The Congressional Budget Office has released its 2017 Long Term Budget Outlook.  Wake up, you bastards!  This isn’t going to be that boring.

Why Are Projected Deficits Rising? In CBO’s projections, deficits rise over the next three decades—from 2.9 percent of GDP in 2017 to 9.8 percent in 2047—because spending growth is projected to outpace growth in revenues

It’s ugly, folks.  Look at this graph to see where we’ve been and where we’re heading.

In a thread yesterday, I mentioned how Imperial Romans sold themselves into slavery to escape the crushing tax burden the state placed upon them.  If you wonder how it got to that point…this...this is how it happened.  Ever-increasing expenditures that the state could not cover.

Reading through this, I found some interesting nuggets.  The first is that the CBO doesn’t foresee much change in legal or illegal immigration, in spite of Trump being the president.  This is significant because the CBO refers to how federal spending is primarily driven by Social Security and medical costs.  Our population is aging and isn’t having many children.

This document is amazing to me because it implies that contrary to Trump’s public statements, nothing is going to change on illegal immigration because it can’t, according to the CBO.  I’ve long suspected that the reason the federal government is so reluctant to crack down on illegal immigration and limit the number of legal Third World immigrants has less to do with morality and more to do with our absolute dependency on a fresh supply of young, working brown people to support our huge population of old, dying white people.  This strengthens that belief in my mind.

The second most interesting finding in this document, to me, is the CBO’s clear warning about the dangers of allowing the national debt to continue to rise unchecked:

(W)hen outstanding debt is large, the government has less flexibility to address financial and economic crises. A large debt also can compromise a country’s national security by constraining military spending in times of international crisis or by limiting its ability to prepare for such a crisis.

At the outset of the 2007–2009 recession, when federal debt held by the public was below 40 percent of GDP, lawmakers had the flexibility necessary to respond to the financial crisis. The recession resulted in lower output and income, which caused sharp declines in tax revenues and increases in mandatory spending.  The policy responses included increases in federal spending to stabilize the financial sector, boost infrastructure investment, and add to social safety-net programs, along with temporary cuts in business and payroll taxes. As a result, over the course of five years, federal debt as a percentage of GDP more than doubled from its 2007 level.

If federal debt stayed the same as it is today or increased further, the government might have a more difficult time undertaking similar costly actions to respond to recessions or fiscal crises, so such events could have larger negative effects on the economy and on people’s well-being. Moreover, the reduced financial flexibility and increased dependence on foreign investors that would accompany high and rising debt could weaken U.S. international leadership.

Absolutely correct.  Anyone who doesn’t see the exploding debt-to-GDP ratio as a threat to national security itself is living in a dream world.  So what do we do about it?  Well, the CBO has some ideas.

They also mention the “Logan’s Run Option” of simply killing everyone over the age of 30 and thus reducing Medicare and Social Security costs, but knowing what I know about the average reader’s age on our blog, I’m going to go ahead and rule that one out.

Instead, I think it’s time that we conservatives acknowledged something that we don’t like to.  Taxes have to go up.  Again: we need to drop this nonsense that taxes are always too high and must be continuously cut.  Yes, when Reagan took office in 1981 and the top marginal tax rate was 70%, taxes were maybe probably too high and needed to be cut.  However, we keep advocating tax cuts all the time while our elected officials refuse to make cuts to the primary cost drivers of spending.

I’ll say it again for emphasis: Taxes on the wealthiest Americans must go up.  Way up.  There is no realistic alternative.  We can either tax the shit out of them now or tax the middle-class into oblivion when the next disaster hits.

Spending is not going to decrease by 15%.  Not under this RINO Congress and “populist” President.  Medicare and Social Security is not going to be cut.  The American public will not tolerate inflation.  The US government will not restructure its debt and lose confidence.  We probably won’t even do that “murder everyone over age 30” thing I mentioned earlier either.

No, the best and most popular solution is to start seizing wealth from where it is most concentrated.  If it helps, you can console yourself by recognizing that Hollywood retards like Alec Baldwin and Barbara Streisand are going to get bled dry.  At first, anyway.  Also, that bag of dicks Warren Buffett is finally going to get his wish and start paying his “fair share”.  Mark Cuban too.  Screw those guys.  Hell, Trump can start flying coach when he’s done being president for all I care.

Sooner or later, we need to bow to reality and understand that the American people aren’t going to give up a single entitlement, particularly the old people who feel that Social Security and Medicare are their birthright and who we absolutely need to keep electing Republicans.  The longer we put off demanding higher taxes, the worse it will be for our children, our grandchildren, and our nation.

What choice do we have?  Seriously, what is “conservative” about defending the super-wealthy minority at every turn?  I don’t see it, as a member of the Republican middle class.

Let’s raise taxes or literally tar-and-feather any member of Congress who refuses to eliminate vast swaths of federal spending.  I’m not kidding.  Any elected official who is indifferent to the skyrocketing national debt is a clear and present danger to the future of our Republic and the well-being of our kids.

These officials deserve to endure physical pain and sticky hair if they refuse to either reduce federal spending in the name of limited government–in true keeping with conservative philosophy–or increase revenue with taxes among our over-entitled wealthiest citizens.  At a certain point, you have to see that our elected officials refusing to address this problem realistically is virtually treason.  Nothing the Russians can do with hacking compares to what our own officials are doing.

I’d love to believe that they will eventually bring about the small government that I want, but they keep proving that they will never do it.   Want to argue with me?  Then why is Obamacare still the law of the land?

Which do you prefer, guys?  Massive cuts to grandma’s Social Security or a telling tax on the Kardashians?  This isn’t hard.

newest oldest
Notify of

I prefer tax increases and cuts to defense. Is that combo one of the options?


My understanding is that if you took all the money the “rich” has, at our current spend, it doesn’t matter. We’d run out regardless. And what determines rich? Tell me what income level you’re looking at as there aren’t enough “super” rich peeps to get us out of this. Based on the PEW article, I’m in the upper class – but I bust my butt to get there. Will I suddenly pay more and not be able to afford my home? Also, who is to say that “taxing the rich” at a higher rate won’t simply mean government will find… Read more »

As always, it’s not just the taxes, it’s the spending that creates the taxes. Nobody wants their piece of the pie taken away from them.

Why are you saying taxes should only go up for the rich? The middle class benefits the most from Government spending, the middle class should pay for it too. Fairness needs to be a part of the discussion, and I know it’s so terribly unpopular, but the middle classes are taxed far less than the rich, both in percentage and obviously in amount. Most of the lower classes pay no or negative income tax. This is not fair. A flat rate is the only fair way to tax. I will fight tooth and nail against any tax increase though, unless… Read more »


That still won’t work if spending goes up at the same rate as taxes as government spenders are likely to do. Raising taxes will only give them more to waste. I’m not sure what the answer is, but only working one side of the equation is surely not the solution either. As you mention above – the new kids on the block will push for more free stuff – so in the end, raising taxes is a waste of time as that money is spent before it even gets here.

Funny, cause the lion’s share is already being absorbed by the rich. I am 100% in agreement about the GOP’s chance to dial back spending and how difficult things will be moving forward. We didn’t give them both houses of Congress and the White House for nothing, and anything less than a dramatic shift in spending will be viewed by me as a failure. I am ok with higher taxes if the Gov gets its shit together. As long as we’re sending fat checks to old people for doing nothing, and pissing away money in the discretionary budget, I don’t… Read more »

At least the bloated whale of the Boomer Generation will be long gone.


Taxing the wealthy yet more won’t fix anything.

comment image

I’ll explain the rest later.

Taxing the Rich and cutting some spending . still will not save us..its just more kicking the can down the road.
massive cuts more taxes and hope there is a growth in the GDP overall.. not sure if that can happen with the heavy tax and spending cut.

I fear that the Vandels are just over the hill coming this way no matter what we do..

%d bloggers like this: