« Hyper Critical | Main | 2 U.S. Airmen killed at Frankfurt airport (UPDATED) »

We're on the verge of mob violence in Wisconsin

And yet the media will ignore it... until someone gets hurt or worse... and then they'll figure out how to blame Walker and the Republicans... or Sarah Palin... or Rush Limbaugh... anyone but the moonbats in charge and the President of the United States who leads and inspires them:

H/T to the Anchoress who adds most righteously:

I can't help but think back to a Tea Party demonstration in Washington, wherein then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, carrying her clown-gavel, Steny Hoyer, John Lewis, Jim Clyburn and a few other Congressmen inexplicably decided they would walk through the crowd. Her head defiantly thrown back in laughter, Pelosi seemed almost to be daring the crowd to lose its self-restraint. The Congressmen carried video-cameras, hoping apparently, to get on tape, something shameful from the crowd. When they didn't get it, they said they did, anyway. One congressman accused someone in the crowd of spitting on him, and another said, "I heard the N-word! I heard it!"

And the press dutifully ran with those stories: those racist, violent Tea Partiers - they spat on a congressman; they used the 'n-word!' No, we don't have any tape on it; we don't have any proof, but they did it! Because they're violent racists, all of 'em! Oh, and the congressman says that maybe the guy was just yelling at him and it might have been an unintentional expectoration, but it doesn't matter! Spitting and N-words, that's the story and we're sticking to it!

I wonder how many in the unintentionally expectorating mainstream media
(I'm looking at you, Mr. Matthews) are going to air this tape on their programs and talk about the malevolent violence of this aggressive mob? I wonder if they will excuse their gang-menacing of a single, unprotected grey-haired man as an regrettable, but understandable moment of "passion."

"Shame!" cries the crowd, who are (for the most part) doing all of this in order to hold on to collective bargaining for the perkiest parts of their pensions. "Shame! Shame! Shame!"

I cry "Shame" at the at the plausible-deniability-loving press, who somehow never saw 8 years of "Kill-Chimpy-Bush-is-Hitler" signage but were (appropriately) appalled when stupid people put mustaches on images of President Obama. Now, they apparently cannot see a mob-mentality devolving into something genuinely aggressive, genuinely full-of-hate.

Pass this around.  Get it out there.  Facebook it.  Email it.

We're watching mob rule and we're watching it despite the best efforts of the tolerant left and their psychophants in the media who are trying to hide it and a President who has instigated it.

This is the inevitable result when community agitators lead us.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41191.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference We're on the verge of mob violence in Wisconsin:

» Brutally Honest linked with We're on the verge of mob violence in Wisconsin

Comments (70)

The whole world is watching... (Below threshold)
Roy:

The whole world is watching. And the civilized, mature ones have long memories.

I'm sure that this is just ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

I'm sure that this is just more of that Democratic "nuanced" rhetoric that we hear so much about.

When obama won the left tho... (Below threshold)
Jim m:

When obama won the left thought that they would never again face any opposition to their ideas. Now that they lost big last year they ar desperate to hold on to power and they will use any means to do so. They see the writing on the wall.

Did you mean "psychophants"... (Below threshold)

Did you mean "psychophants" with the pun on "psycho" or was it a mistype of "sycophant"?

The liberals/progressives/D... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

The liberals/progressives/Democrats are clearly the more responsible for our march toward indebtedness. Up to this point I feel that when it comes to domestic policy the Republicans have facilitated the progressive agenda by essentially doing nothing. They have done nothing significant to turn it back but merely acted as stewards for the status quo until the next Democrat majority returns to take up the march again. Look at these people on this video. It is probably the first time for a lot of them feeling challenged by elected officials who are willing to possibly compromise long term political careers to do what the electorate has asked them to do. They are not taking it well. They have no clue what the bankruptcy or downsizing of a private company can do to their jobs because security for government workers is now considered a right. Look at their signs. It is ashame that for most of these government workers this is the act that has caused them to show such "enthusiasm" for their jobs.

Let's say you are training a puppy. If you want to pick up it's partially eaten food bowl and he/she growls at you you best be prepared to let the puppy know who is really the boss or you will be repeatedly challenged and dominated by a grown dog in the future. These government workers have forgotten whose money it really is that legislators have been giving them. They are not used to having their food bowl messed with. It is no longer an option to back down from the things that need to be done to do away with the bottomless money pit that government on all levels has become.

Should be thankful for thei... (Below threshold)
914:

Should be thankful for their health and that they have a job under this administration.

Dirty ingrates/.

Gov. Walker and the capital... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Gov. Walker and the capital police are really excercising great restraint. The professional agitators are trying so hard to get video of them being arrested, cuffed, pepper sprayed and all they are getting is video of them shouting like petulant children. The MSM is losing interest. ww

The unions and other parasi... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

The unions and other parasitic Democratic constituencies are beginning to realize that the "Tea Party" movement was a signal, not of Republican resurgence (although it has contributed to GOP fortunes indirectly), but of widespread public disgust at federal spending and control.

This, they believe - and possibly, quite rightly - is their final battle, their Armageddon to fight for their grip on the public purse-strings as an entitlement. It will get worse. As Democratic Congressman Capuano suggested the other day, it's time for them to take to the streets and "get a little bloody." (He walked it back when the quote went viral, but was wildly cheered by his left/labor audience).

Keep your powder dry.

Old Mother Hubbard went to... (Below threshold)
gaius piconius:

Old Mother Hubbard went to the cupboard......the cupboard was bare.....and the poor little doggy had none. Well for years they held Uncle Sam up for ridicule and his successor, Mother H, is even more hated; silly old bitch has no idea that future generations are an economic resource to be tapped....if she'd only read the right books. 'Deep pockets are inter- generational. If tomorrow's children pay for our needs and wants today, we'll let them inherit our infrastructure of today...there is no robbery in that. Besides, it'll be decaying, and providing shovel ready jobs'.

And yet the media will i... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

And yet the media will ignore it

Did you notice that Fox News is not giving nearly the same level of coverage as they did for the Tea Party demonstration in D.C.?

Verge? This IS mo... (Below threshold)
epador:

Verge?

This IS mob violence.

Blonde journalists beware! ... (Below threshold)
Sarah the Impaler:

Blonde journalists beware!

Assaulted? Sigh.Go to about... (Below threshold)
God:

Assaulted? Sigh.Go to about 48 seconds in to see this "assault".

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/video-of-alleged-assult-on-fox-news-reporter-by-wisconsin-protesters-video

If that's assault, then walking through a semi-crowded mall on a Sunday morning is a mob riot.

Whereas I'm sure that bunch of conservatives bravely throwing a woman to the ground and stomping on her at Ron Paul's rally was "patriotic peaceful assembly".

But there I am, comparing apples to apples again, even though the apple on the Right clearly must always be innocent.

Above comment intended to b... (Below threshold)
God:

Above comment intended to be to Jay Tea's other article. My apologies. My sentiment stands however.

I got a sick feeling in my ... (Below threshold)
BlueNight:

I got a sick feeling in my stomach watching that. If this can happen in Wisconsin, it can happen anywhere.

I am glad my city's mayor, Albuquerque's Richard Berry, is standing up to the firefighters and police unions before things turn this ugly.

"Who Said That? Charlie She... (Below threshold)
Sarah the Impaler:

"Who Said That? Charlie Sheen or Muammar Gaddafi"


"In the next 2 years I'm gonna create 4 million jobs"


Neither. Barry Soetoro said it nearly 2 years ago.


Must have been exaggerating by oh say, 12 million.

It's hard to take you peopl... (Below threshold)
john:

It's hard to take you people seriously when you equate "et tu" and "Judas" with assassination, and call signs with those words and a quote from Lincoln "something genuinely aggressive".

"Psychophants"... (Below threshold)
Andrew X:

"Psychophants"

That is very very good....

Who said this?"The... (Below threshold)

Who said this?

"The GOP tax plan will create 6.2 million American jobs."

Why, that was Boehner in 2009.

Now that he's in power, where are the jobs? Seems he promised a focus on job creation - not on cutting contraception, impeaching Obama, or whatever else the GOP house has been doing.

Just show me the GOP plans that actually will create jobs, is all I'm saying.

All of which makes more likely a painful and well-deserved turnover in 2012. So Democrats can actually go about, you know, actually doing things.

Re # 4:To answer y... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 4:

To answer your question, neither. Rick thought that was how it was spelled.

You're wrong Bruce... as us... (Below threshold)
Rick:

You're wrong Bruce... as usual... it was spelled that way with purpose and effect...

So screw ye buddye...

"The GOP tax plan will c... (Below threshold)
john:

"The GOP tax plan will create 6.2 million American jobs."
Just show me the GOP plans that actually will create jobs, is all I'm saying.

It's right here:

"Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke said Wednesday that House GOP’s 2011 spending plan would likely cost “a couple hundred thousand jobs,”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50503.html

So not only are Republicans failing in their promises and simultaneously trying to plunge the country back into... hey, look! Unions!

Alinski kicked out of offic... (Below threshold)
914:

Alinski kicked out of office would add millions of jobs in the space of 1 month you stuck on stupid trolls.


Shall we try and prove it?

"The GOP tax plan ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
"The GOP tax plan will create 6.2 million American jobs."

Why, that was Boehner in 2009.

Now that he's in power, where are the jobs?

Dear Dumbass,

The GOP tax plan was not enacted; the Dems have controlled the House since 2006. Boehner meant the GOP plan would create 6.2 million jobs if it were enacted, which it wasn't.

Apart from that, an excellent and perceptive point.

Somebody tell me what I'm t... (Below threshold)

Somebody tell me what I'm thinking of but unable to recall clearly - like a cartoon or something were someone is conducting all these acts of violence but shouting things like 'peace' or something...maybe a movie? I dunno, it's what I thought of with this mindless mob shouting 'peace' as they conduct themselves in a 180 degree manner from the sentiment.

Now that he's in p... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
Now that he's in power, where are the jobs?

Oh, and another thing.

Boehner has been in power since January 5, 2011, which was 57 days ago. Or did you expect 6.2 million jobs to appear on January 6th?

Also, bear in mind that the Senate and White House are still in Dem hands, so House tax and spending bills have been and will be resisted there. You may have heard some grownups talking about "continuing resolutions" to prevent the government shutdown? That's what they were referring to.

But as liberals go, you're intelligent and well-informed.

John,It's no use q... (Below threshold)
jim m:

John,

It's no use quoting Bernanke on anything economic since he is unable to detect the already climbing inflation. Perhaps you'll trot out a Krugman quote for us to laugh at next.

"Federal Reserve C... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
"Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke said Wednesday that House GOP’s 2011 spending plan would likely cost “a couple hundred thousand jobs,”

Yes. Among government employees sucking on the public teat.

Apparently the lefties here... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Apparently the lefties here need a refresher on what legally counts as assault. Assault is the threat of bodily harm. Merely looming over another person in a threatening manner could be construed as assault under certain circumstances. Certainly the threats issued to the Fox news reporter qualify as assault.

Many people confuse assault with battery, which is actual physical contact. And yes, battery is simply unwanted physical contact. If you touch someone that can be grounds for battery, you don't actually have to hurt them. If you touch them whilst threatening them then you have committed assault and battery.

Learn the law people.

Why are you worried about i... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Why are you worried about inflation, jim? Can you cite any credible source that says it's problematic for long-term economic growth right now? Isn't employment--or lack thereof--the real problem? (Hint: yes. The United States' economy can sustain massive deficits but it cannot sustain structural unemployment at 10%.)

Oh, and this is just gold:

Shall we try and prove it?

23. Posted by 914

914 is threatening a coup! Oh, what fun! I assume the plan consists entirely of smoking a shitload of crystal meth and then misspelling a bunch of words in blog comment threads.

Shorter hypobolist: blah bl... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Shorter hypobolist: blah blah.

Also note fiscal soundness requires employment has to be productive for tax revenues, i.e., not paid by tax revenues. Everyone paid from tax revenues is a net drain on the budget, because they are paid more from taxes than they pay back in taxes.

So it's not employment that matters, it's private employment.

Well that's false, Jay. Lot... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Well that's false, Jay. Lots of countries with far greater proportion of employed people toiling in the service of the eeevil public sector have more robust economies than the U.S.'s. For instance, Canada's economy continues to grow at a healthy pace, as it did through the recession, despite our considerable bureaucracy relative to the size of population. Why?: more regulations on banks, less spending on defense, no tax increases, greater energy independence.

Anyway, Jay G apparently reads economics text books written by Glenn Beck, but I'll ask jim m again: who is worried about inflationary pressure, and why? And, why aren't they more concerned with the prospect of structural 10% unemployment in an economy with a below-average social safety net?

Rubbish.And as for... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Rubbish.

And as for Canada's spending less on defense, you're welcome. Canada's army is smaller than the New York City police department. Literally true.

So by your lights everyone ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

So by your lights everyone should be a public sector employee?

Pay each employee $X, get back 0.4X in tax revenues. Lose on each employee, but make it up on volume?

What an idiot!

My children don't work, and... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

My children don't work, and they are doing just fine economically. By your logic, I should quit working and live like them.

Because, fundamentally, Canada is a dependency of the U.S., certainly in defense matters. If the U.S. didn't have to pay to be the world's policeman, we'd save a shitload of money.

Don't think the policeman's role is necessary? How do you figure oil gets to Europe? Who keeps the shipping lanes open for world trade? Canada? Lichtenstein? Monaco?

hyper will be back after he... (Below threshold)
914:

hyper will be back after he has his diaper changed.

Jeez Hyper do you not read?... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Jeez Hyper do you not read?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-09/china-interest-rate-swaps-yuan-gain-as-metals-fall-on-rates-kiwi-weakens.html

Check out the increases in commodities since last year:

*Agricultural Raw Materials: 24%
*Industrial Inputs Index: 25%
*Metals Price Index: 26%
*Wheat: 63%
*Coffee: 45%
*Barley: 32%
*Oranges: 35%
*Beef: 23%
*Pork: 68%
*Salmon: 30%
*Sugar: 24%
*Wool: 20%
*Cotton: 40%
*Palm Oil: 26%
*Hides: 25%
*Rubber: 62%
*Iron Ore: 103%

No inflation here. Nothing to see. Move along.

Just because the current administration has printed approx. $2 trillion to debase our currency is no reason to think inflation is going to happen. Jacking up the number of dollars chasing after goods and services shouldn't cause inflation here just because it has everywhere else.

As for not caring about unemployment, I don't see where I have said anything about not caring. obama sucks at creating jobs too.

Canada's economy is doing better because they did not spend themselves into poverty like the dems did here over the last two years. Plus you were already starting with a far more socialized economy so your baseline is entirely different than that of the US. obama's attempt to take over vast swaths of the US economy are hurting the recovery. His uncertainty and waffling on taxation and regulation mean that businesses cannot plan for the future so they are not hiring and not expanding.

Congrats, your country has ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Congrats, your country has a massive military and it leads to massive child poverty and the disembowelment of Social Security so that Americans can retire on catfood diets.

I hope F-35 fighters are capable of fighting illiteracy because that is going to be a much bigger threat to your country in the next 50 years than any supersonic fighters.

Jay Guevara: the optimal percentage of government employees is not 100%, nor is it 0%. Less is not always better, as you say it is, but I did not say that more is always better. Did you go to the same school as 914?

jim: create jobs, then worry about inflation. Seriously. Ask FDR.

"massive child poverty "</p... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"massive child poverty "

What a bullshit idea. How much income does the average 10 year old make in Canada?

Hey I have a great idea for eliminating child poverty. Let's sterilize the poor or give them forced abortions. I'll bet Planned Parenthood can get behind that idea.

Hyper, your nation can sleep at night because we protect your sorry asses. You're welcome.

FDR is widely agreed to hav... (Below threshold)
jim m:

FDR is widely agreed to have extended he depression with his socialized ideas. What saved America was the war. Since obama seems to be leading the world into another global conflagration maybe that will work out once we slaughter another 50 million people.

I see that I've shut you up... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I see that I've shut you up about there not being inflation. But you should real;ize that high levels of inflation are going to kill economic growth. You need economic growth to grow jobs.

Carter killed the US economy with his crappy economic policy giving us high inflation and no economic growth. obama is setting up the same conditions. As others have said: a Jimmy Carter repeat is looking like the best outcome, not the most likely. More likely is that we get it worse.

Carter believed that the US's glory days were in its past. Reagan came and fixed the economy and brought us another 2 decades of growth. The left doesn't like to acknowledge that but it's true. Some of us still remember the 21% interest rates for mortgages. It's hard to get a housing industry moving when no one can afford to buy a house. Getting inflation under control was critical to doing that. Businesses cannot afford to borrow and have difficulty raising the capital to expand when inflation is high. Decreasing unemployment is not a cure for inflation but stopping inflation can be a cure for high unemployment.

Hyper -I first sta... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Hyper -

I first started paying attention to politics and economics in the mid '70s, and though I may not have a degree in economics it's been pretty clear over the decades that what sounds good in a textbook or as a theory can have damn near disasterous effects in the real world.

(Cash 4 Clunkers is simply one sample of something that sounds good (paying folks to get older cars off the road) can have bad effects down the line. (A lack of cheap cars for low-income people, a whole lot of money spent to no real effect, a sudden surge and then complete drop-off of auto purchases leading to a massive disruption of the auto industry - 'unanticipated' side effects of something that sounded good at the time and was supposed to stimulate the economy instead being ANOTHER kick in the nuts.)

And we have accepted that reality is far more complex and full of far more interdependent factors than is apparent when you're fresh out of college or in your early 30s. Problems faced in a classroom usually have a limited set of variables. Problems in the real world usually aren't so limited.

So Government attempts to control all those factors, based on nominally good intentions and theories that are iffy at best, usually end up having to ignore factors that aren't easily dealt with, causing considerably more problems than they solve.

Welfare sounded good in the '60s - until it ended up rendering the black male pretty much obsolete as a breadwinner for a family. Whole lot of unintended consequences going on there. (And I find this video hits on a lot of the issues, from a denigration of education to the misogynistic attitudes of a lot of black men.)

And see the emphasis on 'green thinking' - that ends up with CFLs that are expensive little toxic time bombs that - if you believe the government - darn near requires a hazmat cleanup squad if you break one, versus ol' fashioned incandescents. We won't go into the dueling environmentalists who on the one hand want wind and solar and tidal and on the other hand block such because of environmental concerns regarding their installation and operation.

Government CAN control some of the factors, to be sure. But not all, and not well in most cases. We have problems with education in the '70s, so we established the Department of Education. That gets staffed by people who have all sorts of great theories, who just needed money and authority to try them out.

Which we've been doing for the last 30 years.

I don't think it has done particularly well over the years. Certainly for all the billions spent we haven't seen an associated increase in overall rankings.

(That's why we're paying for a private school. We're not rich by any means, but we realize the value of a GOOD education and want the best one we can get for the little guy. If that means I get my clothes at WalMart and take my lunch to work, drive a 9 year old car, so be it.)

Is some regulation needed? Of course. Is a LOT of regulation needed? Well, it depends on your point of view. I don't think we needed to go to CFLs - when something seriously better than cheap glass-globed balls of vacuum with a tungsten filament comes along, we'll adopt it whole-heartedly. (I'm looking at LEDs, myself.) I think we need environmental regs - but it's possible to take them entirely too far. Panicking over CO2 has so far had way too high a cost which may well not be warranted at all.

Housing? A lot of our housing mess is because of regulations intended to remedy redlining, not letting people borrow who didn't have the apparent ability to pay back the loans. This was deemed unfair, and regulations created to make it easier for them to borrow.

Might not have been a good idea, in retrospect...

But one thing is pretty clear - there's a real problem inside government circles with the "Law of Unintended Consequences" - they literally don't seem to get the concept that proclaimed good intentions and mandatory implementations won't always yeild good results, no matter how they might wish otherwise.

I realize your mileage may vary, and I'm good with that. You are, after all, a product of your education and environment as I am mine - but I think the difference is I've been willing to let observed and experienced reality mold my opinions, as opposed to adhering to an ideology and viewing the world through a filter so what I think I see conforms to it.

I'm not as travelled as you - but in my line of work things boil down to a pretty simple test - does something work, or not?

If it doesn't - then you've got to do something different. But sometimes, you've got to tell the customer it IS working - just not the way they'd prefer it to.

Yeah jim, if it weren't for... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Yeah jim, if it weren't for the U.S. of A., Canada would be an Islamic dictatorship by now.

Actually, we're currently fighting your battle in Afghanistan, as we fought your battle in Korea, but had the common sense to stay out of Iraq and Vietnam. So: you're welcome?

And jim, WW II forced your government to take over massive portions of the economy, and the Depression was thereby put to an end. Whether people were making tanks and bullets with which to kill 50 million people, or repairing bridges and sewer systems used by 300 million citizens, government-funded make-work programs end recessions and stimulate the economy.

Also, Carter didn't cause the oil crisis. I'm not saying he responded to it well, but he didn't topple the Shah of Iran. Reagan ran massive deficits and raised taxes, by the way, so if you're happy with how the economy performed under that guy's administration, then your issue isn't with deficits, stimulus, and tax rates. As JLawson thoughtfully put it, it comes down to what works--sometimes it's best to lower tax rates and lift regulations, but sometimes the government needs to kick-start the economy by growing the labour force and growing revenues through the means available.

The GOP tax plan was not... (Below threshold)
john:

The GOP tax plan was not enacted; the Dems have controlled the House since 2006. Boehner meant the GOP plan would create 6.2 million jobs if it were enacted, which it wasn't.

All independent analyses of the Republican plan state that it will cut jobs, not create them. Are you suggesting that we wait until the plan is implemented so we can see what's in it?

It's no use quoting Bernanke on anything economic since he is unable to detect the already climbing inflation. Perhaps you'll trot out a Krugman quote for us to laugh at next.

Would you rather I quote the CBO? Or Moody's? Or Goldman Sachs? Or ...?

Dear Dumbass,</blo... (Below threshold)
Dear Dumbass,

Dear Resorting-to-childish-insults-rather-than-adult-discussion,

The GOP tax plan was not enacted; the Dems have controlled the House since 2006.

And? Now that the GOP is back in the house, where is the attention on job creation?

Boehner meant the GOP plan would create 6.2 million jobs if it were enacted, which it wasn't.

And it wasn't, because mainstream economists and the CBO looked at it and saw it wouldn't work.

But let's say it would have worked.

Why isn't Boehner pushing on it or something similar, right now? Why all this distraction with other matters that don't affect jobs? Since the Democrats were allegedly doing so much worse for the economy than the GOP - and since the GOP is allegedly the only party that really cares about the economy and knows what to do about it -

Gee, it's almost like they don't have answers because they don't really care, and find it a lot easier to point fingers than to actually be in the driver's seat. But hey, prove me wrong. Show me where is the GOP concentration on jobs?

Hyper -We tried th... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Hyper -

We tried the 'stimulus' - it didn't work. I see no point in throwing more trillions into that hole.

Re Reagan - of course the whole story re the deficit spending wouldn't exactly bolster your point, would it? You might want to include that we needed a massive influx of money into our military, which had suffered significantly after Viet Nam, and under Carter. (Lousy pay w/low cost of living increases when inflation was high, low maintenance budgets, and so on)

Add in that Tip O'Neal, head of the Democratically led House and Senate (who actually comes UP with the budget - or is supposed to, they've been lying down on the job lately) made a deal that Reagan could spend what he wanted on the military as long as he agreed to spend 1.5 times that amount on social programs (Ah, those wonderfully cost-conscious Democrats! Always looking out for the common man, no matter the price!) - and things were pretty interesting.

Obama figured throwing massive amounts of money at the problem would help, along with a shitload more regulation of the banks and suchlike.

It hasn't worked. Time for something different. I'm thinking a 'Christie-Palin' ticket for 2012 - "Enough of the feel-good bullshit, it's time to face reality and you're not going to be happy about it.".

Or not. We'll see, right? (grin)

FDR is widely agre... (Below threshold)
FDR is widely agreed to have extended he depression with his socialized ideas. What saved America was the war.

And, wow, I expect this won't go anywhere - but FDR is NOT "agreed to have extended the depression" - in fact the exact opposite is agreed by a vast majority of economists and economic historians.

If facts matter to you,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_new_deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression

Dear Dumbass,... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Dear Dumbass,

Dear Resorting-to-childish-insults-rather-than-adult-discussion,

I address those in terms appropriate to their level. And in this "dumbass" was entirely appropriate, as it is in yours, for reasons I will detail below.

The GOP tax plan was not enacted; the Dems have controlled the House since 2006.

And? Now that the GOP is back in the house, where is the attention on job creation?

I say again, dumbass: the grownups have only been back in charge for (now) 58 days. Plus, they only control the House. The Senate and the White House are still in Dem hands.

Furthermore, the GOP's first priority is to cut spending, leaving more money in the productive economy, which will ultimately lead to job creation – but not by the government.

The very phrasing of your comment prejudices the answer: the government does not create jobs, not real jobs, by which I mean jobs that are sustainable in the long term. This is because government spending necessarily destroys value; taking in $10 from productive people, paying some people $5 and taxing them $2 means ... the economy has been drained of $3 overall. Think Amtrak. Think Post Office.

So the government can create employment, i.e., the appearance of jobs, but not real sustainable ones, because eventually the money runs out. It's like burning the furniture to keep warm. Hey, furniture burning works to keep us warm. Yes – for a while. Until we run out of furniture.

The government does best when it keeps out of the way. Intervening in the economy is what caused the subprime mortgage crisis, and almost crashed the economy.

And it wasn't, because mainstream economists and the CBO looked at it and saw it wouldn't work.

No, it wasn't enacted because the GOP didn't have the votes. It's that simple.

Why all this distraction with other matters that don't affect jobs? Since the Democrats were allegedly doing so much worse for the economy than the GOP - and since the GOP is allegedly the only party that really cares about the economy and knows what to do about it -

Behold the liberal mind, such as it is. "Matters that don't affect jobs?" You mean, like runaway government spending, staggering deficits, skyrocketing borrowing costs, and consequently a lack of buyers of our debt? You mean job-irrelevant issues like those? Good God, you need to read a better class of comic book.

Gee, it's almost like they don't have answers because they don't really care, and find it a lot easier to point fingers than to actually be in the driver's seat.

Projection is the Dems' stock in trade. For six years they had all the answers; then in 2006 they took over Congress. How has the economy fared since then? And for the last two years they controlled the House (where spending and tax bills originate), the Senate (which has to approve them), and the White House (which has to sign them). In short, they could have done whatever they felt like. How has that turned out?

I say again, dumba... (Below threshold)
I say again, dumbass: the grownups have only been back in charge for (now) 58 days. Plus, they only control the House.

And I say again, poopyhead, that has nothing to do with the agenda they're pushing.

Do you understand what "agenda" means? It means "plan". They said when they got in that, unlike evil Democrat party, they would concentrate on jobs, jobs, jobs and only jobs until the country had all the jobs it needed.

Then the GOP got in, and this hasn't been the focus of their *agenda*. For, as you point out, the past 58 days.

Furthermore, the GOP's first priority is to cut spending, leaving more money in the productive economy, which will ultimately lead to job creation – but not by the government.

Except that it hasn't, when enacted by GWB either. Which is why the majority of nonpartisan experts including the CBO consider already settled as a fact of economics that trickle-down doesn't work. And in fact have considered it so for decades. But that's a whole different topic.

the government does not create jobs, not real jobs, by which I mean jobs that are sustainable in the long term.

Uh-huh, except the government *does* create jobs and they *are* sustainable. Ask any cop, fireman, soldier, or teacher; ask any worker who maintains a federal highway; ask anyone who works for NASA; ask any of the millions of jobs in our economy which *are* private but which provide goods and services to everyone else.

Are you saying that cops, firemen, soldiers don't exist? Are you saying that all the people who work for NASA for decades don't exist? Are you saying all the private companies that make their living from supplying them, from Lockheed to Boeing to many others - are you saying they don't exist?

Well, since they all exist it would appear that you are wrong, doesn't it?

So, please correct this notion of yours that we both can see is thoroughly contradicted by reality.

You mean, like run... (Below threshold)
You mean, like runaway government spending, staggering deficits, skyrocketing borrowing costs, and consequently a lack of buyers of our debt? You mean job-irrelevant issues like those?

You mean, all those things which are never any problem when caused by conservatives?

How about in particular, that runaway government spending on government **subsidies** to oil companies, or on military spending for things the Pentagon doesn't even want? Somehow that's not a problem for conservatives, but the miniscule amount to help the poor have enough oil for the winter - *that* is something we can't afford.

Or perhaps you mean those staggering deficits which are a RESULT of cutting taxes, in ways that ****provably DON'T stimulate the economy*** because trickle-down economics is ***thoroughly disproven***. Somehow, we have money for those tax cuts that don't help anyone who needs it, and are bad for the country over all. But for a decent educational system? THAT we can't afford.

Do you think that is an appropriate use of priorities, if deficits really are such a problem?

We tried the 'stim... (Below threshold)
We tried the 'stimulus' - it didn't work. I see no point in throwing more trillions into that hole.

Well, once again, nonpartisan expert economists disagree with you.

Once again, if facts matter to you,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/business/economy/28bailout.html?_r=2

Projection is the ... (Below threshold)
Projection is the Dems' stock in trade. For six years they had all the answers; then in 2006 they took over Congress. How has the economy fared since then?

The bottom dropped out of the economy, due to policies that were in place well before the Democrats came into power. As you well know. Once of the major policies of which was Bush's tax cuts, which were supposed to completely restore the economy to beyond Clinton-era levels. Which they did not. Which you also well know.

Then the Democrats and Republican party, under a Republican President, put through the bailouts to save the financial sector. As you also well know.

Then President Obama put in a stimulus program, which according to nonpartisan economic experts did exactly what it was supposed to do - save our economy from a Great Depression-style implosion. As you also well know.

What you may not know, is that Paul Krugman and others considered the stimulus too heavy on tax cuts and too light on actual stimulus. Paul Krugman accurately predicted our flat current status of recovery. But to appease Republicans, tax cuts were put in where they weren't needed.

If you disagree with the above statements, please disprove them.

No, it wasn't enac... (Below threshold)
No, it wasn't enacted because the GOP didn't have the votes. It's that simple.

Nope, you've got it backwards. It didn't get enough votes because everyone outside the GOP knew it wouldn't work.

Nope, you've got it back... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Nope, you've got it backwards. It didn't get enough votes because everyone outside the GOP knew it wouldn't work.

Stupidest argument I ever heard in my life.

Most of these votes are on straight party lines.
It didn't get enough votes because there were too many Dems in the House.

Fortunately, we've fixed that problem.

The bottom dropped out o... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

The bottom dropped out of the economy, due to policies that were in place well before the Democrats came into power.

For these particular Dems, that's partially true. The CRA was Dem legislation, son.

Once of the major policies of which was Bush's tax cuts,

The Bush tax cuts caused the subprime mortgage fiasco? How do you figure that?

Fannie and Freddie were long Dem supporters. Their biggest campaign contributions were to one Hussein Obama. (Check OpenSecrets.org, which compiles FEC filings.) Raines, Gorelick, Emanuel ... those names ring a bell?

Raines - CEO of Freddie
Gorelick - Vice Chairman of Fannie
Emanuel - board member of Freddie.

And if the Bush tax cuts were so bad, and caused the problems - which they most assuredly did not - why has Buraq agreed to extend them? Hmmm?

runaway governm... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

runaway government spending on government **subsidies**

Leave high-speed rail out of this.

Seriously, so we're agreed government spending is runaway, and needs to be cut dramatically? Great. I fully agree.

military spending for things the Pentagon doesn't even want?

I agree. Government spending is not productive economically. None of it, although leftists routinely talk about "creating jobs" through government spending, there is no such thing. I view military spending as a necessary evil economically. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need the military. Domestically, we wouldn't need police, or a criminal justice system. But then, we have Democrats, so we need do need them.

Or perhaps you mean those staggering deficits which are a RESULT of cutting taxes, in ways that ****provably DON'T stimulate the economy*** because trickle-down economics is ***thoroughly disproven***.

Rubbish. The deficits come from entitlement spending, because Dems love to use entitlements to buy votes. Demogoguery, I believe it's called. Higher taxes = slower growth. That is an immutable economic fact. The more government involvement in the economy, the worse it does. See ... USSR. Cuba. North Korea.

But at least we're agreed that deficits are bad. So we need to cut back, and cut back brutally. Agreed?

For these particul... (Below threshold)
For these particular Dems, that's partially true. The CRA was Dem legislation, son.

Yep, I thought this might go down this path.

The CRA did *not* cause the financial crisis. Once again, son, if facts matter,

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinvestment_act_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html

Please refute the above, or change this incorrect theory of yours as well.

As for the Bush tax cuts, I'm not claiming they had anything directly to due with the financial collapse. What I *am* pointing out, is that they were supposed to stimulate the economy far better than Clinton's policies. So, the fact that they did *no such thing*, should be the clearest proof anyone would ever need that trickle-down economics don't work.

Why has President Obama extended them? Because the GOP in Congress was holding unemployment benefits hostage, and those benefits are a lifeline to millions of people. As you also well know.

President Obama, I may add, is no more a muslim than George Bush. And has, in fact, had far less personal contact with Muslims than Shrub. So you're calling the current President "buraq" is also completely out of step with reality.

Fortunately, we've... (Below threshold)
jim x:
Fortunately, we've fixed that problem.

Sure. You're just now faced with a larger problem - the GOP's tax-cut solution won't work, because it didn't even work under Bush. As proven by both facts we all lived through, and the expert opinions of experts and the nonpartisan CBO.

If facts matter to you at all, please address that reality.

Leave high-speed rail out of this.

I did. I mentioned subsidies to oil companies. Somehow you couldn't directly address that. Why is that? Please explain.

The deficits come from entitlement spending, because Dems love to use entitlements to buy votes.

Seriously?

Your position is that the tax cuts haven't contributed to the deficit?

Really?

Words fail.

Government spending is not productive economically. None of it,

Really? None of it?

When do you plan to stop using the Internet? Because it started as a government military project. DARPA. Go ahead, look it up.

According to what you're saying, the Internet can't have ever spun off and created billions of dollars and millions of jobs. Because no government spending can ever be useful in any way.

I guess nuclear power can't exist either, can it? Or jeeps. Or jets. Or interstate highways.

Please explain how all those things exist, were spun off into private hands and made bajillions of dollars, if government money can't ever create anything economically.

"Please refute the above,"<... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"Please refute the above,"


Refuted:

" The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
Howard Husock

The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.
...." -city-journal.org

Oh, that city-journal artic... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Oh, that city-journal article was from 2000.

People have been warning of this for over a decade.

So, "Les Nessman", the winn... (Below threshold)
jim x:

So, "Les Nessman", the winner of 5 Buckeye Newshawk awards as I recall,

An article written in 2000 on the hypothetical dangers of the CRA, does not refute Businessweek's 2008 proofs that the actual financial collapse in 2006.

This because theory before the fact, does not disprove evidence of something else after the fact. Evidence disproves theory, not the reverse.

I do like the character reference though. WKRP was a classic show, surprisingly not syndicated that much.

The article from 2000, amon... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

The article from 2000, among many other warnings from many other people, predicted many of the pitfalls that have come to pass from Clinton's folly of pushing the CRA to the extreme.
It was a disaster.

Les, that may or may not be... (Below threshold)

Les, that may or may not be re: troubles with the CRA. But that article does not counter any of the actual causes of the financial crisis.

The CRA did not cause the subprime mortgage crisis - that was all private banks of their own unregulated free will. And the CRA also didn't force banks to invest in credit default swaps, let alone force companies like Goldman Sachs to convince their trusting clients that bad investments were good, and then **bet against their clients** on a scale so massive it brought the world financial markets to their knees.

Now, if you really wanted to find a Clinton-era cause it would be the appeal of the Glass-Steagall act. The act that kept mortgage banking, private banking and investment banking firewalled off from each other so that if one went down, the other two would be left alone. This is what kept the early 90's Silverado banking failures from taking out the rest of the economy.

But perhaps acknowledging that would be acknowledging that banking regulation is a good thing? I don't know.

"..that was all private ban... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"..that was all private banks of their own unregulated free will."

UNregulated? Snort. If you really think banks have no regulations, you really don't know what you are talking about here. They follow the regs that the govt dreams up, like 'you better start giving more loans to minorities or else'.
The extreme way that CRA was enforced under Clinton set the stage for many of the shady banking practices.
You start telling banks that they have to loan based on 'race' or other social criteria, then those banks are going to try to make money on those loans that they KNOW will have higher risk.
If you can't see the pitfalls of making banking regs based on 'social justice' instead of sound business practices, then maybe you are letting politics get in the way of logic.

Was the Glass-Steagall act ... (Below threshold)

Was the Glass-Steagall act regulation on banks? Of course it was.

Was the Glass-Steagall act repealed? Yes it was.

Once the Glass-Steagall act was repealed, did banks immediately start combining real estate and investment banking? Yes. They created credit default swaps and similar instruments, that eventually destabilized the entire world economy.

Was the damage caused by credit-default swaps astronomically greater in damage than the small percentage of CRA mortgages that defaulted? Yes.

If you don't believe that last, please go look at the Businessweek link I posted above. The one that is reviewing the facts as they actually happened, after they occurred.

Since that is all the case, it should be clear to how removing this key regulation led to the financial crisis.

Is there any part of the above that isn't clear or doesn't connect for you? If so please let me know and I will go back over it.

Now, that all being the case - it should be clear to you that 'social justice' policies you complain about:

a) didn't force banks to create credit-default swaps, which are what **actually** caused the financial crisis

b) didn't force banks to convince their clients to buy credit-default swaps, and then cause those same banks to **bet against their clients**.

Do you see where your argument isn't addressing what actually happened?

Do you see that the CRA didn't create what actually took out our economy?

Well said, Jim.... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Well said, Jim.

"If you don't believe that ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"If you don't believe that last, please go look at the Businessweek link I posted above."

The laughable article you linked? Yeah, did you read the dozens of comments to it that absolutely eviscerated it? It was a hack piece.

Why was the 'real estate' part of those investment banks so bad? Oh, yeah, because Clinton's CRA produced so many bad loans and helped increase overall home prices way over what they should have been. The extreme use of CRA in the mid-90s started this whole sordid mess. It wasn't the ONLY factor, but it was the genesis of much of the bad decisions that followed.

Well if it's such a hack pi... (Below threshold)

Well if it's such a hack piece, then it should be no problem for you to refute it right?

Just dig up an article by a nonpartisan source written *after* the financial collapse, that:

a) explains how the CRA forced investment banks to create credit-default swaps

b) explains how the CRA forced many of the same banks to defraud their own investors, by telling them the credit-default swaps were good and ***betting against them***.

I read the comments at the end of the article. The article contained facts and figures. The negative comments all consisted of "No, you're wrong!" - but none of them I read actually showed any of the article's facts wrong.

If you know of a comment that did so, please show me which one.

Thanks hyper. Just struggli... (Below threshold)

Thanks hyper. Just struggling to get on here.

Further to what Jim said, i... (Below threshold)
hyperboist:

Further to what Jim said, it wasn't the CRA that gave high ratings to these 'creative' financial products, ratings without which the whole house-of-cards financial market could never have become so wildly inflated.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy