<Grin>! "True-Dat" Michael, but today, I am optimistic!
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 9:24 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Paul, of course, is quite correct in being skeptical as Rs seldom fail to > disappoint. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "When you consider the fact that the GOP has not repealed a single > progressive program in a hundred years, you then realize that all attempts > to distinguish the GOP from the Dems are a hoax and con job." -- Jim > Ostrowski > > > > > > At 08:56 AM 1/20/2017, you wrote: > > Poor Crazy Uncle Ron, > > Most all of the "Fiscal Conservatives" including his son, addressed the > increase, but explained that this measure was a "means to an end";  (with > Rand being a bit more harsh and critical than that); and in the meantime, > the new Trump Administration returned $1.2 million in "transition funding"; > and now projects a $10 "Trillion" reduction (yes folks, that's with a "T") >  in budget funding next year. > > > > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 8:20 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > January 20, 2017 > Will Trump Continue the Bush-Obama Legacy? > By Ron Paul > Ron Paul Institute > > This week, Congress passed a budget calling for increasing federal > spending and adding $1.7 trillion to the national debt over the next ten > years. Most so-called “fiscal conservatives†voted for this big-spending > budget because it allows Congress to repeal some parts of Obamacare via > “reconciliation.†As important as it is to repeal Obamacare, it does not > justify increasing spending and debt. > > It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Obamacare repeal would > be used to justify increasing spending. Despite sequestration’s minor > (and largely phony) spending cuts, federal spending has increased every > year since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives. Some > will attribute this to the fact that the Republican House had to negotiate > with a big-spending Democratic president  even though federal spending > actually increased by a greater percentage the last time Republicans > controlled the White House and Congress than it did under President Obama. > > The history of massive spending increases under unified Republican control > of government is likely to repeat itself. During the presidential campaign, > President-elect Donald Trump came out against reducing spending on > “entitlements.†He also called for a variety of spending increases, > including spending one trillion dollars on infrastructure. > > One positive part of the infrastructure proposals is their use of tax > credits to encourage private sector investments. Hopefully this will be the > first step toward returning responsibility for building and maintaining our > nation’s infrastructure to the private sector. > > Unfortunately, the administration appears likely to support increased > federal spending on “shovel-ready†jobs. Claims that federal spending > helps grow the economy rely on the fallacy of that which is not seen. While > everyone sees the jobs and economic growth created by government > infrastructure projects, no one sees the greater number of jobs that could > have been created had the government not taken the resources out of the > hands of private businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs. Despite what > some conservatives seem to think, this fallacy applies equally to > Republican and Democrat spending. > > President-elect Trump has criticized the past two administrations’ > reckless foreign policy, and he has publicly shamed the powerful Lockheed > Martin company for wasting taxpayer money. Yet, he continues to support > increasing the military budget and has called for increased military > intervention in the Middle East. > > The fact is the United States already spends too much on militarism. Not > only does the United States spend more on the military than the combined > military budgets of the next eight highest spending countries, but Pentagon > waste exceeds the total Russian military budget. > America can no longer afford to waste trillions of dollars on a > militaristic foreign policy. Donald Trump should follow-up his attacks on > wasteful military spending by dramatically changing our foreign policy and > working to cut the Pentagon’s bloated budget. > > If the new administration and Congress increase spending, they will need > the Federal Reserve to monetize the growing debt. The need for an > accommodative monetary policy gives the Federal Reserve and its allies in > Congress and in the deep state leverage over the administration. This > leverage could be used, for example, to pressure the administration to > abandon support for the Audit the Fed legislation. > > Fed action can only delay the inevitable day of reckoning. Raising levels > of federal spending and debt will inevitably lead to a major economic > crisis. This crisis is likely to be reached when concerns over our national > debt cause more countries to reject the dollar’s status as the world’s > reserve currency. The only way to avoid this crisis is to stop increasing > spending and instead begin reducing spending on all aspects of the > welfare-warfare state. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
