Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Some People Seem to Finally Get It

Sorry, pal.  You can't win 'em all.
Obama's jobs bill got swatted down in the Senate.  Before we talk about what this means for Obama, let's talk about what this means for us.

This is sort of a double edged sword in my eyes.  It's probably a good thing that the bill didn't pass the senate, because we can't really afford to spend more damn money on gambles and half-truths.  This is a bad thing because there's not been any alternatives presented, or at least none that have received any of the lime light.

I suppose that's not entirely true.  The Republicans seem to have some ideas, but everyone is afraid to try them.  It sucks having to just wait and see if they're going to do anything to help get us out of this slump, even if doing something means taking themselves out of the equation.

At most, we should expect the government to do things that make this country conducive to economic success.  We're not likely going to achieve that by taking a one-sided approach.  I seriously want to slap a kitten anytime someone asserts implies that the solution is easy as just raising or lowering taxes.  I'm not going to pretend like I know what the hell I'm talking about, or what changes are going to get us back in the black, but I don't think spending more money is going to get us out of this.

So what does this mean for Obama?  Well it means that he's probably fairly boned come November 2012.  The Democrats control the senate, and they did not fall in line with his bill.  Some guy at the Daily Beast said that this amounts to a vote of no confidence.  I'm inclined to agree.

Any time a president can't get his own party behind a piece of legislation he's introduced, you know he's in trouble.  He's in campaign mode right now though, so he'll likely do what he's been doing in the past couple of weeks: he'll blame congress for inaction, and admonish them for "screwing" the American people.  A man who doesn't have to worry about getting reelected would likely take this time to sit back and think hard about the things he believes in.

If your own party is nervous about spending more and more money, then shouldn't you start to wonder if spending more money really is the solution?  Discount the fact that Jimmy Carter did the same thing Obama is trying to do and his jobs bill failed to be a long-term solution, and forget about the fact that none of the recent spending has done anything to get us out of this--Obama and the Democrats really need to think hard about this.

Sure, government spending is not always a bad thing.  Take the 1950's for example.  We were booming despite the marginal tax rate for the highest earners was 90%, and the government was spending money like crazy.  The difference was, though, that Eisenhower believed in fiscal responsibility--that crazy notion that we should not spend more than we take in--and all the money was being spent on stuff that actually spurred growth.

I think somewhere around 50% of the federal budget goes to entitlements.  How many people receiving those entitlements are going to actually give something back to the economy?  How many of those entitlements are doled out inefficiently?  Government spending is fine when the money is spent on stuff that's going to spur growth.  It's not a good thing when the money spent is simply trying to sustain people's lifestyles.

2 comments:

Jersey McJones said...

"The Republicans seem to have some ideas, but everyone is afraid to try them."

No they don't and it being afraid is certainly never an issue with GOP policies. It's easy to cut taxes and regulations. Any sleazy political coward can do that.

Just the same, we HAVE be running on GOP "ideas" for years now and it's led to a complete disaster.

"I think somewhere around 50% of the federal budget goes to entitlements. How many people receiving those entitlements are going to actually give something back to the economy?"

ALMOST ALL OF IT! Where've you been? Those entitlements go to healthcare spending, groceries and clothes, mortgages and rents, and on and on and on. Why do you fall for that insipid conservative nonsense that somehow the welfare state money just dissipates into thin air???

"How many of those entitlements are doled out inefficiently?"

how much of anything - gov't or private - is "inefficient." It's just not a serious argument. That whole "waste, fraud, and abuse" nonsense has been bandied about since Reagan and has NEVER amounted to more than a hill of beans.

We desperately need massive national investment and the scumbag, crooked, cheap, short-sighted, evil, lowlife, scumbag (again) moral vacuums known as Republicans refuse to do it.

They would rather sink the nation than lose power and money, even if just in the short run.

What a pathetic people we have become. I am ashamed to be an American these days.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

We've been running on "GOP ideas" that have been supported by Democrats for years. No Democrat will ever live down the fact that Clinton supported shit like repealing Glass-Steagall, and the bottoming out of the housing market has been a big contributor to all of this crap we're dealing with now.

"Why do you fall for that insipid conservative nonsense that somehow the welfare state money just dissipates into thin air?"

It would be insipid if it weren't true. How many people on welfare eventually get off of welfare? I'll be generous and say that maybe 30% of welfare recipients will actually work to come off of it.

You're not going to see me say that Medicaid is a bad thing, because obviously our workforce needs to be healthy, and all children should have access to affordable medical care. But don't bring things like clothing vouchers into the mix. You must not have worked with the welfare lifer demographic ever if you believe those clothing vouchers go to actual "needed" clothing.

If you only knew how many welfare cheats there are out there, you'd weep.

Inefficiency in government is a very serious issue. Did you ever read my article about the mindset of a government employee in terms of budgeting? Government operates inefficiently because it always has a constant source of revenue. Private sector businesses tend to be more efficient, because their revenue relies on efficiency. If they're more efficient, they make more money.

The government doesn't have to be efficient, because if there's a shortage of funds all they have to do is create more money out of thin air, borrow money from China, or raise taxes.

Ask any federal employee what they do if their department hasn't spent all the money in their budget when the FY comes to an end. My bet is that you'd have few of them who will say that they actually return the money.

Hell no. They spend it on inane things, because they don't want to have their budget slashed for the following year.

The argument that Republicans would rather sink the nation than lose power and money is fairly ridiculous when you look at the logic of your assertion. Where do they get their power and money from? They get their power from the people, and they get their money from the economy.

If they sink the nation then they have no power and their money means nothing.

If anything, the "evil" and "power hungry" rich Republicans stand to gain more from America being strong and prosperous than from it failing.