GOP Sequesteria & The GDP Gambit (When Debt = Growth)


Being a retired accountant, I take more notice of some things that tend to 
put others to sleep. Example, budget talk. Recently, POTUS has been 
accused of violating the Budget control Act of 1974. So, what is this 
1974 law all about?


The greatly despised 
President, Richard Nixon, took office in 1973. After one year Congress 
decided to reduce the power of the presidency concerning the annual 
budget. Nixon had been using his power as president to impound (look it 
up) items in the budget prepared by Congress. In effect, he refused to 
spend everything Congress had authorized. This earned him a disrespect 
from both sides of the aisle. To make up for this  removal of one of the 
checks-and-balances, Congress did what Congress does best: it passed a 
law---creating the CBO (Congressional Budget Office).

But this isn't meant to be a critique of 1974 happenings; that's just 
background; the purpose is to point out this 1974 law is still on the 
books---and is being violated today. Some say that is an impeachable act.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974
 


For more views
Google -->  budget act of 1974


By the way, did you notice that the sequestration bill of 2013 didn't take 
effect until after the Congress could not agree on budget matters. There was 
nothing 
automatic about it at all. It took effect after the dead line passed; it became 
effective the following day, March 1, when POTUS signed the bill into law. The 
choice to proceed with the meaningless idiotical cuts was his and his alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974



GOP Sequesteria & The GDP
Gambit 
(When Debt = Growth) 
written by Ilana Mercer on 03.02.13
Read carefully. Watch out for political double talk. 
Read on the net:  
http://barelyablog.com/gop-sequesteria-the-gdp-gambit-when-debt-growth/  

Are you able to tease apart Republican sequesteria from the Democratic position 
on the effects of a
miniscule decrease in the increase in US government spending, for
this year? 

I cant. 

The Democrats are adamant that a cut in oink-sector spending will destroy
the chances of an economic recovery and will lower GDP. 

It didn't have to happen this way, lament the Republicans. Negotiations
could have produced a better honed cutting instrument. 

Note that the Republican have never made relevant points such as that, 
Government spending increases unemployment because it crowds out so
much private sector job creation (Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Organized Crime: The 
Unvarnished Truth About Government, p. 202). 

Or, as Larry Kudlow put it, When the government spending share of GDP declines,
so does the true tax burden on the economy. As a result, more resources
are left in the free-market private sector, which will promote real
growth.

Ask yourself why GDP would shrink if the burden of government is reduced
slightly. Why would Gross Domestic Product be affected by a threat of a
reduction in the parasitical sectorthe sector (government) that doesnt
produce wealth, but only consumes it? 

Could this paradox be a result of the way in which GDP numbers are
crunched? 

Indeed. 

Gross domestic product (GDP) gauges economic activity based on spending,
or consumption, which is not what creates wealth. Production creates
wealth.
(Gross domestic income (GDI) is a lesser-known calculation used
by the Federal Reserve to gauge economic activity based on
income.)

Official GDP numbers also chart ­and include ­the growth of government
debt. As Vox Day has explained, GDP counts spending but doesn't
subtract debt, so its like saying that youre rich because you maxed out
your platinum Master card. Until the debt is paid back, you cant properly
count it as economic growth. And almost all of the GDP growth over the
last 20 years has been nothing but debt growth.

The GDP is a political construct, defined, tracked and manipulated by
the D.C. political machine. 

GDP statistically conflates the growth of debt with economic
growth.

When our economic definitional building blocks are thus perverted, it
becomes easy to peddle the GDP hoax. And that hoax is that a reduction in
state spending and debt is also a reduction in economic growth, and that
reducing debt must be avoided at all costs. 

As Ayn Rand would have advised, Check your premises. 


http://barelyablog.com/gop-sequesteria-the-gdp-gambit-when-debt-growth/  



It's time to stop spending on what we want
before we have to cut things we need.
Rich Martin



 When replying to this message, 
plz cc: [email protected] 
to assure prompt reply.  
TEA Party Nation
Top Ten Tips For Getting The Most From Your TPN Membership!
http://www.teapartynation.com/?xg_source=msg_mes_network


 
I’m as mad as hell,
and I’m not going to take it any more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q

Mrs. Richard "Peggy" Martin (1935 - 2012) 
  
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/dfw/obituary.aspx?n=margaret-irene-martin-peggy&pid=159081400&fhid=12241#fbLoggedOut
 
  
http://www.legacy.com/guestbook/dfw/guestbook.aspx?n=margaret-martin&pid=159081400&sort=1
   
  
 
<> <> <>

-- 
-- 
To join RichsRants, send email to: 
[email protected]

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/richsrants?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"RichsRants" 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/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to