Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
A meme has taken hold; it says that the Tea Party is to blame for the United States’ recent credit downgrade. Perhaps it is more fitting to say the meme has been “launched.” Progressives do that with memes, they launch them, just like NASA used to launch space shuttles before President Obama came along, or shipping lines launch a new vessel on her maiden voyage. Some shuttles and some vessels have long and distinguished careers, and some burn up in the atmosphere or sink on a reef after just a few times out. Well hey, let’s launch the meme and see what happens. Throw the crap at the wall and see if it sticks.
According to the meme, the Tea Party is to blame for the credit downgrade because we didn’t get a big tax increase out of the debt deal. This, somehow, would have saved our AAA rating.
It seems to be coming from this passage in S&P’s report, which for obvious reasons has been quoted frequently:
Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act…
Gee whiz, there’s a quote straight from the source that will buttress the argument, and everything.
Except I’m doubting like the dickens any thinking individual can coherently spell out the logic. Let’s give it a try by starting out with the basic concepts, on which everyone can agree. We have this thing called an “economy” and an economy can be strong or it can be weak; right now it is anemic. Because the economy is anemic, our government is having difficulty raising the revenues that would offset its spending, some 25 to 30 cents on the dollar of which, on an annual basis, is brand new and wasn’t part of its budget as recently as three years ago.
To say any more about the spending is to depart from that narrow focus on which all points on the political spectrum will find agreement. I’ve already mentioned something on which my left-leaning friends would like everyone to remain silent. So let us really fracture the envelope we have now pushed, and note that we are fracturing it: I think an “economy” is a system or community of multiple parties, exchanging goods or services, each party acting toward the benefit of its own interests. So a “strong economy” is one in which it is easy to channel the disparate interests into economic activity, which is trading; an “anemic economy” is one in which there is difficulty involved in doing this.
Still basic stuff, but we don’t agree on it anymore. Liberals cry foul. They may or may not say that my position is wrong, but you know they must have a different definition in mind when they say the cure for a “weak economy” is to “raise taxes.” Taxes have the effect of making it harder to envision a profit from the trading. Liberals may dispute my definition of what an economy is, but they do not dispute this part of what taxes do to the profit motive — on that point, they find agreement. This is why they like the higher taxes. They say so often. So-and-so is getting by too easy, “not paying his/their fair share.” We need higher taxes so the rich/wealthy can give back to the community.
So they must disagree with me about what an economy is. When they agree with me that the economy is weak and sickly, their fix is to raise taxes which, in their view, would somehow strengthen this “economy” upon which they are actually proposing to place a heavier burden.
Wow, these are the people who want to regulate health care for our old people? What do they do when their grandmothers get weak and sickly? Have her move in…and then put the old battleaxe in charge of moving the furniture around?
There is another point to be made here about liberals and higher taxes. I’m afraid this point may not be relevant for quite some time, but it’s still worthy of comment: Those who are capable of recalling pertinent events after a greater stretch of time — and perhaps this is a dwindling audience — will recall that our liberals think higher taxes are very important when everyone agrees the economy is strong.
We saw it in the 80’s, we saw it in the 90’s, we saw it in the “aughts.” Right? Boom times…the rich are doing okay…they get richer, the poor get poorer. The divide between rich and poor is growing. The economic recovery is leaving too many poor people behind. Blah, blah, blah…so this is an interesting point, that is very often overlooked in our fast-paced, blink-and-you-miss-it world of “The Only News I Care About Is Right Now.” When the economy is doing well, our liberals look at higher taxes as a necessary restraining device — it somehow becomes the government’s business to make sure nobody is doing too well. When the economy is flat-lined, comatose or just put on a sickbed for a spell, our liberals think higher taxes possess some medicinal value. They aren’t a restraining device anymore, they’re an energizing elixir.
So it seems they don’t even have their own definition of what an “economy” really is. They don’t know. That means you’d better not ask them, or the conversation will become uncivil and it will be all your fault. But the liberals know what higher taxes do! They make the economy stronger — or put it in check, or something. Always, always, higher taxes will move us in the right direction where we want to go. Like magic. The answer is always higher taxes.
Meanwhile, on the Tea Party’s culpability in the debt downgrade…well, the S&P passage may look like it stands on its own. But for those who show too much recklessness in interpreting it in ways helpful to their own ideological agendas, the facts are not kind to what they’re trying to put together.
See, when we citizen simpletons waved signs like “You Can’t Spend Your Way Out Of Debt,” and “Stop Stealing From Our Kids,” we thought we were helping. It probably sounds crazy to you, but we figured the best way to avoid a debt crisis was to — gee, it seems so silly now — not to borrow all that money in the first place.
:
President Barack Obama wanted to spend $1 trillion in borrowed money on the stimulus, and we opposed it. Then he wanted to add trillions in new health care entitlements and we opposed it. Then he wanted a “clean bill” on the debt ceiling — authority for another $2.4 trillion in debt with zero in spending cuts — and we opposed that, too.So obviously the downgrade is all the Tea Party’s fault. Because, um, well, you see . . .
I suppose that’s dry reading. So let’s sign off instead with the Tweet of the Day, via Prof. Jacobson, by way of Gerard:
I think that sums it up nicely.
Isn’t a credit-downgrade what you’re ultimately supposed to be afraid of, when you’re spending way more money than you’re taking in?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I liked the Wile E. Coyote reference I saw last week. We’ve really been off the cliff’s edge for a while now, but didn’t know it. In other words, we should have been downgraded a long time ago, but the agencies were either afraid to or too hopeful against common sense … or both.
The credit-rating agencies have finally looked down and have seen the unfettered drop to the canyon floor. Egan-Jones, I believe, downgraded us the weekend before the vote – as did China’s Dagong agency (isn’t that reassuring?) to AA+ in July, and again recently to A+. Weiss started calling for it over a year ago and reccomended BBB and then BBB-.
All that was before we “terrorists” strapped TNT around our chests (Wile E. Coyote again?) to counter the other side’s equal brinksmanship.
“Don’t call my bluff.”
“To blathe. To blathe. And everyone knows ‘to blathe’ means ‘to bluff’. He’s bluffing.”
And now S&P.
Yeah. It’s all our fault.
Talking crap, I say. I hear Klavan’s coming out with “Talking Crap III” soon, btw. Here’s Talking Crap I and Talking Crap II.
That’s a lot of crap.
- philmon | 08/09/2011 @ 07:35I am forced to shake my head in amazement at the ability of the Left to frame an issue with whatever temporal boundaries it needs to serve its purpose. Reaching the debt limit had *nothing* to do with running three years of trillion-dollar deficits, did it?
- Jason | 08/09/2011 @ 08:42[…] Not Fooling Felonious “Angry Protesters” at House Speaker’s Door On the Higher Taxes On the Totalitarianism On the Debt On the Bear It Has Become a Blonde Joke The World’s […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 08/12/2011 @ 08:25