Government has proven their ability to control things very tightly, like their own spending. Now they hope to do the same thing for the climate.
In conclusion, if climate change is not controlled through timely central government means then health losses will occur worldwide.
I have really lost track over there on the latest politics. At one point Obama said $4 trillion in cuts as long as some tax rises. Now it is a lot less in cuts and no tax rises. And still they can’t make up their minds. It appears everyone is getting their sums wrongs as well.
Do the cuts, don’t put any direct tax on and then put $2 per gallon on gas, that will get you $400b per year which will pay off the debt interest payments. Then you economy can recover and you can pay off the actual debt.
Andy
The US ‘baseline’ spending projections add 7% per year. What you are hearing is two different definitions of spending cuts. One side defines increasing spending by 6% as a 1% cut, and the other side tells the truth.
So true! The same people who can’t fix their local economies which they have considerable control over are planning to fix the global climate, which they have little control over. And central planning used to work so well for Russia, China, Cuba et al. Maybe a good five year plan would help.
No. The EU uses 5 year plans. Just google “EU 5 year plan” if you don’t believe it.
You’re right. I would have thought communism would have given 5 year plans by the state a bad name. At least they aren’t calling it a “great leap forward”.
Obviously planning can be a good thing but planning to stop the planet from warming and control sea level rise seem to be grandiose ideas akin to recent attempts to create a worldwide utopia. Forced collectivization didn’t work out so well then and this latest endeavor looks to be as poorly planned.
The alarmists want all sorts of new taxes and regulations to fight AGW at the same time the economy is already very close to a tipping point.
AndyW,
How is adding $2 tax on gas not a direct tax? The federal government already sucks 25% of our GDP, 40% when including state and local.
The economy cannot grow when energy is unaffordable as is becoming the case already. How about lopping off 40% from spending, leaving a surplus? Problem solved.
If the proposal were to be freezing spending, the government would score it as a $9.5 trillion cut over ten years. That is how effed up the accounting is. And remember, Obamacare hasn’t even kicked in yet, and they want to spend more.
BTW, gold is topping $1612. silver $40 as I post this.
The wall street talking heads have been predicting gold would collapse to 500 for 3 years. I wonder why. The entire system is being propped up with paper. It’s only a matter time before the whole thing comes crashing down. Our credit card is in the process of being canceled, so next up is QE3 and the monotizing of the debt will resume. It won’t matter who is in office in 2013, Obama will have already “fundamentally transformed” America by then.
Anyone invested in municipal bonds better get out. You ain’t gonna get your money. The feds screwed the secured investors at GM & Chrysler, and so will be the case when states go belly up; can’t squeeze blood from a turnip. 300 years of contractual law down the crapper.
Am I paranoid? You betcha. We’re broke.
You may now return to the Matrix 😉
If government controls the climate, we will not have to worry about spending and the deficit. They will blame the rich for being greedy and hogging all the AC as the planet burns.
How about lopping off 40% from spending, leaving a surplus? Problem solved.
Nope. We’re borrowing $0.43 of every dollar we spend. So we have money for $0.57. We are spending (1/0.57)=1.75x what we have. Therefore we need to cut by 75%.
There… Now that’s the kind of math cheating I would like to see in Washington.
While you post is a good tongue-in-cheek, it is not far off of reality due to “baseline budgeting”. Normal people see their baseline as what they spent last year. Congress sees it as being whatever they want to spend this year.