So recently I was reading the blog of my friend The Snark Who Hunts Back and she had reposted one of those loveable make your own video with two cartoon characters talking to each other videos. This one was focused on how hard it was to discuss anything with die hard liberals. For the most part it was more humorous than serious. I’ll be the first to admit that the Right also has some lunatics that won’t listen to reason either (Palin, Perry, Paul supporters to name just a few) so it shouldn’t be hard for people on the left to realize there are idiots among their ranks as well. It certainly wasn’t making a serious point that needed response.
Yet somehow it got a serious response…from an Obama supporter…who clearly knows nothing at all about economics. And while I’m working on a few blogs, even some current event ones, I know that sometimes it is more important to destroy the lies that keep persisting before they spread further than deal with new information too quickly because the stupid talking points that get repeated are regrettably what people base their opinions on. And as I know the Snark would probably respond herself, but is at the moment getting ready for an out of state trip, I thought it a fun time to rip apart just some truly terrible liberal lies. That and I’m just feeling petty and mean…yes I may have just gone on for two weeks about the need for forgiveness, but stupidity and ignorance should never be tolerated.
Sections will be lifted word for word, with no editing to change the meaning in context. You may also find the complete comments at the bottom of the Snark’s post if you think I have edited it unfairly.
“[…]and if you sharpen up some of the other Obama-side rhetoric, you have some good points to ponder.”
Really? No, I don’t think so. In fact I don’t think liberals have had a good point about economics in my entire lifetime. So I don’t need to “ponder” your points. I have run across them a thousand times already, subjected them to things like facts, reason, and real life and they have never stood up…never come even close to standing up…so not a lot of pondering is required anymore, I’ve already thought about these thing….you however may wish to actually study and think.
“For one thing, deficits are generally going to get worse during a recession, because tax revenues go down, but the cost of government goes up, and interest rates usually drop, so, hell yes, borrow money now!”
Okay I’m not seeing the causation of cost of government going up. Yes, governments since Hoover have responded to recessions and depressions by spending more because they listened to that utterly incompetent hack name Keynes…doesn’t mean that it must go up. In fact an intelligent government (obviously not one headed by Bush or Obama) would and could CUT spending. So it is not some kind of immoveable fact that deficits go up in a recession. Nor should they! Higher deficits lead to massive inflation, which in turns leads to a slower economy. More government spending always means more red tape which means a slower economy. More government welfare always means that the proper system of incentives that exists under capitalism is screwed up if not destroyed, which slows down the economy. If you cut spending and cut the deficit you would actually improve the economy. Borrowing more will only make things worse. Books to read for justification on these points would be almost any economics book by Thomas Sowell (although “Basic Economics”, “Applied Economics” and “Economic Facts and Fallacies” might be most relevant), “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression” by Amity Shlaes, and for a more lighthearted look “Eat the Rich” by P.J. O’Rourke.
“And the stimulus did work, if you agree that gaining 100,000 jobs a month is better than losing 500,000 jobs a month. A bigger stimulus would have worked better, and more stimulus spending now would do more good.”
I want some of what you’re smoking. Oh wait, no thanks, it’s clearly the same stuff that Paul Krugman is smoking. The easy insanity of Keynesianism. Or as someone else put it “Keynesian economics is easy, even for stupid people. More thought and analysis are required to understand why it has not worked as it is supposed to.” Stimulus doesn’t work. It can’t work. The economy must go through high and low points to maintain health, trying to skip the low points will only result in a lower and longer low point.
And your statement about 100,000 jobs a month is just perplexing. The economy has not added 100,000 a month, and it has seen a massive amount of people becoming underemployed and even more just giving up and not looking for work. It is stalled because of the government not letting the economy hit its low point and begin a recovery on its own which must and will happen. The only question is when (sooner being better than later) and how bad will that bottom be (the longer we take to get there, the worse it will be). Further where do you get laying off 500,000 a month? That would be about 18 million people since Obama took office. Do you really think that the TARP and the OBAMA stimulus saved us 18 million jobs? Exactly what industry was doing so bad that 18 million jobs would have been lost? If Bush had let a couple of banks fail maybe a few hundred thousand would have lost their jobs…but they would have been quickly rehired by the other banks which bought what was left of their competitors at fire sale prices which would have left the banking industry far more stable in the long run than it is now. The car industry perhaps? Nope if GM had gone under, their competitors would have bought their equipment and plants at low prices, hired people to retool the factories and equipment and then probably hired back most of the employees…and as an added bonus, you wouldn’t have more GM (i.e. some of the worst POS cars on the road, even the brand new ones are POS) and the car industry would be more stable…and as an added bonus the U.S. government probably wouldn’t have engaged in criminal slander against Toyota. The fact is that without TARP and the Obama stimulus in the short term yes it would have been worse…but if we hadn’t had those two truly abhorrent pieces of legislation we would actually be in a much better recovery right now.
“You know what makes things worse in a recession? Cutting spending. “
No that would be wonderful. That would mean that there would be less red tape and less interference which means the economy could actually begin to recover. Cutting spending will help reassure businesses, especially small businesses that they can get back to work without the fear of interference, regulation, and crushing taxes. Cutting spending will signal that we have returned to sanity, rather than the fear that Obama propagates right now.
“Laying off hundreds of thousands of state and local government employees.”
Actually that would also be good as there is no such thing as a government employee (outside of the armed services, and maybe a few people at the FBI and State) that is not grossly overpaid and in all likelihood utterly incompetent. Get rid of as many of them as possible. Pink slip whole Federal Departments. Sell the post office to UPS, FedEx and DHL, you’ll see faster, cheaper, more efficient service that will not incur the obscene cost of government healthcare, government salaries, government pensions. Cutting 100,000 government employees and not stealing that money from businesses and tax payers would mean 2 to 300,000 more jobs in the private sector.
“Canceling or postponing infrastructure, research, and modernization projects.”
Again if you privatized those things, they would be cheaper and more efficient.
“Incidentally, the video-maker is seemingly unfamiliar with the filibuster, along with other ways the Republicans thwarted the President while still a minority in Congress. There’s a limited shelf life on that strategy, however.”
Really. So you’re saying that Obama was hindered by Republicans filibusters in the Senate. Interesting when you consider no such filibuster ever occurred. EVER! And if the GOP was going to filibuster something…don’t you think they would have done it with Obamacare? The GOP in the Senate is a large group of liberal Republicans who would willingly follow him into much of the liberal delusions if they thought they could still get reelected. And if you’re saying that Obama didn’t do things because of the threat of a filibuster…then I must ask is he also afraid of his shadow? Butterflies? Monsters in his closet? Bringing up the threat of a filibuster as the reason why Obama has not been able to get anything done just once again portrays him as a truly incompetent excuse for a leader.
“If Obama wins in 2012, while Republicans lose ground in the House of Representatives, we’ll see some movement.”
Finally you say something correct. If Obama did win and the House did move to the democrats, yes we would see movement. First into a worse recession. Then into the greatest depression. Then finally into the dustbin of history never to return.