Monday, July 25, 2011

- The Most Vulnerable Americans



Who are these people the Democrats keep talking about…who are these ‘most vulnerable’ Americans? To hear Democrats tell it you’d think they’re the kids from the UNICEF commercials, cowering in the filth and squalor, while congressional Democrats stand alone, their capes waving in the threatening wind, to protect them from the harsh forces of those bloodthirsty Tea Partiers.

What a yuk. In reality the ‘most vulnerable Americans’ are the people who have hitched their future to the wagon of big government, and they’re vulnerable now because Obama has promised them more free stuff than he will ever be able to deliver. They are people who are relying on Obama continuing to “invest” (another yuk) in the future. So who are they? Look at what Obama wants to invest in and you’ll clearly see.

First and foremost they are edu-crats, made manic over the threat of encroaching reality. Their pensions are being cut, they’re being asked to contribute to their medical plans and even that most unspeakable horror is being considered in the form of Chris Christy eliminating …. (gasp) “Tenure!” What’s worse, they’re made extra vulnerable because they were HUGE contributors of Obama’s last campaign and if they don’t get their payoff then it was all for nothing.

Next on Obama’s list of “vulnerable American’s” are those unionized laborers whose politically connected employers are in line for government contracts. Think GE, GM, and all those people that hire from the SEIU. In Obama vernacular, you probably know these people as part of an investment in "infrastructure". No one can waste public money like a road crew, and they need those ‘investments’ to keep flowing.

Third are those people who rely on public money to fund their "technology" companies. The entire alternative energy and electric car industries would collapse unless Team Obama continued to provide the subsidies around which their business models are based, and continued to enforce intrusive regulation to make other forms of energy expensive enough to justify their market. Those higher energy costs contribute greatly to unemployment, but if they don’t stay in place then they will lead to unemployment in alternative energy. And that makes them ‘vulnerable’.

The poor in American have cars, cell phones, air conditioning, and more living space than the average ‘middle class’ person in Europe. But that doesn’t make them ‘vulnerable’ to team Obama. What makes them vulnerable is that they vote Democrat and are a recipient of government largess. What makes them vulnerable is that they pay no income taxes whatsoever and they are a sort of ‘client citizen’ of the federal government. But what makes them truly vulnerable’ to team Obama is that the money is about to run out for them. And Obama is going to do all he can to prevent that from occurring, no matter how much long term damage it may otherwise create.

2 comments:

James Bond said...

Tom,

Just saw you quoted by the Derb over at NRO on Peak Everything.

I know that inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods, so I assume that deflation is to few dollars chasing too many goods.

But why is that bad? Doesn't it result in an increase in the standard of living in so far as your dollars buy more stuff?

Please explain this to me sometime. Great blog. Love the tone.

Tom said...

It's funny isn't it? I wrote that email to John on my blackberry while my daughter's karate teacher was trying to persuade me to bring her to some all day seminar he's running. I wasn’t exactly focused, but John thought it hit the spot. I guess if brevity is truly the soul of wit, then the blackberry has done more for witty writing than anything since movable type. Although I doubt that’s what Shakespeare had in mind.

The biggest problem with deflation is that you're usually unemployed for it. In a scenario like that, the 'price of labor' is usually falling too, so it doesn't make any sense for your employer to keep you working. It also has a tendency to suppress risk taking, and entrepreneurship by providing excess advantage to creditors over debtors. You don’t want to owe anyone in a deflationary environment.

Take the example of the housing industry right now. In aggregate we have very little (historically) inflation, but the housing market has been deflating since before Lehman went belly up. The asset prices are falling but the debt on it is remaining the same nominally. That doesn’t strike you as a sound economic model for future growth does it?

The goal really is stable prices but if you have to have one or the other, then you’re better off with very mild inflation, because at least you can have some limited control over it.

And for all those folks who think the gold standard is the answer – the gold standard does not prevent inflation. Look it up.