Paul Krugman and the
New York Times Tax Hike Freak Show Menagerie
We had to do
something after Jimmy Carter bungled several economic factors, wept and talked
to his worthless daughter Amy in the Rose Garden about what to do, saw something like a saber-tooted rabbit circling
his camp, and embraced Communism with a fervor resembling that of George
Bernard Shaw and wrecked the economy. He
bawled when Daniel Ortega lost the election in Nicaragua . The Carter Malaise Era was financially terminal in light of the phony
economics of Keynes and prompted some serious study and a welcome subsequent
rejection of the out-dated Keynesianism and resulted in the invention of the
highly successful supply-side economic system[1] by
Paul Laffer[2]. This
really works. But, any economic success that creates growth and corporate
business power is ruthless threat and obscene menace to the far left so their unconditional
rejection of any successful substitute economic measure is natural and
mandated. Every dollar that escapes the encumbrances
and sticky trappings of the government is a tragedy for the socialists. The
left cannot operate in a vibrant society where the individual assertively makes
critical decisions about disposal of income and wealth on the subjects like education,
jobs, training, housing, vacations, automobiles, life styles and such. The left-liberals
who had created the Carter Malaise Syndrome with details such as a 70% marginal tax
rate needs astronomical tax rates, a
depression or a war so that they can recreate another monster like Keynes
suggested. Tax increases are always the solution to any new leftist economic
program, that, and massive spending. As such, the Goddess of the Left is the Common Tax Whore and Paul Krugman is her
prophet.
Keynes was a accidental political anomaly from the sorrows
of The Great Depression when he made some unsound (but politically judicious)
economic assumptions and presented the dictators and political leaders of the
time (Hitler, Stalin, FDR and Churchill) the excellent news that government
ought to intervene in any and all matters with money to infuse the economy so
as to reach full employment or an approximation to that notion. He preached
that it was not possible to reach full employment without direct government
spending. He, of course, was dead wrong, but what does that matter in politics?
How could any of these geopolitical magicians reject the gift of more power to
control money and its distribution? The Great Depression was a magic time for
leftists who could use this tragedy as ‘proof’ that capitalism could not work.
Ronald Reagan’s embrace of this exciting system from 1981 onward
produced an enormous economic boom (just look at a plot of the SP 500 from 1981
to the present and you can see the rise) and almost erased the National Debt.
William Jefferson Clinton tried to increase taxes and succeeded once with the
most massive tax increase in the history of the world, but after that the
further wild taxation was halted by New Gingrich and fiscally conservative
Republicans. Clinton was forced to control spending (you cannot veto what is
not there in a given appropriations bill) and abandon the disastrous socialized
medicine behemoth hatched by his crooked lawyer wife and he unwittingly wound
up with a surplus that he would not refund to the taxpayers because he “...was afraid they would not spend it
right.” Note the veiled implicit presence of government bullying over private
spending.
Of course, supply-side economics is hailed as a huge success
during the George Bush terms and has brought us essentially full employment,
low to zero inflation and a reasonable management of the debt although spending
was apparently excessive in the views of many. The war in Iraq is
necessary expense. Like the Johnson-Kennedy Tax cuts, the Ronald Reagan Tax
cuts and the Bush Tax cuts, the economy surges when the bunglers in our
government are prevented from interfering in commerce. This history can be
conveniently used to reject Keynes and his phony economics.
The supply-side theory hinges on the question: how much of a
person’s income should the government control?? In most socialist states, this
is a very large fraction and many of those are economically stagnant, such as France , England , Germany , Spain
etc. Freedom to choose what to do with your money is not something the left can
tolerate. Money is power and money can be used to unseat phony or undesirable politicos.
No young person in Sweden or France, North Korea, Japan, Denmark, Holland,
etc., will ever own much personal property and will be encouraged to take
public transportation, watch their spending and take what the government will
allow. Americans don’t like that scenario. In many respects, Americans have
outgrown government. They can handle their money much better than the government.
Keynes laid his eggs and produced a series of babbling economic
quacks that spend their time thinking backward to the stale and spurious
government control theorems of Keynes along with a few suggestions from Marx
and Lenin. Phony government systems like those in Cuba [3]
are frequently proffered up as something to mimic. This frantic carnival
atmosphere produces a series of Freak Show activists who disclaim any advances
by supply-side economics preferring the demand-side alternatives where the government
controls the money. The latest planet-busting tax whoring program is Global
Warming[4], a
political sleight-of-hand that is being passed off as ‘finished science’ by a gang of so-called scientists all agree that
the US ought to cut back on all energy usages while the People’s Republic and
India and others get a pass. Other expensive and gratuitous projects such as
Bluewater Wind projects are mandated by the left.[5]
Socialized medicine is another economy destroyer.[6]
All of these are obscene and counterproductive tax-whoring measures.
The New York Times blindly supports all forms of politics as
long as they steered from the far left and keeps a suitable menagerie of
fringe-loony writers and political wordsmiths who ‘work for peace’ in the glow
of busts of Walter Duranty, Marx, Lenin,
Castro and other leftist luminaries and honk and squeal at the right as they
compose their propaganda. To this august list we can add Jayson Blair's[7] name, an apparent
understudy of Janet Cook[8], since he manufactured
stories from mere political fluff or used plagiarism, the leftist educational
tactic that barely got Joe Biden through Law School Syracuse .
The success of supply-side economics in generating growth is
discounted by anybody and everybody on the left as a political mandate. It just
cannot be true—even if it is! We expect, then, to hear an ongoing harangue over
higher and higher and higher taxes and pleas and excuses for such on any and all proposed government
spending programs.
Like rubber ducks that float around in a plastic tub, the
New York Times sponsors a carnival of stilted political articles to drone on about
tax hikes such as this one: The Tax-Cut
Zombies[9] by (who else) Paul
Krugman. Here, the tautological chants,
drums and assorted tinsels and dyed feathers of Buffo Theater are displayed in
a manner reminiscent of some of George Bernard Shaw’s plays that incessantly
demonstrated that socialism is the only answer to all problems. To wit:
“If you want
someone to play Scrooge just before Christmas, Dick Cheney is your man.”
This is mere infantile
malice.
“So ended 2005,
the year that killed any remaining rationale for continuing tax cuts. But the
hunger for tax cuts refuses to die.”[10]
Note that supply-side economics is very successful. He
argues against success? Of course! Left means ‘loser’ in the current economic
lexicon and everybody knows this.
“Since the 1970's, conservatives have used two theories to justify
cutting taxes. One theory, supply-side economics, has always been hokum for the yokels. Conservative insiders adopted the supply-siders as
mascots because they were useful to the cause, but never took them seriously.”[11]
The ‘yokels’ are the dim-witted or emotionally infected
political victims who feed on the fetid chum-chucked bait from the New York
Times.
Everybody who lives in this society must objectively agree
with the obvious success of cutting taxes; however the left cannot stand the
loss of political power and individual wealth. Conservative
insiders (Like Jack Kemp and Senator Bill Roth)
always took tax cuts seriously.
This is an outright distortion of the facts, a strong attribute of the New York
Times and their contributors.
“Yet the cuts go on.
In fact, even as Congressional leaders struggled to pass a tiny package of mean-spirited spending cuts, they pushed forward with
a much larger package of tax cuts. The benefits of those cuts, as always, will
go disproportionately to the wealthy.”[12]
It is ‘mean-spirited’ to grow the economy only in the sense
that this process destabilizes the left.
Note the infantile bleats, slurs and ad hominem bladder splatter that swim in P.G.’s written works. He
uses unsophisticated slurs, horror tactics, tactless caricatures, half truths,
out right lies and snake oil journalism to grunt and grab for any increase in
government power by tax hikes. Perhaps he relies on Maureen Dowd[13]
for substance and style suggestions in
his awkward polemics.
Paul Krugman is The Tax-Hike
Zombie of the Left. He has less credibility than Baron Munchausen.
rycK
[1]My Time with Supply-Side
Economics By Paul Craig Roberts. http://www.vdare.com/roberts/supply_side.htm.
[3]The Phony Cuban Health
Care System. http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/8990b934-a5ac-4680-9e6e-049067009fee
[4] Comments On Global
Warming and Failed Computer Models http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/1f32bb5e-009d-46d8-9312-d0be84c8462e.
[5]Bluewater Follies and
EcoNazism in Delaware
[6] The California Health
Care Mess [Again] http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/58574b80-dce2-4ded-8571-c98512e3c7a8
[8] Janet Cook of The
Washington Post who received the Pulitzer Prize for a fabricated story of an
eight -year-old latch-key kid living in
the ghetto as a drug addict.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13]Maureen Dowd: The Old Red
Lady of The Old Gray Lady . http://rycksrationalizations.townhall.com/g/4330ab95-1aaa-4678-9ca1-080dc893ca04
No comments:
Post a Comment