President Obama released his proposed budget for 2013 recently. Let's just say it seems familiar. Despite his promise to cut the deficit (not the debt mind you) in half by the end of his administration, he has been part of a government that has run, at his suggestion, record deficits of over $1 trillion each year. Well, no sense backing down from that now. President Obama's 2013 proposed budget puts the government in another $1 trillion hole (OK, $1.33 trillion, but hey, what's a few hundred billion dollars between friends). All this despite hiking taxes on everything but people specializing in reconstructive surgery of raccoon anal sphincters (whether or not the raccoons themselves will see a tax raise remains unknown, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi responded she would have to pass it to know when asked).
It's hard not to look at the path that this President and his Democratic compatriots have taken in the last three years and see anything but an intent to destroy the economic structure of the United States. Here's why. President Obama is not particularly smart (I know that runs against the grain, but I'm just basing that opinion off of the man's ability to speak off script combined with a refusal to release his college records and the lack of any published works despite being the editor of the Harvard Law Review), but he's also not an idiot. This means that, unlike the aforementioned Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D. Fantasyland) he knows that one dollar of government spending doesn't magically reproduce into $2.50 in economic spending.
Many liberals will argue that the national debt is irrelevant (see, e.g., Democratic strategist Bob Beckel and Professor Marc Lamont Hill) because, as America operates on a system of fiat currency rather than tying the value of the dollar to something real such as gold (as it was for the first 200 or so years of this country) means that if the debt becomes an issue we can simply devalue the currency through printing more money. I love when liberals argue this point, because it is the most anti-poor strategy that could possibly exist. Why? Devaluing the currency means rampant inflation, which essentially results in a redistribution of wealth from people who depend on cash to those who invest in commodities. Think of oil. Traded in US dollars, if the currency devalues, oil goes up in value relative to dollars, while the ability of the person holding dollars to buy refined gasoline decreases, meaning that the guy who has to buy gas to go to work can't afford it, while the guy running OPEC has doubled his investment. Thanks liberals. (Greg Gutfeld was probably right when saying most conservative policies seek to eliminate poverty while liberal policies seek to eliminate the poor, such as abortion for all).
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the President knows these things and is not so ignorant as to simply discard them. If that is true, and he is not a flaming retard, it's hard to believe that this pattern represents anything other than the purposeful destruction of the United States economic system (which he's been pretty clear about not being a fan of, after all).
So this November, if you find yourself leaning towards voting for President Obama over anyone not named Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Mussolini, make sure you strap on that vest and that your trigger is working properly so you can enter that suicide pact with the President.
No comments:
Post a Comment