Posted by Givemeliberty on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 8:33 AM:
Don't have time/the inclination to read the 300+ pages of this right now.
How about we stop the Federal Reserve from creating money from nothing? Maybe the federal government should spend only what it takes in every month.
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013 ("Audit the Fed" bill: H.R. 24, S. 209) is cosponsored by all of Missouri's Republican U.S. Representatives except Ann Wagner, and U.S. Senator Roy Blunt is not a cosponsor of the Senate version, either.
What do they have against transparency?
Replies (7)
Who in their right mind would make a 300+ page posting on this thread? Obviously, mic has not read it or he would at least have written an overview.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Nov 14, 2013, at 2:20 PM
"The second chart displays the CBO's expected outlays and revenues along with outlays under various cut and slow down scenarios. The chart shows that if the federal government were to cut or merely slow down the growth rate in outlays, the fiscal gap could be easily closed within the next decade. Holding revenue constant, limiting outlays to grow by only two percent a year will balance federal finances during 2020. If outlays only grow by one percent, federal deficits will be eliminated by 2018. A spending freeze would balance finances by 2017. Cutting spending by tiny percentages each year yields even faster results: annual spending cuts of one and two percent will balance the budget by 2016.
"Taken together, these charts suggest that modest decreases in federal spending yield much more bang for the buck than relying solely on economic growth to resolve our fiscal woes. What's more, making minor changes to the growth rate in federal spending is a solution that is fully within policymakers' control, unlike increasing the growth rate of GDP.
"It is clear that the United States cannot wait for a miracle to save itself from the consequences of its fiscal mismanagement. As these charts demonstrate, balancing the federal budget within the next five years is as easy as making modest changes to the growth rate of federal spending each year. Balancing the budget, however, is merely the first step. Our long-term budget and debt issues require fundamental reforms to entitlement programs in order to secure our fiscal future for generations to come."
Based on the CBO's forecast, we need at least 7% annual GDP growth in order to achieve balance by 2023. What is the likelihood of that happening?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 6:47 AM
"The second chart displays the CBO's expected outlays and revenues along with outlays under various cut and slow down scenarios. The chart shows that if the federal government were to cut or merely slow down the growth rate in outlays, the fiscal gap could be easily closed within the next decade. Holding revenue constant, limiting outlays to grow by only two percent a year will balance federal finances during 2020. If outlays only grow by one percent, federal deficits will be eliminated by 2018. A spending freeze would balance finances by 2017. Cutting spending by tiny percentages each year yields even faster results: annual spending cuts of one and two percent will balance the budget by 2016.
"Taken together, these charts suggest that modest decreases in federal spending yield much more bang for the buck than relying solely on economic growth to resolve our fiscal woes. What's more, making minor changes to the growth rate in federal spending is a solution that is fully within policymakers' control, unlike increasing the growth rate of GDP.
"It is clear that the United States cannot wait for a miracle to save itself from the consequences of its fiscal mismanagement. As these charts demonstrate, balancing the federal budget within the next five years is as easy as making modest changes to the growth rate of federal spending each year. Balancing the budget, however, is merely the first step. Our long-term budget and debt issues require fundamental reforms to entitlement programs in order to secure our fiscal future for generations to come."
Based on the CBO's forecast, we need at least 7% annual GDP growth in order to achieve balance by 2023. What is the likelihood of that happening?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 6:47 AM
Spaniard,
Yes, that IS like a darned book.
You realize what the "game" is by now, don't you? The government functionary, bureaucrat, or the person elected to represent the citizens--who are actually producing something--conceal what they do by publishing mega-tomes (huge books) of white papers or legislation, which no one can afford to take the time to read. Somehow in their twisted minds this provides them cover..."You DID read the law, didn't you?" If the answer is "No", they imagine that this gives them cover...i.e., so they might say, "Well, go home and come back when you've READ IT."
When someone asks "You DID read the law, didn't you?" we have got to have the courage to say, "No, DID YOU?"
Does anyone really have time to read a 300 page report to find out how government is extorting wealth from the citizens, and misappropriating it? Does anyone really have time to read a 400 page banker bailout bill (TARP), before voting for it? (My representative told me to my face, and the faces of 5 friends, that she didn't read it.) Does anyone really have time to read a 2,700 page bill that aims to allow the federal government to intrude where the Supreme Law of the land says it must NOT? (Nancy Pelosi: "You have to pass the bill, to find out what's in it," comment.)
They will not read their own reams of output, which gush forth like some giant tsunami of vomit. They will not stick to a single subject in legislation--which they aren't even writing...someone in the back room, or that someone's LAWYER, is writing the legislation. They will not quote the U.S. Constitution section or paragraph to justify their bills.
What to do?
STARVE THE BEAST. And it's a beast, for sure.
The federal government MUST stop creating currency. The federal government MUST return us to sound money. The federal government MUST stop taking the fruits of the people's labor from them, by force and with the threat of imprisonment. Certain people just MIGHT feel like getting up from their bed of despondency and going to work, producing something, if they are not working for "THE MAN."
Justice Demands Sound Money
Audit the FED
Then...End the Fed! It is neither "federal" (it's a private cabal of bankers), nor "reserve" (nothing "reserve" about creating $85 Billion per month! No reservations about that whatsoever!)
Repeal the Income Tax (PERSONAL included)
-- Posted by Givemeliberty on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 9:27 AM
Actual compression of fed law pages using normal font and normal spacing is approximately 20 pages to 1. Hence, a 300 page law could in essence be 15 actual pages as we know them.
-- Posted by left turn on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 11:47 AM
I don't know !!
-- Posted by left turn on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 11:54 AM
"Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't that chart how the budget would be balanced if nothing changed other than GDP growth? "
There are multiple charts. To which chart are you referring?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 12:43 PM
Menu
Don't have time/the inclination to read the 300+ pages of this right now.
How about we stop the Federal Reserve from creating money from nothing? Maybe the federal government should spend only what it takes in every month.
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013 ("Audit the Fed" bill: H.R. 24, S. 209) is cosponsored by all of Missouri's Republican U.S. Representatives except Ann Wagner, and U.S. Senator Roy Blunt is not a cosponsor of the Senate version, either.
What do they have against transparency?
Replies (7)