Not Getting It

I don’t really get it!

The prevailing wisdom within Democratic circles is that the stimulus was not large enough. More stimulus in one fashion or another is required to address the economy, they say. More stimulus, of course, means more debt, higher deficits, printing money and more impetus in the direction of inflation. No matter what we’d like to think, no matter the polls or the disapproval they reflect; John Maynard Keynes is alive, well and likely getting food stamps in the world of Democratic economics.

Does the drumbeat for more stimulus mean the Democrats got it wrong in the first place? As memory serves not a single Republican voted for the stimulus package; it passed. The stimulus could have been bigger, much bigger, there was nothing to stop it; the vote would have been the same.

The call for more Keynesian stimulus is, under present circumstances, DOA. Why focus on it? Why insist on it? It has been rejected as a curative, seen in hindsight as more political than economic. The Republican House won’t pass it. Why flog it? Is it just a negotiating position? I don’t get it!

I don’t get it …..unless, Democratic economic views remain non economic and exclusively political. That being the case, it’s not about stimulation; it’s simply about spending and the satisfaction of narrow interest groups. It is difficult if not impossible to reach any other logical conclusion.

It could be about the continuing narrative that capitalism and market based solutions are immoral. That argument prevails in the face of the facts. Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty and created the most powerful economies than any system in history. I don’t get it!

Perhaps we should be reminded of a bit or Churchillian wisdom; “Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.”

  • Bill Hedges

    I find this article explains it VERY WELL !!! For me at least…

    “Krugman’s analysis of the Reagan recovery — a deep recession equals sharp recovery — tells us that the economy should be storming ahead, especially given Obama’s enlightened leadership. But in the seven quarters following the end of this recession, gross domestic product growth has averaged 2.8 percent. In the seven quarters following the Reagan recession, GDP growth averaged 7.1 percent.”

    “Forecasters are now lowering expectations for economic growth. Ominously, “core inflation,” which excludes “volatile” categories of food and fuel, is up. Unemployment, after dipping below 9 percent, is now back to 9.1 percent.”

    “So how does the left explain this?”

    “This was a (SET ITAL) financial (END ITAL) (emphasis added) crisis,” explains Robert Shapiro, a Clinton administration economist, “and these take longer to recover from.” Does this explain why last spring the Obama administration confidently predicted a “Recovery Summer”? Does this explain why the Obama economic team predicted that the 2009 passage of “stimulus” would prevent unemployment, then at 7 percent, from reaching 8 percent? Krugman, of course, in refusing to credit Reagan policies for the Reagan Recovery, made no distinction between a “financial” and a regular old crisis.”

    “It’s flat-out tough to explain how anti-Reagan policies are supposed to produce Reagan-like growth.”

    “Here’s the real explanation. The top priority of the left isn’t “jobs, jobs, jobs.” Andy Stern, the former head of the Service Employees International Union and hero to the left, makes this clear: “Western Europe, as much as we used to make fun of it, has made different trade-offs which may have ended with a little more unemployment but a lot more equality.”

    “The goal of the leftist is social justice — using government to close the gap between the have and the have-nots, to secure the “right” to health care. Obama’s policies are therefore an acceptable trade-off even though they kill jobs — as long as it’s somebody else’s job that gets killed.”

    http://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2011/06/30/economy_reagan_gets_no_credit,_obama_gets_no_blame/page/2

  • D.D.Mao

    “More stimulis,of course means more debt,higher deficits,printing money and the impetus in the direction of inflation.”

    What it also means if it is passed is the rating being lowered again by Standard and Poors.If it wasn’t for what the final effect involves I would say as the old Chinese proverb goes “When your enermy is destroying himself let him” but this mindless action has major repercussions.

    I’ve learnt a long time ago that EVERYTHING the Democrats do is for political purposes.My guess is it has nothing to do with special interest.I think because they tried to blame the Tea Party for the rating being lowered they will keep on with this tactic and WHEN THE ECONOMY DOESN’T IMPROVE THEY FEEL THEY CAN BLAME THE TEA PARTY FOR NOT PASSING THIS ADDITIONAL STIMULIS.They have no ideas nor positive accomplishments going into the 2012 elections and they feel the blame game has worked for them in the past.

    STAND TOUGH REPUBLICANS!

  • landreaux

    The ‘Blame Game’ is getting old and today’s Gallup numbers prove it. Crisis focuses the mind and, perhaps with a bit of wishful thinking, I believe people are getting focused and when those to busy or disconneted start to have a looksee, they don’t like what they see. Eventually people look for someone whose a “stand up” type. Clearly the President is not that type and it’s unlikely he’s going to become one anytime soon. It just is not in him. I also believe the President and his people are truly confused that WE ‘dont’get it!

  • D.D.Mao

    Landreaux……..I agree with you totally.I didn’t suggest the “blame game ” would work just that they feel they have success with it among their supporters.Knowing the way the Progressive/Liberal mind works they are probably correct after all he was voted in as the first Affirmitive Action President.

    In regard to President Obama believing whether we “get it” he expressed prior to the budget deal that “the public don’t pay attention to the fine details of the economy” BUT “that’s what they get paid for”.So his elitist attitude doesn’t care whether we get it or not as he expressed so often on other issues.

    America didn’t fall for the blame game during President Carters “Malaise” presidency but then we had a candidate running against him who had a vision for America.Let us hope someone in the Republican party can rekindle a vision of America of “WE the people……”

  • Landreaux

    DD,

    I did not mean to intimate that the ‘blame game’ comment was aimed in your direction. They may be having some success with their base but their base is shrinking every day as some degree of common sense or painful reality sets in.