Our local newspaper ran a story recently with the headline Republicans go on spending-cut spree.

My, what an interesting choice of words. During the massive “stimulus” spending, I never once saw a headline in our newspaper accusing Democrats of going on a “spending spree” — which they clearly were.  (Bias? What bias? We don’t see any bias.)

The opening paragraph of the article continues in the same tone:

In a rare, freewheeling marathon of spending cuts, GOP leaders in the House threw open the doors to the federal budget, and lawmakers careened from debates on fighter jet engines to wild horses as they tried to bore through an expanding mound of amendments that had grown to 600 so far.

Freewheeling, throwing open doors, careening, boring through mounds … call me crazy, but I get the distinct feeling the reporter doesn’t approve of cutting the federal budget. The language makes the GOP lawmakers sound like a bunch of drunks at a  frat party. (Bias? What bias? We don’t see any bias.)  Because as we all know, that’s what out-of-control people do:  reduce their debts. Once they come to their senses, they go back to spending money they don’t have.

Deeper into the article, we learn the extent of the wild and crazy spending-cut spree: $61 billion. That’s within a budget projected at more than $3.7 trillion. In other words, we’re talking about cuts totaling about 1.6%.

I tell ya, the next time I get plastered, I’m going to open my Microsoft Money program and reduce our household spending by $82 per month. If I got really hammered, I could even end up canceling HBO — if not for the fact that it’s considered an entitlement.

Speaking of which, one of the points the reporter apparently wanted to make is that all this budget-cutting won’t accomplish much anyway, since most of the budget is dedicated to entitlement programs:

Even if Congress eliminated all of the nation’s non-defense, discretionary spending and de-funded domestic Cabinet departments, it would only save about $500 billion, leaving an operating deficit this year of $1 trillion.

Well, there you have it, then. If a reduction of $500 billion won’t eliminate the deficit, there’s certainly no point in cutting $61 billion. May as well just keep spending.

No, wait … let me think about this for a moment …. We’re already in deep in debt, so we may as well keep buying everything we want … who thinks like that? It’s on the tip of my tongue … oh, right! Drunks think like that. Addicts think like that. People who end up broke and desperate and perhaps finally going to Debtors Anonymous meetings think like that. You know, the kind of people who go on spending sprees.

If you read enough media articles about the federal budget, you’d think the $1 trillion “non-discretionary” part of the deficit just sort of happened. Nobody’s fault, you see. We woke up one morning, and there it was, chewing away at our bank accounts.

That is, of course, utter nonsense. There’s no such thing as “non-discretionary” spending. We’re facing trillions in unfunded liabilities for exactly one reason:  during the past 80 years, legislators kept deciding Americans are “entitled” to federal goodies their grandparents somehow managed to live without. Congress could reduce or eliminate those programs. They just won’t.

But trust me, someday those programs will be gone. When the bubble finally bursts, when the economy is finally crushed, when the Chinese finally stop buying our bonds, when the federal government finally defaults on its massive debts, the 80-year spending spree will have to come to an end. We can’t consume wealth we aren’t actually producing forever.

That’s when the goofs in the media will finally (I hope) wake up and realize who the wild, freewheeling, crazy lawmakers really were.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Share/Bookmark
20 Responses to “A Spending-Cut “Spree” … ?”
  1. Elenor says:

    Evening Tom,

    Typo: “Even if Congress eliminated all of the nation’s non-defense, discretionary spending and de-funded domestic Cabinet departments, it would only save about $500, leaving an operating deficit this year of $1 trillion.”

    only $500 or only $500 billion?

    Woops.

  2. Bruce says:

    We can’t be out of money, we still have checks!

  3. TonyNZ says:

    This is why I’m glad we have a right leaning government down here. They’re currently trying to lower spending by targeting entitlement type expenses, but man is there some bleating about it. The way I look at it, before the economic crisis, our economy was closest to the likes of Greece ( sunk ) , Portugal ( sunk ) and Ireland ( sunk ) . I guess we are out of our minds for not jumping on the down the gurgler bandwagon. And at least now there night be a bit go the kitty to clean up the mess that earthquake caused. Fortunately all of my family and close friends are well ( if not necessarily still having a functional house and/ or workplace ) . Hope all the kiwis that frequent your blogs are well. Excuse the mono paragraph, I’m posting from my phone and haven’t worked out how to line space.

    I was wondering if any of the regular readers from NZ were hurt. That must’ve been a helluva earthquake.

  4. Phil Bennett says:

    Yup, personal responsibility sure sucks don’t it? If the governments decided that they would run solely on the revenue from tax receipts, like most of us have to do every month, it would change a lot of things overnight.

    Indeed. Hard to believe this was once a creditor nation.

  5. Dave Fish says:

    The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money. – Alexis de Tocqueville

    Obviously they figured that out a long time ago. Maybe his quote should be amended to add “that doesn’t actually exist”.

    That’s why I fear for the future.

  6. Be says:

    You hit the nail on the head.

    As long as we defy the consensus of the free market and insist on the consensus of our government for EVERYTHING we are indeed doomed. Think about it. they must save you from yourself, save you from big bad private enterprise, regulate your diet, stomp on small farmers while allowing Monsanto to corrupt our food supply, “educate” your children, regulate your bedroom, approve of drugs that kill us, and frankly rule and approve of EVERYTHING you do or are. We (the market) are too stupid to decide for ourselves – poor stupid little people need protection from themselves.

    Our “democratic republic” really has become a mask for mob rule. As long as the majority does not have everything a small majority has the mob will keep voting for “entitlements”. It is all political hot air until someone wants to talk about entitlement but the two party system will never do that. While we shouldn’t ignore the small stuff, we won’t fix this until we can make some tough decisions about entitlements. Even a suicidal beatnik hippie know that freedom isn’t free.

    Sorry- I’ll get off the soapbox now. ;)

    No apologies necessary. It was a good soapbox speech.

  7. Paul says:

    Tom,

    I have to take the other side on this. The cuts that are being proposed are job killers. It’s not the thing that is needed right now. I know you’ll say “if not now when?”, but the extended unemployment will only prolong the time that tax revenues will remain stagnant. The point that I know you aren’t touching on is the fact that I currently have more money in my pocket than multi-billion dollar corporations pay in taxes due to a republican attitude of playing santa claus to businesses and banks even in the face of keeping the necessary parts of our government funded. Tell me again where the jobs are even though those tax cuts have been in place for a decade? I think priority should be given to keeping people employed which is very stimulative vs financing more tax cuts for corporations which doesn’t seem to pay off very well at all for main street makes more sense, even in a common way :)
    I like the idea of following the money you yourself heralded in Fathead. If you apply the same idea to corporate oligarchy as you do to government bureaucracy you might find some interesting parallels. I’ll finish with a joke.

    A CEO, a tea party member and a union worker are seated at a table with a dozen cookies on a plate in the middle. The CEO grabs and devours 11 of the cookies and with a crumb filled mouth tells the tea party member that he needs to make sure the union guy doesn’t try to get piece of his cookie.

    Governments can’t create jobs. They can only transfer jobs from one sector of the economy to another, or from one generation to another. When my kids pay the taxes to support all this massive spending, that’s money they won’t be able to spend to support businesses and therefore jobs. So we’re making things worse for future generations because we don’t to feel the “the pain” of our own decisions now. That’s immoral in my book.

    There’s no magic in government spending, only the ability to divert spending from what I choose to what the government chooses.

    Cute joke, but it has nothing to do with reality. In reality, there are a dozen cookies on the table which never would’ve existed in the first place if the CEO’s company hadn’t created them. The union worker, of course, believes the cookies just appeared by magic or (if he’s never read a book on economics) perhaps even believes the cookies only exist because of unions. The waiter then comes by to announce that Uncle Sam is going to take half of the cookies, and the tea party member says, “Enough already. Tell Uncle Sam he’s taken enough of our cookies over the years.” Then the waiter calls the tea party member a racist for no apparent reason.

    By the way, after years of massive “stimulus” spending during the Depression, unemployment shot up. Unemployment by then was far higher in the U.S. than in countries that didn’t try to spend their way out of it. FDR’s own treasury secretary, Henry Morganthau, gave an impassioned speech to his fellow Democrats in which he said they’d tried to spend their way out of the Depression, but it clearly didn’t work. His fellow Democrats really didn’t give a rat’s ass by that point. Federal spending is about power and rewarding your loyal voters so they remain loyal. It has nothing to do with improving the economy — unless of course you can explain how taking my money and giving it to nut-job group like ACORN makes the economy stronger.

    • Paul says:

      Governments can’t create jobs. They can only transfer jobs from one sector of the economy to another, or from one generation to another. When my kids pay the taxes to support all this massive spending, that’s money they won’t be able to spend to support businesses and therefore jobs. So we’re making things worse for future generations because we don’t to feel the “the pain” of our own decisions now. That’s immoral in my book.
      There’s no magic in government spending, only the ability to divert spending from what I choose to what the government chooses.

      For someone who values common sense, you have a funny way of showing it. This makes no sense at all. The government has great power in the creation of jobs. It accounts for 65% of GDP in the form of contracts for goods and services. From fighter jets to paper clips, government is a huge customer for stuff. Immorality has nothing to do with this argument. Reagan said deficits don’t matter. Maybe he should have clarified that deficits don’t matter when conservatives(bit of a contradiction) are in power. For the past 30 years, conservatives have been steadily giving away the farm in the guise of tax breaks for corporations(this is a generic term used to describe lots of big money entities). This is the Santa Claus reference in my original post. Is it immoral for us to do this and blame “entitlement” programs for the cost? Tax cuts are supposed to have a benefit to all taxpayers because it is the entire pool of money that gets diminished as a result. Since it appears you don’t live under a rock, you may have heard of the term corporate welfare before. Why are the corporate welfare queens less to blame for the short-comings of our budget crisis? How has main street benefited from giving more of what used to be tax revenue to companies that export jobs? I’m pretty sure we used to manufacture things here in the U.S., but that seems conspicuously passe in terms of profit margins. This is where the question of morality enters the equation. I know you are a smart fellow, but I need to know if you understand that capitalism is not a system of governing, but rather the way we do business? I would also like to know if you think pure capitalism is completely self-regulating? Perhaps I don’t understand what kind of massive spending you are referring to, but as you have not mentioned closing loopholes in tax law or letting tax breaks expire I assume these are not ideologically negotiable. All things being equal, you want to characterize all governments spending as bad when that is not true. If you enjoy roads, safe food (relatively anyway), clean air and water, national defense, national forests, etc… you have a dog in this show. Simultaneously you want to characterize that if government would just leave everyone alone and not bother them with all of these pesky regulations, that our country would become that shining city on the hill. Well, I call bullcrap on that.

      Cute joke, but it has nothing to do with reality. In reality, there are a dozen cookies on the table which never would’ve existed in the first place if the CEO’s company hadn’t created them. The union worker, of course, believes the cookies just appeared by magic or (if he’s never read a book on economics) perhaps even believes the cookies only exist because of unions. The waiter then comes by to announce that Uncle Sam is going to take half of the cookies, and the tea party member says, “Enough already. Tell Uncle Sam he’s taken enough of our cookies over the years.” Then the waiter calls the tea party member a racist for no apparent reason.

      Again, I find your logic faulty. Do CEO’s make the cookies or does labor? Is a union required to make the cookies, no, but if not for the efforts of collective bargaining, would there be a middle class that is economically empowered enough to be able to negotiate wages to the point where cookies (a luxury item to be sure) could be purchased? This is a chicken/egg argument. Neither side would enjoy the level of success that they have without the other. It is in that area that the equation no longer makes sense. Since the US has become primarily a “Service Economy” meaning we wash each others cars in essence to make the small green pieces of paper move adequately enough to infer economic activity, our overseas competitors have been eating our lunch when it comes to creating jobs that pay well enough to afford luxury items like food, shelter and healthcare. At the same time, the concentration of wealth to the upper 5% has been staggering. I know you’ve probably seen the pie charts that show the distribution of wealth in this country, but have you ever thought about what they mean? The top 5% actually make 62% of all the money while also owning 72% of all the wealth. What I would like to know, is if you think that this concentration of wealth is moral from the perspective of “Is there a way for one person to perform enough work to earn say $100,000 dollars an hour” or is this more than likely a systematic way of extracting money from the labors of hundreds of thousands of actual laborers?
      Regarding your claim about tea party members being racist, I have no comment. Only an individual can know if they are motivated by differences in race.

      By the way, after years of massive “stimulus” spending during the Depression, unemployment shot up. Unemployment by then was far higher in the U.S. than in countries that didn’t try to spend their way out of it. FDR’s own treasury secretary, Henry Morganthau, gave an impassioned speech to his fellow Democrats in which he said they’d tried to spend their way out of the Depression, but it clearly didn’t work. His fellow Democrats really didn’t give a rat’s ass by that point. Federal spending is about power and rewarding your loyal voters so they remain loyal. It has nothing to do with improving the economy — unless of course you can explain how taking my money and giving it to nut-job group like ACORN makes the economy stronger.

      So you are saying that the governments programs of putting people to work so they could earn money to buy stuff had no effect on getting the country out of the Depression? Pardon me if this may sound a little revisionist on your part. How is it do you suppose we got out of the Depression if not for improving economic activity through job creation? Don’t say it was the war. If anything, the war would represent an even greater illustration of methods used to spend your way out of a Depression.

      Paul, governments can’t create jobs, period. Ask yourself, honestly, if you believe they can because you’ve studied economics (as I have) and know it to be true, or if you believe it because you want it to be true. The fact that government is a customer for many companies doesn’t mean it’s creating jobs. To pay for what it buys, government takes money from you and me. That’s money we DON’T HAVE to spend on other products and thus create or support other jobs. You can see the jobs the government “creates” but you don’t see the jobs that are lost or never created by the government taking away your income, and thus your ability to buy — or hire somebody.

      If government spending is such a wonderful job-creation program, why did unemployment spike after eight years of FDR’s massive spending? (And have you ever asked yourself why The Great Depression — the first recession “treated” with government taxes and spending — was also the first to last more than a few years at most?) Why did his own treasury secretary admit government spending doesn’t work?

      The Depression ended because Roosevelt realized he needed American Industry to produce weapons to win the war, so he canceled many of his New Deal restrictions on business. After the war, the rest of the world’s productive capacity had been blown up, while ours had grown.

      If you believe I’m in favor of deficits or corporate welfare, you haven’t read enough of my posts. If you believe the rich have gotten richer while others have gotten poorer as a result, or that unions created the middle class, or that a service economy is bad, or that the U.S. doesn’t still have a large manufacturing sector, you are seriously mistaken. Your opinions about economics are passionate but not informed, a perfect example of something economist Murray Rothbard once wrote:

      “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is after all a specialized discipline and one that most people consider a dismal science. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

      Very much like the people who insist that cholesterol is bad because by gosh they just KNOW it’s bad, and other people have told them it’s bad, and they don’t need to look at the actual evidence because they KNOW it’s true.

      If you want to believe what you believe about the wonderful benefits of high taxes and massive goverment spending and the evils of corporations and CEOs and tax cuts, no problem. You’re entitled. If, on the other hand, you’d like to actually learn something about economics and base your opinions on knowledge instead of emotions, there are a lot of good books on the topic. Anything by Thomas Sowell would be a good start.

    • Doug says:

      The union worker baked the cookies, and had to spend half the time he could have been baking to argue with the CEO to get a living wage. The CEO ate none of the cookies, but sent the proceeds from the sale of the cookies to a Swiss bank. The tea party member got mad and threw something and said something rude and inaccurate about the Union Worker, and the CEO petted him and threw him a bone.

  8. Paul says:

    Unemployment spiked after 8 years, because Roosevelt listened to the Republicans and veered away from what was working. He started cutting spending and viola, instant recession. The economy wasn’t quite ready to stand on its own feet yet. As far as canceling new deal restrictions, the war made that moot. There were war profiteering laws keeping industry in check. Wonder why we didn’t think of that for Iraq and Afghanistan?
    Corporations and individuals among the top 5 percent have demonstrably gotten way fatter. Stewart Smalley said it best “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.” This is class warfare pure and simple. You just keep telling yourself it’s the welfare queens buying lobster with foodstamps and driving around in Cadillacs, but it just isn’t the case. I believe as much as the next guy that working hard gets you ahead. No one ever gave me anything, but I am part of a nation and within that nation is the commons. We are supposed to be inclined to take care of each other AND ourselves. I want the uninformed public to stop laying this economic disaster at the feet of labor and wake up to the fact that foxes have set up shop in the hen house. If 62 cents of every dollar ends up in the hands of the top 5% of the population, that means something is very wrong. Bottom line is you’ve let yourself be convinced that cholesterol is bad for you and you don’t even know it. Ask your gut. You know I’m right.
    If you want to learn something about the economic strategies being employed to avoid paying a fair share of tax by corporations and the wealthy, try “Perfectly Legal” bye David Cay Johnston

    Yes, Paul, you’re clearly correct. The only thing that keeps an economy afloat and people working is massive government spending. Cut how much the government decides to tax and spend on my behalf, and the economy will crash. All hail the mightly and benevolent wise ones in government who create jobs by taking wealth from citizens and spending it for them. If only FDR’s treasury secretary had shared your deep understanding of economics before making his speech about how government spending doesn’t create jobs, he could’ve avoided embarrassing himself by thinking he actually understood what he was talking about. He just didn’t grasp that when a country is still in the worst recession ever after six years of massive government spending, what it actually proves is that the spending is “working.”

    And of course you’re also correct that if my neighbor’s income goes up by $1 million and mine only goes up by $30,000, then I must be a lot worse off because he now has a bigger share of the overall pie than I do. I mean, it’s just NOT FAIR that he should do so gosh darned well. Every time someone else becomes wealthy, it must’ve somehow come out of my pocket.

    Enjoy your continued economic illiteracy, since you are obviously determined to hang onto it. Don’t risk blowing a mental gasket by reading, say, a book on economics or a book on what actually happened during The Great Depression.

  9. Paul says:

    Wow, I must have hit a nerve. Must have scared you a little because now your just ranting in talking points.

    Of course there is a much bigger picture that evidently you just aren’t ready for yet.

    Enjoy the infrastructure. It’s on me.

    “Your” not ranting. It’s “you’re” ranting. “You’re” means “you are.” “Your” means “belongs to you.” But of course I don’t expect you to take my word for it. I presume you consider yourself an expert in grammar as well as in economics.

    Yes, you struck a nerve. And yes, I’m scared. Rampant ignorance about basic economics among the voting population always strikes a nerve and always scares me, because the ignoramuses vote for politicians who promise to create jobs by spending a trillion dollars in borrowed money. Then my kids get to pay the bill, plus interest.

    Your insistence that governments can magically create jobs reminds me of a guy who tried to tell my physics professor that we should build cars with generators attached to the wheels so they’d charge up a big ol’ battery. Then we’d never need gas. He literally couldn’t gasp the professor’s explanation of why that can’t possibly work. But of course, then didn’t stop him from insisting that it could. It’s what’s known as the Dunning-Kruger effect: people who aren’t capable of grasping certain concepts literally can’t be convinced they’re wrong, even when they clearly are. It’s like trying to convince someone who’s tone-deaf that he’s singing off-key. He won’t believe you, because he doesn’t have the musical ability to know he’s off-key.

    You’re tone-deaf on economics, and I’d wager you’ve never read a book on the topic. You certainly don’t grasp some very basic concepts, such as the fact that when governments take taxpayer money to “create” jobs, they simply remove the taxpayers’ ability to spend the money themselves and thus create or support other jobs. That’s econ 101. Can’t get any simpler than that, and yet you refuse to (or simply can’t) grasp it.

    Given what I pay in taxes, I’m pretty sure you’re not treating me to any infrastructure. In fact, since the top 20% of income earners pay 70% of all federal taxes (and I’m going to assume you’re not in that group, given your obvious resentment of wealthy people), it’s more likely someone else is treating you.

    • Your Older Brother says:

      Wow! Who knew Paul Krugman reads your blog!

      Of course, you can read books and be completely ignorant of economics. Especially if you major in it. Krugman got a Nobel for being so stupid. He insists the government just hasn’t spent enough money to really get things going again. Bernanke went to Harvard and MIT, Greenspan got a PhD from NYU. That’s worked out pretty well. Other than the whole internet bubble, housing bubble, banking bubble, and — coming soon to a country near you — the dollar bubble.

      If a person’s read Marx, Keynes, Krugman, Robert Reisch, etc. they could’ve read lots of books and still sound just like Paul here. Kind of like getting an advanced degree in nutrition so you can tell people they need lots of good carbs to control their diabetes.

      What cracks me up is people like Paul never seem to notice that the obscene rise of Wall Street and Big Business, and the growing gap between the well off and the just-scraping-by always and everywhere corresponds to the growth of government. Given the choice, I don’t think Paul would’ve reached into his own pocket to bail out Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, etc. But that choice got made for him, didn’t it?

      Sucker.

      Sorry, that’s not nice. But it’s ok — he can’t hear us.

      Cheers!

      Paul’s too busy buying my infrastructure for me to worry about how big government creates the big income gaps.

      • Anon. says:

        Yea – especially if all the economic literature that’s been read is Keynesian which can’t explain accurately any event in American economic history. Only the Austrian theory triumphs in that respect. Keynesian is Krugman’s beloved economic theory which argues that we need a central bank to ‘manage’ the money supply. Tom, have you, by the way, heard of the Krugman-Murphy debate? Robert Murphy, an Austrian economist, challenged Krugman to a debate over Keynesian vs. Austrian economics.

    • D Stanek says:

      Paul appears to be a product of our wonderful education system. Gee, if governments are what drive the economy, the Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba, etc. must have had powerhouse economies.

      Obviously Thomas Sowell has nothing on the deep thinker Stuart Smalley.

      Yup, the communist bloc clearly succeeded by creating a job for everyone.

  10. We have one guy in the Senate, and one guy in the Congress, who can truly tackle this problem. Both of them have the last name of Paul. The names are Rand and Ron.

    Everyone else……..I just don’t think can “cut” it.

  11. Kate says:

    Do not let Congress clean your house. They’ll dust your TV and leave the large pile of dog poo in the middle of the living room and say it’s all finished.

  12. Don says:

    Great commentary, Tom. Top notch!

  13. Pat says:

    I’m jumping in to this late, but I just wanted to mention that another good book in the category “intro-to-basic-economics-that-runs-counter-to-the-conventional-wisdom-on-economics” is Tim Harford’s The Undercover Economist.

    That’s a new one on me. I’ll look for it.

  14. Javin says:

    So I realize that this debate is already dead, but I just had to add my two cents (sorry if someone’s already said this, but I hit the “TLDR” part about halfway through. Seems “Paul” likes to use a lot of big words and phrases, but he doesn’t actually seem to know what they mean.

    “The government has great power in the creation of jobs. It accounts for 65% of GDP in the form of contracts for goods and services. From fighter jets to paper clips, government is a huge customer for stuff.”

    While this statement is in fact TRUE on the surface, you’re completely oblivious to the bigger picture here, Paul. The government has not actually CREATED jobs in so much as they’ve simply DIVERTED jobs.

    By taking my money from me, they have chosen to spend my money in whatever way they see fit (jets, to paperclips, to chinese hookers, to turtle tunnels, etc.) Yes, they’ve created these jobs.

    The problem is, are these jobs actually DOING anything for the economy? Just by the very nature, government created jobs (and I know, as I’ve been in government for about 24 years) tend to be either short-term job solutions, or long-term though pointless jobs.

    Now what’s the most important point here, is that by taking MY money to create these jobs, *I* now can no longer afford a new car. I can’t afford to go out to eat, and I can’t afford to buy new video games. Thus, the consumer market that SHOULD be capable of sustaining itself has collapsed. This is what Tom means when he says the government can only DIVERT jobs. Money means jobs. Period. If the government has the money, the government decides what jobs are available. If the consumer has the money, the consumer decides what jobs are available. Instead, companies go out of business (unemployment rises) and these people are now forced to find other jobs: specifically, the government jobs that have just been created by taking their jobs away.

    Boat sales plummet, video game companies go belly up, restaurants fail, and worst of all (in my book) people are forced to turn to major corporations (Wal-Mart) instead of being able to afford to shop at the local mom and pop shops. When they have to cut corners on their budget, the day-to-day spending is the first to see the chop. I’ve seen this first-hand just over the past few years. People I work with that swore they would never shop at a Wal-Mart because their local farmer’s goods were so much better now brag about the prices they were able to find at the Super Wal-Mart that was recently built. The local farmer had to increase his prices (due to his own tax hikes) and the consumer had to lower their budget (for the same reason.) The only winners in a taxed economy are the very corporations that are “too big to fail” meaning that when THEY mess up, more of our tax dollars are again funneled to them to keep them afloat.

    The entire system is screwed. I honestly think we’re too far past a repair point, and it’s time for our generation’s revolution.

    Well said.

  15. Mike says:

    I always find it interesting when I read blog articles by people like you who don’t seem to have the the same problems with things like this:

    - http://costofwar.com/en/

    - The crash of 2008 and who and what was behind it : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzrBurlJUNk

    - A huge give away to the pharmacy industry in the form of Medicare Part D.

    - Huge tax decreases for the wealthy that have helped to create this: http://on.fb.me/fNBTNI

    You clearly feel comfortable defending the status quo. Or I should say the status quo that, for the most part, large companies enjoy and want to defend. More power to you! You are clearly an intelligent and nice guy. But I just wonder if yourself as a defender of the powerful? The status quo? You and most conservatives like you remind me of that toadie in “Christmas Story”. Remember? The little kid that followed the bully around. The wing man of the bully :) Here’s a tip for you. The industries and groups you defend really don’t need your help LOL.

    Mikey, let me ask you a serious question: are you a moron? Pretty please, go back through my posts and point out the ones where I support the prescription drug benefit (I’m opposed), U.S. wars in the Middle East (I’m opposed), or Wall Street (playing games with securities based on doomed mortgages that only existed because of do-gooder government intervention in the housing market — and most of the big-name firms are run by Democrats, which you apparently haven’t noticed).

    In case your status as a left-wing moron has prevented you from figuring it out, I’m very much against big, intrusive, unconstitutional government, and I don’t care which party is pushing it. I don’t defend industries or groups. I defend individual freedom. And Mikey Moron, if you’re actually against the status quo, why the @#$% are you opposed to cuts in the government budget? Who do you think is getting rich off all the debt we’re piling up? (Here’s a hint, Mikey Moron: big banking firms.) Every time we jack up the debt and print trillions of new dollars to cover it, we make another few million for the Morgans and Rockefellers while everyone farther down on the food chain sees his savings lose value.

    Yeah, I’m a big defender of the status quo … moron.

  16.  
Leave a Reply