Right Thinking From The Left Coast
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it - Henry David Thoreau

Unbelievable bullshit

The demcorats are up in arms. In fact the Senate donkeys are are threatening a government shutdown because the republicans want to cut a measly $74 billion from the OVER $3.83 TRILLION 2011 budget. Forget the fact that I am pissed at republicans for only finding a measly $74 billion to cut from this monster, Look at how the collectivists that won the 2008 election claiming they would be fiscally conservative and get spending under control and then proceeded to tack trillions in new debt and to grow the budget in ways that would have caused seizures in economists if anyone had proposed them otherwise, are reacting to this all but token cut! Seriously WTF?

The battle over the budget is inevitable: Democrats will resist the cuts Republicans propose, and conservative Republicans may even put up a fight if they don’t find the spending measures adequate. As much as Congress will work behind the scenes to prevent a shutdown, expect to see them out in public working hard not to be blamed if it occurs.

It is pretty clear to me who the crooks holding our future hostage are. Muirgy, want to take a guess? ROLL IT BACK! At this point I want a government shutdown.

Update: Guess who the party of the little people and the party that promised to fight special interests is turning to, to help fight the evil republicans and their piddly cuts! I give you three chances, and the first 2 don’t count.

In an e-mail obtained by ABC News, a top staffer for the key Senate Appropriations subcommittee called for a meeting of lobbyists and interest groups that would be affected by expected cuts to the Labor and Heath and Human Services budget. The Jan. 24 meeting was attended by approximately 400 people, sources told ABC, and served as a “call to arms” for those determined to fight Republican budget cuts.

“One thing everyone should be able to agree on now is that a rising tide lifts all boats, and that a higher [Labor, Health & Human Services] allocation improves the chances for every stakeholder group to receive more funding,” the committee staffer for Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, wrote in an e-mail inviting people to the meeting.

Harkin, imitating our resident idiot moogoo, pulls the “We have to deficit spend because shrinking our bloated government is going to hurt the already moribund economy” card. I say again: bullshit. Funny how the demcorats are cozy with them evil lobbyists though, huh? I mean, one would be inclined to believe that these lobbyists, after being raked over the coals by these though anti- special interest donkeys - that’s what they told us they would do at least - wouldn’t feel like playing nice with them. But that’s not the case. perchance because the left lied to us again when they told us the days of lobby and special interest power were over? Heh! Power to the people? No way: power to the elite collectivist twit and screw the stoopid people, is more like it.

Posted by AlexinCT on 02/04/11 at 05:37 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by Hal_10000 on 02/04/11 at 07:09 AM from United States

It has yet to be seen if even the Republicans are going to get behind this.  But Ryan, to his credit, is including defense in his spending cuts.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 08:02 AM from United States

Alex,

How does cutting government spending and laying of hundreds of thousands of government workers help the economy?

Austerity measures in Britain and Ireland are not working too well for their economies.

NOT WORKING!!!

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 09:20 AM from United States

Murgoo:

How the hell does borrowing trillions of dollars from OUR CHILDREN for wasteful spending on entitlements help the future of this country?

Collectivist moron......

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 09:21 AM from United States

It’s simple moogoo, government employees don’t actually contribute to the economy, they are a net drain.

Plus, you’re an economic idiot.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 10:09 AM from United States

government employees don’t actually contribute to the economy, they are a net drain.

You say this often - I don’t get what you mean so let me set up a situation and then maybe you can explain it to me.

The gal that takes my picture at the DMV. She’s a government employee - salary paid through taxes. I get my pic taken - hand over my license fee of fifteen bucks or whatever and then that money goes to pay her salary - plus (for the sake of argument) let’s say it helps repave a portion of a road that I use to travel to one of my jobs.

She has given me the service of providing the photo that goes on the document that proves I have shown an adequate proficiency at driving and paid associated fees with that act. Allowing me to conduct my business.

I mean what is the alternative? Contract the job out to a private firm which would still be paid by tax dollars?

Posted by Poosh on 02/04/11 at 10:34 AM from United Kingdom

"You say this often - I don’t get what you mean so let me set up a situation and then maybe you can explain it to me.”

Because you are are paying her with your own money (via tax) THEN giving her further money.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 10:50 AM from United States

I mean what is the alternative? Contract the job out to a private firm which would still be paid by tax dollars?

No, contract out to a private firm that isn’t paid with tax dollars.  Just because the government and libs have done a good job of convincing everyone that “only the government is large enough to do X” doesn’t make it true. 

Just about everything the government does can be run by private enterprise, and even if it does use or distribute tax dollars it will ultimately cost less.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 10:58 AM from United States

Because you are are paying her with your own money (via tax) THEN giving her further money.

But she is providing a service by taking my picture and giving me my documentation. If I did not drive I would not be paying her the further money (but I could still benefit from the roads as a passenger in forms of transportation that use the roads)

SO - you don’t address my question. Let me throw out another example - what about fire and policemen? How do they not contribute to the economy? Providing a deterrent to folks breaking into my business or putting out a fire and saving me inventory loss - I would consider that of value.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 11:07 AM from United States

The gal that takes my picture at the DMV. She’s a government employee - salary paid through taxes.I get my pic taken - hand over my license fee of fifteen bucks or whatever and then that money goes to pay her salary -

You license fee includes the cost of the tabs and the overhead to produce the tabs and to run the office.  Consider the following:

1) Public employees are generally union and typically paid far above market rates for their labor skills. 

2) Their job is essentially theirs forever, regardless of how well it is performed.  There is no incentive to modernize or improve efficiency.

Contracting this out to a private business will lower overhead costs and improve efficiency (profit motive) - you costs will either go down, or not go up as fast. 

The number of people sucking off the government tit is lowered, and the resulting former government employees need to find private sector jobs, which boosts the economy as they are now contributing.

plus (for the sake of argument) let’s say it helps repave a portion of a road that I use to travel to one of my jobs.

Regardless of where the tax money comes from to maintain roads, it’s still tax money.  Private enterprise has historically (and recently) built roads for cheaper than the government ever has without slave labor, and maintained them better.  The difference is that you have to pay up front to use them. 

This is no different than the government setting up a toll road (you know, like all over Chicago), except you get a better road, and the tolls will likely be less than the government ones.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 11:23 AM from Germany

but said they were ruling out a government shutdown.

How is that threatening shut down?

Posted by AlexinCT on 02/04/11 at 11:47 AM from United States

How does cutting government spending and laying of hundreds of thousands of government workers help the economy?

Simple economics moogoo: once government is taking away less money from the private sector, doubly so when a small government gets out of the way of the peopel doing real work and creating wealth, the private sector will grow and create jobs. Of course, most of the losers they laid off from these government jobs wouldn’t survive a private sector job anyway, so maybe you got a point that they are just drags on us until we do something drastic to change that issue.

Posted by AlexinCT on 02/04/11 at 11:58 AM from United States

plus (for the sake of argument) let’s say it helps repave a portion of a road that I use to travel to one of my jobs.

This is all part & parcel of that whole broken window fallacy. Read some Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams. They both handled this topic and explained the idiocy of it perfectly. In a nut shell that money spent fixing the road wasn’t just spent inefficiently because government did it, it prevented that money from being spent somewhere else where it would have in 999,999 out of a million cases produced far more value. And that’s the problem. We could let government do everything and do it terribly or we could get them the fook out of the way so that “profit motive” the left so hates induces others to do a much better job.

Of course, that would mean a great loss of power for these crooks that love the wealth they can create for themselves by choosing winners & losers instead of letting the market and the customers do so. Cause after all, these marxist/statist/corporatist/fascist tools all believe markets are evil, and people are stoopid!

Posted by AlexinCT on 02/04/11 at 12:16 PM from United States

How is that threatening shut down?

The comments Harry Read made on the news when O watched divert from the printed version. Harry clearly made the arguement that the demcorats will not allow or go along with these cuts, and if republicans continue to push for them, it will end up in a government shut down. And he is even blaming the repubs for the demcorats being intransigent and not accepting this token cut, of all things!. In other words, if you insist in making some piddly cuts we don’t want, you leave me no choice but to pull a tantrum, and that then means government gets no funding.

I think he is drastically hoping for a repeat of 1995. His problem is that the MSM now has competition and the left will not be able to blame republicans for their games. I doubt the American people are in the mood to get todl the republicans are bad in a cheap political ploy where the demcorats allowed the government to be shut down over a piddly $ 74 billion cut from a $ 3.83 trillion behemoth of a budget. Harry acn play this game, but it will cost the demcorats this time around. They no longer control the media or the message.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 12:28 PM from United States

Let me throw out another example - what about fire and policemen? How do they not contribute to the economy?

All money used to finance government activities, govt. spending where unaccountable bureacrats are spending other people’s money and are rewarded by expanding their bureaucracies, all that money comes out of the productive private sector where individuals and businesses are making spending and investment decisions with their own money at stake. The more govt spends, the more must be sucked away from the private sector.

“Some” govt is required, fire and police included, although even those areas there is a lot of waste and overpayment, so govt activities should be kept at a MINIMUM. I recall a couple of sheriff’s in California paid over $500k/year. Average police salary in Vallejo, CA, not the highest but the AVERAGE, was $121,000/yr which was actually $190,000 when you include their pension and other benefits. All that has to be paid by private sector which will have less to spend and invest. There is $600 billion of Medicare fraud every year because govt. employees are not incentivized to crack down. It’s not their $$ and they won’t lose their jobs if the fraud continues. Add in the extreme spending at the EPA, Dept. of Education and obscense govt compensation packages at every level of govt., govt spending has created a crisis situation.

The problem is that the unproductive govt has expanded their spending to a ruinous extreme, burdening the private sector taxpayers with too-high taxes and extreme debt.

Posted by CaptCBleu on 02/04/11 at 12:37 PM from United States

what about fire and policemen? How do they not contribute to the economy? Providing a deterrent to folks breaking into my business or putting out a fire and saving me inventory loss - I would consider that of value.

Salinger,

You are under the assumption that the Government and it’s agencies have an obligation to protect an individual or an individual’s property, this is not true; the purpose of the police is to protect the community at large.  Individuals and individual property is not part of the community at large in accordance to the courts. The fire departments purpose is prevent other properties from burning down with yours hence the community at large. The courts have continuously ruled that there is no no government obligation to protect individuals or the individual’s property going back to the 1850s.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 01:03 PM from United States

Okay - so you guys are playing the private sector can do anything better card. I’m not so sure I buy that - but it’s an arguable point.

But saying that government employees don’t contribute to the economy is begging the question.

Take Tiffany over at the DMV for example. Now SO might believe she is overpaid for the job she does (I would argue the same is true for whole butt load of CEOs) but that would make the argument over her job’s worth - not whether she contributes to the economy.

Every time she gets her hair teased up into her Kardasian bouffant and her white tipped french nails done she is spending her salary back into the economy - so, the fact that she may be a bit overpaid she is probably actually a good thing for the service economy in her neighborhood. Thus, because of her spending I still don’t see how she is a net drain on economy.

The courts have continuously ruled that there is no no government obligation to protect individuals or the individual’s property going back to the 1850s.

Regardless - their actions benefit the individual and as with the above example - the spending of their salaries helps to keep the economy chugging along. The cop making 121,000 in CA is certainly spending a whole bunch of that salary every year. It’s not that big of a salary - especially, from what I hear, on the west coast.

Posted by CaptCBleu on 02/04/11 at 01:19 PM from United States

The cop making 121,000 in CA is certainly spending a whole bunch of that salary every year. It’s not that big of a salary - especially, from what I hear, on the west coast.

If there are no taxes coming in to cover the police officers salary, the chances are the police officer is going to take a pay cut, or be laid off to reflect revenues that the city is taking in. hence the fact the government does not contribute to the economy, but leaches off of it. The government does not bolster the economy unless it can make a profit for some of the services it provides.

So maybe if we pay for the government services in addition to paying our taxes for the government to operate these services then maybe the government will contribute to the Economy. Example: When KCFD took over the Ambulance services ere in Kansas City MO, they now charge for the Service per use ($800 plus $10 per mile to the hospital you choose to go to) is that something you want to see in your area?

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 01:29 PM from United States

If there are no taxes coming in to cover the police officers salary,…

You’re moving the goalposts - this does not deal with the original question. I’m trying to understand the justification for saying all government workers are a net drain on the economy. Let’s play that one out before we move on by introducing new variables.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 01:29 PM from United States

The cop making 121,000 in CA is certainly spending a whole bunch of that salary every year.

Sure he does, but the overpaid policeman is spending money taken from someone else. Using your “logic” why not double or triple govt salaries to really stimulate the economy?

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 01:49 PM from United States

"That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen” by Frederic Bastiat would be a great starting point to understand where we are coming from.  Not only do you have to look at what is seen (the DMV worker’s salary) but you must also consider what is not seen (how that money would’ve been put to use if it had not been removed from the private sector.)

Also, “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt expands on Bastiat’s ideas.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 01:49 PM from United States

Okay - so you guys are playing the private sector can do anything better card. I’m not so sure I buy that - but it’s an arguable point.

I’m not sure anyone is asserting that the private sector can do “anything” better than the govt.. for example defend the country with a private sector military, but by and large overall and pretty much across the board, the private sector is FAR, FAR more efficient than govt, for the simple reason that private businesses and individuals are making spending and investment decisions with their own money.. whereas govt bureaucrats are spending other people’s money and they have perverse spending incentives such that they are rewarded for creating larger bureaucracies. Medicare loses more money each year in fraud than the combined profits of the 10 largest private healthcare insurers.. has their been mass firings at Medicare over this? Reduction of budget? Of course not, because government has perverse incentives. Wasteful spending taken from the productive private sector

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 02:07 PM from United States

how that money would’ve been put to use if it had not been removed from the private sector.

But if the govt. employee then spends his salary doesn’t then go into the private sector? How does one more step before it gets there degrade its value?

but by and large overall and pretty much across the board, the private sector is FAR, FAR more efficient than govt,

I’ll let this slide without proof and ask you this - why is more efficient better?

My garbage was picked up today by a single guy driving a truck with a mechanical arm from Waste Management. When I was growing up there would have been three guys paid by the city on this duty - a driver and a guy to grab the cans from either side of the street.

Now who worked as garbage collectors? Generally folks who were not blessed with the most pencils in their cases - but they were employed. What has happened to those two other guys now? You can’t tell me that they are writing code somewhere - there is always going to be a certain percentage of the population who through no fault of their own are going to have IQ’s between 80 and 100. How does efficiency help them?

Posted by CaptCBleu on 02/04/11 at 02:12 PM from United States

I am sorry but I never moved the goal posts at all, less or no taxes coming in, no salary for the officer your are talking about how government contributes to the economy ( which by the way it doesn’t). In order to cover the operating costs of the government and its agencies, they (the government) have to tax the people and private business to maintain their operational costs.

The taxes that come to the government from private business is always in the prices charged to the customer, thus the government is not contributing to the economy but taking from it. when the customer reduces the amount he purchases because of cost, the government gets less money in taxes, and has to make choices on how much one gets paid or how to reduce the cost of operating with lay- offs. So everything is dependent upon how the government taxes the people and business to maintain its operational costs which is how it affects the economy. However you’re the one shifting the goal posts because you are not getting the answer you want to hear.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 02:17 PM from United States

The taxes that come to the government from private business is always in the prices charged to the customer, thus the government is not contributing to the economy but taking from it.

By this logic anyone who does not make a finished product or service is not contributing to the economy.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 02:20 PM from United States

I’ll let this slide without proof and ask you this - why is more efficient better?

Using your line of reasoning, why use earth mover machines when 10 ditch diggers with shovels could do the same thing “creating” more employment? Or why use industrial sewing machines instead of hiring 100’s or 1000’s of workers to do the same thing by hand with a needle and thread? Or why not do away with commercial dishwashing machines which put dishwashers out of work? Computers replaced typesetter jobs.. etc, etc, etc

The obvious answer is that with the money saved with these efficiencies, the employer was able to have more money to invest in other areas of their business which ends up hiring more workers. That’s how economies grow, by becoming more efficient in creating and delivering what people and businesses want

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 02:28 PM from United States

Salinger, you’re arguing over the ever shrinking piece of the pie.  Here’s the mistake if I’m reading you correctly:  The DMV chick isn’t actually producing anything, but she gets paid and that money goes back into circulation.  The problem is this: when you took taxes out of the economy to pay her, that is money LOST to investment and wealth creation.  Governments do not create wealth because they subsist off of money taken by force from others.  When your neighbor does this, we call it theft, governments call it “taxation”.

Using the stupidly incorrect movie Wall Street as an example, many people don’t realize that economies aren’t a zero-sum game (though governments are).  A functioning economy CREATES wealth where none was before.  Governments take a portion of that wealth and recycles it until there isn’t anything left, and then goes back for another portion.

Here’s a study problem:  You have 5 people and $100 dollars.  How often can you pass that $100 around between the 5 people if every time it changes hands 25% of it is lost?  At some point the original $100 has been reduced to the point that you can’t do anything with it, so you need to find another $100 to inject into the process.  That’s government.

Now use the same $100 and 5 people, only one of them uses his portion to manufacture something he can sell for a profit.  He now has MORE than his original share.  That’s private enterprise.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 02:32 PM from United States

Using your line of reasoning, why use earth mover machines…

You skipped the part about what to do with these folks who are unemployable due to efficiency? They end up on the dole - providing no contribution at all right now. What is that cost?

By the way - while working the past month in SE Asia I saw a gymnasium foundation being dug by hand by about a hundred guys.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 02:40 PM from United States

You skipped the part about what to do with these folks who are unemployable due to efficiency?

It’s illogical to assume that low skill workers such as ditch diggers wouldn’t be able to find employment performing other low skill duties with similar pay such as janitorial/cleaning work, warehouse work, restaurants, etc.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 02:45 PM from United States

salinger, in Zimbabwe, automated gasoline pumps are not permitted because the Zimbabwe govt.  believes, as you do, that it would “destroy” jobs of filling station attendants. This economic philosophy of “efficiency is bad” is enforced by govt in many levels of the Zimbabwe economy from construction to farming. The entire world can see the despair and destruction of those economic policies.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 02:55 PM from United States

This economic philosophy of “efficiency is bad”

I think Zimbabwe has a few more problems than gasoline station attendants - specifically Mugabe sanctioned corruption.

I am not advocating an overarching efficiency is bad philosophy - just asking that one take a look at whether efficiently funneling cash to the upper half percent of the population is really the best thing for an economy.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 02:57 PM from Germany

My garbage was picked up today by a single guy driving a truck with a mechanical arm from Waste Management. When I was growing up there would have been three guys paid by the city on this duty - a driver and a guy to grab the cans from either side of the street.

Now who worked as garbage collectors? Generally folks who were not blessed with the most pencils in their cases - but they were employed. What has happened to those two other guys now? You can’t tell me that they are writing code somewhere - there is always going to be a certain percentage of the population who through no fault of their own are going to have IQ’s between 80 and 100. How does efficiency help them?

Well, they move into other sectors where their skills are marketable.  On the other hand, you now have a bunch of people employed by designing, engineering, and manufacturing mechanical arms for garbage trucks. They weren’t doing that before. Does that mean that they were on the dole before that? No. It just goes to show that labor is fluid in an economy, and new opportunities arise to fill in gaps all the time.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 02:59 PM from United States

On the other hand, you now have a bunch of people employed by designing, engineering, and manufacturing mechanical arms for garbage trucks.

Good answer! Too bad those jobs are probably overseas.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 03:00 PM from United States

By the way - while working the past month in SE Asia I saw a gymnasium foundation being dug by hand by about a hundred guys.

Which isn’t to say that the cost of hiring 100 men is SE Asia is the same as hiring those same 100 men in Boston.  Bodies are more readily available in some places than they are in others.  It could well be cheaper, or faster if there aren’t enough to go around, to hire a mass of people with shovels and wheelbarrows than it is to lease a backhoe and an experienced operator.

What you find is that once there are enough bulldozers to go around, those people being underutilized as brute muscle will be available to do other work.  Automation doesn’t eliminate jobs, it allows people to do something other than idiot work, which pays better.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 03:00 PM from Germany

think Zimbabwe has a few more problems than gasoline station attendants - specifically Mugabe sanctioned corruption.

I am not advocating an overarching efficiency is bad philosophy - just asking that one take a look at whether efficiently funneling cash to the upper half percent of the population is really the best thing for an economy.

Well, look to New Jersey then. They have a law that forces all gas stations to be full service (there is no self service in NJ at all).

Anyhow, is all that money “funneling to the upper half percent of the population”?  Tiffany is getting a paycheck too, you know.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 03:04 PM from United States

I am not advocating an overarching efficiency is bad philosophy - just asking that one take a look at whether efficiently funneling cash to the upper half percent of the population is really the best thing for an economy

Why are you limiting the beneficiaries of efficiencies to the “upper half percent” when there are benefits to more people at all levels in an efficient economy vs your proposed “don’t ever replace manual labor with machines because it destroys jobs” approach?

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 03:06 PM from Germany

Good answer! Too bad those jobs are probably overseas.

Not necessarily

FYI, Heil Environmental is the leading manufacturer of waste hauling vehicles in the world.

Posted by on 02/04/11 at 03:08 PM from United States

FYI, Heil Environmental is the leading manufacturer of waste hauling vehicles in the world.

Very cool, thanks for the link.

Posted by Ed Kline on 02/04/11 at 05:38 PM from United States

just asking that one take a look at whether efficiently funneling cash to the upper half percent of the population is really the best thing for an economy

That’s the lie right there. The Steve Jobs, Paul Allens, and Bill Gates of the world employ a lot of people, and the industry they built has secondary and tertiary industies that employ shitloads more. Yes, they guy at the top of the business pyramid makes the most, ( he’s often the one who took the risk), but there have been literally tens of thousands of new miilionaires thanks to Gates and Jobs. Todays wealthy were not neccessarily yesterdays wealthy.
The lie that the top .5% make all the money doesnt take into account that new people are being added to that group all the time, and they employ millions of people.
Also when the left talk about wealth and taxes, they usually only talk about income. There are millions of people in this country who may not make enough yearly to be in the top 10% of income who are firmly entrenched in the top 10% of total wealth. That’s the benefit of having been part of the market-workforce for 25+ years. These are the people who drive the economy, and who are getting rooked by having to pay the ridiculous salaries of government employees.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 02/04/11 at 06:24 PM from United States

Muirgeo, austerity measure are working very well in Germany.  With the UK, they just started buttoning down.  And Ireland’s problems are extremely deep.

You can’t grow an economy by any means if the country is bankrupt or defeaults on its debt.

Posted by AlexinCT on 02/04/11 at 09:46 PM from United States

Posted by Ed Kline on 02/04/11 at 04:38 PM from

Very good post. Read this again, moogoo. Read it twice.

Posted by Miguelito on 02/05/11 at 04:04 AM from United States

I love that moogoo’s article not only doesn’t argue his point at all, but the very first thing under the title says

• ONS blames wintry weather for most of the contraction

<< Back to main