After all the wrangling between two sides and between sides within sides the President opens his mouth
and in a few sentences tells everyone that he believes the compromise is bad and he would not have
gone along with it.
How dare the President.
If I was either a Dem. or Rep. on the left or right of my party, I would be thinking hard whether
to vote yes or no after the President's stupid speech. He should have just kept his mouth shut
and left the process work. BUT NOOOOOO. He has to be the big shot and try to take some of'
the glory that was made by Congress.
This is a man who reached his Peter Principle when he became a senator and is mucking things up.
This man needs to admit he is over his head, step down and let the Vice President take over.
Let me know what you think - either leave a response so all can see or e-mail me at JayClifford@gmail.com
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Why we need a FIX on the DEFICIT
A while back Congress passed a credit card law which said that the credit card issuers must charge more
in their minimum payment. Why did this law pass? Because if your interest is 19.99% per year and the bill
is only for a minimum of 1% of the outstanding balance, then next month's balance will be larger even if that
person does not purchase anything over the next month. So by BEING FORCED TO PAY HIGHER MINIMUM, the
CONSUMER WILL BE FORCE TO PAY DOWN THEIR BALANCE AND AVOID A FINANCIAL CRISIS.
SOUND FAMILIAR ???
Today with our deficit around 1.426 Trillion and growing by 4 BILLION A DAY the ONLY WAY TO REDUCE THE
DEFICIT IS TO STOP SPENDING.
WHY NOT JUST INCREASE THE PAYMENT??? GOOD QUESTION!
UNLIKE the individual consumer who can stop spending and use that extra savings to pay down their credit card balance, CONGRESS IS COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON TAX REVENUES. AND BY TAXING EVERYONE MAKING OVER
$150,000, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY CREATED BY THE 100% TAX RATE TO MAKE A DENT IN THE DEFICIT.
Therefore there are three options.
Sell Assets - The US has HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ASSETS THAT COULD BE SOLD AND AND THE
NEW OWNERS COULD RUN THESE ASSETS MORE PROFITABLY AS WELL. Money into the treasury now and a stopping of red ink by owning these assets over the years.
CUT Spending - The toughest and best option - but it is more political than fiscal. Both sides seem to not
recognize that there is too much deficit and their way of receiving BRIBES from lobbyists to pass favorable laws for particular companies at the expense of the Citizens of the USA are over.
Devalue the dollar - the worst option. We have already devalued the dollar some 25% in the last 2 years.
That is a hidden tax on everyone. Costs will go up and inflation will grow. We are already printing hundreds
of billions of dollars EVERY WEEK more than the US receives in tax revenue. This is not good.
So the easiest and best solution is to cut spending now. And forget about this bull of cutting over ten years with most of the cuts occurring in the last few years. That is smoke and mirrors because by the time the real cuts begin, the deficit has already grown by another 25%.
We need cuts this year and every year for 10 to 20 years.
We can cut the military - 50 to 100 billion a year
We can cut out completely the Cabinet of education - saves about 15 billion a year
We can cut partially aid to hostile counties - saves about 50 billion a year
We can partially cut food stamps to non-citizens - saves about 35 Billion a year
We can partially cut the size of the Congressional staff force - saves about 100 Billion a year
SO YOU SEE THERE ARE WAYS TO CUT THE DEFICIT IF THE CONGRESS LIVES UP TO ITS OATH TO PROTECT THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
HERE'S THE BEST PART > FOR EVERY HUNDRED BILLION OF DEFICIT CUT - THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SAVE
ONE BILLION OR MORE IN INTEREST PAYMENTS. THAT IS IMMEDIATE MONEY AVAILABLE FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS.
IF THE DEFICIT IS CUT IN HALF OVER A FEW YEARS, THE REMAINING DEFICIT WILL ONLY REQUIRE HALF THE
INTEREST PAYMENTS AND AT THAT TIME, THE BUDGET WOULD HAVE BILLIONS FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS. AND
THE INTEREST RATES WOULD REMAIN STABLE AND THE HOUSING MARKET WOULD STABILIZE AND THE
RECESSION WOULD BE OVER AND THERE WOULD BE JOBS FOR ALL WHO WANT TO WORK.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
in their minimum payment. Why did this law pass? Because if your interest is 19.99% per year and the bill
is only for a minimum of 1% of the outstanding balance, then next month's balance will be larger even if that
person does not purchase anything over the next month. So by BEING FORCED TO PAY HIGHER MINIMUM, the
CONSUMER WILL BE FORCE TO PAY DOWN THEIR BALANCE AND AVOID A FINANCIAL CRISIS.
SOUND FAMILIAR ???
Today with our deficit around 1.426 Trillion and growing by 4 BILLION A DAY the ONLY WAY TO REDUCE THE
DEFICIT IS TO STOP SPENDING.
WHY NOT JUST INCREASE THE PAYMENT??? GOOD QUESTION!
UNLIKE the individual consumer who can stop spending and use that extra savings to pay down their credit card balance, CONGRESS IS COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON TAX REVENUES. AND BY TAXING EVERYONE MAKING OVER
$150,000, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY CREATED BY THE 100% TAX RATE TO MAKE A DENT IN THE DEFICIT.
Therefore there are three options.
Sell Assets - The US has HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ASSETS THAT COULD BE SOLD AND AND THE
NEW OWNERS COULD RUN THESE ASSETS MORE PROFITABLY AS WELL. Money into the treasury now and a stopping of red ink by owning these assets over the years.
CUT Spending - The toughest and best option - but it is more political than fiscal. Both sides seem to not
recognize that there is too much deficit and their way of receiving BRIBES from lobbyists to pass favorable laws for particular companies at the expense of the Citizens of the USA are over.
Devalue the dollar - the worst option. We have already devalued the dollar some 25% in the last 2 years.
That is a hidden tax on everyone. Costs will go up and inflation will grow. We are already printing hundreds
of billions of dollars EVERY WEEK more than the US receives in tax revenue. This is not good.
So the easiest and best solution is to cut spending now. And forget about this bull of cutting over ten years with most of the cuts occurring in the last few years. That is smoke and mirrors because by the time the real cuts begin, the deficit has already grown by another 25%.
We need cuts this year and every year for 10 to 20 years.
We can cut the military - 50 to 100 billion a year
We can cut out completely the Cabinet of education - saves about 15 billion a year
We can cut partially aid to hostile counties - saves about 50 billion a year
We can partially cut food stamps to non-citizens - saves about 35 Billion a year
We can partially cut the size of the Congressional staff force - saves about 100 Billion a year
SO YOU SEE THERE ARE WAYS TO CUT THE DEFICIT IF THE CONGRESS LIVES UP TO ITS OATH TO PROTECT THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
HERE'S THE BEST PART > FOR EVERY HUNDRED BILLION OF DEFICIT CUT - THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SAVE
ONE BILLION OR MORE IN INTEREST PAYMENTS. THAT IS IMMEDIATE MONEY AVAILABLE FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS.
IF THE DEFICIT IS CUT IN HALF OVER A FEW YEARS, THE REMAINING DEFICIT WILL ONLY REQUIRE HALF THE
INTEREST PAYMENTS AND AT THAT TIME, THE BUDGET WOULD HAVE BILLIONS FOR SOCIAL PROGRAMS. AND
THE INTEREST RATES WOULD REMAIN STABLE AND THE HOUSING MARKET WOULD STABILIZE AND THE
RECESSION WOULD BE OVER AND THERE WOULD BE JOBS FOR ALL WHO WANT TO WORK.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk With Jay Clifford
Why a fiscal crisis???
One side says it's all about the other side not wanting to compromise.
LETs LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT...
What this really means is: Congress has spent the USA into a financial crisis. Not one side, but both sides.
Now --- One side or rather a part of one side has said ENOUGH. --- LETs Get OUR FISCAL HOUSE IN ORDER.
And for once a part of Congress is requesting that there be a BALANCED BUDGET.
Why a BALANCED BUDGET???
That will restrict how much Congress will be able to spend of OUR MONEY WE SEND CONGRESS EACH YEAR.
So when one side says the other side is not willing to compromise, they are really saying ---
DO NOT TAKE AWAY MY BLANK CHECK.
IS that all bad???
When you consider how having a BALANCED BUDGET WILL RESTRICT LOBBYs' ABILITY TO GET FAVORS IN THE LAWS, A BALANCED BUDGET HAS POSITIVE IMPLICATION.
AND LIKE SPOILED CHILDREN, THE CONGRESS DOES NOT ANY RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON IT.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
LETs LOOK AT THIS STATEMENT...
What this really means is: Congress has spent the USA into a financial crisis. Not one side, but both sides.
Now --- One side or rather a part of one side has said ENOUGH. --- LETs Get OUR FISCAL HOUSE IN ORDER.
And for once a part of Congress is requesting that there be a BALANCED BUDGET.
Why a BALANCED BUDGET???
That will restrict how much Congress will be able to spend of OUR MONEY WE SEND CONGRESS EACH YEAR.
So when one side says the other side is not willing to compromise, they are really saying ---
DO NOT TAKE AWAY MY BLANK CHECK.
IS that all bad???
When you consider how having a BALANCED BUDGET WILL RESTRICT LOBBYs' ABILITY TO GET FAVORS IN THE LAWS, A BALANCED BUDGET HAS POSITIVE IMPLICATION.
AND LIKE SPOILED CHILDREN, THE CONGRESS DOES NOT ANY RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON IT.
And that's the way I see it...
Straight Talk with Jay Clifford
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)