Friday, June 10, 2011

Oh yah, this makes a LOT of sense

The lawmakers, led by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), also say that, following last week’s weak job report, they are concerned that certain decreases in federal spending could hurt the economy’s recovery. “At this point, both government and private-sector economists agree that sharp immediate cuts in government spending risk plunging our economy into a double-dip recession that will cost further jobs and ultimately worsen our fiscal situation,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter obtained by The Hill.
Really? They do? Why does my bullshit detector start screaming when I read that?

'Course, this includes people who think raising taxes on 'the rich' will work wonders.

More federal agencies winding up with arms. But you can't be trusted to own them, oh no. And I'd really like to see the justifications for this shit.

The DoE:
Let your liberal friends know how their great idea -- the Department of Education -- appears to be run by agents with the sort of morality you would expect from your less patient loan sharks. The loan shark may break down your door to harass you over a debt, but he doesn't do it hiding behind a badge.

Speaking of idiots hiding behind official status,
The family was going through security when two TSA agents singled Drew Mandy out for a special pat down. Drew is severely mentally disabled. He's 29, but his parents said he has the mental capacity of a two-year-old, which made the experience that followed at metro Detroit's McNamera Terminal that much harder to deal with.

"You have got to be kidding me. I honestly felt that those two agents did not know what they were doing," Mandy told us.

Dr. Mandy claimed they asked Drew to place his feet on the yellow shoe line, something he didn't understand. They proceeded to pat his pants down, questioning the padding which was his adult diapers. When the agents asked Drew to take his hand and rub the front and back of his pants so they could swab it for explosives, his dad stepped in and tried to explain that Drew was mentally challenged.

"They said, 'Please, sir, we know what we're doing,'" Mandy said.
(apparently not)
The TSA agents saw Drew holding a six-inch plastic hammer.

"My son carries his ball and his hammer for security. He goes everywhere with (them)," said Mandy.

The TSA it seems saw the toy as a weapon.

"He took the hammer and he tapped the wall. 'See, it's hard. It could be used as a weapon,'" Mandy explained. "So, Drew's also holding the ball, and I said, 'Well, how about the ball?' He (said), 'Oh, he can keep that."
We also spoke to a federal security director who said this incident is still under investigation, but as far as they can tell right now, better judgment was needed.

Gee, ya think MAYBE?
And what makes this utter stupidity stand out even more as an example of idiots performing security theater?
The TSA took away one toy hammer, but they were still able to take another toy hammer on board the airplane. How did that happen?

Drew's mother, always prepared, had another one in her backpack and that already passed through security with no problem


Sailorcurt said...

They're probably right that sharp decreases in federal spending will result in another dip in "economic growth" into negative territory...the prime marker for determinations of "recession".

That's because our economic growth numbers include government spending in them.

Not to mention the fact that something like 30 percent of the population is employed by the government at some level. State and local governments have become dependent on federal funding for a significant part of their budgets so any decrease in federal spending will necessarily cause reductions of Federal, State and Local employees.

The thing is, in the long run, those hits on government spending are a good thing, because that money has to come from somewhere.

Every government job is funded by taxes taken on non-governmental economic activity. So, theoretically, decreases in government economic activity (which are ALWAYS a net loss to the economy) will eventually be replaced and even expanded by non-governmental economic activity (which can, and usually does, produce something useful and result in the generation of wealth).

The problem right now is that so much of our budget is being funded through debt that, until the deficit is eliminated, the cuts in government economic activity will be funded by deficit reduction, not by decreased taxes. Which means that, in the short term, decreased government economic activity is NOT going to be immediately replaced by private sector economic activity.

The bottom line is that it MUST get worse before it CAN get better. The government spending cuts are necessary. In fact, MUCH, MUCH deeper cuts are necessary for our economic survival.

The question is, do the politicians have the fortitude to face the inevitable criticism that will come when those cuts cause the economy to worsen in the short term?

Probably not...which means we'll keep kicking the can down the road and our grand-children and great grandchildren will suffer for our ignorance, apathy and greed.

Keith said...

Sailorcut is spot on.

GDP (Y) is a sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X - M).

Y = C + I + G + (X − M)

If "GDP" is used as the measure of the economy (and there are very good reasons why it shouldn't be), government spending is included in the formula, and government debt isn't, so it is hardly Nobel memorial prize socialist economics to say that government spending contributes to the made up figure.

I listened to the Rev Jesse Jackson interviewed on radio when he was in Ireland, earlier in the year.

He was calling for economic democracy

I could agree with the words, though I think my agreement is in the exact opposite sense which he meant it.

What I was thinking of was the right for each person to spend their own money where, when, how, and on what they want, Let's say I don't like a big supermarket chain, they are getting "too rich I can vote against them by spending my money with a shop I do like.

Getting back to government debt (and it not appearing in Keynes' GDP aggregate), Keynes argued that it was not a problem as "We owe it to ourselves"

I guess that the "we" means you and I, who owe it to the "ourselves" meaning the elite of politicians, basteaucrats and crony bankers...

The whole idea of a "national income" is fallacious

Who the fuck "nationalised" it?