Written by Rodger Malcolm Mitchell and cross-posted from his blog mythfighter.com
Which do you fear more?
The out-and-out, “I-can’t-believe-they-actually-said-that” fruitcake-nutty, Michele Bachmannesque right-wing liars?
Or the sneaky, “I’m-one-of-you-simple-99%-folks,” “Don’t-listen-to-that-rat-Snowden,-trust-me-you-can-keep-your-health-care,” Barack Obamaesque liars?
To trust a nut or to trust a sneak. That is the question.
Here’s something that might help, an article in the Fiscal Times:
Top Dem Hints at Forbidden Entitlement CutsYou remember the “grand bargain,” don’t you? It was Obama’s austerity plan to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security if only the Republicans would be nice and increase a few taxes on the wealthy (taxes for which the wealthy easily would find loopholes).
By Rob Garver
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the second-ranking Democrat in the House showed that there are significant fissures in the Democratic Party.
Though nominally Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s second-in-command, he is starkly different from Pelosi and many others on the party’s left wing when it comes to economic and fiscal issues. Hoyer spoke at an event sponsored by the self-described “centrist” group Third Way on Monday, delivering a firm defense of the “grand bargain” theory of fiscal policy.
In summary, it was a gigantic stab in the backs of the people who elected Obama. Remember, he’s a Chicago politician whose slogan is, “Change you can believe in, sucker.”
Hoyer expressed his disappointment that the Simpson-Bowles commission’s recommendations were never adopted, and reiterated his support for a “big and balanced” deal to correct the nation’s fiscal course.You remember Simpson and Bowles, the bought-and-paid-for flunkeys hired by Obama to come up with a really big austerity deal, that would guarantee a huge widening of the gap between the rich and the rest.
The plan would have eliminated what they cleverly called “tax expenditures.” Of course, these things are not an expenditure at all. They are tax deductions.
But Messrs. Simpson and Bowles looked at it this way: All your money belongs to the government. So if you take a deduction, say for charity or for mortgage interest, you are spending the government’s money. Got it?
On the Democratic side of the aisle, the terms “big deal” and “balanced” are code words for agreements that include cuts to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicaid.And really, who could object to a “big deal” that is “balanced?” No one wants an unbalanced little deal, do they?
As the country continues to borrow money to find spending, Hoyer said, debt service becomes an increasingly debilitating drag on our ability to invest in the future.Of course, as readers already know, the country does NOT borrow money to find (fund?) spending, and debt service is not a drag on our ability to invest in the future. Quite the opposite. Mr. Hoyer merely is quoting the BIG LIE.
“In my opinion, a big deal is the best way for Congress to achieve a fiscally sustainable outlook that can inject certainty into our economy and help us invest in competitiveness, job growth, and opportunity.”
The vast majority of federal debt service (principal) consists of nothing more than transferring existing dollars from private savings-type accounts to private checking accounts, and does not involve federal government finances at all.
A small part of debt service — interest payments — is not a drag on anything. The government creates those dollars at will, and they add directly to Gross Domestic Product.
And then we come to the magic words of the BIG LIE: “fiscally sustainable” “inject certainty into our economy,” “invest in competitiveness, job growth, and opportunity.”
“Fiscally sustainable” implies the BIG LIE that our government can run short of its own sovereign currency. It cannot.
“Inject certainty into our economy” implies the BIG LIE that certainty of a recession is a worthwhile goal. Austerity, i.e. reducing the money supply, is certain to lead to recession.
“Invest in competitiveness” implies the BIG LIE that taking dollars out of our economy, by some strange metaphysics, actually becomes an investment that will make business more competitive, hire more people and provide opportunity for . . . for poverty, we suppose.
“If we can, in a bipartisan way, reach a comprehensive agreement, it would be the single most effective action we could take to stimulate our economy, give confidence to markets, and ensure that we have the resources to invest in our people.”“Bipartisan” is another magic word meaning, “If we give the Republicans what they want (lower taxes on the rich and less spending for programs that aid the not-rich), they will give us what we Democrats want (less spending for programs that aid the not-rich and higher taxes that look like taxes on the rich, but easily are avoided.)
And yes, if you think that reducing the money supply and cutting benefits stimulates the economy, you also must subscribe to the “apply-leaches-to-cure-anemia” school of medicine.
But it will “give confidence to the markets,” since the markets are owned by the rich.
And now, the article closes with its funniest lines:
Earlier this month, Laura Friedenbach, press secretary for Progressive Change Campaign Committee told The Fiscal Times, “Just one year ago, Democrats were stuck in defense, constantly defending Social Security benefits from cuts. We’re now at a turning point — progressives are united and going on offense.”Go on offense by retreating; full speed to the rear.
So, as you can see, the Republicans nuts are not the only people determined to suck up to the 1% and widen the gap between the rich and the rest.
The Democrat sneaks are in that race too, led by none other than Barack “trust me” Obama.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Private Debt is the real danger: