I love a good rant


She’s a pistol:

And see, THIS is why Americans have become so stubborn on the issue of tax increases on anyone. They want the debt and budget dealt with, and “tax increases on the wealthy” are always sold as being a way to do that (even if it’s only a drop in the bucket.)

But we know they won’t be used for that. They NEVER are. The minute you give DC a nice little pot of extra money, they refuse to pay down the credit card, but instead find something new to spend it on.

Obama’s new ad admits it. The Buffet Rule, sold to the public as a debt-reducer, suddenly needs to be passed so Obama can spend it on a “jobs” stimulus. If every time I gave someone a check to go pay the mortgage they instead came home with a new stereo, eventually I’d reach the point where I’M NOT HANDING YOU ANY MORE FUCKING CHECKS. And DO NOT then whine to me that I’m the one who doesn’t care about the mortgage. Because you are full of shit.

I’m really tired of being continually told by a repeatedly untrustworthy entity that the fact that I don’t trust them is my failing and there is something wrong with me. Fuck you.

I’ve said many times before that I believe in Keynesian economics. During tough economic times the government can keep the economy moving by using deficit spending to stimulate it. But two key points: The loan must eventually be paid back and the money must be spent in ways that actually, you know, stimulate.

There is an old saying that “Politics is the art of the possible.” In early 2009 a stimulus was possible. But Obama and the Democrats screwed it up. They ignored the experts and passed one that wasn’t big enough, then spent the money in the wrong places. We would be a lot better off if they just handed out $1000 checks every month to every unemployed adult in the country.

Those people would have paid rent and bought groceries and other necessities. The money flowing into stores would have gone to pay workers and buy new products to sell. This would have created all kinds of new jobs in a ripple effect. Eventually the 1%ers would get it, but not until it passed thru a lot of other hands.

Obama and the Democrats basically just gave it directly to the 1%ers. Not only did it not stimulate the economy, they managed in the process to discredit Keynes theory. Now the voters (who are on the hook to pay the money back) aren’t willing to float another big loan.

They are willing to deal with some austerity. Most of them understand doing without. You can talk until you are blue in the face about how the federal budget isn’t like a household budget. You can tell them that austerity will delay the recovery. They still aren’t giving any more money to someone who spends like a crackhead with a stolen credit card.

Don’t blame me, I voted for Hillary.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Economy and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

69 Responses to I love a good rant

  1. Lulu says:

    In an article about Corey Booker being punished by the WH (he will not be the Sec of Housing in a second term!) the article ends with Big Dog apologizing for telling the truth by telling the truth and turning the knife. ““I’m very sorry about what happened,” the former president told CNN. “I thought something had to be done on the “fiscal cliff’ before the election. Apparently nothing has to be done until the first of the year.”

  2. DeniseVB says:

    As always, great rant wmcb !

    Oh look preezy’s having a campaign press conference! Picked a girl reporter first and he’s taking forever to answer her question. WTF is he talking about?

  3. cj says:

    Well done WMCB! As usual. 🙂

  4. All of the above makes sense. I instinctively understood all those years ago that “trickle down economics” is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. Trickle down? I don’t think so- the people end up begging for a drop or two.
    People work. Get paid. Pay bills, buy necessities, pay a babysitter so they can go out to dinner. The cooks, servers and bus persons all get paid. The babysitter gets paid. Said teenage babysitter takes that money and goes to a movie, or buys a new CD etc. The restaurant staff pays their bills, buy their necessities and maybe spend a few bucks at the movies or the mall.
    The Franchise owners of the movies, the stores, the malls make money. They pay their bills, including sending money up the chain in franchise fees.
    Why is it so easy for us to understand but these supposedly most smahtest evah! “leaders” don’t get it?
    They should have all gone to the school of hard knocks to learn the really important things.

  5. HELENK says:


    why does backtrack oppose investigation into national security leaks???

    • Lulu says:

      They don’t have time with the election and stuff. Mittens will have more time next year to do it.

    • Oswald says:

      Something to hide?

    • DeniseVB says:

      He was just asked, and said he was offended anyone would think the WH intentionally leaked classified information, yada, yada, yada……

      and the presser is over…..

      • HELENK says:

        he is offended???????? tough sh-t, how about the doctor doing 33 years, how about Israel who has to live with the threat of an iranian bomb on it’s doorstep, how about the agent who put is life on the line and was outed?????
        How about the American people who will not have help from other countries when we need it to get information because of the lack of trust???????

        I think they are a little bit more than offended

  6. votermom says:

    It’s like thatMonty Python skit: It’s just a flesh wound!

    • cj says:

      Will be featured in new Romney ad in 3…2…1

      I don’t know what they hoped to prove by putting him out there today. That presser did absolutely nothing to instill confidence in his “leadership” If anything, he looked like someone miscalculated the dose of his sedatives.

  7. threewickets says:

    The stimulus and subsequent payroll tax cuts didn’t go to the 1%, but the trillions in Fed easing has gone to the 1% and most of it hasn’t tricked down. When the money doesn’t trickle down (as hiring and wages and tax breaks) to people who actually spend it, there is no translation to market demand, and without demand businesses don’t grow, and the cycle continues. Investors at the top are doing fine because the Fed is essentially feeding them free money, but the general economy is so weak that real treasury yields are negative…means market is willing to *actually pay* the federal government to refinance its debt. Why wouldn’t the government take the opportunity to lower its debt and stimulate at the same time…at least until the private sector gets over its shell shock, stops spending all its time gambling at the financial casinos, and begins to invest in people and the real economy. Deflation is good for wealth hoarders, horrible for the general economy and population. Everything freezes up.

  8. Pips says:

    (Heheheh. Sneaky-smart way to make WMCB a FrontPager. Regardless. 😉 )

  9. jeffhas says:

    OK – if Obama wins the least McCaskill can do is lose:

    “Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill’s three leading Republican challengers all now earn 50% or more of the vote in matchups with her.”

    I won’t even let myself believe in the fantasy of both of them happening at the same time.

    If she loses her job, will she blame her kids?

    Don’t worry Claire – you’ll still be a statistic.

  10. HELENK says:


    all backtrack has left is hollywood

  11. HELENK says:

    Romney: Obama’s economic view is ‘defining what it means to be detached and out of touch’ – @AP

  12. Lola-at-Large says:

    Keynesian economics only work with trustworthy people in charge. We haven’t had that in a long time–Clinton was the last to attempt to pay down debt incurred in troubled times and he was the only president since BEFORE FDR (the birth of Keynesian economics, ftr) to do so. Keynesian economics was thus discredited long before Obama came along. Americans just hit their bullshit limit with him.

    But our problems are much bigger than this. We have a bloated budget that prioritizes the stupid over the helpful and useful. We’re gonna have to kill some precious budget babies before we will be able to force Congress & the president to re-prioritize top to bottom. We have a lot of babies to choose from: military, national security apparatus outside the military, real entitlements like TANF & Medicaid, so-called entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, and more.

    I prefer to focus on the military/national security apparatus, although I’d entertain the idea of dealing with TANF especially because welfare is a sexist mess in this country that holds women down and back. I could stand a restructuring of Medicaid, especially if all the government health care programs were combined and transformed into a sort of public option we can all buy into. I can’t countenance any elimination of SS and Medicare, though, because people paid directly for that already. I could live with locking the social security box that Congress raids every year, even though that would mean immediate austerity. I’m not afraid of austerity. It’s been a lifestyle for me since I was born.

    And I don’t buy the argument that the national budget is unlike a household budget because the government can print money. Households can print money too (counterfeiting is HUGE), or they can steal what they want/need, which is the exact same thing. If it’s true that governments are different because they can print money, then we are all on the B Ark to Golgafrincham. The absurdity of such arguments….continues to frustrate me. Let’s just grab some leaves and call that currency.


    • WMCB says:


      • Lola-at-Large says:

        Your rant was damn righteous, WMCB.

        • catarina says:

          so was yours.

          bumper sticker material, or maybe a large lawn sign I could just point to so I don’t have to keep saying it:

          Keynesian economics only work with trustworthy people in charge

        • Lola-at-Large says:

          *blushes* Thank you. 🙂

    • Indeed- we need some reform- and I for one would give National Security Issues a good hard look. FCS isn’t our security what the military is supposed to do? Why in hell do we have all these separate ‘Departments”- We have the Armed Forces, FBI, CIA and local and state law enforcement. Of course the first thing I would do away with is the gd TSA. They suck. And there has to be a better way. Second I would do away with outsourcing things like food service for the military. Remember when the mess halls and Officers Clubs were all staffed by military personnel? And this did not work because? Halliburton needed the bucks? No buying from foreign countries and companies any equipment, parts, uniforms, etc etc etc for any govt agency. By which I would mean it must be MADE IN AMERICA! BY and AMERICAN owned and operated company. I have family members in the military and it scares the bejesus out of me if I think about foreign parts being in a piece of equipment my child may depend on for his life.
      I could write a damn book on my ideas for reforming TANF, food stamps and Medicaid. Been saying for years that if we, the people, were allowed to buy in to Medicaid, it would underwrite some of the cost of covering those who can’t afford it. Sliding scale fee. But they won’t do that either- the insurance comapnies would not like it.

      PFFFFTTT and a pox on all the damn politicians. Should be mandatory that they come spend at least one week a month living with a constituent. Low wage, no wage, middle income, single parent etc etc. Somehow we need to bring them down out of that poisoned rarified atmosphere they live in- it is rotting their brains.

      • Erica says:

        Great idea! They are truly out of touch. That’s what happens when being a member of congress becomes a gold ticket for rapid wealth accumulation.

      • Lola-at-Large says:

        They did that once, on 30 Days, I think. The guy who made Super Size Me had a show called 30 Days and I can’t remember if it was him or if he convinced some politician to try to live on a food stamp/minimum wage budget for 30 days. A real eye-opening episode.

        But yes, getting them out of their ivory towers would help!

    • Erica says:

      Wow, great comment to a great (end-run) post. Well done, both of you.

  13. WMCB says:

    Those who keep scolding how awful it is that voters “hate govt”, when govt is so useful, are shooting themselves in the foot.

    If you take a population, and consistently give them damn good reason to distrust those in charge of a particular entity, then it doesn’t take much of a push to send them over into actively disliking the entity itself.

    The way to solve that is for the entity to do things to earn back the trust, not to poo-poo and try to shame those who distrust it.

    It is because our pols have REFUSED to take responsibility for destroying the trust that we are on the verge of a nationwide “screw them, drown it in a bathtub” sentiment. Get a clue. The problem is not the mindset of those who are distrusting – the problem is the factors that drove them to that point.

    That anti-govt sentiment is going to get WORSE, not better, the more our politicians blame the voters instead of dealing with their own shit. The R’s may not have better solutions than the D’s, but you know what they (especially tthe teaparty R’s) are doing that the D’s stubbornly and arrogantly refuse to do? Saying “Yeah, we hear you. You have a legitimate beef.” Listening goes a long way in politics. The Dems can’t hear the people yelling – all they hear is their own voices saying what the best interest of the stupid proles are “supposed” to be.

    Ever had an argument in a relationship where you are trying to tell the other person why you are pissed off, and what you need, and they keep telling you what you “really” think and feel and need? How’ does that usually work out? Just how fucking infuriated do you get at their presumption? Yeah, it’s like that.

    • WMCB says:

      “Calm down, sweetie, there’s no need to get so upset…” is a really, really, REALLY dumb thing to say when someone is righteously outraged for damn good reason.

      If you’ve ever tried that asinine approach, you know this.

    • Oswald says:

      LBJ promised Guns AND Butter, Raygun promised to cut taxes and increase government revenue.

      We need someone to be honest and tell people government can’t do everything. There are no magic tricks.

      You can tax and spend, borrow and spend, or a combination of both. But any money you borrow now has to be repaid with interest later.

      If people want to reduce taxes they have to reduce government spending. You get what you pay for.


      • threewickets says:

        It’s simple. Either the public sector invests in people, or the public sector fills the gap. One way or the other, there must be market demand or there will be deflation and businesses will struggle or shut down. The public debt alarm is a strawman and red herring. Because the general economy is so weak and Europe is so sick, real US treasury yields are actually negative. US real govt borrowing costs are negative. This has not happened in 220 years. Instead of more Fed easing which mainly helps the 1% and the banks who are padding their balance sheets, we probably need more stimulus for the 99% to drive aggregate demand in the general economy. Stimulus that would have zero or negative long term cost to the treasury. Alternatively, the private sector could invest more in people here in the US, but that hasn’t been happening. They’ve been squeezing their bottom lines, sacrificing wages to benefit investors. Food for thought.

        Btw on the Reagan years, he was reducing taxes from top marginal rates of 70%, fighting inflation which was as high as 15%, reducing interest rates from 18% Volcker administered levels, all during time when the heart of the boomer generation was diving into the workplace making money and beginning to save. Today is the exact opposite. Top marginal rates are at historical lows at 35%, interest rates are essentially zero, core inflation is 1-2%, boomers are beginning to retire and spending their savings. It’s a very different time.

        • threewickets says:

          Also, the public debt and the federal budget represents less than 20% of the general economy, which is another reason among many why the household analogy is incomplete at best. You can be as austere as you want at home, but if you don’t have income from a job, you will eventually run out of money. And being austere has nothing to do with your ability to get a job or with the availability of jobs in general. Jobs won’t exist if people aren’t spending money. In any case, here’s more on the US public debt in the WSJ. U.S. debt load falling at fastest pace since 1950s. The public debt is not the problem since these market treasury yields are ridiculously low (given how low the Fed has set its target fed funds rate, the easy money should be pushing these treasury yields higher, but they haven’t been because everyone wants to sit on their cash). The extent of deleveraging and potential deflation sprial in the private sector is the problem.

        • threewickets says:

          Sorry, typo. “Either the *private* sector invests in people, or the public sector fills the gap.”

        • threewickets says:

          Just because Obama is a fraud doesn’t make everything the Republican Party says on policy right or best. That’s too easy, at least for independents. 🙂

  14. WMCB says:

    That was fast. An ad already:

  15. Lola-at-Large says:

    Check our Jay Cost’s new map: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-media-doesn-t-understand-race-states_646779.html?page=2

    I also track the averages on the presidential maps over at RCP, and since Wisconsin, Obama has dropped 16 electoral college votes, down to 221 from 237.

Comments are closed.