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?
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).