Ryan’s Budget Typical GOP: Going Broke Slower – But Still Going Broke
Bill Quick

Racism —Ayn Rand Lexicon

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the
notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic
lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are
produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in
practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but
by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus,
but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character
are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This
is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited
knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism
is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of
collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various
breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which
distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism
negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality,
replacing them with chemical predestination.

Ryan’s final $5.1T cut | TheHill

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Tuesday unveiled a budget that proposes to cut $5.1 trillion over a decade in a bid to erase the federal deficit, while calling once again for dramatic changes to Medicare, Medicaid and the tax code. [READ RYAN'S BUDGET PROPOSAL.]

I can’t get the above, and the following, to mesh:

The nearly 100-page blueprint is likely be the last formal budget proposal from Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, who wants to move to the more powerful Ways and Means Committee next year.

Projected Deficits in CBO’s 2013 Budget and Economic Outlook | Mercatus

I’m assuming that the higher deficit predictions are the ones that will actually occur, so I’m not sure how cutting five trillion dollars over a ten year period during which deficits alone will amount to twice that will result in a balanced budget.

Maybe you have to be inhaling hot unicorn gas to understand it.

Posted in Bankruptcy permalink
Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


Ryan’s Budget Typical GOP: Going Broke Slower – But Still Going Broke — 7 Comments

  1. I would consider–for now–a budget that lowers deficits even if it doesn’t claim to erase them, under the principle of incrementalism.

    Sure, we’d all like to close a few things like the Department of Education tomorrow, but we should all be aware that’s not going to happen. I’d settle for “the budget will be 1% smaller in constant dollars next year than it was this year.” Then next year you push for *another* cut, preferably one that’s bigger–maybe we shoot for 2-3%. We also point out we’re not looking to fire anyone.

    Why? You disarm their primary objections. And then the year after, maybe you talk headcount reductions. It took 100 years or more to get us in this mess–we’re not going to get out of it in 1 or 3, unfortunately. I will give someone who claims to start down the path the benefit of the doubt, at least for a while.

    • That doesn’t mean it’s my ideal, of course! But I’ll take concrete if tiny movement in the right direction over letting the Democrats win again and *raising* the budget, any day.

      Implicit in these two comments is that Boner, for example, has exhausted my benefit of the doubt.

          • Well of course the budget has to go up five or ten percent a year just to keep up with inflation. No, wait, that can’t be it. There is no inflation. The budget has to go up five or ten percent a year just to keep up with population growth. After all, the US population of 282.2M in 2000 has been growing at 6% per year, just like the budget, which is why our population is now 600M. And don’t believe the liars who say the US population was only 313.9M in 2012. You’re not going to believe your lying eyes, are you?

            (Population growth of 282.2M in 2000 to 313.9M in 2012 is a rate of less than 1% per year.)

          • Not since I’ve been old enough to pay attention.

            But even then, I’d probably still choose the guy who wants to grow the government less over the one who wants to grow the government more, because maybe he’ll change his mind. And maybe that’ll get people talking about how we cut the rate of growth and nothing bad happened, so maybe we can do more of it.

            And just maybe the horse will learn to talk.