Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Warning Sign From CBO

Not really surprising, as other indicators have also flashed the yellow light....

The U.S. economy will probably tip back into recession next year if Congress fails to address an impending “fiscal cliff,” the Congressional Budget Office said. 

The nonpartisan agency said in a report yesterday that the economy would contract at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the first half of 2013 if lawmakers allow the George W. Bush-era tax cuts to expire as scheduled and $1.2 trillion in government spending cuts to take effect in January.

So.  The Democrat Congress (and, of course, the Obozo) have managed to spend so damn much, and contract so much debt, that CBO is telling us that a combination of tax increases AND spending reductions will trigger another recession.

IOW, the Elite Ruling Class--composed of whores re-election giveaway artists and spineless herd-members of both parties--has sailed the US economy into Hobson's sea.

Throw ALL of 'em out.  While we're at it, deport ALL of them, too.  There must be a prison island someplace.
at

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous5/23/2012 7:57 AM

    We need to elect a congress that has the balls to enforce this section of the constitution.

    Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

    The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[11]

    Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies.........


    ......Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[12]

    In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[13] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable.

    The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

    Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted...............
    [

    ReplyDelete
  2. J. Strupp5/23/2012 1:49 PM

    First, you link to Bloomberg 3 times NOT CBO, then you leave out the next quote which states that CBO projects growth continuing in the second half of the year (following the shock) AND that this probably won't happen anyway because politicans will resolve this issue following the election.

    Next, you seem to be advocating the continuation of federal spending levels to maintain GDP. This runs contrary to every single thing you've said for years.

    Again, let me remind you that you're a deficit hawk Dadster. You want Fed. spending to go down. This will have a MAJOR shock to GDP to the downward. The fact that you keep acknowledging this yet advocating deficit reduction means you don't care about GDP and higher unemployment. That's fine. Just be consistant and stop hammering the President for doing exactly what you, yourself, want to be done.

    How many times do I have to say this? Reducing the deficit runs contrary to higher GDP and lower unemployment (and probably runs contrary to debt reduction since it shrinks GDP faster than debt levels which are a function of the former).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dad295/23/2012 9:56 PM

    Next, you seem to be advocating the continuation of federal spending levels to maintain GDP.

    Where? Be clear and concise. Show your work.

    You don't like my early-AM linkings? Read another blog.

    ReplyDelete