Obama uses a Joint Session of Congress for a 2012 Campaign Speech on Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 9th, 2011

The Obama Jobs Speech was the Same Old Same Old with the Angry turned up to Eleven

The big speech was last night.  President Obama‘s Jobs speech.  After waiting with bated breath.  For him to come back from vacation.  On Martha’s Vineyard.  Where no one wants for a job.  Or anything.

What you thought of it depends on your party affiliation.  If you’re a Big Government liberal Democrat that wants to stick it to the rich, I’m sure you liked it.  If you were looking for substance, I’m sure you were disappointed.  It was just the same old same old.  With the angry turned up to eleven.

Here are some selections from the transcript with commentary (see Obama jobs speech transcript: Full text (as delivered) posted 9/8/2011 on Politico).

These men and women grew up with faith in an America where hard work and responsibility paid off. They believed in a country where everyone gets a fair shake and does their fair share — where if you stepped up, did your job, and were loyal to your company, that loyalty would be rewarded with a decent salary and good benefits; maybe a raise once in a while. If you did the right thing, you could make it. Anybody could make it in America.

For decades now, Americans have watched that compact erode. They have seen the decks too often stacked against them. And they know that Washington has not always put their interests first.

Yeah, it used to be like that.  Until greed set in.  Government greed.  Their insatiable want of private sector wealth.  And power over our lives.  High taxes.  And punishing regulations.  These have hurt American businesses that once provided those fair shakes.  It’s President Obama and his party that have been making this a business unfriendly nation.  Giving American businesses an unpleasant choice who struggle to compete.  Either close.  Or conduct business in a country that lets them compete.

Just look at the effect of Obamacare.  All hiring is frozen.  And those who can get Obamacare waivers are.  The communist Chinese don’t have these problems.

The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy.

He says as he scolds the American people.  And our Republican representatives.  Yelling at us.  Scowling at us.  Fed up with us.  Because he is not getting his way.

Ultimately, our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers.

Absolutely right.  And the best thing Washington can to is to stop helping.  Their tax and regulatory policies are smothering economic growth.  You want to help?  Then get out of the way.  And let business do what business does best.  Grow.  And create jobs.  To meet demand.  That the market is demanding.  Not building what the government thinks is best.

I am sending this Congress a plan that you should pass right away. It’s called the American Jobs Act. There should be nothing controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans — including many who sit here tonight. And everything in this bill will be paid for.

That urgent is it?  Urgent.  But not so urgent to cancel your luxurious vacation on the exclusive Martha’s Vineyard?  Where the rich and famous vacation to get away from people like us.  You know, if it could wait until after Martha’s Vineyard, it can’t be that important.

Democrats and Republicans support everything in this plan?  If so why isn’t this already law?  If not important before, why is it now?  Some two and a half years into your presidency?  And some two and a half years after applying your laser-like focus on job creation?

It will create more jobs for construction workers, more jobs for teachers, more jobs for veterans, and more jobs for long-term unemployed.

Jobs for teachers?  There’s nothing stimulative about that.  They don’t hire workers.  And the kids they teach aren’t going to hire any workers for a very long time.  This is just more money for teachers’ unions.  Which will be funneled back to the Democrat Party via union dues.

We pay teachers with tax dollars.  Paid by the taxpayers.  This is money the government transfers from the private sector economy to the public sector teachers.  So before teachers can stimulate with this money the private sector has to lose it first.  They take a large sum of money from the private sector.  And give it to the teachers.  Less administration costs to make this all happen.  To stimulate the private sector economy.  Which means the teachers spend less money than the private sector would have if they were able to keep their money.  This is a net loss of economic activity.  And is not stimulative.

Teachers are like government.  They provide an important service.  But they are taxpayer financed.  And like anything taxpayer financed, they are a drag on the economy.

More shovel-ready construction projects?  You told us yourself there is no such thing as a shovel-ready project.  This won’t be stimulative either.  Construction projects just don’t happen overnight.  Even if you get rid of all the regulatory red tape.  Projects take months to engineer.  If you cut that short there will be cost overruns to correct all the things missed in the engineering process.  Then there’s the asbestos abatement study.  Lead abatement.  Environmental impact studies.  At best these will start hiring in time for the 2012 election campaign.  Which no doubt is the goal.

It will provide — it will provide a tax break for companies who hire new workers, and it will cut payroll taxes in half for every working American and every small business. (Applause.) It will provide a jolt to an economy that has stalled, and give companies confidence that if they invest and if they hire, there will be customers for their products and services. You should pass this jobs plan right away. (Applause.)

If tax breaks are good for businesses then just cut tax rates.  A tax rate cut is more stimulative than a onetime tax credit.  A tax credit does not instill business confidence.  Because hiring a new employee is far more costly than any onetime tax credit.  Especially with Obamacare bearing down on small businesses.  It’s these permanent costs of current tax and regulatory policies.  These are what are keeping business skittish about expanding and hiring.  And a onetime tax credit won’t change that.  A repeal of Obamacare would probably spark some business growth.  But not a targeted tax credit.

Pass this jobs bill — pass this jobs bill, and starting tomorrow, small businesses will get a tax cut if they hire new workers or if they raise workers’ wages.

Wishful thinking.  Whoever came up with this is an economic simpleton.  He might as well have asked everyone to voluntary pay more for their groceries.  So the stores will hire more people with all that additional profit.  Employees are another cost of doing business.  Voluntarily increasing these costs above the market cost will only make these businesses less competitive in the market place.  Threatening their business.  And all the jobs they currently provide.

It’s not just Democrats who have supported this kind of proposal. Fifty House Republicans have proposed the same payroll tax cut that’s in this plan. You should pass it right away. (Applause.)

Yes, payroll tax cuts are good.  They reduce the cost of doing business.  And let employees keep more of their earnings.  So cutting Social Security and Medicare taxes will help.  But this will only set up higher taxes down the road.  Because these programs are going broke.  Businesses understand this.  They know it will only be temporary.  And illusionary.  For they will pay more in the future.  So they aren’t going to hire more now.

Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us a economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America? (Applause.)

No.  It didn’t.  We took over the title of economic superpower from the British before the federal highway bill.  And private industry built the railroads.  And robber barons.  Sure, government helped.  But it didn’t lead the way.

China?  Really?  Why is China building so much infrastructure?  Because they have cheap labor.  They couldn’t do what they’re doing if their labor costs were the same as ours.  And that high-speed rail system?  They’re now questioning quality and safety.

And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating.

According to my calendar it’s September.  And I’m pretty sure it’s September throughout the country.  Which means what?  That’s right.  The kids just went back to school.  Which means the next round of school renovation projects will take place starting next June.  When the kids get out of school.  Not very stimulative if you ask me.  Unless you just want a lot of people working on these school renovations during the 2012 election campaign.

And to make sure the money is properly spent, we’re building on reforms we’ve already put in place. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles.

Just like you promised your $800 billion stimulus wouldn’t contain any pork or earmarks?  When it was mostly pork and earmarks?  Fool us once shame on you.  Fool us twice shame on us.

And we’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it will do for the economy. (Applause.)

Great.  Nothing guarantees to speed things up like making it go through a new government bureaucracy.  Which can better send money to friends of the administration.  Just like that $800 billion stimulus.

Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job.

Let’s crunch some numbers.  Say you hire someone.  Pay them $30,000.  Your half of Social Security and Medicare taxes come to $2,295 for the year.  Now factor in your other costs.  State and federal unemployment insurance.  Workers’ compensation insurance.  Health care.  Etc.  Not to mention their salary.  It adds up to a lot of money.  Far more than that $4,000 tax credit.  For hiring someone they don’t need to support their current level of business.  And you know what?  A smart business owner isn’t going to do this.

The plan also extends unemployment insurance for another year. (Applause.) If the millions of unemployed Americans stopped getting this insurance, and stopped using that money for basic necessities, it would be a devastating blow to this economy.

The government has to take that money out of the private sector economy first.  Before it can pay unemployment benefits.  Someone is still spending that money.  Just a different someone.  By the time you add in the cost of administering those benefits, there is a net loss in economic activity. 

Unemployment benefits help the unemployed while they look for another job.  They don’t stimulate the economy.

The agreement we passed in July will cut government spending by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years. It also charges this Congress to come up with an additional $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Tonight, I am asking you to increase that amount so that it covers the full cost of the American Jobs Act. And a week from Monday, I’ll be releasing a more ambitious deficit plan — a plan that will not only cover the cost of this jobs bill, but stabilize our debt in the long run. (Applause.)

Standard and Poor’s wanted to see $4 trillion in real spending cuts.  Not cuts in the out-years that will disappear in the next budget deal.  Real cuts.  If not they said they would downgrade the U.S. sovereign debt rating.  They couldn’t do it.  The best they could do was a $1 trillion tax cut over the next 10 years.  And by golly if S&P didn’t downgrade our credit rating.

And the special commission is to find another half trillion in spending cuts?  On top of the $1.5 trillion they were already looking for?  That Congress was unable to find?  And now they have to find $2 trillion?  Yeah, like that’s going to happen.  That’s a plan with but one goal.  Failure. 

With this kind of spending, a deficit reduction plan can only mean one thing.  More taxes.  Just what the economy needs.  Not.

While most people in this country struggle to make ends meet, a few of the most affluent citizens and most profitable corporations enjoy tax breaks and loopholes that nobody else gets. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary — an outrage he has asked us to fix. (Laughter.) We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake and where everybody pays their fair share.

An executive secretary probably earns something north of $60,000 a year.  That puts her in a top marginal tax bracket of 25%.  Crunching the numbers and this executive secretary will pay $11,125 in federal taxes.  Now let’s assume Warren Buffet has a half billion dollars in investments that pay a return of 8%.  That’s a capital gain of about $40 million.  Taxed at a paltry 15% capital gains tax that’s a measly $6 million in federal taxes.  Funny.  His secretary has a higher tax rate.  But Buffet pays approximately 53,833% more in tax dollars.  I don’t know how you can say one person paying $40 million in taxes isn’t paying his fair share.

Should we keep tax loopholes for oil companies? Or should we use that money to give small business owners a tax credit when they hire new workers? Because we can’t afford to do both. Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? (Applause.) Right now, we can’t afford to do both.

This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math. (Laughter.)

This is nothing but political grandstanding and class warfare.  And rather Orwellian.  In Nineteen Eighty Four, they just changed the meaning of words to control the people.  Such as slavery is freedom.  But changing the meaning of words doesn’t change what slavery is.  It’s still slavery.  No matter what you call it.  And political grandstanding and class warfare is political grandstanding and class warfare.  Even if you say it isn’t.

Now it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama and Colombia and South Korea -– while also helping the workers whose jobs have been affected by global competition.

America can’t compete with China because Chinese labor is cheaper.  So to make American products more competitive the president wants to subsidize our high cost of labor.  With American tax dollars.  Spread the higher cost of U.S. goods throughout the American economy.  Leaving everyone with less money for their own personal needs.  So we can keep Big Union working.  And supporting the Democrat Party.  Which will only increase government spending.  Our deficit.  And our debt.

To subsidize Big Labor they’ll have to pill that money out of the private sector economy first.  So you subtract X from the private sector economy.  And give X to Big Union.  Less an administration fee, of course.  Meaning that there will be a net loss of economic activity.

If we provide the right incentives, the right support — and if we make sure our trading partners play by the rules — we can be the ones to build everything from fuel-efficient cars to advanced biofuels to semiconductors that we sell all around the world.

The free market doesn’t need government incentives and support.  They did fine and dandy in the old days without any government help.  And making our trading partners play by the rules?  If you could do that they would be playing by the rules already.  There’s nothing you can do to make China stop undervaluing the yuan.  Unless you want to throw up protective tariffs on Chinese goods.  Of course they’ll retaliate.  Which will only make everything more expensive for the American consumer.  Besides, we already tried this.  Just before the Great Depression.

You really want to talk about the government picking winners and losers (i.e., incentives and support)?  Really?  After the Solyndra bankruptcy?  And the FBI raid on their executive homes?

Well, I agree that we can’t afford wasteful spending, and I’ll work with you, with Congress, to root it out. And I agree that there are some rules and regulations that do put an unnecessary burden on businesses at a time when they can least afford it. (Applause.) That’s why I ordered a review of all government regulations.

Didn’t Al Gore already reinvent government?  To root out wasteful spending and regulations?  Yeah, he did.  Or tried.  Turns out that’s a lot easier said than done.  Especially when you don’t really mean it.  I mean, come on, the Left lives and dies for these costly regulations.  They’re not just going to sit idly by and let them get repealed.  Not when they fund Democrat candidates in elections.

But what we can’t do — what I will not do — is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades.

Really?  So you’re not going to let anyone do what you did?  Like Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  When you used the worst recession since the Great Depression to pass your stimulus?

Basic protections are one thing.  But your regulatory zeal has shut down this economy.  Just ask the Gulf oil workers.  If you can find any.  Because they aren’t working on rigs in the Gulf anymore.  Thanks to you.

We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future — a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad — (applause) — launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges. (Applause.) And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set.

The seeds of the first transcontinental railroad were sowed back in the 1830s.  Lincoln became president in 1861.  The NAS was established by an Act of Congress.  Land grant colleges came into being in with the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890.  First introduced in 1857.  Abraham Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation.  But he did not create these other acts of Congress.  Congress did. 

And the transcontinental railroad?  That was Congress, too.  And one of the most corrupt Congresses in history.  The incentives and support Congress gave encouraged them to build track on ice.  Zigzag to cover as much land as possible to claim the mineral rights beneath. And when east and west finally met, they kept building track.  Parallel to each other.  To keep collecting money for track mileage laid.  And the cost overruns made a lot of Congressmen wealthy.  No, this railroad was not America’s finest hour.

How many jobs would it have cost us if past Congresses decided not to support the basic research that led to the Internet and the computer chip?

The government Internet (DARPA) was nothing more than file sharing and email for scientists.  If private enterprise and entrepreneurs didn’t step in that’s what the Internet would still be. 

The computer chip?  Funny. I thought that was Texas Instruments and Fairchild Semiconductor.  Which was ultimately based on the transistor.  Invented in 1947 by John Bardeen, Walter H. Brattain, and William B. Shockley of Bell Labs.  Who replaced vacuum tubes with semiconductors everywhere.  Except in high-end audio amplifiers.

What kind of country would this be if this chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? (Applause.) How many Americans would have suffered as a result?

Actually they’d probably be a lot better off.  As far as a return on investment, Social Security is one of the worst retirement investments out there.  Why?  Because it’s not an investment.  Your money goes into the Social Security trust fund.  Where it ‘waits’ for your retirement.  But before you do, the government takes that money and spends it.  Leaving an IOU in the trust fund.  This is no IRA.  No 401(k).  No mutual fund.  It’s not even a savings bond.  In fact, if you die before you collect, all that money you paid in is kept by the government.  It doesn’t go to your heirs with the rest of your estate.  Like an IRA, a 401(k) or a mutual fund would.

But Social Security has been a real success.  For the government.  Because it has made generations of people dependent on government in their retirement.  Who live in fear of losing their benefits.  And will do anything to keep those benefits coming.  Even if it means screwing their own children.  And their grandchildren.  They’re so frightened by the Democrats that they will vote Democrat.  No matter how much the Democrats steal from future generations.

I don’t pretend that this plan will solve all our problems. It should not be, nor will it be, the last plan of action we propose.

That’s right.  You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.  And they will milk this for all it’s worth.  Stimulus.  Bailing out the UAW pension funds (i.e., the auto bailout).  Financial reform.  Obamacare.  Everything they’ve always wanted.  But could never get through the normal legislative process.

The Problem with Barack Obama is that he’s a Keynesian who wants to Grow the Government

Once again the professor scolds those who don’t agree with him.  And offers more of the same.  Which has already failed to reverse the worst recession since the Great Depression.  And it’s not going to work this time.  How do we know this?  Because if this stuff worked it would have worked the first time.

And it would be nice to see the plan before our representatives pass the plan.  For as CBO said before, you just can’t score a speech.  We need to see the numbers.  And the leaps of faith.  But I guess it’s hard to quantify soaring rhetoric.  Especially when you’re offering the same thing.  That you’re trying to make sound different this time.

The problem with Barack Obama is that he’s a Keynesian.  With one slight difference.  Keynesian stimulus is supposed to be temporary.  Whereas Obama’s stimulus gets added into the baseline budget.  Making his stimulus spending permanent.  His number one goal isn’t growing the economy.  It’s growing the government.  That’s why his polices don’t help the economy.  But they sure have grown the government.  And in Obama’s book that’s mission accomplished. 

But he sure would like a second term to continue the fun.  But I just don’t see that happening.  For I can’t see how he can fool that many people into believing that they’re better off after four years of his policies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #82: “Too much debt is always a bad thing.” – Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 8th, 2011

Thomas Jefferson hated Alexander Hamilton for his Assumption and Funding Plans 

Thomas Jefferson hated Alexander Hamilton.  For a variety of reasons.  He thought he was too cozy with the British.  And too anti-French.  He also thought Hamilton was too cozy with the merchant class and bankers.  Jefferson hated them, too.  For he thought honest Americans farmed.  Not buy and sell things other people made.  Or loaned money.

But Hamilton was not a bad guy.  And he was right.  George Washington, too.  America’s future was tied to the British.  Trade within their empire benefited the fledging American economy.  And the Royal Navy protected that trade.  For they ruled the seas.  They couldn’t get that from France.  Especially with a France waging war against everyone.

But there was something especially that Jefferson hated Hamilton for.  Assumption.  And funding.  The new nation’s finances were a mess.  No one could figure them out.  There was pre-war debt.  And war debt.  State debt.  And national debt.  The Americans owed their allies.  Neutral nations.  And the former enemy they just won their independence from.  Getting their hands around what they owed was difficult.  But important.  Because they needed to borrow more.  And without getting their finances in order, that wasn’t going to happen.

Thomas Jefferson Understood that a Permanent Debt gave a Government Power 

Hamilton was good with numbers.  And he put America’s financial house in order.  A little too well for Jefferson.  The new federal government assumed the states’ debts (assumption).  And serviced it (funding).  Giving great money and power to the federal government.  Far more than Jefferson believed the Constitution granted.  And this really stuck in his craw.  Because this was the source of all the mischief in the Old World.  Money and power.  The Old World capitals were both the seats of political power.  And the centers of commerce and banking.

Jefferson understood that a permanent debt gave a government a lot of power.  Because debt had to be serviced.  And you serviced debt with taxes.  The bigger the debt the greater the taxes.  Which didn’t sit well with this revolutionary.  I mean, excessive taxation was the cause for rebellion.  Taxes are bad.  And lead to political corruption.  Because the more taxes the government collects the more it can spend on political favors.  Patronage (good paying government jobs for political allies).  Giving rise to a politically-connected ruling class.  Like the Old World aristocracies.  Government grows.  As does their control over the private sector economy.

It’s a process that once started moves in only one direction.  Greater and greater debts.  Paid for by greater and greater taxes.  Until the debt becomes unsustainable.  Like in Revolutionary France.  In present day Greece.  And even in the United States.  Who, in 2011, saw its sovereign debt rating downgraded for the first time in American history.  Because of record deficits.  And record debt.  Caused by excessive spending.  Everything that Jefferson feared would happen.  If government had a permanent debt.

Baseline Budgeting guarantees Permanent Growth in Government Spending

Big Government spending took off in America in the Sixties.  Historically government receipts averaged 17.8% of GDP.  During the Fifties and the Sixties, GDP grew while debt remained flat.  Of course, if GDP grew then so did tax dollars coming into Washington.  For 17.8% of an expanding GDP produced an expanding pile of cash in the government’s coffers.

Liking the taste of this money, government kept spending.  So much so that they adopted baseline budgeting in 1974.  Where current spending is automatically added to for next year’s spending.  Guaranteeing permanent growth in government spending.  To pay for LBJ‘s Great Society.  The Vietnam WarApollo.  And other spending programs.  The spending was so out of control that the debt started to creep up.  And what they didn’t borrow they printed.  Leading to the Nixon Shock.

The Nixon Shock (ending the quasi gold standard) unleashed inflation.  Which Paul Volcker and Ronald Reagan defeated.  With inflation tamed and the Reagan tax cuts, the Eighties saw solid GDP growth.  And record deficits.  The Democrats liked all that cash coming into Washington.  And they spent it faster than it came in.  But to reduce the deficit they made a deal.  For each dollar in new taxes the Democrats would cut three dollars in spending.  Of course they lied.  Because Democrats don’t cut taxes.  They got their new taxes.  But Reagan didn’t get any spending cuts.  In fact, the deal went the other way.  For every dollar in new taxes there were three dollars in new spending.  The deficit grew bigger.  And for the first time the debt grew at a greater rate than GDP.  As shown here:

(Source:  GDP, Debt, Receipts)

The Obama Stimulus gave us Record Deficits and Record Debt

After the 1994 midterm elections, Bill Clinton and the new Republican House compromised.  They reined in spending.  Implemented welfare reform.  And rode the dot-com bubble on the good side.  Before it burst.  It was capital gains galore.  Put all of this together and GDP rose and flooded Washington with tax receipts.  While debt remained flat.  In fact, there were budget surpluses forecast.  But then that dot-com bubble burst.

George W. Bush started his presidency with recession.  A couple of tax cuts later and GDP was tracking up again.  But 9/11 changed things.  And gave us two costly wars (Iraq and Afghanistan).  On top of an expensive Medicare drug program.  Record deficits took debt to new heights.  Then the Housing Bubble burst.  Followed by the subprime mortgage crisis.  And President Obama used this crisis to advance a dormant Democrat agenda.

It was an $800 billion stimulus.  Something he promised would have no pork or earmarks.  Nothing but shovel-ready projects.  Of course, it was nothing but pork and earmarks.  And those shovel-ready projects?  There’s no such thing.  So the stimulus didn’t stimulate anything.  Other than record deficits (surpassing Bush’s).  And record debt.  Debt increasing at a greater rate than GDP.  And equal to or greater than GDP in dollars.  Not seen since World War II.

Hamilton and Jefferson would have United in Opposition against Barack Obama

Debt fell as a percentage of GDP following World War II.  It fell from above 90% to below 40% around the end of the Sixties.  GDP was rising during this period while debt remained flat.  So the flat debt became a smaller and smaller percentage of a growing GDP.  The ‘growing your way out of debt’ phenomenon.  But that process stopped and reversed itself during the Seventies.  When Congress spent with a fury.  As noted above.  Debt grew.  Back to the level of GDP it was during a world war.  Only now there is no world war.  And we’re not spending to save democracy.  We’re spending to end democracy.

(Source:  GDP, Debt $, Debt %)

It is what Jefferson feared most.  Out of control government spending.  Racking up massive debt.  The kind that is impossible to pay off.  And is permanent.  And it was being done not for a war to save democracy from fascism.  But to change America.  To make it a different kind of nation.  No longer one of limited government.  But Big Government.  One with a ruling class.  A ruling class that now has a claim on 100% of GDP.  To pay for everything they gave us.  Where there is no choice but fair-share sacrifice.  Where everyone pays their ‘fair share’ of taxes.  Which is government-speak for raising taxes on everyone.  To flood government coffers with more private sector wealth.

The country is not what it was.  And it will never be what it once was again.  Not with this level of spending.   This is the kind of spending nations see in their decline.  It’s what toppled Louis XVI.  It’s what roiled Greece in riots.  It’s what downgraded U.S. sovereign debt.  For the first time.  Even Alexander Hamilton wouldn’t approve of this.  For his Big Government idea was all about making the nation an economic superpower.  Not bringing back feudalism.

So if you’re not a fan of Barack Obama, here’s something you can credit him for.  His policies would have reconciled two of our most beloved Founding Fathers.  For Hamilton and Jefferson may have hated each other.  But they would have united in opposition against Barack Obama.

 www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #79: “Tax cuts stimulate. Not tax hikes.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 16th, 2011

Government can only Spend what it Taxes away from the Private Sector

What stimulates?  Tax cuts?  Or tax hikes?  Ronald Reagan believed it was tax cuts.  But everyone one on the Left poo pooed Reaganomics.  ‘Trickle-down’ economics only stimulated rich people, they said.  Those on the Left prefer Keynesian stimulus.  Tax and spend.  To take some of that money the government pulls from the private sector.  And spend it to stimulate the private sector.

What did we learn from the great 2011 debt ceiling debate?  And the subsequent S&P credit downgrade?  This.  Government is spending beyond its means.  Those on the Left say this is due to insufficient taxation.  Those on the Right say we’re spending too much.  That’s neither here nor there for our purposes here.  I only mention it to emphasize a point.  Government can only spend what it taxes away from the private sector. 

For the government to stimulate the private sector economy, then, it must first tax money out of the private sector.  So let’s take a look at a proposed stimulus plan.  Let’s say the government revises the federal withholding tax rates so that there is a net 5% increase in the effective tax rate (tax revenue divided by income).  And let’s put these numbers into a chart like this:

 

Let’s say all numbers are millions of dollars.  The effective tax rate changes from 20% to 25%.  And tax revenue increases by $25,000.  (Effective tax in the above chart.)  That’s the additional amount they pulled out of the private sector.  That they will use for government stimulus spending.  Now the government has to process this.  Through a large bureaucracy.  Let’s say that these ‘overhead’ costs are 15%.  Subtract that from the stimulus amount.  And you have $21,230 left.  To stimulate the economy. 

So they pull $25,000 out of the private sector economy.  So they can inject $21,250 back into it.  Which means the net stimulus added is a negative $3,750.  That’s right.  They added money to the economy.  After removing a larger amount from it first.  And that’s Keynesian stimulus.

Keynesian Spending favors the Politicians, not the Private Sector

This is actually opposite of what a stimulus is supposed to do.  Which explains why Keynesian stimulus spending fails.  But it’s even worse than this.   Because those numbers above are for a best case scenario. 

They don’t take into account pork and earmarks that make up most of a stimulus bill.  Such as the Obama stimulus bill.  Which proved to be more a Democrat wish list of repressed wants for some 40 years than shovel-ready stimulus.  And the 15% overhead is something you see in the private sector.  Not in a government that pays $300 for a toilet seat.  So let’s factor these more realistic numbers in.

 

The numbers are much worse.  By increasing taxes 5% you actually pull 8.63% out of the private sector economy.  There is no stimulus.  That’s a net deficit.  And a lot of pork and earmarks for the politicians.  And to make things worse, this additional spending finds its way into baseline budgeting.  Which means that they increase the current deficit.  And all subsequent deficits. 

That doesn’t favor the private sector.  That favors the politicians.  Which is the goal of Keynesian stimulus spending.

The Beauty of Tax Cuts is that the Money doesn’t go through the Sticky Hands of Government

So we see that Keynesian stimulus favors the politicians over the private sector.  Is there another form of stimulus that actually favors the private sector?  As it turns out, yes.  Tax cuts.  Let’s look at cutting taxes instead of raising taxes. 

The beauty of tax cuts is that it doesn’t require the money to go through the sticky hands of government.  So a tax cut of $25,000 equals a stimulus of $25,000.  The money remains in the private sector.  And we pull no money out of the private sector.  So this is pure stimulus.

The net add to the private sector economy is 6.25%.  Which is 14.88% better than the Keynesian approach.  (Going from a 8.63% decrease to a 6.25% increase).  So it’s clear which way to stimulate is better.  It’s a no brainer.  So why don’t the diehard Keynesians admit defeat?  Simple.  Tax cuts don’t go through the sticky hands of government.

Tax Cuts stimulate the Private Sector, Keynesian Spending stimulates Government

The Keynesians will no doubt say this is an oversimplification of stimulus.  And it is.  But the fundamentals remain the same.  Government stimulus spending is funded by the private sector.  Either by higher taxes to pay for the stimulus.  Or by higher taxes to pay for the cost of borrowing the stimulus.  And if the government just prints the money for the stimulus, a depreciated dollar makes everything cost more in the private sector.  Whatever they do the private sector will lose in the long run.  Because they ultimately pay the bill.

Tax cuts don’t have this affect.  Because you don’t have to pay for tax cuts.  The money never belonged to the government in the first place.  So they don’t have to pay for it.  The private sector just gets to keep what is rightfully theirs.  But the Keynesians will cry that if you cut taxes you will increase the deficit.  Yes, you may.  But no more than you would by borrowing money to pay for Keynesian spending.  Either way the government is spending beyond its means.  The government should cut spending.  But if they don’t, they should at least pick the option that will stimulate the economy.  The option that grows the economy.

The goal of stimulus is to stimulate economic activity in the private sector.  And as the exercises above show, the best way to do that is to leave more money in the private sector.  Not less.  Tax cuts stimulate the private sector.  Unlike Keynesian stimulus.  Which only stimulates government.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #78: “It’s a dishonest politician that sneaks sneaky legislation into a bill.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 11th, 2011

The Obama Stimulus Bill was mostly Democrat Pork and Earmarks

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a huge stimulus bill to create jobs.  And put people back to work.  It cost about $800 billion.  And it didn’t work.  Some say it didn’t work because it wasn’t big enough.  Others say it didn’t work because it wasn’t stimulus but rather a 40-year Democrat wish list of pet projects.  Which the Democrats could finally enact having control of the House, the Senate and the White House for the first time in a long time.  And they took control of this bill.  As Nancy Pelosi said, “We won the election. We wrote the bill.”

So what’s in the bill?  Well, President Obama said it would contain no pork.  No earmarks.  Just spending that would create ‘or save’ jobs.  Like infrastructure projects.  Rebuilding America’s roads and bridges.  But according to the Wall Street Journal, “Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects.”  They further note that of all the spending in the bill little would actually create jobs.  About “12 cents of every $1…even many of these projects aren’t likely to help the economy immediately.”

Take high-speed rail, for example.  The Washington Post noted the bill included “$8 billion for high-speed rail projects, for example, including money that could benefit a controversial proposal for a magnetic-levitation rail line between Disneyland, in California, and Las Vegas…”  One thing about big rail projects, they don’t stimulate.  Building railroads takes a long, long time.  The higher the speed, the longer the time.  Because high-speed trains have more costly infrastructure.  And dedicated track.  With no grade crossings.  And before you build anything you have to do environmental impact studies.  Then survey the entire route.  Then, once you have a proposed route, you can begin the engineering.  It could be years before any ground is broken. 

If any ground is broken.  Because currently high-speed rail is all pie in the sky.  Only two lines to date operate at a profit.  One in Japan (Tokyo to Osaka line).  The other in France (Paris to Lyon line).  All others require government subsidies in one form or another.  Because these are costly to build.  And costly to maintain.  So this is stimulus that won’t stimulate.  But it will set the stage for greater future government spending.  Making it more pork than stimulus.  Snuck into the bill by the Senate.  When the House bill went to the Senate.  For their turn to steal from the treasury.

Only Schools with Union Teachers did well in Stimulus Bill

The stimulus bill also included $90 billion for the Department of Education.  But language in the bill restricted the use of that money.  Quoting from the Wall Street Journal, “the House declares on page 257 that “No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools.””

In other words, only schools with union teachers may use this money.  Dues-paying union teachers.  And the teachers unions support Democrat candidates.  Which makes this not quite stimulus.  But politics.  Profitable politics at that.  As some of this stimulus money will make it back to Democrat coffers thanks to those union dues.

According to Certification Map, education received some $90 billion in stimulus money.  And their website breaks down the spending:

  • $44.5 billion in aid to local school districts to prevent layoffs and cutbacks, with flexibility to use the funds for school modernization and repair (State Equalization Fund)
  • $15.6 billion to increase Pell Grants from $4,731 to $5,350
  • $13 billion for low-income public school children
  • $12.2 billion for IDEA special education
  • $2.1 billion for Head Start
  • $2 billion for childcare services
  • $650 million for educational technology
  • $300 million for increased teacher salaries
  • $250 million for states to analyze student performance
  • $200 million to support working college students
  • $70 million for the education of homeless children

For a bill not containing any pork or earmarks these look a lot like pork and earmarks.  I mean, they sure ain’t ‘shovel-ready let’s rebuild the infrastructure jobs’ like we were led to believe.  Sure, they may ‘invest in our future’ so we may ‘win the future’, but it doesn’t create jobs like a stimulus bill is supposed to do. 

This isn’t stimulus.  These are just Democrat pet projects.  Added to the bill in a moment of crisis.  To take advantage of the crisis.  To get the things they’ve been unable to get during the normal legislative process.

Never let a Serious Crisis go to Waste when Writing a Stimulus Bill

When you look at the bill this is what most of it is.  Just a bunch of Democrat pet projects.  Passed when they still had control of both houses of Congress and the White House.  And a delicious crisis.  For as Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.  What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.” 

Sure, they’ve always hidden things in bills before.  But rarely does $800 billion of free spending come along.  They weren’t going to attach this pork to a bill.  This pork was the bill.  And it included a little bit of everything.  Including green energy.  Green Chip Stocks list this spending on their website:

  • $2.5 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research
  • $1 billion energy efficiency programs including energy-efficient appliances and trucks and buses that run on alternative fuel
  • $4.5 billion to boost the energy efficiency of federal buildings
  • $6.3 billion for energy efficiency and conservation grants
  • $5 billion to weatherize old buildings
  • $2.3 billion in tax credits for energy efficiency technology manufacturers

Last time I looked ‘research’ was not a ‘shovel ready’ project.  Neither are alternative fuel programs.  Or federal renovation projects.  Or the government granting process.  (It takes forever and a day for construction projects to start when there is federal money involved.)  And tax credits only help a few people work so they can build things that won’t sell at market prices.

Again, not stimulus.  But pork.  Earmarks.  Despite everything they told us. They weren’t going to create jobs and fix the economy.  They were settling their political accounts.

Democrats took Advantage of a Crisis to sneak Pet Projects into Law

This shameless Democrat spending spree (remember what Nancy Pelosi said – “We won the election. We wrote the bill”) helped to push the deficit into record territory.  Which caused S&P to downgrade our credit.  All because the Democrats took advantage of a crisis to sneak a lot of their pet projects into law.

It just goes to show you that you shouldn’t trust politicians.  And, based on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, you should especially not trust Democrats.  For they are quite sneaky.  And often don’t do as they say.  For the stimulus bill wasn’t going to have any pork or earmarks.  But in reality about 88% of the bill was nothing but pork and earmarks.  Which is a lot more than none.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bush Tax Cuts, the Omnibus Spending Bill and a Little Egomania

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 17th, 2010

A Tax Cut!  A Tax Cut!  My Kingdom for a Tax Cut!

Obama begs for help in passing his deal with the GOP to extend the Bush tax cuts (see Obama tells lawmakers not passing tax deal could end presidency, Dem says by Jordan Fabian posted 12/15/2010 on The Hill).

Obama is telling members of Congress that failure to pass the tax-cut legislation could result in the end of his presidency, Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) said.

“The White House is putting on tremendous pressure, making phone calls, the president is making phone calls saying this is the end of his presidency if he doesn’t get this bad deal,” he told CNN’s Eliot Spitzer.

Which the White House denies.

“The president hasn’t said anything remotely like that and has never spoken with Mr. DeFazio about the issue,” said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Besides, would the president ever sink to that level?

During the end of the healthcare debate, Obama reportedly told Democrats upset that the bill did not contain a public healthcare option that not passing it could put his presidency on the line and stall the liberal agenda for decades.

Actually, the president uses this maneuver so often that we just call it the ‘Obama’ now. 

Liberals and Alice Cooper both Love the Dead

The liberals were listening to Obama.  And with the leader of their party in a vulnerable position, they pounced.  A little tit for tat.  If he was going to screw his liberal colleagues by extending the Bush tax cuts, then the liberals wanted to get in a little screwing themselves (see Congress Moves Toward Approving Tax Cut Legislation by David M. Herszenhorn posted 12/16/2010 on the New York Times).

As the House began to take up the tax deal, it hit a procedural snag. Liberal Democrats skirmished with party leaders over a proposed vote on an amendment to tax more wealthy estates and at a higher rate than was included in a provision agreed to by the Obama administration.

The Obama presidency is saved.  It appears liberal Democrats will sign off on the compromise if they can screw rich dead people.  Figuratively, of course.  So Obama may get to put this one into the ‘win’ column thanks to a little legislative necrophilia.

Porking it up in an Omnibus Spending Bill

Knowing that no one really wanted their agenda, the Democrats did little to rock the boat before the 2010 midterm elections.  They didn’t talk about Obamacare (unless they voted against it and were proud of it).  They didn’t talk about the Obama stimulus package that ended the recession and kicked off the Summer of Recovery (back when the unemployment rate was lower than it is now).  And they sure as hell didn’t write a budget. 

With their out of control spending, the less the American people saw it in print, the better it was for them.  So with government about to shut down again, they threw together a quick 2,000ish page omnibus spending bill.  But elections have consequences.  Apparently.  And some Senators chose to represent their constituents (see Senate Dem leader drops nearly $1.3T spending bill by Andrew Taylor, The Associated Press, posted 12/16/2010 on The Washington Post).

Democrats controlling the Senate abandoned on Thursday a huge catchall spending measure combining nearly $1.3 trillion worth of unfinished budget work, including another $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 1,924-page bill collapsed of its own weight after an outcry from conservatives who complained it was stuffed with more than $8 billion in homestate pet projects known as earmarks.

And after we said no more earmarks at the 2010 midterm elections.  Instead of losing graciously, they’re speeding up at a yellow light before it changes.  Unfortunately for them, though, the car ahead of them didn’t.

GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was “unbelievable” that Democrats would try to muscle through in the days before Christmas legislation that usually takes months to debate.

“Just a few weeks after the voters told us they don’t want us rushing major pieces of complicated, costly, far-reaching legislation through Congress, we get this,” McConnell said. “This is no way to legislate.”

Unbelievable?  Why wouldn’t they want to rush this 1,924 bill through Congress?  They want it passed.  And that won’t happen if they take the time to read it.  Or debate it.  I mean, if they had done that with Obamacare Congress wouldn’t have passed it.  Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass Obamacare to find out what was in Obamacare.  And we did.  And the regret and angry debate followed after it became law.  That’s how liberal Democrats pass bills.  Sneakily.  Like the devious little bastards they are.

And how will this affect the Obama presidency?

The sinking of the bill was a setback for President Barack Obama, who supported it despite provisions to block the Pentagon from transferring Guantanamo Bay prisoners to the United States and fund a program to develop a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the administration says is a waste of money.

Poor Obama.  That’s another one for the ‘lost’ column.  There’s a word for people like him.  What is it?  Begins with an ‘L’?  It was just on the tip of my tongue.  Oh well, perhaps I’ll remember later.

Go Ahead.  Make my Day.  Shut Down the Government. 

So, what happens now?  Will government shut down (see McConnell: Dems Using “Christmas Break As An Inducement” To Pass Omnibus posted 12/16/2010 on Real Clear Politics).

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) touts his one-page continuing resolution that would “simply continue the government through February 18th.”

“I would hope that it would make sense on a bipartisan basis, this one-page continuing resolution on Feb 18th as an alternative to this 2,000-page monstrosity that spends a half a billion dollars a page,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.

Guess that’ll keep the Social Security checks going into the mail.  Not bad for a single piece of paper.  You see?  Congress can govern without raping and pillaging the American people.

Obama the Great.  His Majesty.  His Pomposity.

Win some.  Lose some.  Looking at Obama’s record, you can see that he is a man who cares deeply for what he loves most.  Obama (see When it comes to politics, Obama’s ego keeps getting in the way by Michael Gerson posted on 12/17/2010 on The Washington Post).

The tax deal is reasonable policy, supported by majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents – an easy sell by presidential standards. And still President Obama managed to blow the politics of the thing.

Rather than explaining the economic benefits of the bill and taking quiet credit for a moment of bipartisanship, Obama launched into an assault on partners and opponents. Republicans are “hostage-takers” who worship the “Holy Grail” of trickle-down economics. Liberal opponents are “sanctimonious,” preferring their own purity to the interests of the poor. The president did not just attack the policy positions of nearly everyone in the political class. He publicly questioned their motives.

The Left and Right alike are just too stupid to know what’s best for them.  If only we would listen to Obama.  Because he’s so smart.  I mean, he won the election while being the most unqualified candidate ever to run for the presidency.  You gotta be smart to pull that off.  Or at least sound smart.

Obama is professorial, cold, condescending and just plain mean.

It is the president’s favorite rhetorical pose: the hectorer in chief. He is alternately defiant, defensive, exasperated, resentful, harsh, scolding, prickly. He is both the smartest kid in class and the schoolyard bully.

There are many problems with this mode of presidential communication, but mainly its supreme self-regard. The tax deal, in Obama’s presentation, was not about the economy or the country. It was about him. It was about the absurd concessions he was forced to make, the absurd opposition he was forced to endure, the universally insufficient deference to his wisdom.

And he’s got a great big ego.  He’s pompous and conceited.  A narcissist.  A legend in his own mind.  He thinks he’s got the Midas touch.  Anything he touches, he thinks he makes better.  Well, let’s look at some of what he’s been touching.

At this point in the Obama presidency, even Democrats must be asking: Is he really this bad at politics? The list of miscalculations grows longer. To pass the stimulus package, the administration predicts 8 percent unemployment – a prediction that became an indictment. It pledges the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison – without a realistic plan to do so. It sends the president to secure the Chicago Olympics – and comes away empty-handed. It announces a “summer of recovery” – which becomes a source of ridicule. It unveils a Manhattan trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed – which nearly every New York official promptly turns against. Press secretary Robert Gibbs picks fights with both conservative talk radio hosts and the “professional left” – which uniformly backfire. The president seems to endorse the Ground Zero mosque – before retreating 24 hours later. He suggests that Republicans are “enemies” of Latinos – apparently unable to distinguish between hardball and trash talk.

Genius?  Or incompetent boob?  You tell me.

I especially like the joke, “summer of recovery.”  That reminds me of the The Summer of George from Seinfeld.  They were both silly.  Come to think of it, President Obama reminds me of George Costanza.  They have a lot in common.  But I think history will be kinder to George Costanza.

Why so many unforced mistakes? The ineffectiveness of Obama’s political and communications staff may be part of the problem – and the administration is now hinting at significant White House personnel changes in the new year. But an alternative explanation was on display this week. Perhaps Democrats did not elect another Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy but another Woodrow Wilson – a politician sabotaged by his sense of superiority.

In the tax debate, Obama has proved a quarrelsome ally and a dismissive foe, generally dismayed by the grubby realities of politics. He doesn’t suffer fools gladly. Unfortunately, he seems to put just about everyone who disagrees with him in that category.

Like a true aristocrat, Obama just hates people that aren’t his equals.  And in his mind, he has no equals.  So he hates everyone.  Which explains a lot.  The disunity in his party.  The bitter partisanship.  And the whining.

It makes one yearn for the days when an affable Texan occupied the White House.  George W. Bush may have not spoken as well or was as pretentious as Obama, but he was a nice man.  Is.  And history will remember him kindly.  Probably even more kindly than George Costanza.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #19: “Philosophical debates can be effective but character assassination is more expedient, especially when no one agrees with your philosophy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 22nd, 2010

WARNING.  The following contains some explicit language and sexual content and may be inappropriate to some.

“F*ck you.”  “Ass h*le.”  “You’re mother is a whore.”

We all probably heard these before.  Directed at us.  At the end of an argument.  Which means we’ve argued well.  For when the invectives fly, you’ve won the argument.

 A good sales man would never call your mother a whore.  Instead, if you say ‘no’, they come up with other reasons for you to say ‘yes’.  They believe they can get you to see things their way.  And often do.  Not so when it comes to politics.  Especially if you’re arguing with a liberal.

A lot of liberals are liberals for no good reason.  Calling yourself a liberal is just a way to feel good about yourself, to make you feel more enlightened and smarter than non-liberals.  But most are not as smart or enlightened as they would like to think they are. 

I met an old friend for lunch.  She was once a liberal but has since moved to where the bulk of the country is.  Center-right.  She brought an old friend of hers with her.  From her liberal past.  A single mom.  Who successfully juggled career and motherhood.  Did it well, too.  And, of course, my dear old friend introduced me as a conservative.  And she said it with a smirk.

I have long since stopped discussing politics outside my inner circle.  Political and philosophical debate is the raison d’être there.  It’s what we do for intellectual fun.  While drinking some fine single malt.  A time and a place for everything.  And casual conversation is neither the time nor place for politics. 

So I was polite and behaved.  But they kept poking the bear.  Laughing and enjoying themselves.  So, I thought, fine.  Let’s discuss politics.  The current subject was George W. Bush.  Not my favorite president.  Not all that conservative when it comes to the spending.  But I respect him.  I understand his philosophical basis, much of which I agree with.  But there are things I don’t like about him.  So I asked for some specifics.  To make it a fair debate.  Why was he a bad president?  Because he’s an idiot, she said.  Yeah, I asked, but what specifically has he done that you think was idiotic?  Have you heard him speak, she asked.  I mean, she said, he sounds like an idiot.  And so went the conversation.

I pressed for specifics.  Didn’t get any.  Then the name calling started.  I wasn’t being very tolerant of her views.  I replied, but you haven’t told me your views.  All I know is that you think Bush is an idiot.  Apparently, that should have sufficed.  Luckily, we had already consumed a bottle of wine by then so it was easy to change the subject and forget our little dustup.

And that’s a common experience I have with liberals.  They know everything.  But can’t explain anything.  I’m then called intolerant for not seeing things their way while they refuse to consider my arguments for seeing things my way.  In politics, people believe they base their opinions on a sound philosophical basis.  Most times they don’t.  They just heard something funny on Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show.  And they repeat it.  That’s why, when pressed for specifics, they can’t give any.  And then the name calling ensues.

DO YOU KNOW what ‘tea bagging’ is?  If you’re a gay man, you probably do.  At least, one of the meanings.  It’s a sex act in the gay community.  It’s when a dominate man lowers his genitals into a submissive man’s mouth.  It gets its name from the similarity of lowering a tea bag into a cup of hot water.  It’s a popular sex act, for it has migrated into the heterosexual community.  Without the BDSM aspects, though.  But when people call someone a ‘tea bagger’, it generally refers to the homosexual act.  Because of the degrading/humiliation aspects of the BDSM role playing.

David Gergen was on Anderson Cooper’s 360 on CNN.  They were discussing the new grassroots movement known as the Tea Party movement.  It’s called this in honor of those who stood up against the mercantilist policies of the British Empire who said you can drink whatever tea you’d like as long as it is British East India Company tea.  Good tea, yes, but it was British tea.  The Americans were taking a stand on principle.  And tossed the tea overboard. 

Carrying on with the ‘tea’ theme from the colonial period, Tea Party people used tea bags on signs and sent them in to Congress as a symbol of protest.  Some people used the symbol with a sexual undertone.  But most people didn’t.  Most didn’t know of the sexual act.  Well, these people, using tea bags as a symbol of their protest, were dubbed ‘tea baggers’.  And those familiar with the sexual act used it to attack and ridicule those people in the Tea Party movement.  When David Gergen said the Republicans were trying to find their voice, Anderson Cooper made the crude statement, “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea bagging.”

So much for your objective journalist.

Sure, the Tea Party people were worthy of such contempt for the things they stand for.  By the way, do you know what they stand for?  It’s easy to find out.  I did.  They adopted a 10 item agenda called Contract from America.  Here’s a bulleted list:

1. Identify constitutionality of every new law.
2. Reject emissions trading.
3. Demand a balanced federal budget.
4. Simplify the tax system.
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality.
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending.
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010.
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy.
9. Reduce Earmarks.
10. Reduce Taxes.

Yeah, I know.  This is crazy talk.  Do you realize what would happen if these ‘tea baggers’ got their way?  Everyone would probably live happily ever after.

FOR TOLERANT PEOPLE, liberals can be pretty intolerant of anyone who doesn’t think like them.  And they can get pretty nasty, attacking people instead of the issues.  The Conservatives are yearning to debate the issues.  But they get invective instead.  Why?  Because it’s the last refuge for someone who has already lost the argument.  Name calling.  Because it’s all they have.  They can’t beat you with the facts.  So they pummel you with personal attacks.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,