The lead moron over at moronwatch is at it again, this time trying to explain to his followers why the GOP is leading the US to default. As with most of moronwatch's posts, this is pretty much a cut and paste from liberal news media, and devoid of any original thinking. I'll supply my rebuttal here, and allow my (one) reader to enjoy it. It's THAT good.
This post is typical moronic twaddle.
You say, "Food stamps generate activity in the economy - $1.73 for each $1 spent." Although that's nonsensical on its face, it's not even the right contention. Liberals tried to tout when we were extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks here that "unemployment benefits" were a net positive to the economy, on the order of $1.73 to $1.
Either way, by that logic, we should just have the government give everyone food stamps (or cash), since it's a net positive to the economy. We really should just print money and hand it to people, we'd immediately grow the economy. (Actually, we would, but it would be a false growth). Do you people even THINK about what you're saying?
On one hand, Liberal economists (like those at The Economist) argue that deep spending cuts may have some negative growth effects (and there is an element of truth to that), but then argue that tax increases have a positive effect. So, let's see this logic - we have government priming the economy with spending to increase growth, and removing money from the economy to also increase growth. Huh? Only morons like moronwatch and liberals believe this crap.
Surely, if spending was such a boost to the economy, the $1T spent in stimulus in the last 2 years would have the US economy going gangbusters now and coupled with all the extensions in unemployment benefits, we'd be at unprecedented growth rates, and Obama would have made good on his promise of <8% unemployment. I don't know if you've noticed, but the US economy is slowing and unemployment is increasing. This is the pattern with Keynesian stimuli, they don't work. Not now, not ever.
There is no doubt that the debt ceiling will ultimately be raised. There just is no combination of spending cuts and tax increases that can raise enough revenue right away to solve the immediate problem. So, the debt ceiling must be raised. There is no other choice ultimately.
Because, unfortunately, we've fiddled for too long. The president's laughable budget was voted down 97-0 in the Senate, and those same Senators have failed to present a budget (a Constitutional requirement, by the way) for over 2 years. The budget presented and passed in the House addresses these structural deficits, but, it is going nowhere in a Harry Reid, Democrat controlled Senate, and the President, of course, opposes it. You tell ME who is intransigent here????
What is being debated, MW, is the future size of government, and your post either displays your ignorance or
disingenuousness (sort of like our President).
Let's get some things straight here, for your actually thinking readers:
- Even without a debt ceiling increase, there does not need to be any default. The US govt takes in enough money each month to service the debt and pay social security obligations and medicare and medicaid obligations. Not much else, though. So, clearly, govt services will slow to a crawl, and not even us crazy tea party sympathizers want that.
- The argument that is being made is that the debt ceiling increase needs to be balanced by spending cuts of the same amount over some period of time. Even the GOP is talking 10-12 years. Not in the same year, ok, can we get that straight?
- The same is true of the tax increases that Obama is seeking. Even he isn't stupid enough in this economy to suggest that we raise taxes in 2011 by $2T. He's suggesting the same thing, raise taxes by $2T over ten years, and cut spending by a similar amount (this is his $4T "grand bargain"). This amounts to repealing the Bush tax rates on the highest earners. Those are those millionaire families who make over $250k/year (or single filers making over $200k/year). Funny, you call us morons, but in this world a millionaire makes $200k/year. I guess in the world of 5 year plans, it makes some sense, though.
- This is Obama's game. He so pissed off his base by extending the Bush tax cuts in December, this is his way of getting them back. Oh well, at least us morons recognize political posturing when we see it.
- I realize you're British and maybe you don't know this, but no one can be denied medical care in the United States. It's a question of who PAYS for it. In the present system, we all pay for it via increased insurance premiums for the insured. In Obamacare, we all pay for it with increased insurance premiums for the insured (plus increased taxes on everyone). The selling point for government control is that this is just intended to be spread amongst more of us, so each of us will pay less. I don't know, but 30 million more people being insured means someone is paying more. But, that's an argument for another day.
Finally, Obama knows that his pals in the leftist, Obama-slurping media (which includes the former communists at The Economist) will tout his line and serve his mission. And, that's ok. We ALL know this, and accept it as a cost of politics in the United States.
As for me, I like this plan: http://bit.ly/ps847u