Un-Liberaled Woman

Michelle Malkin’s got a hilarious video up and the preacher voice is back for an ABC (Always! Be! Closing!) session on the porkulus bill. I think one commenter on the board answered Obama’s question with the perfect amount of sarcasm:

Obama: We are not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that for the last eight years have doubled the national debt.”

Fred 5676:  You mean OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING??  Yeah, let’s do some more of that.

No joke. Tax cuts would help give families and business immediate (key word here: IMMEDIATE) relief. What if a temporary income tax break of say 50% were enacted next week. And that tax break was only for a set time (end of 2009) so that it would truly serve its purpose in helping out in an emergency economic situation. Let’s look at my paycheck. I paid about $300 in just income taxes every paycheck. If I got a 50% break that means I’d have $150 more every week. I would turn around and either spend that money (which would increase the economy), invest that money in a banking account (which would increase the economy) or pay down some of my debt (which would help the economy with reducing debt). How then can you sit there arguing that tax breaks don’t provide economic growth. Honestly, WTF, Barry????  It’s not tax breaks that got us into this mess so quit trying to pin up all your problems on the Bush administration’s tax policies.

If you’re going to blame the last eight years on anything it’s spending! And you don’t seem to be opposed to that. In fact you seem to put on the earmuffs anytime somebody brings up questioning $1 trillion dollars in frivolous spending. Just because you now talk in a preacher’s voice doesn’t make the argument any more convincing.

And the other thing, I can’t stand it when politicians talk about the “best economists” out there. Just because you only surround yourself with Keynesian nutjob-economy theorists who tell you whatever you want to hear all the time (and nothing but) DOESN’T make them the best economists around.  The Keynesian-theory has been discredited by years of analysis. What makes me laugh the most is that its biggest supporters are critics of supply-side economics because they say “trick-down economics” don’t work. Ummm, riddle me this – what the FUCK do you think govt. spending is then – are you saying that’s NOT a form of trickle down?  Don’t be fooled. The Keynesian economics that Obama is peddling is taking money out of the economy (or from your pocket either by taxes or by your employer collecting taxes from your paycheck) and then using that revenue pool to then distribute money how they see fit – money from the top getting dispersed downward. If it was really a bottom-up policy you’d want to give the people at the bottom (taxpayers) directly more money in their pocket first, not take money from them and trickle it down through pork projects to your party’s biggest industry supporters/contributors. So, how do you implement a bottom-up impact immediately…drum roooooooooooll: a tax cut. Not a tax credit. A TAX CUT.

There’s a book I’m reading by Henry Hazlitt called Economics in One Lesson. It’s a great book. It doesn’t even talk about political parties. It just breaks things down to the simplest formula when it comes to economic policy. Perhaps I should send Barry my copy - I think he needs it more than me. Hazlitt states that good economists look looks beyond the immediate effect. Bad economists look just at the immediate effect. So when Barry is just preeeeachin’ away about the immediate affect, and refuses to answer questions about tax increases, lack of capital, and the weak prospectus of job creation as a result of the porkulus I think that would qualify his “best economists around” as bad economists according to Hazlitt. Hazlitt’s book is fascinating and a real eye-opener. If you’ve never heard of the broken window fallacy, click here for an excerpt- it’ll put in reality how the govt.’s “job creation” isn’t really creation of production at all. Hazlitt’s book helps break it down how truly govt. spending or “public works” actually mean taxes and taxes discourage production as well as capital growth. Here’s one excerpt from the book that I think rings true to this situation of crazy govt. spending (ie, using more taxpayer money):

It (they group proposing govt. spending programs) sees the people into whose hands the capital is put; it forgets those who would otherwise have it. It sees the project to which capital is granted; it forgets the projects from which capital is thereby withheld. It sees the immediate benefit to only one group; it overlooks the losses to the other group, and the net loss to the community as a whole.

If you don’t have time to read Hazlitt’s book, in the meantime the Cato Institute also breaks it down so that a teenager could understand it.  Watch it:

Ultimately, I’m loving this. It’s meltdown, finger wagging, and preacher-voicin’-mania this week.