Do they suffer from fatal optimism? Or do they simply want what they want no matter who gets killed? ...metaphorically speaking
Thursday, April 21, 2011
It Depends Upon Which Side of the Cockpit You Sit
...but no one is served if we choose only to see what is outside our own window.
Do they suffer from fatal optimism? Or do they simply want what they want no matter who gets killed? ...metaphorically speaking
Do they suffer from fatal optimism? Or do they simply want what they want no matter who gets killed? ...metaphorically speaking
9 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If the plane is going down (questionable claim)
ReplyDelete"Lets push the throttle forward and get it over with..." (Republican plan)
"Lets use the flaps stress work the other engine and see if we can ease down..." Democrat plan)
That's right! Cut's in spending equate to 'getting it all over with' in the democrat lexicon. Wouldn't want to deprive entrepreneurs of the 6 million in revenue needed to learn how to sheer toads. After all, toad fleece is in high demand.
ReplyDeleteActually, what's in serious need of sheering is the budget. Shame no one on left is willing to take a serious look at that.
Bent, Usually, you offer some intelligent, if wrong, opinions. But on this one, you are just being stupid.
ReplyDeleteA child of 5 can tell you, you can't spend your way out of debt. It can't happen. It won't happen. Not even in your Bizzaro world of Liberalism.
A child of 5 can tell you, you can't tax cut your way out of debt. It can't happen. It won't happen. Not even in your Bizzaro world of wing nuttia.
ReplyDeleteI was talking about conservative refusal to vote on raising the debt limit as nosediving into the ground.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a better analogy would be that Republicans want to throw away the life vests and landing gear and wing flaps and parachutes and all the rest of the planes equipment, because an engines on fire and the rest of it is sure to explode immediately and we're going to die anyway. Is that better analogy to severe and stupid budget cuts in this analogy?
"A child of 5 can tell you, you can't tax cut your way out of debt."
ReplyDeleteActually, that's far more likely if the additional revenues from the economy stimulated by the cuts isn't spent before it's in hand. Cuts in the tax rates alone is insufficient. That was the only problem with the Bush era cuts. Revenues increased due to the cuts, but so did spending. If spending had remained the same, the cuts would have led to the debt being paid down. If spending had been reduced, the added revenues from the cuts would have led to a balanced budget and another surplus.
Borrowing and spending? Bad idea. When a family is in debt, spending doesn't help. Borrowing is only done when there's no pressure to repay, say, from one's brother, who will be pissed at you, but won't take your first born for non-payment.
But borrowing from elsewhere merely adds to the debt that needs to be paid off. Cuts in current spending, as well as increasing revenues (for a family, that means overtime or a second job) is what is needed.
There's nothing the gov't can do to help but get the hell out of the way and stop spending on things unnecessary, even small things like NPR. Everything else, especially if it is gov't related, needs to be a matter of doing more with less (except military, which needs to simply not waste). And definitely, no new programs.
"When a family is in debt, spending doesn't help."
ReplyDeleteUh, yes it can. Sometimes one needs to spend on a new suit, or new tools, or new skills to get a job or higher paying job in order to increase cash flow. And when one spends that money, they are stimulating the local economy and helping their neighbors and community.
Uh, that's not the same thing. Would one be buying a suit every week or month? If not, then the analogy is stupid. Barry ain't spending on things that stimulate the economy. He isn't capable of spending in a way that stimulates the economy because what is needed is to spend less, tax less and regulate less so that those who actually create jobs can do so.
ReplyDeleteWhat my analogy would be equal to is if a family in need added more cable channels to their already unnecessary cable service, or taking a vacation they can't afford. The federal gov't spends way too much for which it hasn't the Constitutional mandate, and way to much that is wasteful and better spent by those from whom it took the money. It won't matter how high it jacks the tax rates if it continues to spend in this manner. There is no "suit" Barry can buy that will result in a better job market.
Barry?
ReplyDelete