Tag Archives: paul krugman

Stupid Liberal of the Day…Our old friend Paul Krugman

 

I’d say he’s the dumbest person to ever get a Nobel Prize…but have you seen some of the crap they’ve given it out to in the last couple of decades?

Paul Krugman is at it again.  After having to make up lies to try and face off against Senator Rand Paul  (He claimed the federal workforce is down under Obama…as blatant a lie as you can get…state and local employment is down, federal employment is up, way up) he further shows off his idiocy with a brand new rant of lies and desperation to keep Obama in power.

 

In “Obstruct and Exploit” he makes the rather farcical claim that the economy is not the fault of the Democrats (the Democrats who control the Senate and refuse to pass the budget) as good people and the Republicans are evil obstructionists.

 

Actually he makes several bizarre claims…like that Romney is a Keynesian who wants to use military spending to create jobs.  Paul, I know you’re a dimwitted hack, but do you know how to listen to speeches or how to read policy papers?  Romney is concerned primarily about defense spending because with Chinese expansion in the Pacific, a resurgent al-Qaeda from the Arab Spring, and Putin wanting to reestablish the Soviet Empire you’d have to be as dumb as Ron Paul or Neville Chamberlain to not see that maybe we might need an American military to deal with problems that are obviously coming.  The fact that cutting defense would cut jobs merely tangential to the discussion, but true.  The goal of Romney’s policies with defense spending are to protect America and Classical Liberalism in general, not to create jobs.  But you’d have to actually read his statements to know that.

 

But let’s actually deal with the heart of his argument.  You can’t blame Obama because his ideas have been stopped at every turn (let’s ignore that Obama had a Democratic Congress for two years and only did things that ruined the economy…yes I’m sure Obama would have suddenly come up with good ideas if his party was still in power…).  For instance Obama has the American Jobs Act, which Krugman implies would have saved America.  (Again let’s ignore that not all of Obama’s Democrats voted for the bill.)  As Krugman points out “Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases,” (and let’s ignore the 5.6% tax increase on the wealthy that was in the bill so we can’t call it a tax cut, chalk another lie up to Paul Krugman).  I’m personally stunned just at the statement lower taxes and raise spending…cause the raising of our debt even further is a bright idea how Paul?  Show me cut taxes and cut spending and cut regulation and then you might have a plan that would work.

 

But let’s go over the AJA to see what it has in it.  That Krugman in his infinite idiocy thinks would work…and for fun let’s compare the points from the Romney plan.

 

So here are the points of the bill according to the White House web page  (and keep in mind this bill may be dead, but these are Obama’s ideas and this is what he will have in a second term so it is relevant even if this bill died).

 

 

  • Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses:
  • A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages
  • Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year

So let me get this straight here, further making Social Security unsound is a good thing?  Yes I love having more money, and I would love if we were to privatize the whole thing, just paying off on benefits for everyone who is going to be on Social Security in the next 10 years…but that’s not what this is.  It’s keeping the same Ponzi scheme but simply making it more insolvent.  Good plan genius.  You know I like the extra money, and I hate social security…but under this plan it will cost me and future generations more in the long run.

 

Meanwhile the Romney plan offers real tax cuts that will actually spur growth of business (i.e. job growth) and actually end up putting more money in your pocket.  (All points of Romney’s are taken from his 59 point plan and are italicized…Romney has a lot more than that plan…but I’m trying to be fair here and compare one bullet pointed plan to another…if I actually compared substantive proposals of Romney to what passes as substance from Obama it would just be more embarrassing for the President and Krugman)

Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains

Eliminate the death tax

Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower,

flatter rates on a broader base

Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent

 

 

 

  • Extending 100% expensing into 2012
  • Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.

So we’re going to force more banks to make more bad loans (probably to Obama cronies like every other Obama “investment”) and we’re then going to let them write off the investment they made with money that banks were forced to give them (and if every other Obama venture is any indication they’ll be allowed to pocket the money, declare bankruptcy and have the loans forgiven by Obama).  And as icing I’m sure Obama will blame the banks again for the effect on the economy.

 

And instead of regulations designed to help Obama supporters, Romney has real regulation reform in his plan that will help every business.

 

 

Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework

Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements

Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy

Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies

Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations

 

 

  • A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans

Again picking winners and losers, not what the government should be doing.  Not improving the economy to actually create more jobs, we’re just going to make it a good call for businesses to fire their existing employees, hire new ones (probably at a lower rate) and a tax write off for it.  (Now the good news is most businesses won’t behave in this terrible fashion…except, you know, the kind of bastards who pay off Obama for crony connections).

 

Screw helping this group or that group, Romney has the reform that will kill the single biggest killer of jobs there is:

Repeal Obamacare

 

  • Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
  • Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.

Yeah that’s it, we need the federal government getting involved in local and state matters.  Oh, and given the spectacular behavior of teachers in Chicago, getting an average of $76,000 a year (before benefits) to get 80% of students to learn nothing…it’s clear that what the education system needs is new facilities and keeping all the current teachers…and not, you know fire all the union pieces of shit who offend the very profession of teaching by daring to call their pathetic behavior teaching.

You really want to help workers and really want to get better hiring practices for not only government but all employees try these points from the Romney plan:

Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit

Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election

Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month

Or maybe let states deal with their own problems.

Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds

 

 

  • Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank

Oh great because the Fed wasn’t enough, you need a new bank to fund your own bad behavior even more.

 

You can talk infrastructure build up…or you can reduce the regulations that prevent the private sector from building that infrastructure, like in the Romney Plan

Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals

Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities

Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas

 

 

  • A New “Project Rebuild”,

I’m sure that project is shovel ready and won’t be a waste like every other thing you’ve done.

 

I’ll take not killing a project that will actually create jobs and improve the economy over Obama’s shovel ready BS.

Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States

 

  • Expanding access to high-speed wireless

Holy shit, when did Internet become a right?  You want Internet you buy it or go to Starbucks like everyone else…I am not subsidizing everyone’s ability to access porn on high speed wifi

 

I’ll take energy over wifi any day

Open America’s energy reserves for development

 

 The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years:

Because people need more incentives not to go find a job.

A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers

Again, trying to get businesses to just create jobs isn’t going to work.  You need to improve the fundamentals of an economy to create growth (which would include lowering taxes, lowering regulation, lowering government, lowering the deficit, strengthening the dollar, and getting free trade agreements—none of which this administration has done).

 

Or maybe you can be responsible for your own life

Facilitate the creation of Personal Re-employment Accounts

 

 

  • Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers

So you mean I can’t take into account whether a person was fired or not in deciding whether they’re going to be a good employee…like every other form of “discrimination” legislation in the last 30 years this is just a pay off to the trial lawyers and will result in even less growth and less jobs.

 

Or instead of making more bad lawsuits you could have real Tort reform.

 

Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation

 

  • Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.

“Subsidized employment.”   You’re kidding right?  You’re going to pay people to hire people.  (And keep in mind Obama was touting this plan as including tax cuts…so where exactly is the money for this coming from?  Oh I forgot Obama won’t be happy until the debt is three times the size of the GDP.)

 

But how about rather than subsidizing hiring people but actually making a climate where you can actually hire good people.

Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws

Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor

 

  • Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates

This would be a choice for the banks, not the government…which means the President is planning to control the banks even more and force them to do more stupid things…you know the behavior that got us into this mess.

There is no exact counterpart to this, but the fact is that Romney will not rule by fiat, like some people.

 

  • 5Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.  To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy.

The humor of this part speaks for itself.

 

But Romney does have some real plans on how to deal with the insane size of government

Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
 Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
 Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition

 Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services

 Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment

 

 

The fact of the matter is that Paul Krugman putting up Obama’s abysmal American Jobs Act as the better part of his proposed legislation shows you how unspeakably stupid Krugman is and how bereft of any real ideas Obama is.  Romney has real plans not just platitudes that have some conception of how the economy works.  Now I’ve breezed over a lot of Romney’s plans, I do this intentionally, I want you to go and do the research on your own and see for yourself that his plans are

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Harry Reid, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare

Paul Krugman just keeps getting dumber…

It’s been a while a since I’ve read a Paul Krugman article.  I’ve been busy with a lot at work (hence the lack of a lot of blogs lately) and well, Paul’s line of drivel you have to be in the right mood for anyway.  But I had some free time yesterday and it appears that this moron’s moron thinks he’s in a position to critique Romney’s understanding of economics (Remind me Paul, how many businesses have you created and saved over the years…zero?  Fascinating.)

So, Krugman’s critique is twofold.  First the Romney campaign had a photo-op speech at a closed plant, which they admit was symbolic of the Obama administration, but actually this plant closed during the Bush years…and it’s unfair to blame Obama for the fact that the bad economy started under Bush but has gone into a tailspin under Obama.  This is an interesting critique, because even the Romney campaign says the plant was a symbolic image not a literal one, and Krugman is throwing a hissy fit as if Romney is blaming the Obama for this particular plant closing…and not you know, using the image as a symbol.

The second part of his argument is that it’s all Bush’s fault and Obama is not to blame for anything….

“Which brings me to another aspect of the amnesia campaign: Mr. Romney wants you to attribute all of the shortfalls in economic policy since 2009 (and some that happened in 2008) to the man in the White House, and forget both the role of Republican-controlled state governments and the fact that Mr. Obama has faced scorched-earth political opposition since his first day in office.”

That’s right.  He had his hands tied “since the first day in office.”  You know the first day where he had a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate.  You have no idea the hurdles you have to clear…especially when like 10 Republicans in the Senate are RINOs.  Is Krugman the worst liar ever…or just unbelievably stupid?

“But that’s not the critique Mr. Romney is making. Instead, he’s basically attacking Mr. Obama for not acting as if George Bush had been given a third term. Are the American people — and perhaps more to the point, the news media — forgetful enough for that attack to work? I guess we’ll find out.”

Actually, Paul, he’s attacking Obama (man of higher regulation, deficit spending, increased medical entitlements, stimulus, government takeover of industries, letting the Fed get away with crippling low interest rates and inflation, over and under regulation in the wrong areas, and giving into unions at every turn) for actually acting just like Bush (man of higher regulation, deficit spending, increased medical entitlements, stimulus, government takeover of industries, letting the Fed get away with crippling low interest rates and inflation, over and under regulation in the wrong areas, and giving into unions at every turn)!  The fact that many of Bush’s policies didn’t help the economy is because they were inherently Keynesian, like Obama’s and like yours.  I liked and supported Bush at first because I liked his rhetoric of lower regulation, tort reform and less spending…but the facts are that he didn’t do any of that and in the end was just a hint of things to come with Obama.  So yes it is Bush’s fault for the start of our economic problems (and his Democratic Congress…can’t forget to blame them too)…and it is Obama’s fault for looking at a forest fire and deciding to throw kerosene on it.

But does Krugman admit that this?  That his Keynesian BS policies are to blame?  Nope.  In fact did you know we should get down on our knees and thank Obama for saving us?

“This is especially true if you focus on private-sector jobs. Overall employment in the Obama years has been held back by mass layoffs of schoolteachers and other state and local government employees. But private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost in the administration’s early months.”

This is really interesting as Bureau of labor statistics say that in 2008 there were 113 million private sector jobs  and now they say there are 110 million private sector jobs.  (I’d love  to show you a single chart than can map the private sector employment month by month through the Obama administration…but the labyrinth that is the Bureau of Labor Statistics is designed not to give you raw data, only the spin of the administration in power).  So 110 million is “private-sector employment has recovered almost all the ground lost” from 113 million…if you ignore 3 million people…and all the people who entered the workforce…and ignore that a lot of those are double counted as a lot more people who have jobs have two jobs right now…and if you ignore that a lot more of the 110 million is lower paid jobs than when we had 113 million.  So if you ignore all that we’ve completely recovered.  Oh and as to his thing about teacher’s getting fired, first, lots of teachers do need to be fired, but as I doubt Krugman is going to argue to get rid of union’s favorite “last hired, first fired” policies his words ring rather hollow…the most inept teachers are still on the payrolls and still need to be fired.  And Krugman himself is one to point out that all of those state and city loses have been matched if not exceeded by the growth of federal government employment (you know the one sector that should NEVER grow during a recession, depression…or really ever under any circumstances).

“I guess accusing Mr. Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies. However, it’s not much better, since Mr. Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies. And he’s hoping that you don’t remember how badly those policies worked.”

Actually Romney isn’t advocating returning to Bush’s big government, spending craze.  But let’s look at what Obama could have done, which had he done these things we would be well into real recovery by now.

Cut spending. If Obama had cut every Department and Office by 5% on day one (which Romney is going to do) and then set down to finding out what can be further cut and keep cutting until we actually didn’t spend more than we take in (which Romney has also promised to do) the dollar would be stronger, inflation would be lower and we wouldn’t be feeling as many ripples from much of Europe’s imminent collapse (and keep in mind it’s collapsing for doing all the things Krugman has always said we should do over here…except maybe Sweden which has been becoming more and more capitalistic and oddly enough more and more economically stable).

Lengthen the time for medical patents…instead of regulating drug companies and the companies that make the chemicals that are needed to make those drugs to the point where most of them are planning to leave American shores forever if this jackass is reelected, thus causing massive shortages in the nation’s drug supplies…if you had cut regulations and extended the time to hold a drug patent you would have spurred further investment into private R&D (you know the kind that actually yields results).

Letting insurance cross state lines…hmmm actually allow insurance companies to have to compete.  As I recall competition always lowers costs.  Which would be much, much better than a government take over which will skyrocket costs.

Pass right to work. Instead of kowtowing to the unions which drive up costs and produce some of the worst teachers conceivable, maybe passing a right to work law in this country (which I believe Romney wants…and on a side note Santorum, like Obama would fight to the death to stop).

Cutting Fannie and Freddie loose. Instead of wanting MORE sub-prime loans which caused the housing bubble…maybe we could fire sale what these two horribly disastrous companies own and bring some sanity and stability to the market.

Reducing or ending all student loan programs…like the housing market, the government has over inflated the cost of college.  College loan programs needed to be gradually reduced and then ended.  Yes this will probably kill funding into theoretical physics, causes causing T.A.’s to be a thing of the past, and make professors actually teach their courses instead of writing useless journal articles that no one reads…I’m just so broken up by this.  Oh it will likely reduce every college student’s tuition costs, which means the middle class will no longer enter the work force already under crippling debt.

Cut regulation…in general there are too many regulations on the books. You know that expression that ignorance of the law is no excuse…well that was in a day and age when most laws were seemingly common sense…at this point there is no way that every American is not violating 50 U.S. regulations that they know nothing about nor could conceivably know.  Regulation is a just and necessary function of the government, but what the government is doing these days isn’t regulation, it’s tyrannical insanity.

Cut the minimum wage (or just end it).  Yes I know this is a long long shot, and not even Romney is proposing this…but it would actually spur hiring, especially for low skill workers who could, oh I don’t know get skills and experience.

Drill.  ANWAR, oil shale, Keystone, drill, drill, drill.  Even if it doesn’t immediately boost production it lowers the fears that oil speculation thrives on.  If you know what that there will be supplies for years to come then prices in any commodities market goes down.

Support border patrol and sane immigration and guest worker programs.  The fact is that the open border breeds both crime from the cartels (which have been supplied with a great deal of firepower by Eric Holder and Barack Obama…who if they weren’t who they were, would be guilty of aiding and betting in murder…or at least you would be if you knowingly ran guns for the cartels) and it breeds massive government expense in healthcare costs for illegal immigrants (which have crippled some border states) and education costs for the children they bring.  This needs to stop. Close the border, and allow guest workers (not their families) to come in.

Support democracies not terrorists…oh and maybe if we supported democratic revolts (like the Iranian protesters Obama just let get slaughtered) and not fascist juntas (like the Arab Spring) it might help stabilize the world economy, which would always be good for us.

Lower the capital gains tax.  Hell, do away with it.  Any first year economics student could tell you how this will be the economic equivalent of shooting adrenaline into the heart…it takes a Nobel Prize winning Yale economist (and he won for research in microeconomics…he knows less than anything about macro) to not know this basic fact of reality.

Tort Reform—I can’t beat this drum enough. Tort Reform. Tort Reform. Tort Reform!  Kill the ABA and their ambulance chasers, reducing insurance and overhead costs at EVERY level of every industry…you think that might have a cascade effect to spur investment and the economy.

Let’s go back to Krugman’s statement:

“I guess accusing Mr. Obama of not doing enough to promote recovery is a better argument than blaming him for the effects of Bush policies.”  Actually I blame Bush for not doing a lot of this too.  I just think that Romney will try to do a lot of this, and assuming he gets a GOP House and Senate he will be able to accomplish a lot of it.

“However, it’s not much better, since Mr. Romney is essentially advocating a return to those very same Bush policies.”  Well there’s a lie if ever I heard one.  Please, Paul could you give me a specific Bush policy that Romney wants to return to?  Because I think Ryan’s plan that Romney has endorsed is about as un-Bush as you get.

“And he’s hoping that you don’t remember how badly those policies worked.”  No, he’s not hoping that.  He’s knows that “It’s about the economy…and we’re not stupid” like you are Paul.

4 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…our old friend Paul Krugman

So I tried to stay away from writing any political blogs for a few days, but as you can see that didn’t work.

Why?

Because Paul Krugman decided once again to spew his mentally challenged word out to the public. This time he tried to libel Mitt Romney. I’d even go as far as saying Romney should sue, but as I have serious doubts Krugman would be found mentally competent to stand trial for his actions, I know that won’t happen.

What did he say?

Well at the start of a long argument full of inane claptrap, he states:

Speaking in Michigan, Mr. Romney was asked about deficit reduction, and he absent-mindedly said something completely reasonable: “If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy.” A-ha. So he believes that cutting government spending hurts growth, other things equal.

He then goes on to use this quote and some other random facts to suggest that Romney is a closet Keynesian. I won’t bore you with the whole set of facts, I’ve frankly seen better arguments from rabid conspiracy theorists on the moon landing (just so no one takes that quote out of context, I do believe that we landed on the moon numerous times).

Okay so before I get to what Romney actually said (I know what a shock that this quote was grossly taken out of context) let’s talk about something that Paul Krugman knows less than nothing about: Macro-Economics.

There are three main schools that are relevant to this discussion. Keynesians who argue that when an economy suffers the government should infuse cash into the economy and fiddle around with the prime interest rate to boost growth. Then you have the Austrians (Hayek) and Monetarists (Friedman) who while they would argue on a lot of things would both agree that the government should have little to no influence in the economy (beyond providing a bare bones safety net at local levels…and for Monetarists too at a regular rate increase the amount of currency in the system to prevent deflation). (This is of course grossly simplified but you don’t want me to get into the math of it, it would just bore you to death).

Now our government, and most governments since the Great Depression, have embraced Keynes to one degree or another and most have yielded the same problems that Austrians and Monetarists said they would. The problem with infusing cash into the economy through stimulus programs is that it works great in the short run, but the minute you pull the money back it stops working. Stimulus is a lot like black coffee, as long as you keep drinking it, it works…but the longer you go the more you need, and the minute you stop, you crash. No Austrian or Monetarists I know of would say that stimulus doesn’t have an immediate effect. It does. What Austrian and Monetarist economists point out is that you need an ever increasing level of stimulus to keep having the same effect and with that comes an ever increasing amount of public debt (see Greece, Spain, Italy, and Ireland…and possibly most of Europe and China pretty soon). No sane person argues that it doesn’t have an effect in the short run. What Austrians and Monetarists do argue is that (1) that ever increasing debt is often worse than the recession where you spent money you didn’t have in an effort to avoid (2) that you can’t avoid the recession, but the longer you delay it, the worse it will be (again back to my coffee analogy if you just got sleep when you were first tired you would only need 6-8 hours sleep, but after a full all-nighter you will now need 9-11 hours sleep to recover) and (3) the government interference during your stimulus package actually hurts the mechanisms for growth and improvement within the economy making the long term effects truly disastrous. (All other things being equal). So if you have a massive spending program, say spending $4 Billion more than they take in every day, and you suddenly just cut that spending, even Fredrick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman would say, yeah the economy would slow down in the short term. They would argue in the long term that would be a pro-growth plan (but long term is something Keynesians aren’t very good at, or seeing the big picture which is why no Keynesian has ever won a Nobel Prize for macro-economics…because Keynesian ideas don’t work long term in the big picture). Now Hayek and Friedman would probably also argue that to help mitigate this problem of short term loss, since any Keynesian government has probably also mucked things up with bad tax policies and too many regulations, that you should cut the regulation and improve the tax policy which hopefully will balance out the short term hit from cutting the stimulus. (…it’s a stretch of the analogy but think of when you cut the caffeine but immediately go to the gym and thus are able to push through to your second wind).

Okay so let’s look at what Romney said.

Now you know, unlike liberals I don’t like to give just clips and sound bites, but prefer to at least offer you the link to the whole speech or article…unfortunately I can’t find that…and I looked (if anyone has a full transcript please send it to me).

But it’s not really relevant because even what I could find is enlightening.

“If you just cut, if all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut spending you’ll slow down the economy. So you have to, at the same time, create pro-growth tax policies.”

Now notice the second part of that statement. A statement one might hear out of Friedman or Hayek. Improve the tax policy to counter the immediate hit in the short term. And he tried (didn’t always succeed) to cut regulation and taxes in Massachusetts and has said he’s going to cut regulation and taxes when in the White House. So he sounds like a Monetarist, acts like a Monetarist and behaves like a Monetarist*…so Krugman and Santorum’s idiot followers say he’s a Keynesian. How does that work.

*I didn’t say Austrian, because Ron Paul is in the Austrian school of economics and I do see a few differences between the two.

But let’s take a larger look at this. Do you notice that YouTube clip is from a liberal group? And Krugman is trying to hit Romney for being a Keynesian. And this was also heavily reported on MSNBC and a few other liberal outlets. Now if he really was a Keynesian, and therefore one of the liberals, wouldn’t they keep this to themselves, wouldn’t they try to hide something that could be used against Romney. (You know, like their complete silence on Santorum’s long history of pro-union, big government, intrusive policies). I mean if he really was that liberal, they would want him to get the nomination, that way they would be guaranteed a liberal no matter what happened. It’s almost like they’re really afraid that this guy won’t take a pen-knife to the government in a few symbolic cuts but rather take the machete to the bureaucracy. It’s almost like they’re trying to help their big government friend Santorum in any way they can. Oh, but that would mean that Santorum supporters have to be the dumbest idiots in the world to play right into their enemies hands.

3 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes

Stupid liberal quote of the day…Obama Budget Defense

“There’s pretty broad agreement that the time for austerity is not today” –White House Chief of Staff, Jack Lew defending this abysmal mess of a budget.

(By broad agreement he means Obama, Soros and that mentally retarded jackass at the New York Times, Paul Krugman…anyone who actually has a functioning brain was not included in “pretty broad agreement.”  In the real world I think there is pretty broad agreement Obama is out of his gourd.   )
15 Trillion dollars in debt already. A massively growing size of the government. The continued and destructive intrusions on the free market. The ever expanding entitlement state. (Do you think at the point that the government is attacking the Amish for selling milk it might have become too big)
Among other things it would include $800 Million for countries that were involved in the Arab Spring. Remind me which of those nations is not right now controlled by Islamists who are hell bent on destroying Israel and the U.S.? Name one, I dare you. I love that my tax money is going to support these butchers.

“It would take the economy in the wrong way” if we implemented austerity. Which wrong way would that be? Would that be the way where we stop picking winners and losers (usually making the losers temporary winners, but ending up with everyone being a loser) and allow the fundamentals and groundwork for lasting economic growth be created? Would that be the way where people are not dependant on the government for their existence. Would that be the way of prosperity, of freedom, of choice, of liberty and limited government?  Nope can’t have that.

My favorite part is this statement from center-left organization Politico: “But Obama would also go outside the box by creating new mandatory spending initiatives costing tens of billions of dollars and for the first time, openly tap war savings to fund his domestic agenda.” Even the left can’t deny what a boondoggle this pile of shit is.

And this is not the time for austerity?
In the Obama world no day is ever the day for austerity because there should be no limit to the size, power and extend of the government…not until the Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Plenty, Ministry of Love and Ministry of Truth have been fully established. Remember the Obama mantra “Ignorance is strength” “Freedom is slavery.”*

Meanwhile in the real world, every day since the 1990’s has been a day for austerity and every day we have not instituted it has been a failure and disgrace.

*And before you ask, no I do not think 1984 references are uncalled for here given the insanity of increased government spending at this point.

Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Obama Ceasar, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation, Welfare

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

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…what a shock it’s Krugman

“Why isn’t a national economy like a corporation? For one thing, there’s no simple bottom line. For another, the economy is vastly more complex than even the largest private company.”—Paul Krugman “America isn’t a corporation.”

Paul Krugman shows that he should be glad there is no minimum requirement of intelligence to biologically sustain life…

He wants to complain that a government is not a corporation.  Thank you for that truly deep insight Paul.  Next up, why don’t you go investigate where bears do their business, with your crack intellect it shouldn’t take you more than a decade (okay, I was being nice, if I was being realistic it shouldn’t take Krugman more than two or three decades…or never).

Yes a corporation and a government are two different things.  Yet, strange as it is, sometimes things that aren’t the same can learn from what works in another area.  A baseball team isn’t a company, yet running it by statistics and economics might work well enough not to just break records and curses, but even get you a movie with a top list actor.  And schools aren’t corporations either…but charter schools seem to be doing okay using that principle.  Good leadership tends to be consistent in any field.  It comes with lessons like getting rid of departments that don’t serve any purpose, cutting costs and fat, knowing what laws help business and which ones hurt…yeah can’t see how any of that could be useful in government.

But his proof is so fun (yes there were paragraphs and paragraphs of inane words, it didn’t prove anything except that the Nobel Prize Committee and the editorial board at the New York Times are clearly on heavy hallucinogenics).

His proof that this is no bottom line in a government…which is interesting because there should be.  You shouldn’t spend more than you have.  I know it’s a radical concept, one which Paul will never understand, but it actually works.  Congress should try it sometime, might do wonders for the economy.

Oh and you have to love when he says that the economy is more complex than any corporation.  This is odd, because a good little idiot Keynesian like Krugman believes the economy is simple enough to be run and controlled.  It’s Austrians and Monetarists who argue the economy is too complex for any government to control and that any attempt to control it will always end up with the Invisible Hand slapping you down for your arrogance (you know kind of like we’re living through now).   But it’s nice to see that Paul has finally realized it’s too complex for anyone to fully understand…which is why anyone who actually knows something about the economy (a statement that has never applied to Krugman or any Keynesian at any point in existence) knows to let it run itself, which it will, if you don’t get in it’s way.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Conservative, Economics, Election 2012, Paul Krugman is an idiot, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tyranny