My lifelong friend and high-school classmate had an wonderful op-ed on iPolitics today. Please consider Not your grandfather?s Republican Party by David Wise.
One of the most negative things to have happened to the increasingly dysfunctional political system in the United States has been the transformation of the Republican Party over the last generation into the party of fiscal deficits. At one time, the bastion of balanced budgets and no free lunches, 70% of gross public debt through the last fiscal year was accumulated under the last three Republican presidents who ran deficits twenty out of twenty years averaging 3.9% of GDP.Here again is the link to the entire article: Not your grandfather?s Republican Party.
Having inherited a budget surplus from Bill Clinton, George W. Bush presided over a doubling in federal debt, simultaneously cutting taxes while running two wars on credit. Railing against domestic spending, the same administration implemented a large new unfunded prescription drug benefit. Yet now, as the opposition party, Republicans pontificate about the dangerous levels of gross public debt (now at 101.1% of GDP) and last summer set about playing chicken with a possible default on our financial obligations. In now trumpeting national debt as a paramount evil, the Republicans approach the debate by taking tax increases and defense spending off the table ? which is somewhat like resolving to set about losing weight by eschewing dieting and exercise.
Conservatives are right to raise issues about what they see as a tendency to throw money at domestic programs, yet refuse to apply the same logic to spending on the military. In a world with no existential threat such as we faced during the Cold War and in which 85% of global defense spending is by the US and its allies, the US defense budget is higher now on a constant dollar basis than it averaged during the Cold War. There is probably no part of the Federal government that is more poorly and wastefully managed than the US weapons acquisition programs where massive cost overruns are common.
The current situation is dangerous and unsustainable. This year the US government will collect taxes equal to 14.4 of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ? the lowest level since 1950 ? yet spend 25.3% of GDP. Serious people know in their hearts what has to be done. ....
President Obama and Mitt Romney are Nearly One and the Same!
I do not know which candidate my friend backs, if any. It is easy enough to make a case that every candidate is flawed.
However, I am in 100% agreement with the central thesis of his article: "Serious people know in their hearts what has to be done."
To that idea, I have a few questions.
Do You Want More Bailouts? More War-Mongering? More Nation Building? More Federal Spending? More Status Quo?
Let me phrase the above in a single question: Do you want more of the same?
Polls suggest you don't. Your votes say you do. So which will it be?
If you want more of the same, then vote for President Obama. If you want more of the same you can also vote for Mitt Romney or Herman Cain.
Whether you voted Democratic or Republican in the last election, it did not matter. The non-super budget committee proves it as does Obama's carry-over of Bush's bank bailout policies.
The sad fact of the matter is a vote for Obama is a vote for Mitt Romney. Likewise, a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Obama.
Certainly a few details will change, and a small set of "beneficiaries" will be different (for the one percent). However, for the average person, it simply will not matter. The average person will be ruined by the war-mongering, anti-free trade policies of all of the Republican candidates but one.
The latest Republican debate offers strong evidence of my statement.
Link if video does not play: Ron Paul Highlights in 11/22/11 Debate
Do You Want More of the Same?
As preposterous as it may have sounded at first glance, Obama and Romney are nearly One and the Same!
Neither will tackle the budget deficit. Both will keep military spending intact. Both support the "un-patriot" act.
To be fair, Romney is more likely to start a devastating trade war with China (in fact he has guaranteed it), while president Obama is more likely to waste money on social programs and big labor.
Some choice!
The simple fact of the matter is: it does not matter much if you vote for Mitt Romney or Barrack Obama. Both will destroy the country. Both support wars. Both will spend the country into the ground (but perhaps in different ways).
Regardless of who wins the Republican nomination, I will not vote for either of them. Nor will I vote for Perry, Gingrich, or Cain. I certainly will not vote for President Obama.
If you want change, and polls suggest you do, there is precisely one candidate who will give you the change this country desperately needs. That person is Ron Paul.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List
Mike "Mish" Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management. Sitka Pacific is an asset management firm whose goal is strong performance and low volatility, regardless of market direction. Visit http://www.sitkapacific.com/account_management.html to learn more about wealth management and capital preservation strategies of Sitka Pacific.
censored jesse ventura buckeye brady hoke boston herald boo ray
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen