Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Don't stay in bed, unless you can make money in bed. - George Burns

Shameless attempt to pretend they care…

Now that republicans are hell bent on cutting some measly $100 billion from our bloated federal annual budget - a budget that has jumped up drastically since democrats won the 2008 election by pretending to care about fiscal responsibility, a budget that has tacked on over $3 trillions of dollars in new debt in two short years, a budget that has massively increased the welfare nanny state, and finally it should be mentioned that it is a budget that along with the hostility towards American small businesses by the demcorats is the primary reason job creation has remained negative despite trillions in Keynesian pocket lining schemes by these crooks - the democrats threatening to shut down government if the republicans do not back off, and are now suddenly pretending they care about jobs and making the ludicrous claim that cutting spending will cost jobs. Klein, whom never fails to show how stupid he is, is parroting the new DNC talking points about how these “massive” cuts are going to hammer existing jobs - cushy public sector jobs that produce squat if at all true - as are Pelosi and Reid.

Funny how these bastards suddenly have a concern for jobs, when they seemed totally immune to the economic damage and the massive job hit the previous policies – from the stimulus patronage spending to massive tax dollars funneled to donkey friendly business to the government healthcare takeover – they rammed down our throats would have, huh? When they were hard at work destroying our economy they seemed totally immune to the massive evidence their actions were brutally destructive economy & job killers, but suddenly care now that they stand to lose power and see the damage they inflicted on the tax payers reversed? Yeah, sure. Of course, I should point out that their sudden concern is probably because these cuts, if they do have any impact on jobs whatsoever, might impact the bloated government public sector jobs, and as the current battle in Wisconsin is showing us, these are practically always union jobs, which means, their loss will impact the massive donkey-union campaign coffer contribution schemes the demcorats so depend on. So maybe the concern isn’t so much feigned as much as it is selfish. These scumbags didn’t much care when regular Americans were screwed by their actions, but they sure do when something threatens their power and cash flow. Heck, they are so desperate, that they are even playing the race card! I am not sure what’s worse, because all are shitty reasons and shaft the American people.

What is unavoidable is that the last 4 years of donkey control of the spending purse, and doubly so the last 2 years of absolute donkey control of the executive and legislative branches to set policy, have produced nothing but negative results. We have had 2 full years of the job market “unexpectedly” being negative, while the MSM pretends this isn’t so bad. Of course when we had less than 4.5% unemployment and the economy was booming but the guy in the WH had an (R) next to his name, things were dire and bad. Double heh! The left has to lose this fight if America wants to avoid becoming a banana republic, third rate big government socialist state, has-been great nation, where the collectivists pick whom wins and who loses. Don’t buy their sudden concern with jobs. Like all other things about them, it is phony as can be.

Posted by AlexinCT on 03/01/11 at 06:09 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 03/01/11 at 08:26 AM from United States

While people in the private sector were getting laid off, over the past 2 years the federal govt. added over 200,000 high paid new jobs to an already bloated federal payroll.. and they were added with borrowed money which we don’t have.

Here’s the deal - you are 100% correct that the left needs to lose this budget fight if our country is to have a fighting chance. We’re currently on a fiscal road-to-ruin trajectory that must change. But by making those cuts in order to create a solid foundation for future economic growth, I see no way how our economy will not take another big hit for the short-to-intermediate-term. Govt at every level has grown way too big and way too expensive. Cutting govt. jobs, salaries and pensions along with cutting govt entitlement payments, all necessary, but it means that there will be, for a while, significantly less money being spent in our economy, and that will require that our economy take a painful but necessary hit as we “take our medicine” to try and correct the excesses.

Our govt has been growing and living completely off of credit card debt in the hopes that they could force taxpayers to pay for their excesses. Well the bills for this binge spending are coming due and thankfully, it looks like the public is finally ready to support the tough cuts (for now). But there will be economic pain associated with cuts including higher unemployment rate. Too much of our economy is based on false sugar-high debt spending which has spiraled completely our of control. Making spending cuts in govt. is the “least bad” alternative. At this point there are no pain-free options.

Posted by AlexinCT on 03/01/11 at 08:46 AM from United States

Our govt has been growing and living completely off of credit card debt in the hopes that they could force taxpayers to pay for their excesses.

THIS Mook!

I have now for a while believed that this massive expansion of government spending and debt creation wasn’t accidental. The obsession with raising taxes on the rich is embodied in Muirgy’s rants for a reason. It is the motivating factor driving the lunatic left. The left has been pissed beyond belief since Bush got the tax cuts back in 2001, and hell bent on making sure they never resulted in anything positive that would give the right the economic authority to point out taxes in general, and heavy taxes for sure, are bad for the economy. If we got a repeat of the Reagan economic boom of the 80s, it would basically kill the idiotic meme that there was only negligible impact from high taxation the Keynesians want you to believe in. We got that boom despite the left’s effort to minimize it. And their anger doubled when we went to war and they saw money spent on things they hate – anything that defends American interests and protects them and Americans - instead of the expansion of the welfare state. How dare we not tax the evil rich more so the poor could be “given” some while feeding the evil military machine?

When the politics of forcing lenders to give money to bad risk, in the name of “social justice” or what not, caused the economy to implode, the first thing the left blamed was the tax cuts and the war spending. Realizing the opportunity in the crisis that followed, they drastically increased government spending hoping that they would then convince people the only thing that would help was to also increase taxes. That was the plan until the American people, consciously or unconsciously, realized this policy was disastrous and big government was not the answer, and turned on them. The Tea Party movement basically killed the plan to not just let the Bush tax cuts expire, but to raise taxes even more, and forced them to abandon that plan. For now that is.

Their resistance to these spending cuts is partially driven by fear that they will work to move things in the right direction, and then the American people will not be very receptive to their want to raise taxes, no matter what the excuse is. They still hold hope that the whole deficit and debt thing lets them convince enough people that the thing to do is to raise taxes on the producers and top earners – do not confound these with the real rich, because these real rich, almost always demcorats, will get exemptions and protections – so they can march on with their idiotic wealth redistribution scheme. After all you rob a bank when you want to get the big cash, not the mailman.

Posted by on 03/01/11 at 09:09 AM from United States

I think the 2003 - 2007 economic boom under Pres. Bush was also largely a false sugar-high. Govt was expanding out of control under Bush, monetary policy was doubling-down to inflate another bubble (debt/housing bubble). I agree that if all things being equal, low tax rates spur growth. But low tax rates have to be coupled with controls on govt spending and growth - and that didn’t happen under Bush. Off-budget liabilities like pensions and Fannie/Freddie obligations skyrocketed and govt payrolls grew like crazy across the board at the federal, state and local levels.

Obama is far, far worse, and he is personally responsible for a lot of damage to our economy.. but the initial damage started decades earlier. Remember during the 90’s how most people believed Greenspan’s “easy money” monetary policies were able to magically tweak the economy into nirvana? That was conventional wisdom at one time. But in retrospect we can see that Fed policy was creating a false illusion resulting in the inflating of the tech bubble followed by the housing/debt bubble. In other words, much of our “economic growth” during the 90’s and 2000’s was not real weath creation, it was a Fed manipulated bubble coupled with huge govt spending to artificially “juice” the economy.

Bernanke seems hell bent on trying to re-inflate another bubble with his “cost free” QE. This won’t end well.

Posted by on 03/01/11 at 06:36 PM from Australia

The doom and gloom over cutting government spending is largely exaggerated. I am reminded of Thatcher in the 80’s cutting spending and economists wrote a letter about how detrimental it would be and they were all wrong.

The reason is due to the multiplier effect. According to Greg Mankiw, the multiplier for government spending is 0.9ish. So every $ spent creates <$1 of activity. My theory as to why is the crowding out effect in financial markets.

Mark Zandi is the loudest of the doom and gloomers of cutting spending and I just learned in NRO today that he was one of the architects of the stimulus bill.

At this point I only see 2 ways out for the west’s debt problems. Hyperinflation or default. Neither will be pretty.

Posted by InsipiD on 03/01/11 at 06:53 PM from United States

economists wrote a letter

Was it sternly worded?
Posted by on 03/01/11 at 07:10 PM from Australia

Was it sternly worded?

It was an open letter to all the major papers predicting a new great depression if she went ahead with cuts, and was signed by 364 British economists.

Posted by on 03/01/11 at 10:27 PM from United States

Was it sternly worded?

well played..kudos

Posted by on 03/01/11 at 10:42 PM from United States

The doom and gloom over cutting government spending is largely exaggerated.

This is a good point as big-govt libs and the govt employees will exaggerate the negative effects of any spending cuts as the apocolypse of the middle class, etc… but OTOH, there will be additional (but needed) economic pain associated with cuts in govt spending as we trim excesses back to normal. Debt levels are at the highest they’ve been in our lifetime. They didn’t grow to this level overnight, and the “medicine” to reduce these excesses won’t be pleasant

<< Back to main