The liberal media throng and Democratic elites never learn the right lesson. It’s been only a month since they vilified Sarah Palin, leading to a gigantic backlash and the largest surge in John McCain’s standing in the polls yet. But they didn’t learn. They are at it again with Joe the Plumber and, once again, are exercising no self-restraint.
They don’t, at bottom, respect non-elites from middle America or listen to their concerns. They treat them as cartoon characters or as frauds sent to foil their own quest for power. So they set upon Joe the Plumber in the mistaken view that what was significant about the interchange with Barack Obama were Joe’s concerns. And–surprise, surprise–you’ve got the makings of a backlash.
There are two problems with the approach of the Obama supporters. One, as with the Palin feeding frenzy and Bittergate, it convinces ordinary voters that the Democrats are vicious snobs. Two, it doesn’t address the problem: voters may begin to suspect that Obama is fixated on wealth re-distribution. That’s the idea the Democrats should be working to dispel. But since they can’t imagine that the public would have a problem with raising taxes in a recession, they don’t even bother to reassure voters that of course Obama wants the private sector to grow and of course he understands that you must tread carefully in tax-burdening small businessmen.
The McCain team must be pinching themselves: they can hardly believe their luck that the Democrats have attacked an everyman and prolonged a dangerous storyline. The only question remaining: will they keep it up? McCain couldn’t be that lucky, could he?
What’s the difference between Obama and Jesus?
Jesus could assemble a cabinet.
Right on, Jennifer Rubin. But so far most of the media reports on this are along the lines of “Obama to Slash Budget in Half by 2013.” No critical analysis of whether it will actually happen. The Bush Administration also was quite good at issuing plans that showed the budget being slashed to manageable levels, but always several years down the road. Very clever: once enough time goes by, nobody remembers the promise. Looks like Obama has taken another page from the Bush Administration. Maybe his next move will be to make Don Evans Commerce Secretary.
Perhaps they should center their attention on the ability or lack of ability to sell all the “debt” they already have decided is in the best interests of the country. There are signs that it will be hard to finance the debt they have already in the chute. What happens if they can’t or the terms become exorbanent.
Maybe they’ll launch an expedition to bring back gold from other planets.
but always several years down the road
I saw even this morning that Team Obama is switch from the Bush “five year planning” to “ten year planning.” So now they can back load not just to the end of the first Presidential term, but the second.
I hope Rick Santelli got an invitation. They also need to invite Dave Ramsey. But of course they won’t; liberals don’t dare step out of their echo chamber.
“Cutting back” during a recession is idiotic, but I’m not sure why a hack like Rubin takes issue with the Washington Post editorial board – they’ll happily print false right-wing propaganda from the likes of George Will and Bill Kristol without correction.
“President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal defiicit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy….”
“Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.” We’ve got him! And it worked so well when Herbie jacked up taxes in the face of a major recession. Actually, it might have been the most staggeringly disastrous thing a president has ever done, both for the United States and the world.
“Boy, the way Glenn Miller played/Songs that made the hit parade.”
Got that kids? If you live up to your campaign promises, you are guilty of “bait and switch.” Remind me, which priority of this budget was Obama not clear on? He said he would cut taxes for the middle class, raise taxes on the rich, and help pay for broader access to health care by drawing down in Iraq. Check, check, check and check. America elected him to do precisely these things, and he is delivering.
I think it’s pretty clear who is dishonest and irresponsible: The person pretending America is not behind this president and his agenda for change, which he spent two years campaigning on. We elected him to raise taxes on the rich and cut them for the middle class and working poor. We elected him to ensure access to healthcare. We elected him to cut spending on foreign warmongering and to invest those dollars at home.
You can try to re-litigate the election, but America has already loudly and clearly rejected your ideas. Everything you write about Livni on this site, you can apply to Republicans. You can stand opposed. It means that your party will fracture, your power will ebb, and you will fade further into irrelevance. Or you can help shape the future of America.
“All this smoke and mirrors would be laughable if the consequences for our future economic health weren’t so dire”
lol. says the republican. bush is the one who made this problem. you have no say
branded with a scarlett B. republicans will not be consulted
Shouldn’t the main activity of a “Fiscal responsibility summit” be to read the ‘Porkulus’ bill? Isn’t it a bit late to mount up on responsibility? “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”.
The Rasmussen
Obama Approval Index shows that approval for Obama has dipped below 60 but his approval index (strongly approve – strong disapprove) has Obama dropping from 28 to 11 in a month.
Republicans and conservatives are no longer demoralized, aside from their concerns for the country and their IRAs of course. Democrats are not nearly so triumphal as they were a month ago. Obama has shown little leadership beyond spending money with a pat hand in Congress.
Things are not going well for the country or Team Obama. We shall see.
I’m afraid the markets are not going to be impressed by another dishonest, unworkable plan — especially one that raises taxes. I’ve never seen an administration so energetic about destroying wealth.
I didn’t expect life under Obama to be wonderful, but I couldn’t have imagined that it would deteriorate to “fingernails on a chalkboard” so quickly.
“He said he would cut taxes for the middle class, raise taxes on the rich, and help pay for broader access to health care by drawing down in Iraq. Check, check, check and check. America elected him to do precisely these things, and he is delivering.
I think it’s pretty clear who is dishonest and irresponsible: The person pretending America is not behind this president and his agenda for change, which he spent two years campaigning on. We elected him to raise taxes on the rich and cut them for the middle class and working poor. We elected him to ensure access to healthcare. We elected him to cut spending on foreign warmongering and to invest those dollars at home.”
Charles, I have to assume that you are supportive of all these things that Obama is “delivering.” When it comes to taxes, the left loves to demonize the rich (or politicians that cut taxes that are “give aways” to the rich). Why? If the rich have extra money, they invest it, those lower on the economic ladder benefit with jobs. Cutting taxes for the rich may benefit the rich, but they benefit everyone else too. Besides, how much of the tax burden must the rich shoulder? They already assume the lion’s share of that responsibility. At what point do they get fed up with it all and leave for a country less hostile to their wallet?
Obama and other liberals love to say things such as – “We’re going to drawdown in Iraq and pay for more healthcare here in America.” That all sounds nice and good, but war is a temporary expense. The govt healthcare that liberals support is a forever expense. To insinuate that we’re going to shift from using “Iraq” money to fund healthcare is disingenuous. Another disingenuous thing is to refer to it as “healthcare.” No one is denied healthcare. If you go to a hospital with a broken leg, it’s going to be fixed – even if you’re an illegal immigrant. The proper term is “health insurance.” Losing “healthcare” sounds much scarier though.
Another liberal favorite is to use the term “invest.” This is a euphemism for “spend.” As in the govt is going to spend my money for someone else’s benefit. Is Obama going to “invest” in healthcare? That’s nice. Can I sell that healthcare and get a return on it? I wonder if I could buy a new TV with those profits. Obama also wants to “invest” in green technology. And “invest” in the country’s infrastructure. Whenever I hear the word “invest” from a govt official, I wonder how much less of my paycheck is going to be for me. So please spare us these tricks of the tongue to tell us “dishonest and irresponsible” “warmongers” how we’re going to “fade further into irrelevance.”
Spending Is Responsibility
Fear Is Hope
Long Live Big Obrother!
Liberals are the same people who demonize rich people, eat their own and runs toward Swiss bank to hide their millions. Let us see how many liberals or politicians who talks about helping the poor doesn’t actually pay taxes and has offshore accounts. I cannot wait how Obama define “rich” so he can cut the deficit. There are not much rich people to pass the bucket. Unless he wants to consficate billion of his friends’s money like George Soros who invested millions of dollar for him and wants chunk of that 700 Billion spending.
Hello Pelosi, Reid, Barney Frank, Chriss Dodd, Daschle, Rangel, Solis and Geithner…this is the most corrupt government ever. Man, Obama has really played you in his hands and taken to the dungeon you don’t even know it. Talking about blindfaith and guilty trip.
Charles, I would agree that Obama is trying to live up to his campaign promises. But keep in mind he hasn’t lived up to them yet. It’s only been a month. In 2012 we will know whether the economy is substantially improved; whether we are safer at home and abroad then we are now; and whether a more liberal domestic agenda makes America a better society. What most of the commentators here disagree with is whether that will, in fact, happen as a result of the policies. We’re not wishing for failure, but speculating that it’s likely. Now, yeah, you guys won the last election, but already your side’s touchdown dances over that are getting rather stale. Responding to conservative criticism of Obama’s policies with “but we won” – well, that doesn’t really prove too much. There’s a tremendous flaw in your logic: you seem to think that Obama’s large victory in November 2008 is a ratification of where his presidency will stand in 2012. But winning one election doesn’t mean you win the next one. If you don’t believe me, check a political atlas: it seems that since 1860, power has been ebbing and flowing between the GOP and the Democrats.
Perhaps that will now change, though, and we are moving toward a time where all elected officials are forever Democrats, Obama’s statue is in every town square, and Joe Klein is always right. Oh yeah, and Aslan will come from across the sea to drive away Tash and take us all out of the Shadowlands.
13
Sorry, Ritchie, but you can spout rightwing bromides all day long. Your way has failed spectacularly. Trickle down economics didn’t. Bush’s tax cuts benefited only the rich. Middle class income stagnated. Meanwhile, because the cuts were funded with debt, they hurt longterm GDP growth. A debt-funded tax cut is a tax on future generations, no different than deficit spending.
And increasing the top tax rate by three or four points, essentially back to what it was under Clinton, is hardly class warfare.
Your point that “no one is denied healthcare — because anyone can go to the emergency room” is maybe the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard on the topic. Ever seen an emergency room bill? Do emergency rooms treat chronic diseases like diabetes? Do they provide preventative medicine? Can you go to an emergency room for chemotherapy? Can an emergency room give you the brain transplant you so desperately need? The answer is no.
As to your spending vs. investment canard, universal healthcare and green technology both are investments. The payback on green technology will be less dependence on the autocracies of the middle east, which hold their daggers to our throats. Not to mention the benefit to the environment. And preventative healthcare — which would be made possible by expanding coverage — is far less expensive to society than treatment for conditions that, due to neglect, become severe. That is a cost we all end up sharing. If our healthcare system is so great, why have healthcare prices outpaced all other inflation, and why do Americans pay by far the most per capita among industrialized nations while being near the bottom in life expectancy?
Your ideology has no answers to today’s most pressing problems. In fact, it does not even allow you to acknowledge them. The economy is fundamentally sound. Healthcare isn’t broken. Global warming is a socialist plot. At least it explains why you have no solutions. And why you are, indeed, irrelevant.
’Tis a pleasure, of sorts, to find _The New Pravda_ gravely announcin’ that “Not even the editors of [_Neo-Izvestiya_] are keeping a straight face when describing” &c. &c. Unlike deficit finance, though, this is not a pleasure that can be indefinitely prolonged.
Neocomrade Editor F. Hiatt cannot go on bein’ the other neocomrades’ make-believe idea of the Modern American Liberal much longer. Perhaps on the whole we jackasses do not have all the tertiary-educational advantages of the Baní Podhóretz, yet we, too, can “see through a brick wall in time.” [*]
The Fred question is whether the mask will slip off gradually, or be cast aside at some great moment in Neocomrade Hiatt’s on-goin’ intellectual degeneration — preferably with a Hoovervillainous twirlin’ of moustache and a whiff of sulphur in the auditorium. (Too good to be true, that, and one knows it, but one may still idly prefer what one does not expect to happen, _nicht wahr_?)
I daresay the more gradual self-disclosure plan better suits the interests of the neocomradely community. Long after “even the _Boston Globe_” (for example) has noticed the illiberality and postliberalism of F. Hiatt, the staff and management of the _New Pravda_ can hold him up as an exemplary specimen of what the Modern American Liberal is capable of evolvin’ into, given favourable circumstances. Whereas a sudden self-unmaskin’ would tend to raise distractin’ questions about poor Fred’s subjective sincerity and integrity and the like.
Meanwhile, one cannot decide whether Neocomrade #0 is attemptin’ to bamboozle her own troops as well as her enemies’. A certain proportion of the peanut gallery peanuts seem quite capable of readin’ the _Washin’ton Post_ unassisted by factious glosses. Perhaps J. Rubin hopes that her groupies won’t distinctly notice that Neocomrade F. Hiatt is no liberal any more so long as she keeps on insinuatin’ to the contrary? As long as she can get away with this “even the _Washington Post_” _shtyk_ at all, the _shtyk_ must get ever easier and easier as poor Fred plunges on boldly into the Endarkenment. No doubt the _Saga of Fred_ is bound to end like _The Wonderful One-Hoss Shay_ at last, but meanwhile Deaconness Jenny is gettin’ more mileage out of her WaPo neocomrade than she would get if the true correlation of farces were universally acknowledged. Or so guess I.
If one lived at Beltway City DC, one might worry a little about having two instances of America’s Moonpaper in the same city and being obliged to turn to an e-product for decent grown-up politics. Here in Zip Code 02139 that difficulty does not arise urgently. And to be sure, balance and fairness really forbid one to expect that Neocomrade Editor F. Hiatt will ever skyjack the _Post_ all the way to Christo-Korea.
Balance and fairness may even positively require that the neocomrades possess more in the way of intellectually respectable journalism than the _Wall Street Jingo_ alone. Baron Rupert of Kangaroostan has not altogether a salutary influence on the _Jingo_, it seems to me when I amuse myself by trying to play the neocomrades’ Party cards for them. Though the WSJ is a bit less exclusively aimed at economic OnePercenterdom than formerly, it can never be the all-’round national fishwrap that Hooverville and Wingnut City and, far back amongst the also-rans, the Commentariat and Weekly Standardisers proper really ought to come equipped with.
More wishful thinking: should the militant extremists frankly conquer and annex the _Post_, why, then the New York Times Company might become able to put out a clean op-ed page undefiled, on a regular basis, by the likes of Kristol Minor!
One particular shortcomin’ of the slaves of Murdoch bears on this scribble immediately: Neocomrade J. Rubin may have been forced to turn to her poor Fred simply because those slackers over at the _Jingo_ do not crank out unsigned rupertorials on week-ends. The WSJ news story
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123522827565240761.html
is not without _Tendenz_, but it is also a great deal more informative about what tune Little Barry and the Hellword Fiends are getting ready to belt out. [**] For that matter, the _Washin’ton Post_’s own news story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/21/AR2009022100911.html
is not positively bad.
As this keyboard has mentioned perhaps once too often already, Neocomrade J. Rubin cares nothin’ or little about economics, so her fastidious negligence on that front is no big deal. One is a tad disappointed, though, that she should confine her political analysis to a cheap neowisecrack level and prescind from addressin’ either the great material question or the curious formal question about the human events that occasioned poor Fred’s (not much better than Mizz Jenny’s) twistatorial.
The Great Material Question is this: what are Little Barry and the Hellword Fiends up to when they behave as follows?
“(1) They will begin the week with a ’fiscal summit’ Monday designed to stress that the president cares about the deficit and plans to reduce it, by raising taxes on the wealthy, drawing down in Iraq and reining in Medicare and other entitlement costs. (2) The President will explain the widening gap in an address to Congress Tuesday in positive, hopeful terms. He’ll say a brief bulge in government spending is needed to stimulate the economy, and to reform health care, education, and energy policy – key campaign promises that he’ll flesh out as he releases his first budget outline on Thursday. (3) The current White House will take advantage of a ripe but waning opportunity to blame it all on President George W. Bush.”
(( Ben Smith at the URL in [2] with minor rearrangements. ))
The Curious Formal Question is “Why on Gore’s green earth would they want to leak their V3PEP — “Vast Three-Point Economic Plan™” — late on a Saturday?” One had thought 1705 EST on Friday was _de rigeur_ in such a case. Could they be trying to make sure the Sunday talks shows did not have time to adjust? But what good would that do?
Real enthusiasts may go on to wonder, even less significantly, who assisted at the leakage session beyond Director P. Orszag and Comrade D. Axelrod. That twosome themselves qualify as “administration officials” or ‘aides’, so perhaps there was no _tertius quis_, although it seems a likelier guess that there was.
(( ’Tis only a private-sectorian or H*rv*rd Yard fancy of the present keyboard, no doubt, ever to detect President L. Summers as the Invisible Cat of the philosophers, who sits purring (inaudibly) on all those chairs that look so very, very empty. BGKB. ))
Happy days.
___
[1] “As they say in Bree.”
[2] Hellword = ’Ellword = L-Word = l*b*r*l, don’t you know?
As to the _Zukunftsmusik_, it sure looks as if Major Leaker (¿President Summers?) spouted directly only to the _New York Times_ and to the _Washin’ton Post_ and to the _Jingo_. Mr. Smith at Politico.com has done an admirable job of synthesis,
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19127.html
but seems to have had no private revelation of his own. And God knows best!
It is not Hocus Pocus time. It is Razzle Dazzle time. Almost everything you need to know about how Obama works in in the movie “Chicago.” Rent it and watch it.
@20 Perhaps we should back up a bit. Tell us about your childhood. Did other kids like you or were you always the last one picked in stickball? Do you harbor hostilities toward your parental figures? Do you feel things would be better if only someone listened to you? Relax. President Obama will see you get your meds if you can’t afford to pay for them.
Here is an example of the quest for tax revenue and foreign policy coming together to .. let’s say we’re not exactly making the image of America any better.
He’s going to use the money saved in Iraq to provide health care? I thought that was going toward reducing the deficit? At least that’s what the article I read said. We’ll see what happens I suppose. I’ll say this: they are doing exactly what anyone should have expected democrats to do – tax and spend. It’s all happening pretty quickly, of course, but the beat is to be expected: big spending and big taxes. It’s what they do. As far as I’m concerned, the things to worry about here are increased taxes on “businesses,” whatever that means. Sure he said he would increase taxes on “the rich.” But businesses? Hmmm. We’ll see how that works out. The other thing nobody talks much about is how the states are going to live without the increased federal handouts in two years. My state (Ohio) needs every dime of the $500 million handout to bridge a budget shortfall, and that doesn’t even include any infrastructure spending. It’s all entitlements money. Does anybody really think the feds are going to be able to tell Ohio “sorry, no more help” when the next biannual budget comes around? Wouldn’t that hurt the poor people who are reliant on the entitlement money?
Be prepared for governmental accounting chicanery that will make Bill Clinton look expansionist in net terms.
#19 says:
“Sorry, Ritchie, but you can spout rightwing bromides all day long. Your way has failed spectacularly. Trickle down economics didn’t. Bush’s tax cuts benefited only the rich. Middle class income stagnated. Meanwhile, because the cuts were funded with debt, they hurt longterm GDP growth. A debt-funded tax cut is a tax on future generations, no different than deficit spending.”
Even if you looked only at income, middle-class (define middle-class) income has not stagnated. But look at the overall compensation package and you get a different story.
Bush tax cuts were not offset with “debt”, but the spending did increase under Bush. That is why his tax cuts were pretty much negligible. Tax cuts, by the way, are not “spending”, but since liberals see a tax cut as a loss of revenue to spend on programs they view it as an expenditure. It isn’t
#19 also says:
“And increasing the top tax rate by three or four points, essentially back to what it was under Clinton, is hardly class warfare.”
Progressive taxation IS class warfare. Which is why it needs to be abolished. And a tax increase is a tax increase, whether you’re going back to a previous level or not.
#19 also says:
“Your point that “no one is denied healthcare — because anyone can go to the emergency room” is maybe the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard on the topic. Ever seen an emergency room bill? Do emergency rooms treat chronic diseases like diabetes? Do they provide preventative medicine? Can you go to an emergency room for chemotherapy? Can an emergency room give you the brain transplant you so desperately need? The answer is no.”
The point is valid: anyone can go to an emergency room. And if you need chemotherapy and a brain transplant (can you even GET a brain transplant????) then you wouldn’t be in an emergency room to begin with. The fact of the matter is that socialized medicine isn’t going to get you these things either. Instead of advocating socialized medicine perhaps you should speak to users of socialized medicine and get some facts about it before heaping it on all of America.
#19 also says:
“As to your spending vs. investment canard, universal healthcare and green technology both are investments. The payback on green technology will be less dependence on the autocracies of the middle east, which hold their daggers to our throats. Not to mention the benefit to the environment. And preventative healthcare — which would be made possible by expanding coverage — is far less expensive to society than treatment for conditions that, due to neglect, become severe. That is a cost we all end up sharing. If our healthcare system is so great, why have healthcare prices outpaced all other inflation, and why do Americans pay by far the most per capita among industrialized nations while being near the bottom in life expectancy?”
Universal healthcare and green technology are NOT investments, they are spending measures. If green technology were a viable technology the private sector would’ve jumped in headfirst into the technology with promise of great returns. However, the private sector knows better: in terms of costs, green technology cannot deliver energy as efficiently and inexpensively as fossil fuels. On top of this the startup costs for green technologies far outpace that of fossil fuels making them revenue losers. So, the only place the greenies can get funding is by getting the government to give them money. Even with massive subsidies green technologies cannot match fossil fuels in terms of efficiency and cost effectiveness.
As for universal healthcare delivering cost control the only way you’re going to do this is by rationing care. Don’t say that this won’t happen: in EVERY nation that has socialized medicine the costs are controlled and patients are made to make up the difference in lowered choices of care and increased waiting times. And don’t be so sure that preventative care will bring with it reduced costs: over the life of a sick individual, preventative care actually raises the cost of healthcare, not lower it (think about long and hard before responding. You may not like the answer). As for healthcare costs rising faster than the rate of inflation, maybe you should look at the entity you want to take over healthcare as opposed to the private sector. There are two industries where costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation and both have heavy government and low consumer involvement: healthcare and education. Your solution to both is to get government more involved. That solution has not worked. I recommend going in the opposite direction. And guess what? Vouchers and health-savings accounts are helping bring down costs for many individuals. As to your question regarding life expectancy, maybe you should look at the countries that rank higher than the US and rethink if you really believe that countries like Cuba, Estonia, Belarus, etc. have better healthcare systems than the US.
Finally, #19 says:
“Your ideology has no answers to today’s most pressing problems. In fact, it does not even allow you to acknowledge them. The economy is fundamentally sound. Healthcare isn’t broken. Global warming is a socialist plot. At least it explains why you have no solutions. And why you are, indeed, irrelevant.”
Perhaps you should review your own ideology. It’s your side that refuses to come to terms with their own ideology and how it has led to failure in many of the areas you are trying to correct. The economy is fundamentally sound, although Obama sure is trying hard to weaken it with many of the measures he is introducing. Healthcare is not perfect, but it is light-years ahead of what other countries have access to. Global warming may or may not be a socialist plot, but it sure is treated like a religion by people on your side. The goal of a society is to increase the standard of living and quality of life for all people. Energy use has been key in that – a balance needs to be struck with energy’s impact on the environment, not completely shunned and bottled up like you Lefties want. Whether you accept the Right’s solutions or not is irrelevant. However, you guys have all the levers of power, now it is up to you to use them.
Demolish the fallacy of universal healthcare. It does not work. Just like the word spending and name it stimulus package. Higher taxes for the “rich” earning 45K. Yes, that is rich all right.
JHM — try a little brevity. OK?
My guess is there will be fewer and fewer “rich” people left to tax as the 0bamabot’s policies beggar us all into economic depression. People will trade their services with the services of their friends before they report higher incomes for the 0batamatizers to confiscate. The idiot budget fussers in DC count on the future being like the recent past. They never see the dynamics of change, and they certainly fail to understand the dynamics of prosperity and growth. People quickly respond to incentives and disincentives, we quickly adopt to change. If incomes are being overtaxed, people will report less income. If accumulated wealth is overtaxed, they will hide accumulated wealth, and the price of gold coins and pretty diamonds will continue going up.
The value of rich farmland will also rise, as food becomes scarce in Mister 0bama’s Utopia. The way our Democrat friends behave is scary. They still do not understand, even now, after an entire decade’s wealth has evaporated, that their favorite remedies will unfailingly send us into a tailspin.
Obama thinks that every opportunity for the government to borrow and spend will create wealth, so why not spend big? Obama and the Democrats have announced that their policies are based on a 1.5 “Keynesian economic multiplier” that will improve the economy.
This belief should cause laughter and derision, equivalent to claiming that fairies accompany government spending to produce wealth. But, no one looks at that claim of a multiplier to see what it really means.
Possibly you will find this analysis useful. It might shake up belief in the “Keynesian theory” on which the government is basing our future, and which justifies government spending as all good. Obama said it: the stimulus bill is a spending bill, that is the point.
The following will seem like a strange and funny idea, but it follows directly from Obama’s 1.5 multiplier. So it isn’t funny, it is an absurd consequence of the beliefs of Obama’s economics team.
I think it is more than strange to believe that when the government buys 2 TV sets, the government gets 2 TV’s and someone else gets one for free (or it’s equivalent value). This is entirely due to counting transactions and calling them wealth.
If Obama is correct, that there is a 1.5 wealth multiplier on spending, then $100 in spending produces $150 in wealth, and we should all benefit from counterfeiting. It is not my fault that the beliefs of the Obama economic team are so outrageous that they lead to this outrageous result.
http://easyopinions.blogspot.com/2009/02/lets-counterfeit-our-way-to-wealth.html
Let’s Counterfeit Our Way to Wealth
—- quote —–
Excerpt:
This counterfeit money should have the same 1.5 multiplier associated with government spending. The money won’t be saved, it won’t go to the taxpayers (who have their own money), and it will get into circulation immediately where it can stimulate the economy and even create more tax collections.
Even better, there is no need to borrow money or raise taxes to get back the money, because this would create it at very low cost. The investment and job creation plans of the taxpayers would not be interrupted.
(There are some simple calculations at the link.)
——- ——–
Where have I gone wrong? By believing Obama and Keynes. Maybe they don’t care if they are wrong, as long as they get to spend the money.
Netx time, Obama will be applying Enron’s strategy to give an illusion of 2/3 deficit has been cut. His cultists follower believe on them anyway. The movement in pursuit of free car, house and permanent subsidies.