Paul Ryan’s proposed federal budget twice the size of 2002, called austerity by HuffPo

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Only at the Huffington Post could you call a budget that is double George W. Bush’s 2002 budget austerity.

“When they use the words austerity they are pushing us into the same scenario as Spain, Greece, France and England, and they are going to call any kind of budget cut austerity,” Glenn said.

Glenn predicted during the sequestration that the media would be calling any cuts in the future austerity. And today that prediction came true as The Huffington Post’s front page carried the headline “Austerity Now” with a picture of Paul Ryan.

As Stu pointed out, Ryan’s budget is actually double the budget in 2002. Glenn pointed out that unless something dramatic has happened in the past decade that he’s not aware of, it makes no sense for any outlet to refer to the proposed budget as austerity.

“You want to live on the double the amount the amount you were living on in 2002, and plus I’m going to give you a 3.4% increase from that. Would in any way, shape or form call that austerity?” Glenn asked.

“But for the country to double its spending and think this is austerity, did we invent something that I didn’t know?”

  • landofaahs

    Nothing acceptable to the American people will be enough to pay off the debt.  Deal with it and prep. 

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    The leftist media and the Democrats are hyping up the usage of ‘austerity’ and other doom and gloom warnings for one purpose…

    To ensure that people are kept in a state of fear. 

    This is pure propaganda and manipulation by the left across the board. They have to keep the people of America divided and thus controlled and conquered; what they fail to see is their own downfall being sewn in the non-stop fear factory they are using, for when one becomes benumbed to messages of fear, they no longer can be controlled.

  • http://www.artinphoenix.com/gallery/grimm snowleopard (cat folk gallery)

    I have to agree with you; the thing is I do see the harvest of destruction for the Democrats coming, and coming soon.

  • landofaahs

    Not soon enough. Do you think there will be wanted posters for them or do you anticipate what they used to do coyotes. When the masses turn on Frankenstein they will understand what mobs do. It’s sad that people can’t live and let live. One tyranny gets repalced by another which is why the democrats need to be defeated at the polls. It’s protecting them from themselves.

  • Anonymous

    Paul Ryan had a budget proposal regarding health care during the campaign season several months ago.  He spelled it out very well but almost nobody listened to him.  All I’m hearing these days is that Republicans don’t have an alternative to Obamatax.  Well, yes they did!  Paul Ryan articulated it better than anyone and his ideas were flatly rejected.  So the Left goes on, rejecting everything any Republican says and blaming them for every bad thing that occurs and claiming credit for every good thing that happens.  

  • http://youtu.be/0iRCvDwF26Q Sam Fisher

    Who reads the Huffington Post besides Obama worshipers? They are run by morons who have no clue what is going on.

  • SoThere

    Huffy Post, a liberal rag had to go way back to 2002, but they didn’t compare it to Obama’s spending. Yes Sam, they are a bunch of Obama cultists on a mission of spin and garbage.

  • Anonymous

    Newsmax twists the headlines also. When they pick one Republican candidate over the other it will show up in their headline but the story itself remains accurate. It is misleading and I don’t like it but they do it all the time.

  • MarsBarsTru7

    The only rational solution is to eliminate programs. You can not “reduce budgets” for longer than 2 years because the very next campaign becomes a race for who promises the higher budget for this or that entitlement.

    We *have* to eliminate programs. Suck it up people and realize that you are not getting your tax money back. It’s time to eliminate programs, eliminate regulatory agencies, eliminate litigation limitations, eliminate the Federal Reserve, and allow for privatized competing currencies. Doing these things will allow for drastically lower taxes and the eventual *real* recovery of the American economy. Nothing less will suffice.

    Furthermore, repealing Obamacare doesn’t address the real problem. The fact is, the government can not legally be allowed to get away with infiltrating and taking over industry. People in our government need to be prosecuted in court and sent to prison. If this process (of criminal prosecution) doesn’t take place it doesn’t matter how much government we temporarily push back on, they’ll just do it all over again and it will essentially be as legal as it has ever been and will ever be for as long as no one prosecutes the criminal elements within our government. Do you understand this? It’s legal for them to do this because we allow it. And we allow it because we have not made criminal prosecution for violations of the Constitution a fundamental part of our platform.

    It must be or the Constitution means nothing. How can it if those who violate it are not punished for doing so?

    Ryan’s plan is a Band Aid with pain killer on a gaping wound. It’s not even a step in the right direction because it doesn’t address the knife in the hand making the wound. If we want a country based on liberty we have to disarm the government and take the knife out of the hand of Big Brother. Otherwise we *will* bleed to death and any idea of the real American dream will be a nothing more than a vague memory.

  • Anonymous

    Once again when you can’t raise a reasonable response to an action, you attack it on ideological grounds. The liberals can’t cite facts, so they have to attack the truth with their lies and spin doctoring. They have their minds made up that they are right and all the facts that prove them wrong are labeled as lies made up for partisan reasons. If they have no defense, they attack the opposition twisting their facts with their lies.
    This is just business as usual for liberal publications like the Huffington Post. What other defense do they have in the face of historical facts that they so conveniently ignore. They continue to shape the lives of those who depend on them for their news. There was a time in America’s history when newspapers were a reliable source of information, but that time is long gone today. The majority of journalist no longer report the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Today they feel that it is their responsibility to make the news fit their agenda. I wouldn’t trust most major publications today to report the facts today without putting their own spin on it.

  • Anonymous

    Well informed people know that the left’s understanding of anything depends on what they interpret from reading anything. Leftists are the chosen elite who think they know everything better than anybody else. Their goal is idealism, not reality. Anything that disagrees with their agenda is fodder to scare sheeple who believe them. That’s why leftists praise anything progressive even if it will destroy the country. Now, who’s going to initiate impeachment procedure against these idiots?

  • MarsBarsTru7

    I can’t stand it!
    I don’t want to hear about *any* government plan for healthcare. It’s government being involved in the healthcare industry in the first place that has warped the entire industry. The only plan I want to hear from Republicans is them having a plan to get government out of healthcare altogether! That’s it. That’s a plan I can subscribe to. Anything to do with government helping healthcare is a FARCE!

    P.s. I’m not yelling at you. I’m just flustered and I’m more yelling at the empty chair than anything… or like Charlie Brown yelling at the air.

  • MarsBarsTru7

    I wholeheartedly disagree. I posit that they’re anti-ideal. Yeah, they have (relative) ideal outcomes in mind. But they have no ideals that they adhere to in practice, and we live in what we practice, not in some notion of a utopian end result.

    Their platform comes from Secular Progressivism, which holds that there are no ideals because everything is subjective and relative. They have an idea of the way they want the world to look and they do whatever they deem necessary to get it toward that goal. They have no moral compass to tell them not to.

    Liberty, on the other hand, is an ideal. And if liberty isn’t the goal of what we stand for in opposition to this totalitarian attempt to create a utopia put forth by Secular Progressives, then what the hell are we doing?

    We do have an ideal. An ideal in which the practice of it is the end. Liberty is about the way we live, not about achieving some goal for “prosperity”. It is its own reward. You don’t trade it for “real world pragmatism”. Otherwise, you have no rational argument against totalitarianism because it has worked, it works now, and it will always be a viable option for the amoral to use to create a self-perpetuating/stable system.

    They’re out to defeat us, not because we’re more pragmatic than them, but the opposite. They don’t hold to a dogma of methodology… otherwise they wouldn’t try to appeal to every “victimized” interest group that comes along. They will simply do whatever they believe will achieve their ends. If they have methodology they use at all, it’s only because it has proved to work at one point or another (i.e. racial exploitation, class warfare, etc…). They want to defeat us because our common moral culture presents a roadblock to them.

    *We* are the idealists.

  • MarsBarsTru7

     ”Fear”… I fear sometimes. I fear just about every time I look at the news and see the growing monster of totalitarianism in our government. My fear is tempered by my faith in the nature of God, but it’s still there on the edge of my psyche when I read the news.

    Yet, the things I fear most are the things Obama doesn’t. The things he puts forward to inspire fear don’t cause any fear in me at all. It does the opposite. When he says government will have to cut back and various elements of govt. services will recede because of it, I say “EXCELLENT!” I don’t want government running waste disposal. I don’t want government running education. I don’t want government running air traffic control. I don’t want government running ambulance services. I don’t want to have to rely on government for emergency services of any kind outside of police. And even then, I’d love to see more privatized security services take the place of police wherever possible.

    Obama’s ranting on what we should fear from “sequester” should be a non-issue for us. It shouldn’t resonate with us at all. And it’s generally not even meant to. If we truly stand for liberty, then why would we care about any of his “Oh, people will lose their government jobs; Oh, people won’t get government services… blah blah blah”? We should be united on this. Our response, if anything, should be “So what? Let the market take over the demand for that service!”

    It’s meant to stir up the people who are so attached to the nanny-state that they can’t imagine living without any of the services government provides. We’re not those people.

    So don’t even call it doom and gloom. Laugh at it. Say, “Hell yeah!” (or “Heck yeah!” if you prefer). And then go explain to anyone who gets doomy and gloomy about it how the economy will be so much better off if it actually starts playing out that way.

  • greywolfrs

    The Huff Puff Post is such a joke. Spending too much is what got us into this mess in the first place, yet they claim that cutting spending is a bad thing. What is going to be bad is when the system collapses under the unsustainable debt and deficits. It’s not a question of “if,” it’s a question of WHEN, but hey, the left wing dolts know best. Keep spending money and watch how fast it happens.

  • greywolfrs

    There are a LOT of stupid left wingers…

  • Anonymous

    I knew you weren’t yelling at me even before the P.S. I just felt…you were right. The Republicans said how they felt about government involvement in health care with two simple words: “Repeal Obamacare” Now they have been asking to put forth an alternative, did so, and it got dismissed. You have very legitimate reasons to be upset here.

  • MarsBarsTru7

     Hey greywolfrs. Long time no see.

    I don’t think collapse is inevitable. Oftentimes when totalitarian regimes bleed out their surface resources they simply get more violent and dig deeper or go loot other countries. Generally, when we practice war the U.S. hasn’t really looted… much. Definitely not to the extent many other conquering nations have done/do. But we could. And I can guarantee that people like Obama and Clinton and all the other “Progressives” will get down and dirty and loot before they allow their system to collapse… for at least as long as they’re winning and/or believe they can win.

  • greywolfrs

    Hey,

    Actually, I believe differently, I believe they want it to collapse so they can “rebuild” it the way they think it should be. They think they need to tear it down to accomplish that goal. Once they have done that, they will loot the resources from this country, like the oil they refuse to drill for.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jw-Appling/100001282155183 J.w. Appling

     Need to get them to stop rigging elections first.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jw-Appling/100001282155183 J.w. Appling

     We don’t loot at all we pay to rebuild them and give them free money for decades…Money we have to borrow to give away.

  • MarsBarsTru7

     I think on the surface they’d be satisfied with just winning elections and changing things from the top. Major disasters managed from the top can allow for them to make drastic changes without collapse (the inherent risk involved with managing a collapse). I believe you’re correct about the collapse scenario, but I think remaking the country from collapse is a backup plan if they can’t win up front.

    And I don’t think the looting is the end… Looting resources isn’t their goal. Their goal is perpetual power/control. The resources obtained from looting would just be a way for them to manage their position in wealth and what they “redistribute” from looting will allow them to placate their base until they’re powerful enough to abandon their base and unveil the iron fist.

  • greywolfrs

    Well, you may be correct that they would rather not collapse the system, but I believe they are getting impatient with how long it is taking. Major disasters still play havok with the system. The “gun control debate” is showing them that they will not be able to do it through other means and they NEED “gun control.”

    As far as the looting of the wealth, that is just the way they secure the power, of this I believe we agree. My point was that they do not want to “tap” those resources so they have them when that time comes…

  • greywolfrs

    That’s true, let the nation building continue, NOT!

  • greywolfrs

    I can agree with a lot of what you are saying, but one thing I would like address. We can NOT have multiple currencies, that is a bad idea. I hate the Federal Reserve as much, if not more than anyone and believe we need to get rid them, but we need a universal currency. We need the Feds to do their jobs and put the currency on the Treasury, where it was intended to be. We need to go to a commodities based system, similar to the gold standard, but based on the commodies that the Feds own. The land and natural resources on those lands.

    We need to return to the Constitution and stop spending money on anything that is not within the specific powers granted to the Feds by that document.

  • Anonymous

    I wish I could, but I have to study for a psychology exam, grrrrrrr

  • MarsBarsTru7

    I’m not going to disagree with you before I hear your argument. I know the collectivist argument against competing currencies, but what is yours?

  • Anonymous

    something drastic like two wars the ever growing department of homeland security and the recession?

  • Anonymous

    Forgive me, but, we have had “austerity” for several years now, a la housing crisis, increasing taxes, and no work. Way to keep up with the times Huff….and way to wag the dog. :p
    aus·ter·i·ty
     [ aw stérrətee ]   
    severity or plainness: severity of discipline, regime, expression, or designeconomy measure: a saving, economy, or act of self-denial, especially in respect of something regarded as a luxuryenforced thrift: thrift imposed as government policy, with restricted access to or availability of consumer goods

  • Matt Driscoll

    Are you two gonna 69?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_X2NAPSXIXUJPOPPGU6CXVFQFLA Snorri Sturluson

    How can Obama transform the U.S. into a social justice,  3rd world serf state if politicians and citizens demand fiscal responsibility and economic common sense? Damn liberals have worked so hard to bankrupt America in the name of a Fair Share for those who don’t or won’t work.

  • greywolfrs

    Well, we had that in this country at one time. People will run into the same problems as they did at that time. When you have competing currencies, people will run into the problem of having to carry more than one currency. Some places will take one type of currency and not another. As with the first time, you could use a particular type of currency in one state, then need a different type once you cross a border into another state. It’s like having 50 different countries at that point. We will also run into currencies that are valued different, which would make it difficult to exchange.  Another thing is people will run into problems when they do go to other countries. In the end, it seems that idea would create a bigger problem than what it solves.

    The Constitution grants the Feds the power coin money, we need to stop “out-sourcing” that to the Federal Reserve, which means ALL the money would have one value. Going to a commodies based currency would mean our money WAS backed by something again, like the gold standard. The gold standard also kept the government (Federal Reserve) honest, to some degree. One thing is for sure, this fiat currency isn’t working, so something really needs to be done. 

  • greywolfrs

    Why, do you have a fetish and want to watch? It wouldn’t surprise me, matt “the moron” driscoll.

  • MarsBarsTru7

    I disagree with you on this. Yes, competing currencies means there will be multiple currencies. Yes, it means people may carry more than one currency at a time. Yes, it may mean there are various currencies in different states… but there will likely be different currencies within a given city, let alone different states.

    Yes, it does complicate trade, but it also simplifies trade. Many people think of trade with the dollar now as simple. One currency. I give you a certain amount of dollars and you give me a certain amount of goods or services for that dollar. The trouble is, this simplistic way of viewing that exchange is a fallacy. The truth is, a lot is going on that isn’t being acknowledged by describing the exchange in those terms. The reality is, the dollar represents debt, and the sources to which the debt is owed is both compelex and specific and ambiguous at the same time. It’s an exchange of something real (goods or services) for a debt based on a complex series of lies. And, in the end, the person getting the dollar for their goods and services is accepting a level of bondage. The bondage is in both their agreement to exchange real capital for fiat currency (worth nothing in material terms), and in holding a curreny which indebts all users of that currency to ambiguous sources which collect wealth off its very use.

    Competing currencies, in contrast, would be relatively the same as bartering, and would just be a natural element of a free market. As it is, the law prevents us from bartering. If we were allowed to barter, any commodity would present a potential form of currency. The use of currency at all wouldn’t be forced. It would simply be a more convenient and natural method of exchange in many cases, as opposed to trading commodity for commodity. Metals typically dominate free currency exchanges because metals are durable and are more difficult to obtain (precious) than pottery or glass or other various things. Metals such as gold typically rise to the top, because they are resistant to degradation…
    … anyway, you likely know all this. The point is, competing currency is natural to a free market. It may seem to be an inconvenience when approaching it from a forced one-currency condition, but it’s necessary to maintain a free market. The only way you can have a one-currency system is if the government enforces one – and it can only enforce one-currency if it eliminates bartering, and thus eliminating the free market.

    Essentially, it is impossible to have a free market if the government dictates the currency standards. And I maintain that it is morally wrong. Think: What is the trade on the market level? It’s a trade of freedom for convenience. Is it not? And all it does is perpetuate government involvement in the market… because of the government is in control over the currency, then the government can manipulate the currency value through various means… and if the government has a currency based on commodities, from whence do those commodities come? Assuming that we, as The People, have a say, then what are we ceding to the government in the form of commodities?

    Moreover, if we allow the government to control the currency and establish a one-currency system, even if it’s based on commodities, doesn’t it only serve to force everyone to accumulate taxable income? I posit that the only reason the elites in this country advocate a one-currency system is because it is easier to tax and relatively justifiably taxed in comparison with free commodities exchanges. As a government you can’t tax on a currency that isn’t being used or one that issn’t issued by you. What would be your standard for seizing wealth with varying currencies or accumulated commodities? Understand: They know that forcing people to turn over commodities with ambiguous standards as part of the taxation process would cause people to revolt against the tax system.
     
    You see, outside of a perceived convenience issue, a forced one-currency system does nothing but perpetuate government control on the market. Aren’t we agreed that govt. control in the market is a bad thing?

    The currency is an issue just like almost every other issue in politics – Government is the problem, not the solution.

  • Omegaomni

    To be fair anything George Bush does makes everything else, seem like austerity and or sane.
    Where were the deficit (chicken) hawks when republicans had all houses of congress? where were the budget cuts then? hmmmm ?  

  • greywolfrs

    I see what you are saying and maybe my explaination was in the simplest of terms, but changing back to a commodies based system means that the currency would no longer be based on debt. It would no longer be based on “air.” Just like the gold standard, it would be based on actual items of value. We, as a people are ceing nothing to government, look up how much land the Feds already own, especially in the western part of the country. Now, think about all the “resources” contained on those lands. This is exactly what the government could base a single currency upon.

    Let me say this, if we have competing currencies, it would make it easier for the private issuer to manipulate those currencies. (not that the Federal Reserve isn’t already doing that) One private issuer could devalue another’s currency quite easily. That only hurts the consumer, more so than a single currency. The “free market” isn’t only based on currency, it is based on goods and services.

    As for the taxation issue, the Constitution does give the government the right to collect taxes. The Constitution also grants the Feds the right to coin money. Having a single currency does not negate the barter/free market system, it simply sets a standard that private banks can not manipulate.

    I do not see that a single currency gives the government control of any market. Just because value is based on a single currency does allow the government to dictate the original value.

    I agree that, in most cases, government is the problem and has no solution, but some government is needed. Going to competing currencies means a whole new set of bureaucracy to regulate that. I am not sure that is a good thing either.