Thursday, January 17, 2013

Medved’s Foolishness

Michael Medved:

With the president participating in successful last-minute efforts to prevent crushing, automatic, across-the-board tax hikes that would have done disastrous damage to the U.S. economy, it’s time for Barack Obama’s angriest critics to finally give up the paranoid fantasy that he’s some sort of alien agent with a secret agenda to wreck capitalism and weaken the United States.

Everything about this paragraph is wrong.  The tax increases to which Michael refers would take taxes up to the level that they were during the Clinton administration, which happens to be the last truly prosperous era we had.  Odd, though, that he doesn’t mention the spending cuts.

The real “fiscal cliff” is when we exhaust our ability to borrow money.  At that point, whether we cut spending or embrace hyperinflation, we’re all in for a pretty unpleasant drop in living standards.  The string of budget deals preventing us from getting our deficit under control only hasten that day.

No, Obama’s plan for the destruction of America is the same as the Republican plan:  keep importing foreigners through immigration.


sykes.1 said...

In the December 26th issue of the Wall Street Journal (p. A4), there is a story that indicates that the correct thing to have done was go over the fiscal cliff. Economic projections by Macroeconomic Advisors showed a short, steep recession and a substantial, ongoing reduction in the national debt.

Our corrupt, lawless and illegitimate regime dropped the ball on that one. With any luck, a political stalemate will prevent them from raising the debt limit. This will force spending cuts that will again balance the budget.

heresolong said...

Well, if you read the whole article it isn't quite as bad as you make it out to be. He does, in fact, mention deficits and refers to them as "devastating" in the very first paragraph. His main point is that Obama, rather than an agent provocateur, is just another big government liberal.

oh, and the Clinton tax rates? Sure, I'd take them if we could combine them with Clinton spending rates. In a heartbeat. The problem is we don't have Clinton spending rates so we need something to keep the economy moving along even as slowly as it is. Higher tax rates would not have helped.