunately for many, pursuit requires action of their own. You must actually do something to gain that happiness you long for. It will not be provided for you, only the freedom to pursue it.
Supply-Side Economics - Trickle-Down Economics - Capitalism
These are all one in the same. Lately they have been demonized. They are held up as, what has caused the recent economic downturn. Cries for more regulation, as so called facts of capitalism failure run rampant. I would like to know, when has America fully embraced true capitalism. Every time I turn around someone, somewhere is putting a restriction on how someone else runs their business. You can not have true capitalism when there is any regulation. If capitalism is a failed system, I will freely admit it, but only after it is truly tried. We can not serve two masters.
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
No words in any American document have been misquoted or misrepresented then these. Often quoted as "separation of church and state" This phrase does not prohibit anyone from being religious, on the contrary this protects those that choose to be religious. It does not say our government officials can not abide by their religion, it only states those officials can not force anyone else to practice them. As a matter of fact, it actually protects their right to ask people to practice them. It also protects the right of those that wish not to.
War on Drugs - War on Terror
These two phrases although mean two totally different things, have one major thing in common. How does someone fight Drugs/Terror? Drugs are not a street thug, but a substance that's sole purpose is to distort one's reality and terror is not an enemy combatant, but rather a means and/or an ends to achieving a fearful response. Both have existed since the dawn of civilization(probably before) and will continue to exist until it's end(probably after).
So instead of waging war on drugs/terror, could we possibly start fighting their proprietors.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
More Lyrics
This time three songs with a similar message.
In The Light - DC Talk
I keep trying to find a life
On my own, apart from you
I am the king of excuses
Ive got one for every selfish thing I do
Whats going on inside of me?
I despise my own behavior
This only serves to confirm my suspicions
That Im still a man in need of a savior
(chorus)
I wanna be in the light
As you are in the light
I wanna shine like the stars in the heavens
Oh, lord be my light and be my salvation
Cause all I want is to be in the light
All I want is to be in the light
The disease of self runs through my blood
Its a cancer fatal to my soul
Every attempt on my behalf has failed
To bring this sickness under control
Tell me, whats going on inside of me?
I despise my own behavior
This only serves to confirm my suspicions
That Im still a man in need of a savior
(repeat chorus)
Honesty becomes me
[there's nothing left to lose]
The secrets that did run me
[in your presence are defused]
Pride has no position
[and riches have no worth]
The fame that once did cover me
[has been sentenced to this earth]
Has been sentenced to this earth
Tell me, whats going on inside of me?
I despise my own behavior
This only serves to confirm my suspicions
That Im still a man in need of a savior
(repeat chorus 2x)
[there's no other place that I want to be]
[no other place that I can see]
[a place to be that's just right]
[someday Im gonna be in the light]
[you are in the light]
[that's where I need to be]
[that's right where I need to be]
Less Of Me - Grammatrain
Seems like I am always in the way
Of who I am trying to obey
I need something to make me understand
I don't live when I live by my own hand
Is everyone staring holes in me
Sometimes I wish that me they could not see
Like a snowfall dropping down in June
I do what I know I should not do
All I want is to be free
I need so much less of me
All my problems exist and I still say
I believe in who only is the way
Undo Me - Jennifer Knapp
Papa, I think I messed up again
Was it something I did?
Was it something I said?
I don't mean to do you wrong
It's just the way of human nature!
Sister, I know I let you down
I can tell by the fact
You never come around
You don't have to say a thing
I can tell by your eyes
Exactly what you mean
That it's time
To get down on my knees and pray
"Lord, undo me!"
Put away my flesh and bone
'Til You own this spirit through me Lord,
Undo me.
Mama, I know I made you cry
But I never meant to hurt you
I never meant to lie
While the world shook its head in shame
I let you take the blame
Brother, I know you labored
So hard to please
But I cut you down
And I left you on your knees
Well I know it must be
Time to get down on my knees and pray
"Lord, undo me!"
Put away my flesh and bone
'Til You own this spirit through me Lord
I am wanting, needing, guilty and greedy
Unrighteous, unholy; undo me. Undo me!
Abba Father You must wonder why
More times than Peter I have denied.
Three nails and a cross to prove
I owe my life eternally to you!
And it's time
To get down on my knees and pray
"Lord, undo me!"
Put away my flesh and bone
'Til You own this spirit through me Lord,
Undo me
In The Light - DC Talk
I keep trying to find a life
On my own, apart from you
I am the king of excuses
Ive got one for every selfish thing I do
Whats going on inside of me?
I despise my own behavior
This only serves to confirm my suspicions
That Im still a man in need of a savior
(chorus)
I wanna be in the light
As you are in the light
I wanna shine like the stars in the heavens
Oh, lord be my light and be my salvation
Cause all I want is to be in the light
All I want is to be in the light
The disease of self runs through my blood
Its a cancer fatal to my soul
Every attempt on my behalf has failed
To bring this sickness under control
Tell me, whats going on inside of me?
I despise my own behavior
This only serves to confirm my suspicions
That Im still a man in need of a savior
(repeat chorus)
Honesty becomes me
[there's nothing left to lose]
The secrets that did run me
[in your presence are defused]
Pride has no position
[and riches have no worth]
The fame that once did cover me
[has been sentenced to this earth]
Has been sentenced to this earth
Tell me, whats going on inside of me?
I despise my own behavior
This only serves to confirm my suspicions
That Im still a man in need of a savior
(repeat chorus 2x)
[there's no other place that I want to be]
[no other place that I can see]
[a place to be that's just right]
[someday Im gonna be in the light]
[you are in the light]
[that's where I need to be]
[that's right where I need to be]
Less Of Me - Grammatrain
Seems like I am always in the way
Of who I am trying to obey
I need something to make me understand
I don't live when I live by my own hand
Is everyone staring holes in me
Sometimes I wish that me they could not see
Like a snowfall dropping down in June
I do what I know I should not do
All I want is to be free
I need so much less of me
All my problems exist and I still say
I believe in who only is the way
Undo Me - Jennifer Knapp
Papa, I think I messed up again
Was it something I did?
Was it something I said?
I don't mean to do you wrong
It's just the way of human nature!
Sister, I know I let you down
I can tell by the fact
You never come around
You don't have to say a thing
I can tell by your eyes
Exactly what you mean
That it's time
To get down on my knees and pray
"Lord, undo me!"
Put away my flesh and bone
'Til You own this spirit through me Lord,
Undo me.
Mama, I know I made you cry
But I never meant to hurt you
I never meant to lie
While the world shook its head in shame
I let you take the blame
Brother, I know you labored
So hard to please
But I cut you down
And I left you on your knees
Well I know it must be
Time to get down on my knees and pray
"Lord, undo me!"
Put away my flesh and bone
'Til You own this spirit through me Lord
I am wanting, needing, guilty and greedy
Unrighteous, unholy; undo me. Undo me!
Abba Father You must wonder why
More times than Peter I have denied.
Three nails and a cross to prove
I owe my life eternally to you!
And it's time
To get down on my knees and pray
"Lord, undo me!"
Put away my flesh and bone
'Til You own this spirit through me Lord,
Undo me
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Too Smart...
"Too smart to believe what you are saying"
I heard this quote the other night, on a late night talk show. I have heard these words many times. Every time I hear them I feel more confused. When said, they pronounce the feeling that someone is a charlatan. Why would someone blatantly say something they did not believe to be true?
To sell something, that is the typical, if most general answer. But, that raises another question, how long can you sell something that never lives up to your word? If the "Pocket Fisherman" did not actually catch any fish, would Ron Popeil be nearly as successful as he is today. Or if there is no life expectancy on untruths, would he not Still be selling the original GLH?
So if these talk show host and commentators do not truly believe what they are saying wouldn't people eventually figure it out and stop buying what they are selling.
The funniest part about the other nights rendition, of these words. It was followed by the kicker, or so called proof to the assertion, quoting one of these so called charlatans, "If you believe what I say as gospel, you are an idiot" If this statement is to convey that the speaker believes what he says is wrong, then why would they even say it. What the speaker of those words is truly trying to convey is the necessity to learn the truth yourself. Do not take my, the speaker, or anyone's word, at face value. Always seek the truth for yourself. If you do not, then you are an idiot.
I heard this quote the other night, on a late night talk show. I have heard these words many times. Every time I hear them I feel more confused. When said, they pronounce the feeling that someone is a charlatan. Why would someone blatantly say something they did not believe to be true?
To sell something, that is the typical, if most general answer. But, that raises another question, how long can you sell something that never lives up to your word? If the "Pocket Fisherman" did not actually catch any fish, would Ron Popeil be nearly as successful as he is today. Or if there is no life expectancy on untruths, would he not Still be selling the original GLH?
So if these talk show host and commentators do not truly believe what they are saying wouldn't people eventually figure it out and stop buying what they are selling.
The funniest part about the other nights rendition, of these words. It was followed by the kicker, or so called proof to the assertion, quoting one of these so called charlatans, "If you believe what I say as gospel, you are an idiot" If this statement is to convey that the speaker believes what he says is wrong, then why would they even say it. What the speaker of those words is truly trying to convey is the necessity to learn the truth yourself. Do not take my, the speaker, or anyone's word, at face value. Always seek the truth for yourself. If you do not, then you are an idiot.
Cheers, to Daniel Hannan
Daniel Hannan, who represents South East England in the European Parliament. Had some very harsh words for his Prime Minister. I wonder where are the Americans that will stand up and speak to President Obama of similar wrong-doings.
"Prime Minister, I see you've already mastered the essential craft of the European politician, namely the ability to say one thing in this chamber and a very different thing to your home electorate. You've spoken here about free trade, and amen to that. Who would have guessed, listening to you just now, that you were the author of the phrase 'British jobs for British workers' and that you have subsidized, where you have not nationalized outright, swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks? Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words. Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G-20 country.
"The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around 20,000 pounds. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child. Now, once again today you try to spread the blame around; you spoke about an international recession, international crisis. Well, it is true that we are all sailing together into the squalls. But not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear their rigging -- in other words, to pay off debt. But you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the waterline under the accumulated weight of your debt. We are now running a deficit that touches 10 percent of GDP, an almost unbelievable figure -- more than Pakistan, more than Hungary, countries where the IMF have already been called in. Now, it's not that you're not apologizing; like everyone else, I have long accepted that you're pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It's that you're carrying on, willfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. … In the last 12 months, 100,000 private-sector jobs have been lost, and yet you created 30,000 public-sector jobs.
"Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we're 'well-placed to weather the storm,' I have to tell you (that) you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know and we know -- and you know that we know -- that it's nonsense!"
Thank you Mr. Hannan for speaking truth in fiscal responsibility, to ourselves, our children, and our children's children.
Also a great thanks to Larry Elder for bringing this to my attention.
"Prime Minister, I see you've already mastered the essential craft of the European politician, namely the ability to say one thing in this chamber and a very different thing to your home electorate. You've spoken here about free trade, and amen to that. Who would have guessed, listening to you just now, that you were the author of the phrase 'British jobs for British workers' and that you have subsidized, where you have not nationalized outright, swathes of our economy, including the car industry and many of the banks? Perhaps you would have more moral authority in this house if your actions matched your words. Perhaps you would have more legitimacy in the councils of the world if the United Kingdom were not going into this recession in the worst condition of any G-20 country.
"The truth, Prime Minister, is that you have run out of our money. The country as a whole is now in negative equity. Every British child is born owing around 20,000 pounds. Servicing the interest on that debt is going to cost more than educating the child. Now, once again today you try to spread the blame around; you spoke about an international recession, international crisis. Well, it is true that we are all sailing together into the squalls. But not every vessel in the convoy is in the same dilapidated condition. Other ships used the good years to caulk their hulls and clear their rigging -- in other words, to pay off debt. But you used the good years to raise borrowing yet further. As a consequence, under your captaincy, our hull is pressed deep into the waterline under the accumulated weight of your debt. We are now running a deficit that touches 10 percent of GDP, an almost unbelievable figure -- more than Pakistan, more than Hungary, countries where the IMF have already been called in. Now, it's not that you're not apologizing; like everyone else, I have long accepted that you're pathologically incapable of accepting responsibility for these things. It's that you're carrying on, willfully worsening our situation, wantonly spending what little we have left. … In the last 12 months, 100,000 private-sector jobs have been lost, and yet you created 30,000 public-sector jobs.
"Prime Minister, you cannot carry on forever squeezing the productive bit of the economy in order to fund an unprecedented engorgement of the unproductive bit. You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt. And when you repeat, in that wooden and perfunctory way, that our situation is better than others, that we're 'well-placed to weather the storm,' I have to tell you (that) you sound like a Brezhnev-era apparatchik giving the party line. You know and we know -- and you know that we know -- that it's nonsense!"
Thank you Mr. Hannan for speaking truth in fiscal responsibility, to ourselves, our children, and our children's children.
Also a great thanks to Larry Elder for bringing this to my attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
