An Unchained Malady Of "Deep Doo-Doo" Economics: Rebuttal To Paul Krugman's "Getting To Crazy"
August 1st, 2011
By Barry Secrest
The hypocrisy has been beyond maddening, the rhetoric embarrassingly dramatic, and the warped Statist stupidity teetering on a par with what one might typically find in any Gilligan's Island episode. All the while, in the background static, the Democratic mantra of Statism echoes insanely both in our minds and the economic devastation we increasingly see unfolding all around us. "More, More, More...how do you like it, how do you like it, More, More, More, How do you like it, how do you like it?"....the syrupy tune of collectivism, like a breathy Homeric siren song, magnetically luring America's increasingly befuddled economic navigators closer and closer to the treacherous shoals of default and the lengthening shadow of nationalized poverty.
So, How do we like the Statist's love? Um, not so very much, it turns out, as much of a formerly honeymooning America has now whiffed the smelling salts of Obama's rather extreme form of perverted change. Being jolted into wakefulness by the sharp sensations of unfamiliar pain emanating from our collectively violated rear ends was not exactly what America had in mind in 2008. But, while well better than half of all Americans look on in a growing cloud of disbelieving anxiety, a smaller clique sitting in extreme left-stadium can be heard cheering the leering insanity onward, as if some great and honorific good will eventually be hatched from the noxious excrement of Socialism's detritus. In that vein, the Liberal Media's leaders, seeing their final opportunities undergoing severe implosion, have charged in to rescue their near-panicked, torporific man-child's impending deal with America's ultimate defeat.
Liberal potentate Paul Krugman, after a long hiatus in wonk land, has finally gone on the attack, and in my most favorite of all provinces, the battleground of ideas. To begin, Krugman lays forth with the following in his recent article Getting To Crazy:
"There aren't many positive aspects to the looming possibility of a U.S. debt default. But there has been an element of comic relief - of the black-humor variety - in the spectacle of so many people who have been in denial suddenly waking up and smelling the crazy."
The truly odd, if not comical element, with regard to this loopy paragraph, is that Krugman is referring to GOP craziness rather than to the Obama Spendocrat's complete insanity. Now, first we must point out to Krugman that, despite his mythical illusory economic prowess, there are in fact absolutely "NO" positive aspects to a US default, except of course to the President, who has seemingly been aiming at default from the start. Perhaps this is what Krugman means when he states "aren't many" instead of using the words "are none." An odd choice of words for a supposedly learned economist, to be sure. But then Krugman goes on to point out the mental state of his disillusioned sanitarium compatriots by noting, "a number of commentators seem shocked at how unreasonable Republicans are being. 'Has the GOP gone insane?' they ask."
To this we would simply remark that these must be the same commentators who have cheered the devastation of a mired economy, the incessant ticker tape parade of foodstamps generously showering down on a disheartened populace, and the continuing spiral of US industry, as if a stealth recovery of epic proportions has somehow been underway ever since the oceans receded during Obama's inauguration ceremony.
The Fourth Estate Versus We The People
The media is now clearly, if not unabashedly, within the President's red corner. These Mainstream Media match coaches provide a quick stool, a dash of refreshing unholy water blessed by none other than Karl Marx himself, and a decidedly unlearned bit of quick fighting advice each time the Bamster finishes a bruisingly brutal round against the American people. Consistently urged on with dreadfully tacky slogans and expletive-laden rejoinders to hasten the Economic Mangler back up into the fight every time the President staggers back to his copiously padded turnstile for a breather.
"it's the culmination of a process that has been going on for decades. Anyone surprised by the extremism now on display either hasn't been paying attention, or has been deliberately turning a blind eye."
Now, the extremism to which Krugman rather sophomorically refers with regard to the GOP, can be seen as none other than deft pragmatism in the face of left-wing, debt-defying, cluelessness. When we , in fact, have ratings agencies the world over stating that the US must see a $ 4 trillion dollar draw down of its national debt over the next three years in order to avoid a disastrous downgrade from AAA status for the first time in the nation's history. This downgrade, which will occur no further than three months from July of 2011, is not subject to either Krugman's lagging sanity nor his bloviated opinions. When Krugman speaks to some brand of madness and extremism within the GOP, he is disingenuously deflecting from the true left-wing government extremism that has clamped down on the nose of the wildly struggling bull market and refuses to turn lose.
This Statist extremism has taken over industry after industry, shackled the mortgage lending and college loan providers in government's musty dungeons, and even chained the entire marketplace to a now daunting Statist bible of regulations. All of this even while encapsulating our entire medical industry within a padded cell of government dysfunction, while also short-circuiting all forms of viable energy production pursuits. Is it not truly amazing, if not awe-inspiring, that a punch-drunk America still stands, bruised and battered, but gamefully swaying on its feet?
Quantifying And Scoring Insanity
So, is this 'double-our-income' spending madness not the true insanity of expressiveness? Or, perhaps Krugman would, once again, care to piously whine for yet another round of disastrous stimulus that would really set the world's financial rating agencies to raging. Krugman goes on to remark that Obama has used the newly dreaded words, "Now let me be clear," which, in Obamacode, actually means, "Now, get ready for some extreme bullshit" when Krugman states that the President indicated his undying willingness with regard to the following:
- Obama intends "to sign on to a deficit-reduction deal that consists overwhelmingly of spending cuts"
As of yet, totally unenumerated by his highness, the Emperor of All Ills, we must point out...along with the CBO, which recently refuted a concerned budgetary congressional commission on Obama's veracity, with the words "we cannot score a speech." Krugman also indicates the following:
- Obama intends to "Include draconian cuts in key social programs, up to and including a rise in the age of Medicare eligibility."
A horridly long list of two give-ups, to be sure, by the Messianic man-child, no doubt, these such cuts to exclude inner-city dwellers of the Democratic Party, Union members, cooperative flash rioters, SEIU club-thugs, and of course anyone employed within the national education system. Last but not least, the unincluded will by rote encompass any and all blue states granted an Obama 'Draconian Cut Waiver Card,' eh Mr. Krugman? Point being, we are not completely vapid, we Right-Wingers, and we do indeed learn pretty fast, although being not nearly as slick as our Democratic opposites, as a whole. Further, we are now fully cognizant of most of the contents held within the Manual of Democratic Demagoguery. No, and thanks, being the appropriate response to disingenuous promises (delivered in falsetto panic) of which the President blithely noted the following in this particularly glaring quote:
"I expect to be judged by the promises I kept, not the promises that I made"
To be sure, Obama will indeed be judged--albeit Carter-esquely--to be even more sure, welcome back's are in order, by the way. But then Krugman points out that The New York Times has stated that "the president has offered deals that are far to the right of what the average U.S. voter prefers - in fact, if anything, they're a bit to the right of what the average Republican voter prefers!" Smooth in principle but erroneous in fact. The NY Time's has obviously been "peering at the people's mirror" would be the reverse-image rejoinder here, as if the New York Times has even a tittle of understanding as to what most normal Americans desire. You see, the radical President's so-called deals are subject to the copiously cunning Senate Left-Wingers who sent the President back into the fray demanding nothing less than a $ 1.2 trillion dollar increase, which would equate to wildly left-of-center at this point in the game, and by the way, also sent Speaker Boehner packing in total disgust out of the talks, to his credit.
Shellacking The Gluttons
The interesting thing, within all of these debates, is the simple fact that the President is employing certifiable brinksmanship into a problem that he himself authored in the liberal Democrat's unchained melody of beyond- reckless spending in the first place. Now he is trying to add more taxes into the mix, during a recession, while promising to draw down no more than $ 4 trillion dollars over 10 years. We should also bear in mind the fact that the President has stated, not once but at least twice, that "raising taxes during a recession is not a good idea." However, this fact pales in comparison when we note that we are currently spending approximately $ 1.6 trillion more than we are bringing in on an annual basis, making the overall over-spending amount, over a 10 year span, contrived to a cool $ 16 trillion per decade in additional national debt.
If we stick to the typical Obama-White House inspired dieting plan that we have previously seen, thanks also to Michelle, we will still be increasing our debt by over $ 12 trillion dollars in ten years, in addition to the current $ 14.5 trillion dollar national debt figure that we currently hold. The question, therefore, then becomes, "how is this helping the problem?" The painfully obvious answer being, "it's actually worsening the problem," and therein lies the mother of all rubs.
Truthfully, We The People spoke very, very, loudly in 2010, and even the President noted that the Democrats were subjected to an electoral "shellacking." The point we should bear in mind is what the President actually stated after his victory in 2008, and during the rancorous stimulus debate--that being:
The inverse need not apply, one would suppose, at least not in the disingenuous world of the Demagogic party. But then Krugman sees fit to deluge us with a complete collection of unoriginal Democratic talking points, as follows:
- Republicans are threatening to force a U.S. default.
- Republicans are trying to create an economic crisis.
- This was entirely predictable.
- The modern GOP does not accept the legitimacy of a Democratic presidency.
- Republicans are automatically against anything the President wants.
- Republican Mitt Romney's health care plan became a tyrannical assault on U.S. freedom when applied to the Federal Government and lovingly administered by Obama.
Now, the main point here being, when reading the above list, is that it becomes painfully obvious that Krugman must have either received the talking points from one of his eternally prepubescent metrosexual liberal admirers, or perhaps even a panicked Atlanta schoolteacher who scored extraordinarily low on the critical thinking curve, such is the dramatically unoriginal, if not contrived, content. Krugman goes on to make the rather intellectually challenged point that if any Republican President had managed the same things that Obama is offering, it would have been a Conservative triumph, but since these are from a Democratic President, it is but a plan to tax the life out of the US economy.
To which we point out two things, the first being that Conservatism as a whole has undergone an excruciating makeover since the latter days of Bush, much to Krugman's regretful chagrin, because we have gained leaps and bounds of formidable knowledge since that time. Point number two would be that we Conservatives could say much the same thing about the Democrats, especially noting the ironic facts of the last several Bush debt ceiling increase debates. In those particular contests, we quite unremarkably will find that each Senate Democrat currently in office that is voting for the debt ceiling increase now, including Obama, voted against the raising of the debt ceiling in 2006. In 2007, it was more or less much of the same, Democrats telling us how irresponsible it all was, "a failure of leadership," to quote Obama.
It was under a Republican president, that the Democrats railed against raising the ceiling, only to now tell us how utterly responsible it is--if not a life and death situation--now--when the debate falls under a Democratic President. Now one can say that the reverse could also be true, however, remember the word proudly emblazoned across the top of this website. Not so with the Conservatives and this is a major area where Republicans and Conservatives are at odds oftentimes.
The Democrats Deep Doodoo Economic Plan
Krugman then repeats his oft-heard mantra, "voodoo economics has taken over the GOP." Indeed, it should be noted that most critically thinking individuals will take what Krugman calls voodoo economics over the Democrats' "Deep Doo-Doo economics" any day of the week, and even on the planet Venus where one day lasts almost 3/4ths of a year here on earth. Krugman then stumbles into making the fatally amusing comment that seals the fate of his consistently in error column, completely and in finality, when he states that the Reagan era, Laffer Curve, principles of the Bush tax cuts did not result in increased revenue, but rather reduced revenues into the Government. Below is a chart from the US Office of Management and Budget, read it and weep Paul:
In the above tax revenue chart from the OMB, please take careful note of the years beginning in 2003 and on through 2008. The Bush tax cuts began in 2001 and were completely in place in 2003. From 2003 and onward, one can clearly note a dramatic increase in yearly revenues right up until 2008 when the financial meltdown occurred. In fact, in the years between 2004 and 2008, income revenues actually increased by over a half a trillion dollars. You might also note how remarkably revenues declined from Krugman's Keynesian spending exercises after 2008 and beyond. So, if this is what Krugman refers to as craziness, then we obviously need much, much more of it, bearing in mind that craziness from the Right works remarkably more effectively than the now lamentable zaniness from the Left.
Which then brings Krugman "to the culpability of those who are only now facing up to the GOP's craziness." Krugman ends with the following:
Those within the GOP who had misgivings about the embrace of tax-cut fanaticism might have made a stronger stand if there had been any indication that such fanaticism came with a price, if outsiders had been willing to condemn those who took irresponsible positions.
But there has been no such price. George W. Bush squandered the surplus of the late Clinton years, yet prominent pundits pretend that the two parties share equal blame for our debt problems. So there has been no pressure on the GOP to show any kind of responsibility, or even rationality - and sure enough, it has gone off the deep end. If you're surprised, that means that you were part of the problem.
Where, oh where, has your litle brain gone, dear, dear Mr. Krugman. If we replace the words GOP in your last few paragraphs of your article, at least within its final death throes, it would finally bear some mere pittance to a resolute accuracy. In fact, we need only look at the the tremendous amounts of spending and the fact that we are now in quite a fix indeed, under Obama, and under Krugman's failed Keynesian policies with our AAA rating teetering.
The entire world is now close to seeing America as a veritable has-been in only three very long ,short years, and you, Paul Krugman, somehow blowing within the vast empty chasms of your mind, can actually come to the conclusion that George W. Bush and the Republicans are the authors of this Pandora's box of mayhem. The Democrats have been in full charge for over two years. A Democratic Congress, having been in control even longer, extends those two years to over four years. You know better, Sir, and yet you persist in your illusions.
Krugman's article, as with most members of the Axis Press, seeks to deflect the stunningly obvious facts with the artifice of smoke, mirrors, and extraordinarily contrived demagoguery. Unfortunately for the entire Left-wing, the game is up and the collective gentle giant that is the American people has been startled into a terrible brand of wide-eyed wakefulness and indomitable willfulness, a state of being not entirely seen since World War Two.
And we all know how that ended.