IUnflection Points And The New Rules Of Fiscal Politics

[bitterlyclingin]

But there was one clear effect of the “shock and awe” $500 billion TARP bailout, which passed Congress in haste and without extended deliberation: it sent a signal to liberals that it was possible to borrow and spend much larger amounts of money than ever thought possible. So after the election, Obama and the new, hitherto spending-deprived Democratic Congress (which had been out of power for most of the previous decade), presented with “a crisis too good to waste,” blew out all the doors with the $900 billion “stimulus,” which, as has been pointed out, had as much to do with politics—servicing liberal interest groups—as it did reviving the economy. And then added Obamacare, another trillion-dollar entitlement, on top of it.

Now that they are in political trouble, Democrats may wail about the lack of Republican compromise in either the stimulus or Obamacare, but I think Democrats were actually pleased to pass both on party-line votes. Remember—they thought Obama was FDR II, and that the stimulus and Obamacare were New Deal II. (They’re partly right: just as the New Deal didn’t work to end the Great Depression, the stimulus didn’t work to revive our economy. Shovel-ready and “green jobs” (or “green jobs for janitors” as my smart environmentalist friends like to observe) were the economic policy equivalent of paying farmers to destroy crops back in the 1930s when people were going hungry—a measure that destroyed capital and rewarded unproductive activity.) They thought their program would be politically popular and add to their political strength. They couldn’t believe it when what happened was the Tea Party


Inflection Points and the New Rules of Fiscal Politics | Power Line

 

[Wiseacre]

Starve the beast. Remember when Reagan cut taxes back in the early 80s? The repubs believed that the dems would cut spending so the debt wouldn't balloon out of control. But instead they didn't, and the debt skyrocketed. Now that was an inflection point.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

That's what depressions and recessions are supposed to be for. Forcing the politicos to make the hard decisions, casting off the frills and whatever else in the way of Government spending is unecessary. But sadly, after forty years of the Nanny State we're looking at a totally Government dependent caste of American citizens. Leaving us with Charley Rangels plaintive wail "We have to tax more so we can spend more!"