Oh For Fuck's Sake

I occasionally take an interest in the findings of pollsters.  I generally find that their questions are slanted and their samples are carefully chosen to produce a desired result, but I'm pretty good at filtering through the bias and seeing what my fellow Americans think.  (Hence my regular comments about the hopelessness of our collective situation here in Les Etats Unis.)

So when I saw this article from Stan Greenberg, I paid attention.  Mr. Greenberg has a long history as a Democrat pollster and I've often found that he presents a reasonable, albeit left-leaning, snapshot of the electorate.  To sum up the linked article, in case you don't care to read the whole thing - Democrats are pretty awesome but the public doesn't always realize this because Democrats are seen as the party of government.  So naturally, when people get confused and don't realize how awesome government really is, they lose track of how awesome Democrats really are.

It sounds logical enough.  Quite frankly, if you stripped out his spurious bullshit about how much we all support the Democrats' statist policies, I would probably agree with the remaining premise.  I.e. - People are disgusted with their government so they're not really in the mood to listen to the "party of government."  The main contradiction to which he refers is one that I've mentioned plenty of times on this blog.  We do generally want to tax someone else (wealthier than ourselves, natch) to pay for various shit that we enjoy.  On that score he's 100% correct.  We don't, however, support a majority of the big-government programs that have been shoved down our throats in recent decades.  To conclude otherwise, you really need to word your poll questions in a misleading and dishonest way.  Guess who's pretty good at that.  (I'm lookin' at you, Mr. G.)

So anyhow, at least ole Stan made one point that does seem pretty sensible to me.  People distrust their government and so they (for now) distrust the party that represents bigger government.  Whether the liberals of the world realize it or not, this view is not at all inconsistent with that expressed by George Will in a recent column.  Think about it.  Which parts of our lives suck most consistently?  The parts that involve government and/or regulation, Mr. Will asserts.  I agree.

The only real difference is that Greenberg thinks we would love government if only it could communicate better.  I doubt it.  I honestly don't think you would feel swell about the two hours it takes to renew a driver's license, if only you knew that the collective bargaining rights of the DMV employees entitle them to take a lunch break during the busiest time of day.  I think you would still lean toward Mr. Will's position and conclude that most government work is ineffectual and frustrating.

Worst of all has to be the phony baloney friend-of-the-working-man horseshit that both parties try to peddle on you.  Democrats demonize wealthy people to draw support from the poor and middle class, even as they advocate statist policies that would stifle middle class prosperity.  Cap and Trade ring a bell?  Republicans characterize wealthy people as job creators, even if there's no evidence that an untaxed dollar in a rich guy's pocket will ever lead to the creation of a job.  If the libs had any balls, they would come out and say that you're entitled to the fruit of someone else's labor but you're obligated to pay more for a better world.  If the conservatives had any balls, they would come out and say that you're not entitled to shit and you're not obligated to pay for shit.  Neither of them express either view though, do they?  Cowards.  They try to obfuscate and spin, time and time again.

But here's the rub.  And here's where Greenberg is right.  A Republican using his position to screw the taxpayer might be seen as a scumbag, but at least he would philosophically be in favor of limiting opportunitities for politicians to screw the taxpayer.  And he would be despised in most opinion polls, outside whichever district was the beneficiary of his scumbagishness.  A Democrat, on the other hand, would face the double-whammy of being (a) the one screwing the taxpayers and (b) in favor of creating more opportunities to do so.  Take Joe Biden, for instance... 

Oh for fuck's sake.

Exciting News

I generally set aside a decent sum of my money for the future and then blow the rest.  First come the bills that I have to pay.  Then, whatever is left gets spent on whichever frivolous pursuits tickle my fancy.  In an effort to strengthen my balance sheet though, it has occurred to me that I might do well to either increase my revenues or cut my spending.  Given that I can't legally confiscate someone else's cash (unlike some folks), my best bet would be to cut my spending.

So what did I decide?  Less beer?  Less food?  Less travel?  Less entertainment?  Hell to the naw!  Here's my brilliant solution - I won't buy a Mercedes next year.  BOOM!  I just cut $50,000 in spending!  That's pretty exciting, eh?

If this idea sounds ridiculous, it should.  That's exactly how our federal government plans to tackle the debt situation facing the nation.  Let's go ahead and accept that our president is not a pathological liar and he really does have a plan to "save" $4 trillion over the nex ten years.  Does that mean our debt goes from $14.5 trillion down to $10.5 trillion?  Hah!  Of course not.  It means that our $14.5 trillion becomes something upwards of $20 trillion. (You know, instead of $24 trillion.)  AKA - They're not cutting shit.

Reid's plan doesn't cut shit.  Boehner's plan doesn't cut shit.  Hell, even Ryan-the-granny-killer's budget doesn't cut shit.  They all play games with projected future numbers to make it seem like things are getting back on track, racking up more and more debt all along the way.  Therefore, I propose that we all agree not to buy a new Mercedes next year.  We can donate our collective "savings" to the Treasury and pay off the Chinese in no time.  Yeah, I know.  Stupid.

In related news, self-described conservatives who are clamoring for a deal involving a balanced budget amendment are actually a bunch of cowards.  The idea of a balanced budget makes them feel all warm and fuzzy, right?  So then screw the amendment and get straight to it.  The budget will be balanced by the middle of August if we do nothing.  Money in =  money out.  Done.  If they really want to stop the borrowing, then they can stop the borrowing.  Sure the government would have to slash and burn quite a few departments, but what do you think would happen if you had a balanced budget amendment?  Massive, crushing tax hikes or massive, painful slashes in spending.  It's coming one way or the other.  If you want a balanced budget, then just give Obama the finger and get on with it.

I know what comes next...

"But they'll downgrade our debt and interest rates will rise!"  Irrelevant.  If we're done borrowing, then we only have to pay the rates to which the buyers agreed in their respective auctions.  There is no such thing as a retroactive interest rate hike on a Treasury bond.  You buy the bond and you get a fixed rate until it matures, then you get your principal back.  The reason that we're currently subject to rate hikes is that we're constantly borrowing new money to pay interest on old money.  No more borrowing would mean that those interest payments have to come from tax receipts.  AKA - interest rates and bond ratings wouldn't matter.

To be clear - I'm not advocating a default.  I wouldn't mind one, but I'm not advocating it.  You see, I wouldn't give a rat's ass if the federal government cut 100% of its non-military spending tomorrow.  My fellow Americans would positively freak out though, once they realized that the feds have their tentacles into just about everything.  The ~40% in cuts that would balance the books would lead to a nationwide panic attack, with a pretty steep economic recession thrown in just for good measure.  I can't stand most people as it is.  I can only imagine how shitty this country would be if you were all caught up in a financial panic.

My point is simply to point out the absurdity of the whole argument.  We're not bickering over whether we'll go bankrupt.  We will under either party's approach.  We're not even bickering over how quickly we'll go bankrupt.  The pace will be roughly the same under either party's approach.  (Slightly slower under the Republican plan, but not much.)  We're bickering over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  The dumbassed speeches about corporate jets don't fix anything.  The imaginary reforms to entitlements don't fix anything.  The die has been cast.  Unless you see a budget where federal outlays are smaller year-over-year, you're being sold on the idea that you can cut spending by not buying a Mercedes.  I hope you're not that gullible.

Money Shots

Given my general tendency to remark about various budgetary and economic matters, this post's title might lead one to believe that we're discussing something worthwhile here.  Let me be clear then.  We're not.  You'll have to accept my apologies in advance for the distasteful nature this time.  Tonight we discuss pornography.

It's not the general nature of pornography that has drawn this post.  I'm pretty sure I understand what that's all about.  Sex is what it is, after all.  It arouses what it arouses.  I understand completely.  I enjoy naked broads as much as the next guy.  And, even though it's incomprehensible to me, I'm sure plenty of broads enjoy the occasional naked fella as well.  (Go ahead and insert the obligatory girl-girl and guy-guy sentence here to round out the scenarios if you must.  You get my point.)

I'm not entirely sold on porn's value, since the viewer still tends to be a pitiful soul relegated to manual stimulation of his/her own genitalia when all is said and done, but at least the purpose is relatively clear.  It's like the internet version of going to a strip club and spending a bunch of money to look at women who won't be in your bed later.  (Yes, I know about the 'VIP rooms.'  I'm not a child, but there are internet options for arranging escorts as well.  We're discussing the usual and typical versions of events here - AKA the versions that don't involve prostitution but do involve mostly-clothed people looking at mostly-naked people who make them horny.)

So porn is what it is.  We all understand this.  There are various types of porn meant to appeal to various types of people.  We all understand this.  If it's your cup of tea - more power to you.

I have one nagging question though.  What's with this 'money shot' business?  I assume that the point of pornography is to allow people a sort of escape into a fantasy realm... or whatever.  I can't think of the fantasy realm where this sort of finish makes any sense.  On the infrequent occasion that I might find myself engaged in coitus with an unfortunate lass, I can't imagine that I would ever think, "This is no good.  I should interrupt this delightful process and use my own hand to jerk off on her face/chest/other instead!"

Seriously - what in the hell is that?

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just move along.  It's truly not worth the trouble.  I'll get back to observing the bona fide idiots who represent us before too long.  I'll rain on the parade of our collective hopes for an economic recovery soon enough.  Life will go on as it always has, and you won't have to concern yourself with such vulgar topics.

If you do know what I mean though - What is this money shot stuff all about?

Boehner's statement says 'Yikes'

Mr. Speaker has his reaction to the latest unemployment numbers. 

I have mine.

I'm not a Jew or anything.  'Catholic' would be my religious affiliation if we were conducting a census, but still... Oy Vey!  Set aside the absolutely atrocious economic performance of this country (if you're able) and just take stock of the situation as it stands.

Did we do nothing and ride out the storm, as the president's imaginary straw man opponents might have suggested if they actually existed?  Nope.  We went on the biggest borrowing and spending binge in the history of the world.  And where exactly are we, two and a half years into this experiment?  A ~35% increase in national debt and more unemployment than when we started?

Oy vey.  That's pretty fucking bad.

I make no secret of my political views, but I am fairly versed in the world of economics.  I begrudgingly acknowledge that government spending can generally be counted on to generate some economic growth.  That being said - the myth of the Keynesian multiplier should be put to rest at this point.  ARRA spending did in fact buoy growth over the last two years... in dollar figures that were LESS than the overall cost of the "stimulus" spending that took place.  The "multiplier effect" doesn't exist and it never has.  Show me a contradictory example and I'll buy you a beer.  Reality is a real motherfucker.

The real effect has been that state and local governments used "Obama money" (as my brother's employers called it) to paper over their sad budgets for a while.  And now here we are.  The government sector is still out of money and all that "Obama money" has run out.  In exchange for keeping unsustainable local budgets afloat for two years, we owe a few more trillions to the Chinamen, Russians, and Brazilians, and now we get to lay off the same workers who would have lost their jobs in the first place.  Only now we're further in the hole and the debt is 35% larger.  Awesome work, guys!

So -  how exactly do you illustrate failure?  I'll give it a shot.  Some models suggest that the trillions in dollars may (or may not) have "saved or created" millions of jobs.  So maybe all the spending was worth it, right?  Yeah, maybe.  Nobody can actually identify any of those "saved or created" jobs, but we have computer models that tell us a trillion bucks borrowed and spent must have achieved something.  To paraphrase the author of this article though - We could have just identified all of the imaginary beneficiaries and cut each of them a check for $100,000.  That would have covered the two years' worth of imaginary salaries that we "saved or created" and we'd be more than $400 billion ahead of where we are now.  Mathematics sure do suck if you're a big spender.

Dollar cost is so declasse and arbitrary though, right?  The dignity of the individual rises above the mind-blowing debt that has been incurred.  So what if we're anal-raping future generations of Americans in order to buy votes today.  At least we've made sure that people who want jobs can find them.  At least we're taking bold steps to make sure we handle this recession better than others that came before.  Err...



Oy motherfucking vey.

I can't wait to see what they do when they figure out what comes after 'trillion.'