Note Well:
This blog is intended for rational audiences. Its contents are the personal opinions of its author. If you quote from this blog, which you
may do with attribution, please assume personal accountability for any consequences of mischaracterizing these expressed intentions.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Let's Cut the Crap (Sandwich)

{link » The Stimulus Tragedy: Obama bets that we can spend our way to prosperity}
“So there it is: Mr. Obama is now endorsing a sort of reductionist Keynesianism that argues that any government spending is an economic stimulus. This is so manifestly false that we doubt Mr. Obama really believes it. He has to know that it matters what the government spends the money on, as well as how it is financed. A dollar doled out in jobless benefits may well be spent by the worker who receives it. That $1 of spending will count as economic activity and add to GDP.

But that same dollar can't be conjured out of thin air. The government has to take that dollar away from someone else -- either in higher taxes, or by issuing new debt in the form of a bond. The person who is taxed or buys the bond will have $1 less to spend. If the beneficiary of that $1 spends it on something less productive than the taxed American or the lender would have, then the net impact on growth will be negative.

Some Democrats claim these transfer payments are stimulating because they go mainly to poor people, who immediately spend the money. Tax cuts for business or for incomes across the board won't work, they add, because those tax cuts go disproportionately to ‘the rich,’ who will save the money. But a saved $1 doesn't vanish from the economy, unless it is stuffed into a mattress. It enters the financial system, where it is lent to others; or it is invested in the stock market as capital for businesses; or it is invested in entirely new businesses, which are the real drivers of job creation and prosperity.

Yet Mr. Obama, on Thursday, dismissed any such tax cuts as ‘the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis.’ That's rhetoric for a campaign, not for a President hoping to rally bipartisan support.”
 [emphasis added]
 — WSJ Opinion Journal
Can we please dispense with the "niceties" of political correctness in our sojourn on the "brink of disaster"? Can we make an honest effort before we revert to "business as usual"? How about some of that "change" we were hoping for? If not now, when?

Let's call a spade a spade (no, that's not a racial slur, you moron; it's an American idiom). Stop the incessant hyperbole (or, at least, pause it). Pause the bullshit. Cut the crap — we've had a hard day. Let's not turn it into a hard decade.

Our economy is complicated enough. Rhetoric, spin, political correctness, stone-walling, cherry-picking, ranting, hyperbole, and, most especially, demagoguery are all euphemisms. For lying.

If you don't know what you're talking about (yes, you, Ms. Speaker), then shut the f*ck up. If you do know what you're talking about, by all means speak to us; in plain English.

But it is not enough just to explain your own point of view. You also need to explain why you think that the guy who disagrees with you is wrong! Arguing orthogonally is not helpful. And make no mistake: we need help. A lot of help.

No comments:

Post a Comment