Daily Archives: February 3, 2012

Stupid liberal quote of the day…shocker, it’s from Newt.

I keep looking for a Democrat to hit on the stupid liberal quote of the day…but the fact is that their statements are too dumb to even respond to…

 

…take this one from Krugman responding to Romney’s statement about his chief concern not being the very poor:

“As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, between 90 percent and 99 percent of the dollars allocated to safety-net programs do, in fact, reach the beneficiaries.”

Because I always quote Soros funded think-tanks that only Krugman would consider valid to back up statements so preposterousthere are not enough hallucinogenics in the world to make that sound even kind-a-sort-a true.  Honestly who believes that anything the government does only has a 10% overhead?  The rest of it gets even funnier.  But it’s just too easy to pick on a pathological liar and mentally retarded twit like Krugman.  (Last week he claimed that Britain’s cradle to grave socialism is an example of why austerity measures don’t work.)  But you would expect an economist of Krugman’s caliber to be one of the most recognizable faces at a paper that reported a 40 Million Dollar loss last year.  Truly they understand economics at the paper of record.

 

But the fact is that as long as Newt is around even Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, Paul Krugman, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama will probably have to take a back seat to making the dumbest liberal statement on any given day.

 

What did Newt say today?

 

“What the poor need is a trampoline so they can spring up,” he said. “So I want to replace a safety net with a trampoline.”

 

 

Dear god in heaven, how did we ever let a man this dumb get this far?

 

Let me explain where the safety net comes from in the wider allegory of capitalism.  Capitalism is an economic system where by you get out of it what you put into it (in terms of education, work-ethic, merit, and skill) so it has often been compared to climbing a ladder, the more effort you put into it the more you get out of it.  But at the highest levels there is a certain amount of risk that your ideas will fail and you will lose what you have—implicitly, although seldom stated, these higher levels are like a series of high wires that one has to try to walk across…and if you fall some will be able to hold onto the wire and regain their balance…and some will not.  As with sane high wire acts there is a safety net to catch you, reduce the force of the fall, and let you get back on your feet so you can begin re-climbing the ladder and get back up on the high wire again, this time wiser and more surefooted (in capitalism this is welfare, education programs, unemployment, housing, medical entitlement programs we already have to protect those in the most destitute positions).  Now as a caller on the Laura Ingram show this morning stated, a lot are treating the safety net as a safety hammock…because human beings are infinitely capable of being lazy.  That is why you have to make sure the net is not larger than it needs be, that is has limits and responsibilities.  This was the main push of welfare reform in the 1990’s, the same kind of reform that we need now…the kind of reform Romney is talking about but Newt seems to think is unfair because we need to be concerned about the very poor.  I can’t remember, who was the champion of the kind of welfare reform Romney is talking about in the ‘90’s?…well whoever it is I’m sure Newt opposed them back then too and called them heartless as well.

 

But let’s put in Newt’s idea of a trampoline into the metaphor instead of a safety net.  Okay, first off has anyone ever seen how a safety net works and how the physics operate? When you hit a safety net after falling, the energy from your fall is both distributed across the entire net and when the energy pushes back up (every action has an opposite reaction) it is enough energy to only throw you up a few feet instead of breaking every bone in your body.  Ever look at the physics of a trampoline? When you hit a trampoline after jumping on it, the energy from your fall is both disturbed across the entire trampoline and when the energy pushes back up (every action has an opposite reaction) it is enough energy to only throw you up a few feet instead of breaking every bone in your body.  Gee that sounds repetitive.  The only difference is that you intentionally try to hit the trampoline with as much force as possible to get the biggest kick back…but if you dropped onto a trampoline from 20 feet (and didn’t die, because falling on a trampoline from any height is generally a death sentence, unlike a safety net) it wouldn’t throw you up into the air 20 feet, you’ll always come up lower than where you started.  (Do not make me go into the calculus necessary to prove that!)  Since the two operate on the same principle it would be kind of like saying “I don’t need a cup I need a glass.  The poor don’t need income they need money.  You don’t need protection, you need safety.”  Yeah, there might be cases where that hair splitting might be needed, but not in this case.

 

But let’s go with Newt’s idea of a trampoline that takes you back to the place you were at when you fell, without any extra work on your part (to hell if physics doesn’t work that way, that’s probably what he meant).  What exactly would that mean in economic terms.  Would that mean if you put $ 50K in your 401K and somehow lost all of it when the market dipped (which would be interesting since no one lost all of their money, they just lost a portion of it…unless you literally made truly terrible choices…but why should you be responsible for the bad choices you make?) would that mean we need a government program that would give you back your 50K immediately?  How about you were a middle manager pulling in 70K a year and then lost your job in the downturn, and you had to dip into your savings to make it by until you got a new job…the trampoline thing (the way Newt seems to mean it) suggests that is exactly what we’re going to do.  Why should you have to climb the ladder again, you should just shoot to right where you were before.  No work, just starting from where you left off.  The more and more I think about this, the less and less it sounds like capitalism.  Now we could just deal with the people who were making it by on a 50 hour a week job (or two) but lost one or both jobs for one reason or another.  Romney points out that we have safety nets for them (and he admits they’re not all perfect but he will work to fix them), but Newt wants to put them back right where they started…how?  Romney suggested focusing on the middle class, growing the middle class, growing the economy, working to make businesses prosper through reforming taxes and regulation.  This would mean there are more jobs, better paying jobs, more opportunity to start climbing the ladder again.  But since Newt attacked this, it can’t be what he wants.  So are we putting in a government jobs program?  More welfare checks, bigger welfare checks (you know whoever championed welfare reform in the ‘90’s must loathe Newt Gingrich for being so opposed to true welfare reform).  What is Gingrich suggesting is his trampoline?  Because every way I run it, it sounds like socialism (but foolish me I use logic and reason, and the Gingrich camp has no use for those).

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Welfare

Romney’s primary concern isn’t the very poor and yours shouldn’t be either

Around 400 BCE Aristotle in his Politics, went over the numerous kinds of government systems.  (I’ll spare you a lot of Aristotle’s words because, as much as I love the man’s philosophy, what is left of his works has a style dryer than a stale cracker in the middle of the Gobi desert at noon…that and I’m planning a whole series of blogs on his Nicomachean Ethics to start in a month or so, so don’t think you’re getting out of this). The long and short of it is that he dislikes extremes.  Rule by only the rich leads to corruption and misery.  Rule by only the poor leads to stealing the wealth of the rich and anarchy.  Rule by one person leads to tyranny and suffering.  Rule by letting everyone vote (even if they’re criminals or non-citizens…I wonder who would be dumb enough to support something that insane?) leads to chaos and anarchy.  Aristotle liked middle ground.*  He liked the idea of a constitutional government, of a government of what he called aristocracy (we would call it a republic or representative government) and democracy, of where the law was higher than the whim of the ruling body (a set Constitution that is higher than the will of the mob) but not set in stone where it can never be changed (the process of amending that constitution).  But of the things he goes over a lot is his distrust of the very rich and the very poor.  He points out that whenever the concerns of either of these groups takes precedent it is the middle classes that suffer first followed by the entire government collapsing under the weight of corruption and chaos.

Over a century ago it was recognized by Alexander Fraser Tytler (although often misattributed to de Tocqueville because it mirrors the idea of Democracy in America):

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” [Italics added]

Again, like Aristotle, de Tocqueville and Tytler seemed to recognize that when one group of people get a hold of the government they vote themselves and their government into oblivion.  Cronyism (which has NOTHING to do with capitalism, really it’s closer to socialism in form, so the term crony capitalism is just stupid) has shown us how this is true in one case, the bankrupting of every state and the federal government has shown the other extreme to also be true.  (I don’t think even Aristotle or de Tocqueville could have imagined such a hideous hydra as one where the very rich and very poor conspire together to bleed the middle class dry).  But the fact of the matter is that we haven’t had a president or Congress that hasn’t played to one if not both of these since Coolidge.  So what do we need now, we need a leader who is going to tell both groups, which are hell-bent on destroying our civilization, to go to hell.

What would such a leader sound like?  What would they say?  I think they would say something like my focus isn’t on the concerns of the very rich or the very poor…maybe something like:

ROMNEY: I’m in the race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America. The 90, 95% of Americans who right now are struggling.  I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.
HOST: […] You just said, ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net.’ And I think there are a lot of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, that sounds odd. Can you explain that?

ROMNEY: Well you have to finish the sentence.  I said I’m not concerned with the very poor who have a safety net and if it has holes in it I will repair them. The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor. And we have a safety net to help those that are very poor, but my campaign is focused is on middle-income Americans. My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus.  My focus is on middle income Americans—retirees living on Social Security, people who can’t find work, folks that have kids getting ready for college—these are the people most badly hurt by the Obama years.

 

Oh, but what happens when you say you won’t cater to the needs of the very rich (like say Obama caters to Soros, Buffett, GE, GM, Hollywood) you get ignored by the media because that would point out how their golden boy is the worst supporter of this evil since LBJ (a man who when he had brought his party down had the class to not run again).

And what happens when you say your concern isn’t for the truly poor, the lowest 2.5-5% of the nation, you’re called callous.  Which is odd because he said we have a safety net for those people, which we do.  We have public housing, and welfare, and Medicaid, food stamps (one thing that Newt is right about is that food stamp use has grown drastically under Obama), and a myriad of other federal, state and county programs.  Not to mention the fact that we have free K-12 education for anyone under the age of 21.  And as it is education that is the single greatest determining factor for personal success, it’s hard to say that we haven’t given the very poor the tools they need to not be very poor.

We shouldn’t care about the very poor.  We shouldn’t care about the 1% that claims they are “the 99%,”  we shouldn’t bankrupt ourselves for the 1% that has major medical problems (1% account for 22% of all medical costs…might be because most of life isn’t a constant disaster as liberals would have you believe …and half of all medical costs are paid out on 5% of the populace)  our primary concern shouldn’t be about giving handouts to those who don’t have because we already have systems in place for them…and as Romney says very clearly “If it [the safety net] needs repair, I’ll fix it.” He has no intention of abandoning those who have the least, but he is not going make it his driving passion to give them more of what they have not earned.

Where did he say his concern was?  With the middle class.  With those who do work.  With those who want to work but can’t find a job right now.  He wants to create a larger middle class rather than pit one class against another (unlike Obama and Newt).   He seems concerned with creating a culture that will help social mobility and advancement, that will allow growth and prosperity that will create an economy that will naturally have a much lower unemployment rate (as opposed to $500,000 to “create” a single job).  Heaven forbid.  The heartless fiend.  Trying to create a system where the middle class thrives and the poor are taken care of (but not pampered)…I can’t see why anyone would support this monstrous Scrooge.

The fact is that to critique Romney over what he said, to take his quote out of context, to say it is wrong to say that making the prosperity of the middle class your primary concern is the worst and most villainous type of populism (Newt) and socialism (Barry), and behavior totally unworthy the head of any state.

And is it just me that Romney’s “gaffes” all seem to revolve around statements being taken out of context where he is expressing ideas that have a complexity that can’t be reduced to simple sentences and sound bites.  Oh, heaven forbid, he thinks Americans are competent to grasp whole paragraphs of thought, that they can understand those thoughts and not just meaningless phrases and words like “hope” and “change.”  Maybe I support him because I’m just tired of every other politician treating me like a moron too stupid to understand anything, whereas Romney seems to think America is bright enough to understand the problem and the solution.

*Oh, before someone tries to come back and point out Aristotle hated capitalism, let me start off by saying, you’re an idiot.  Yes, he hated the rich in his day, he hated money lending, he hated trade.  Probably because all of that was based on slave labor and very little was the fruit of man’s mind.  There was nothing of modern capitalism (innovation, creation, hard work, personal responsibility) in the wider economy of the ancient world. There was stagnation and slave labor…I’m just shocked that an intelligent human could find making money off that system morally repugnant.  Trust me, if you run post-Wealth of Nations capitalism through the values of Aristotle you find they match up perfectly.

1 Comment

Filed under Aristotle, Budget, Capitalism, Charity, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Economics, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, Problems with the GOP, Selfishness, Taxes, Tyranny, Welfare