How “unsustainable” does it have to get?
If you’re wondering what “unsustainable” looks like, here’s a great example.
In the wake of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012, it’s now possible to detail just how profligate the Obama years have been. Here’s the upshot: Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95). That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year.
If you are further wondering why Democrats are so keen on raising taxes, this helps explain that.
In other unsustainable news:
The government spent approximately $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011 alone — a price tag that makes welfare that year the government’s largest expenditure, according to new data released by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee.
The total sum taxpayers spent on federal welfare programs was derived from a new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report on federal welfare spending — which topped out at $745.84 billion for fiscal year 2011 — combined with an analysis from the Republican Senate Budget Committee staff of state spending on federal welfare programs (based on “The Oxford Handbook of State and Local Government Finance”), which reached $282.7 billion in fiscal year 2011.
Business as usual.
Oh, and the jobless numbers look lovely this week too.
~McQ
You know you are in deep dookie when ACH!mydinnerjacket gives a speech about how you have ceased to be a viable superpower, and you have to allow as how he has a point.
You can top it off by being lectured about the dangers of quantitative easing by the central banker of Zimbabwe.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-16/head-zimbabwe-central-bank-explains-qe3
Hey, we’re kinda busy checking out the Binders of Women today, could you keep the real financial information that’s hostile to the administration to a minimum?
sigh….
http://patterico.com/files/2012/10/Clinton-Binders-of-Women-450×304.jpg
For some, that sounds provocative.
Actually, “binders” is a sign of how BADLY Obama is losing this election.
I love the smell of desperation in the morning….
Talk about clueless – If these binder phraseology absorved idiots were caught in the path of a stampede they’d be excitedly jumping up and down and shouting “Horsies! Horsies!”
I pray for their stunned disbelief on November 7th, followed by their pitiful wailing.
But Romney has a binder of women! That is what really matters.
Dammit… looker beat me to it.
“Romney has a binder of women! That is what really matters.”
You know, that may make him more popular in certain Middle Eastern countries.
“HEAR ME PEASANTS! I AM ROMM -NEY, THE BINDER OF WOMEN! DISPLEASE ME AT YOUR PERIL!
Any chance the Liberal women will get all hot and bothered over Romney now like they did Obama? You remember the fantasy stories after he got elected. Now they can have fantasies of Mittens “binding” them.
Heh!
Billy’s October Surprise…!!!!
I’m sure there’s a lame ass explanation that came immediately on the heels of that sentence.
It all depends on what your definition of ‘fixed’ is.
“newly released summary of federal spending”
I think summaries are all we can expect for the forseeable future. I doubt that anyone knows where all the money actually goes. That is, I think, one of the reasons you can’t get a straight answer from anyone about our fiscal situation; they just don’t know but don’t want to admit it. Or are afraid to admit it. It’s just too complex; too much information. It’s a Gordian budget.
On the plus side, it makes the job of foreign intelligence services much more difficult.
Did ya see the $27 million we spent to teach Moroccans how to make clay pots, IN Morocco…..
I know we’ve been directed to focus our concern on the phrase “binders of women”, but here’s further info on the super duper job done in Libya -
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/18/state-department-report-praised-diplomatic-securit/
Note the ‘more secure’ and ‘enhanced security’ features of the new compound where Ambassador Stevens was killed.
It seems that the “preference cascade” is occuring now. Everything seems to be shifting in favor of Romney. I expect that to accelerate as it becomes obvious, at some point the MSM and the left will save themselves (as best they can) and throw Obama under the bus.
I look forward to Obama giving us all a “you won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around any more” speech.
Oh don’t worry. It’s gonna be fun blaming HIM for all of the inherited mess these next 4 years. And this guy is gonna do a slow burn over in Rezko-land. I predict once he’s voted out, divorce from his wife within 3 years, and a hushed up domestic dispute within 1
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20121018/OPINION01/310180040/Time-another-change?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1
Liberal Tennessean endorses Romney.
This is called “social permission”, and is highly important in the process of cascading.
Rags, I was stunned to hear this. It’s the most unexpected news of the entire election season so far.
I’ve lived in Nashville all of my post-college life, and during most of that time, the Tennessean has been the epitomy of a worthless liberal rag “newspaper”. I think there have been one or two endorsements for a sitting Republican for governor or senator (I’d have to research to be sure), but otherwise they have been a reliable shill for Democrats.
Not surprising, since Nashville is dominated by an old-style Democratic machines still, and has not had a Republican congressman since 1875, and no Republican mayor in my lifetime.
I would have given you fifty-to-one odds against that endorsement before it happened.
Signs. It feels good…this place where we are. Which is not objective, but it can still be wonderfully valid. I rely on intuition sometimes, and it has proven pretty reliable. I knew Bill Clinton was a snake the first time I saw him, after forming a rather positive opinion based on his “New Democrat” writings.
Pingback: How “unsustainable” does it have to get? | Liberal Whoppers
Obama. I would say that was pretty FLUCKING non-optimal. How do you “fix” the dead guys??? I would also say that YOU “screw up” constantly, and you have weakened America.
Obama made yet another excellent Romney ad. As did Bill Clinton.
That’s been his answer – unacceptable. He wasn’t hired to track down terrorists who launch successful attacks. He was flucking hired to prevent the attacks, or at least blunt them. Christ, I could have done what he did on this one, because he did nothing. There was no bluntting that night, and what followed was serial lying about it for days on end. Just further proof of what we already knew in spades, he’s NOT a leader.
More info is going to come out that they willfully ignored the intel they were getting, watch and see. People who’s jobs he’s besmirching aren’t going to just sit back and let him lie about it when he’s not lying for National Security, but for job security.
“When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal. We’re going to fix it,”
He is going to ‘fix it’?? Does he think he can raise the dead? Next he will solve world hunger with a few fish sandwiches.
The fact is that if he had had normal scrutiny, then he probably would get a pass on Benghazi. I mean, not a total pass, but people would understand. But since every thing he has botched gets buried, or covered up, or praised by the press, any little thing now gets way more attention and less leeway.
He should have flushed Holder a long time ago and let some of the steam out of the pressure cooker.
The United States of America will look good in Romney’s portfolio, if he wins.
I don’t think Soros would sell.
What a moron.
Whatever that means.
I hope you’re getting your boxes of tissue ready, I’m taking the Conan approach to this – “Good” will be seeing your candidate crushed and driven out, and hearing your lamentations.
It was “…the lamentations of their women”, I think. But, in his case…
Could be the same for all I know.