Paul Krugman, Liberal Marxist Extraordinaire, has decided to use an old analogy that Conservatives have also been using a lot of late. Specifically, he referred to the story of the boiling frog in a recent OP-ED piece for The New York Times.
"Creeping Incrementalism" is the term I have always used for it.
The story is of a proverbial frog that is swimming in a pot of cold water. A fire is under the pot, but the frog never notices. He begins to swim freely in the comfortably warm water, never realizing he is slowly being cooked - until it is too late.
Krugman believes our environmental peril and economic slide into another Great Depression are a couple of cases of "boiling frog" disasters that have been creeping up on us, without us taking notice.
The economic situation is easily blamed on George W. Bush by folks like Krugman, and like all of the other anti-American whackos out there, he does this without being willing to take a look at history. Paul Krugman has joined the Bush-derangement-syndrome crowd, and in fact, an "everything is the GOP's fault" mindset.
I wonder if he is at least able to think clearly at night.
Many factors play into the fact that the economy took a bigger dip than it ought to have. Most of them were based on liberal economic policies (regardless of whether it was Republicans or Democrats applying them). The crisis was in the making many years ago, with that I agree. But it was not the Free Market System that caused the problem. It was government interfering with the system of Capitalism that created the great rises in dips in the rollercoaster ride of financial stability.
The first stimulus package, created by the Democrats, and of which Bush had to be talked into signing, only worsened the economic climate. Obama's latest debacle then lay on top more damage, which included government intrusion into the private sector. Now, even community colleges are on the chopping block - err, uhh, in the bailout reception line. Every few week you'll hear about something else that needs to be bailed out, and the funds of fiat money being forced upon the industry, along with government's input on how to run whatever it is, goes up and up and up.
Americans not even born yet owe taxes on this insanity.
All of these stimulus packages are akin to a household running into a cash flow problem, and so the couple runs out and opens up a bunch more credit cards. Sure, they will be able to buy things for a little while, but eventually, the increase of debt will catch up to them, and then they will end up worse off than if they had just decreased their spending habits until revenue rose, and maybe even lost a car to the repo-man, which would, in the end, eliminate that loan from their outgoing bills. Sounds like a horrible thing to happen, losing cars and houses, but if that is what it takes to start over, and do it right the next time because you learned from your mistakes, then so be it.
It is called personal responsibility.
History is plain when it comes to the effects of overspending versus cutting spending. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (and Hoover, for that matter) increased spending, increased entitlement programs, increased taxes, and increased public works projects. The strategy ultimately extended the Great Depression, and in fact worsened it. Harding and Coolidge averted recession by cutting taxes and cutting spending. The following period was prosperous. The same thing happened after Carter's near destruction of the American Economy. Ronald Reagan's pro-growth, tax cutting measures encouraged the growth of businesses, grew the private sector, and resulted in years of prosperity. Even under George W. Bush's watch we enjoyed prosperity. His tax cuts averted economic difficulties that ought to have followed 9/11. Instead, for six years, our economy prospered - only to fall to ruin when the mortgage industry collapsed (of which both Bush and McCain warned the Congress about, and the Democrats called the Republicans fear-mongers for even muttering that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were becoming unstable).
As for Krugman's hysterical rant about the environment, the prosperity of America has made us one of the cleanest nations on the Earth. Don't get me wrong - I agree, if there is pollution, we ought to maintain its levels at a minimum. But to create a power-grab, and the largest tax-hike in history in a Cap and Trade Climate Bill over a debunked man-made global warming lie is completely outrageous. Does Krugman really believe that humanity spitting out less than one percent of the total greenhouse gases into the atmosphere really had an effect on the environment?
When it comes to the environment, not only is the frog not boiling, it has jumped out of the pot.
I can't believe Krugman is so foolish to believe such poppy-cock.
Then again . . .
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Boiling The Frog - The New York Times, Paul Krugman
No comments:
Post a Comment