The Economy of The Crow: Bird Brains Want to Throw Away $116 Billion A Year to Benefit The Richest 1.3% ‘Small’ Business Owners

There is an old folk saying that comes down from the Irish tradition:  “The economy of the crow”.  It’s uttered whenever some old wag wishes to describe, in a dryly pithy manner, a short-sighted and foolish resource management strategy.  It supposedly is derived from the habit of scavenger birds like crows who, upon noticing an unharvested bit of carrion ripe for the picking, tend to drop whatever goodies they may currently have in their clutches in order to go in pusuit.  Basically the saying is a ridicule, a chastisement of stupid waste.
Economy of The Crow
While that kind of bird-brained buffoonery may be understandable in a creature with the cranial capacity of a thimble, it’s not the type of responsible management practice we expect from our elected representatives.  Certainly not from the members of the party that claim in one breath to be both the party of fiscal responsibility and the party of deep business savvy.  Nonetheless that’s exactly what Republican’t douchebags like Paul Ryan (R-WI) and McConnell (R-KY) continue to parrot unashamedly when they urge for yet another tax cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.  We’ve already estimated at Chart 2 of this post that tax cuts for elite income individuals as proposed by Ryan will likely add $116 BILLION* per year to the deficit.

And what, pray tell, do sirs Ryan and McConnell promise the American people will receive in return for the bankrupting of the national treasury?  Jobs.  Jobs they say will be created by pushing more capital into the economy.  They’re kinda vague about just how many jobs, though.  While the suspicious among us might be inclined to attribute this to fundamental dishonesty, the generous interpretation of their lack of clarity is because they don’t want to confuse what they regard as their constituency of simpletons with all sorts o’ complimicated numbers an’ stuff.  ‘Cause numbers are for egg heads and nerds—not cool ‘down home folks’ like you an’ me, right?

Bullshit.  I call fucking bullshit on Ryan and McConnell.  And here’s why:  LESS THAN 2% OF THE SMALL BUSINESSES THEY KEEP HARPING ON NET MORE THAN $200,000 A YEAR.  And here’s the fucking proof drawn directly from  the IRS’s most recent business survey.

More at Dystopia Diaries

, , , , ,

  • Someonesname

    well fuck.

  • Someonesname

    well fuck.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

    Yes, only 2% of small businesses make over 200,000 a year if you count every all the really crappy ones like struggling cupcake stores. If you count the ones that actually hire people however, a whole bunch of those make over 200,000 a year…because…get this….they’re the only ones who can AFFORD to. Because, you know, they’re like, successful, see.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

    Yes, only 2% of small businesses make over 200,000 a year if you count every all the really crappy ones like struggling cupcake stores. If you count the ones that actually hire people however, a whole bunch of those make over 200,000 a year…because…get this….they’re the only ones who can AFFORD to. Because, you know, they’re like, successful, see.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

    Yes, only 2% of small businesses make over 200,000 a year if you count every all the really crappy ones like struggling cupcake stores. If you count the ones that actually hire people however, a whole bunch of those make over 200,000 a year…because…get this….they’re the only ones who can AFFORD to. Because, you know, they’re like, successful, see.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

    Yes, only 2% of small businesses make over 200,000 a year if you count all the really crappy ones like struggling cupcake stores. If you count the ones that actually hire people however, a whole bunch of those make over 200,000 a year…because…get this….they’re the only ones who can AFFORD to. Because, you know, they’re like, successful, see.

    • Andrew

      The big successful ones aren’t actually hiring new people. And they’re making record profits.

      • Liam_McGonagle

        Thanks for pointing that out, Andrew. Your insight about the degree to which profit displaces productivity was SPOT ON. See discussion surrounding point #2 in my response to Mark.

    • Liam_McGonagle

      LOL.

      I found your frank un-embarrassment at trying to cherry pick data to make your position look reasonable hillarious. It’s like you never even stopped to TRY to make your methodology look anything other than crooked.

      But anyhow, this gave me an opportunity to crunch the numbers on the actual opportunity cost of defunding government in order to shove yet MORE capital into the clearly less productive private sector. Turns out that the Republican’t tax plan should actually COST NEARLY 14,000 JOBS.

      See calcs in this workbook.

      https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0z0Wboesi8MN2VjZTE1NzgtMjBmOC00MmQxLThjMGMtNzBjMDZmNDYzYjRk&hl=en

      Thanks so much, Mark! It’s like an early Christmas gift! Not that I should really have had to do this, but it was fun. See, we’ve already seen that:

      #1. The federal government has a fiscal multiplier of 9.4, versus 5.5 for non-finance corporate, 3.6 for non-corporate, and 0.2 for finance. See details here:

      http://dystopiadiaries.blogspot.com/2010/11/should-republicans-consider-hedging.html

      #2. As Andrew so astutely pointed out, the poor record of the private sector vs. employment is largely due to profit maximization pressures. That not being applicable to government, it makes perfect sense that they’re more productive per employee.

      Yeah, that last bit is for sure and real. True federal employees have better compensation–but then again, if you look at the employee class data at the bureau of labor statistics, it’s clear that there are proportionately more highly-educated, administrative type positions in the federal government than there are in the private sector as a whole.

      The only thing that was a bit of a revelation to me was putting an actual # on it; come to find out that federal government workers on average produce nearly 9% MORE per revenue $ than do private sector employees.

      I enjoyed this so much, that I’m gonna post your comment and my response, along with a more complete discussion of methodology in my next “Fail Files” volume.

      P.S. Read again–more carefully; LESS THAN 2% make over $200,000; 1.3% specifically.

      P.P.S. Say, I’m dying of curiosity–just how much shoe polish did you have to drink to come up with something so stupid?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

        Hi Liam, I’m surprised a simple statement of fact elicited such a strong rebuttal. Anyways, you’re crazy dead wrong of course. How “productive” is that 190 million dollars – A DAY – we’re throwing away in Afghanistan so American soldiers can have their limbs blown off? How productive is the trillion or so dollars the government will have to spend for the next 30 years to care for the veterans of these useless wars? How productive are the billions in corn, ethanol, and sugar subsidies the government gives away to agricultural corporations every year? How come the US Postal Service never fails to lose money and Federal Express and UPS do very well without taxpayer handouts? There was no private enterprise in the “worker’s paradise” of the USSR for decades. How did that work out?

        • Liam_McGonagle

          Focus, Mark. You’re a proven idiot, so I’m not going to spend the rest of my life trying to explain this to you. You claim that you don’t know how to survive on $250k a year–which is 427% of the 2009 average AGI for the median filer and more than 98% of Americans of the AGI for all filers. If you can’t make that math work, then you’re truly hopeless and my only point in replying to you would be to expose your idiocy to prevent enough people from following your example.

          1. Did you see in this article any reference to the specific fiscal mutliplier attributable to Afghanistan? Or, indeed, any mention of Afghanistan at all? If you did it is only further evidence that you are either on crack or have drunk a large quantity of shoe polish, CAUSE IT AIN’T FRIGGIN’ THERE. If Republican’ts suddenly want to disavow the centerpiece of their foreign policy of eternal warfare, fine with me. I would applaud heartily. But I’m not holding my breath.

          2. I realize that your mental capacity is rather limited, but do at least read the article before you go shooting off your trap. There are numerous footnotes, links and discussions of the respective fiscal multipliers of federal government, nonfinancial corps, finance, and non-corporate business. And it is a simply proven fact that each dollar spent by the federal government has been more productive over the last 10 years than the COMBINED total of those private sector groups–feds have multiplier of 9.4 vs. 5.5 for non-financial corps, 3.6 for non-corp business and 0.2 for finance. I know you’re not too savvy wif da numbahs, but the calcs are right here, Einstein.

          http://dystopiadiaries.blogspot.com/2010/11/should-republicans-consider-hedging.html

          No magic–just simple division, based on #’s in the public domain, with sources sited plainly. This isn’t just a lame-ass appeal to the say-so of authorities–though I do also include links to the CBO’s 2005 report explaining that tax cuts increase deficits by at least $0.72 for every dollar in tax cuts, and senate testimony of the chief economist of Moody’s who explained the large fiscal multiplier effects of specific federal programs. I actually went to the raw data and crunched the numbers myself. All cited and linked in the posts. All the work is there for public viewing.

          3. Before you go again and try to distract us with some straw man argument about Afghanistan, ask your self: “If the fiscal multiplier for the federal government is still nearly TWICE as productive as the most productive private sector group, even after the Afghanistan war, doesn’t that suggest that the federal government could be EVEN MORE PRODUCTIVE WITHOUT IT?” You’re not so swift, so I’m gonna spell it out for you: You keep making my case for me.

          4. Dumbass, tax rates are lower than they have been at any time SINCE THE END OF WWII, and STILL the incompetent greed of the private sector managed to cause the collapse of their own markets. Far from being threatened by the federal government, the markets are threatened by their own raw stupidity. How else could it possibly be that unemployment in 1965 was 4.5% when the top marginal tax rate was 70% whereas we’re hovering around 10% unemployment with a 35% top marginal rate. DO THE NUMBERS, GENIUS.

          5. If you are somehow so thick that you couldn’t understand poing #4, here’s a clear, concrete example: “If the private sector is filled with such competent, productive types, why is it that it was THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT RESCUED THE FINANCIAL MARKETS INSTEAD OF THE OTHER WAY AROUND?” Answer: Financial profiteers are pig-ignorant goatfuckers who are a drain on the economy; By my calcs, to the tune of $0.80 of every single dollar they get their hands on.

          Try to stay focused, Mark. Bullshit straw man tactics don’t impress anyone.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

            Hi Liam, you’re right, I stand corrected. After further research on a very informative website, I found a link that shows how well our federal government does – in fact, function:

            http://tinyurl.com/2vwhehq

            Thanks for setting me straight!

          • Liam_McGonagle

            LOL! Thanks, Mark!

            [Turning aside to audience, PSA-styel]

            You know, we’ve had a lot of fun here today, watching imbeciles like Mark drink floor polish and shit all over themselves in print. But there’s a serious side to Mark’s innumeracy, too. Some of those simpletons vote.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy#Innumeracy

            Indeed, some estimate that as much as 80% of all Republican votes are at least partially attributable to innumeracy.

            But should you worry that you or someone you love may be innumerate? Here’s a quick quiz you can take to find out:

            1. Which of these numbers is LARGER than the $120 (m)illion estimated cost of printing the bills quoted in the article Mark linked to?
            a. The $30 BILLION estimated cost, as of October 5, 2010, to bailout incompetent private sector banksters? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP
            b. The $4 TRILLION increase in deficit that would be caused by the corporate giveaway plan of Republican’t Paul Ryan? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=2
            c. Both of the above.

            2. Which of these is the actual amount of currency in circulation as of the December 6th date of the article Mark linked to?
            a. $930 Billion, as quoted in Mark’s article
            b. $1,117 Billion
            c. $917.2 Billion, per the Fed’s report dated November 29th, Table 3 (seasonally adjusted) or $916.8 Billion (not seasonally adjusted) Table 5 http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h5/current/h6.htm

            If you answered anything other than ‘C.’ for both of these questions, you may be innumerate. Seek a professional advice immediately, and under no circumstances should you engage in any major financial transactions or vote. May lead to an inability to survive on income of $250k or more per year.

            http://www.disinfo.com/2010/12/tea-party-plutocrat-lets-the-mask-of-libertarianism-slip/

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

            Thank you for making my point for me – again – as illustrated in Section 1A above, paragraph 2, third line from the bottom left. You are correct – completely wasting 120 million dollars by misprinting 10% of our outstanding cash supply is really low on our government’s list of boo-boos. It does pale in relation to the cost of our stupid wars, bailouts to politically connected Wall Street players, gold plated benefits for public service unions, etc etc. So why should we be flushing more money down the federal government toilet again?

          • Liam_McGonagle

            LOL. Where should the psychiatrist begin with you? Innumeracy, illiteracy, hypocrisy, stupidity . . . Your fail file is just full to bursting!

            1. The financial collapse that led to the bailout was IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, genius. AIG, JP Morgan Chase et alia are in the PRIVATE sector, moron. They are PRIVATE SECTOR enterprises, shithead. Their failure is a badge of PRIVATE SECTOR incompetence and failure.

            2. Your Republican’t puddies like Paul Ryan not only started the war in Afghanistan, but also gave a big ol’ sloppery rhetorical B.J. to his private sector buddies, begging for the bailout. So he and the REPUBLICANS are responsible for those wars, the $30 Billion bailout AND the $4 TRILLION giveaway.

            http://dailybail.com/home/busted-watch-tarp-republican-paul-ryan-begging-congress-to-v.html

            3. Yet, somehow, despite all the Republican incompetence, the federal government has a fiscal multiplier nearly two times larger than the most productive private sector group.

            http://dystopiadiaries.blogspot.com/2010/11/should-republicans-consider-hedging.html

            In fact, absent Republican wars and corporate giveaways like Ryan’s which you decry as wastes, the federal fiscal multiplier would likely be even HIGHER.

            4. So you’re really incensed by Wall Street players? Then you’re pushing to prosecute them? To return to the 1965 tax regime, topping at 70% marginal rate in order to restore taxpayer equity? Maybe you’re lobbying for additional financial regulation bills? Sure you are.

            No, apparently your response to a history of Republican and private sector incompetence, greed and failure is to reward them with yet another tax cut? All the while you are focused on a printing error that is literally 0.1% the size of the proposed tax giveaway that will, in fact, destroy jobs, and only 0.4% of the TARP cost of the private sector’s failures?

            See, the type of bass-ackwards logic you displayed here is EXACTLY what the old folks mean by “The Economy of The Crow”.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

            Liam, there’s a fiscal multiplier alright – every time a politician has a bad idea – which is pretty much all they have – the destructive effects are multiplied with millions or billions of taxpayer dollars – ie – dumb wars, green energy subsidies, the Department of Indoctrination, um, Education, etc.

            A big part of the financial collapse was dumb ideas from the government to increase home ownership resulting in a massive mis-allocation of capital into the real estate market. Example: government pressure for the banks to lower lending standards resulting in maids getting 400K mortgages.

            We now have hundreds of thousands of homes that should never have been built which will depress home prices for at least a decade.

            The Fed played a role as well by lowering interest rates to discourage saving, promote consumption, and drive up asset prices – a policy that it continues.

            And you are correct about one thing: There is plenty of incompetence and stupidity in Washington to share. Republicans and Bush era policies are just as much to blame for all this as the Democrats are. They’re all a bunch of vote buying prostitutes.

            Btw – want to throw Wall Street in jail? Go for it! I wouldn’t miss reading about their million dollar birthday parties with Lil’ Kim personally:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/24swagger.html

  • Andrew

    The big successful ones aren’t actually hiring new people. And they’re making record profits.

  • Liam_McGonagle

    LOL.

    I found your frank un-embarrassment at trying to cherry pick data to make your position look reasonable hillarious. It’s like you never even stopped to TRY to make your methodology look anything other than crooked.

    But anyhow, this gave me an opportunity to crunch the numbers on the actual opportunity cost of defunding government in order to shove yet MORE capital into the clearly less productive private sector. Turns out that the Republican’t tax plan should actually COST NEARLY 14,000 JOBS.

    See calcs in this workbook.

    https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0z0Wboesi8MN2VjZTE1NzgtMjBmOC00MmQxLThjMGMtNzBjMDZmNDYzYjRk&hl=en

    Thanks so much, Mark! It’s like an early Christmas gift! Not that I should really have had to do this, but it was fun. See, we’ve already seen that:

    #1. The federal government has a fiscal multiplier of 9.4, versus 5.5 for non-finance corporate, 3.6 for non-corporate, and 0.2 for finance. See details here:

    http://dystopiadiaries.blogspot.com/2010/11/should-republicans-consider-hedging.html

    #2. As Andrew so astutely pointed out, the poor record of the private sector vs. employment is largely due to profit maximization pressures. That not being applicable to government, it makes perfect sense that they’re more productive per employee.

    Yeah, that last bit is for sure and real. True federal employees have better compensation–but then again, if you look at the employee class data at the bureau of labor statistics, it’s clear that there are proportionately more highly-educated, administrative type positions in the federal government than there are in the private sector as a whole.

    The only thing that was a bit of a revelation to me was putting an actual # on it; come to find out that federal government workers on average produce nearly 9% MORE per revenue $ than do private sector employees.

    I enjoyed this so much, that I’m gonna post your comment and my response, along with a more complete discussion of methodology in my next “Fail Files” volume.

    P.S. Read again–more carefully; LESS THAN 2% make over $200,000; 1.3% specifically.

    P.P.S. Say, I’m dying of curiosity–just how much shoe polish did you have to drink to come up with something so stupid?

  • Liam_McGonagle

    Thanks for pointing that out, Andrew. Your insight about the degree to which profit displaces productivity was SPOT ON. See discussion surrounding point #2 in my response to Mark.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

    Hi Liam, I’m surprised a simple statement of fact elicited such a strong rebuttal. Anyways, you’re crazy dead wrong of course. How “productive” is that 190 million dollars – A DAY – we’re throwing away in Afghanistan so American soldiers can have their limbs blown off? How productive is the trillion or so dollars the government will have to spend for the next 30 years to care for the veterans of these useless wars? How productive are the billions in corn, ethanol, and sugar subsidies the government gives away to agricultural corporations every year? How come the US Postal Service never fails to lose money and Federal Express and UPS do very well without taxpayer handouts? There was no private enterprise in the “worker’s paradise” of the USSR for decades. How did that work out?

  • Anonymous

    Focus, Mark. You’re a proven idiot, so I’m not going to spend the rest of my life trying to explain this to you. You claim that you don’t know how to survive on $250k a year–which is 427% of the 2009 average AGI for the median filer and more than 98% of Americans of the AGI for all filers. If you can’t make that math work, then you’re truly hopeless and my only point in replying to you would be to expose your idiocy to prevent enough people from following your example.

    1. Did you see in this article any reference to the specific fiscal mutliplier attributable to Afghanistan? Or, indeed, any mention of Afghanistan at all? If you did it is only further evidence that you are either on crack or have drunk a large quantity of shoe polish, CAUSE IT AIN’T FRIGGIN’ THERE. If Republican’ts suddenly want to disavow the centerpiece of their foreign policy of eternal warfare, fine with me. I would applaud heartily. But I’m not holding my breath.

    2. I realize that your mental capacity is rather limited, but do at least read the article before you go shooting off your trap. There are numerous footnotes, links and discussions of the respective fiscal multipliers of federal government, nonfinancial corps, finance, and non-corporate business. And it is a simply proven fact that each dollar spent by the federal government has been more productive over the last 10 years than the COMBINED total of those private sector groups–feds have multiplier of 9.4 vs. 5.5 for non-financial corps, 3.6 for non-corp business and 0.2 for finance. I know you’re not too savvy wif da numbahs, but the calcs are right here, Einstein.

    http://dystopiadiaries.blogspot.com/2010/11/should-republicans-consider-hedging.html

    No magic–just simple division, based on #’s in the public domain, with sources sited plainly. This isn’t just a lame-ass appeal to the say-so of authorities–though I do also include links to the CBO’s 2005 report explaining that tax cuts increase deficits by at least $0.72 for every dollar in tax cuts, and senate testimony of the chief economist of Moody’s who explained the large fiscal multiplier effects of specific federal programs. I actually went to the raw data and crunched the numbers myself. All cited and linked in the posts. All the work is there for public viewing.

    3. Before you go again and try to distract us with some straw man argument about Afghanistan, ask your self: “If the fiscal multiplier for the federal government is still nearly TWICE as productive as the most productive private sector group, even after the Afghanistan war, doesn’t that suggest that the federal government could be EVEN MORE PRODUCTIVE WITHOUT IT?” You’re not so swift, so I’m gonna spell it out for you: You keep making my case for me.

    4. Dumbass, tax rates are lower than they have been at any time SINCE THE END OF WWII, and STILL the incompetent greed of the private sector managed to cause the collapse of their own markets. Far from being threatened by the federal government, the markets are threatened by their own raw stupidity. How else could it possibly be that unemployment in 1965 was 4.5% when the top marginal tax rate was 70% whereas we’re hovering around 10% unemployment with a 35% top marginal rate. DO THE NUMBERS, GENIUS.

    5. If you are somehow so thick that you couldn’t understand poing #4, here’s a clear, concrete example: “If the private sector is filled with such competent, productive types, why is it that it was THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT RESCUED THE FINANCIAL MARKETS INSTEAD OF THE OTHER WAY AROUND?” Answer: Financial profiteers are pig-ignorant goatfuckers who are a drain on the economy; By my calcs, to the tune of $0.80 of every single dollar they get their hands on.

    Try to stay focused, Mark. Bullshit straw man tactics don’t impress anyone.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

    Hi Liam, you’re right, I stand corrected. After further research on a very informative website, I found a link that shows how well our federal government does – in fact, function:

    http://tinyurl.com/2vwhehq

    Thanks for setting me straight!

  • Anonymous

    LOL! Thanks, Mark!

    [Turning aside to audience, PSA-styel]

    You know, we’ve had a lot of fun here today, watching imbeciles like Mark drink floor polish and shit all over themselves in print. But there’s a serious side to Mark’s innumeracy, too. Some of those simpletons vote.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy#Innumeracy

    Indeed, some estimate that as much as 80% of all Republican votes are at least partially attributable to innumeracy.

    But should you worry that you or someone you love may be innumerate? Here’s a quick quiz you can take to find out:

    1. Which of these numbers is LARGER than the $120 (m)illion estimated cost of printing the bills quoted in the article Mark linked to?
    a. The $30 BILLION estimated cost, as of October 5, 2010, to bailout incompetent private sector banksters? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARP
    b. The $4 TRILLION increase in deficit that would be caused by the corporate giveaway plan of Republican’t Paul Ryan? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=2
    c. Both of the above.

    2. Which of these is the actual amount of currency in circulation as of the December 6th date of the article Mark linked to?
    a. $930 Billion, as quoted in Mark’s article
    b. $1,117 Billion
    c. $917.2 Billion, per the Fed’s report dated November 29th, Table 3 (seasonally adjusted) or $916.8 Billion (not seasonally adjusted) Table 5 http://federalreserve.gov/releases/h5/current/h6.htm

    If you answered anything other than ‘C.’ for both of these questions, you may be innumerate. Seek a professional advice immediately, and under no circumstances should you engage in any major financial transactions or vote. May lead to an inability to survive on income of $250k or more per year.

    http://disinfo.com/2010/12/tea-party-plutocrat-lets-the-mask-of-libertarianism-slip/

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

    Thank you for making my point for me – again – as illustrated in Section 1A above, paragraph 2, third line from the bottom left. You are correct – completely wasting 120 million dollars by misprinting 10% of our outstanding cash supply is really low on our government’s list of boo-boos. It does pale in relation to the cost of our stupid wars, bailouts to politically connected Wall Street players, gold plated benefits for public service unions, etc etc. So why should we be flushing more money down the federal government toilet again?

  • Anonymous

    LOL. Where should the psychiatrist begin with you? Innumeracy, illiteracy, hypocrisy, stuidity . . . Your fail file is just full to bursting!

    1. The financial collapse that led to the bailout was IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, genius. AIG, JP Morgan Chase et alia are in the PRIVATE sector, moron. They are PRIVATE SECTOR enterprises, shithead. Their failure is a badge of PRIVATE SECTOR incompetence and failure.

    2. Your Republican’t puddies like Paul Ryan not only started the war in Afghanistan, but also gave a big ol’ sloppery rhetorical B.J. to his private sector buddies, begging for the bailout. So he and the REPUBLICANS are responsible for those wars, the $30 Billion bailout AND the $4 TRILLION giveaway.

    http://dailybail.com/home/busted-watch-tarp-republican-paul-ryan-begging-congress-to-v.html

    3. Yet, somehow, despite all the Republican incompetence, the federal government has a fiscal multiplier nearly two times larger than the most productive private sector group.

    http://dystopiadiaries.blogspot.com/2010/11/should-republicans-consider-hedging.html

    In fact, absent Republican wars and corporate giveaways like Ryan’s which you decry as wastes, the federal fiscal multiplier would likely be even HIGHER.

    4. So you’re really incensed by Wall Street players? Then you’re pushing to prosecute them? To return to the 1965 tax regime, topping at 70% marginal rate in order to restore taxpayer equity? Maybe you’re lobbying for additional financial regulation bills? Sure you are.

    No, apparently your response to a history of Republican and private sector incompetence, greed and failure is to reward them with yet another tax cut? All the while you are focused on a printing error that is literally 0.1% the size of the proposed tax giveaway that will, in fact, destroy jobs, and only 0.4% of the TARP cost of the private sector’s failures?

    See, the type of bass-ackwards logic you displayed here is EXACTLY what the old folks mean by “The Economy of The Crow”.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7IQWEDG6PFI5Y64PGEBKYDSIDY Mark

    Liam, there’s a fiscal multiplier alright – every time a politician has a bad idea – which is pretty much all they have – the destructive effects are multiplied with millions or billions of taxpayer dollars – ie – dumb wars, green energy subsidies, the Department of Indoctrination, um, Education, etc.

    A big part of the financial collapse was dumb ideas from the government to increase home ownership resulting in a massive mis-allocation of capital into the real estate market. Example: government pressure for the banks to lower lending standards resulting in maids getting 400K mortgages.

    We now have hundreds of thousands of homes that should never have been built which will depress home prices for at least a decade.

    The Fed played a role as well by lowering interest rates to discourage saving, promote consumption, and drive up asset prices – a policy that it continues.

    And you are correct about one thing: There is plenty of incompetence and stupidity in Washington to share. Republicans and Bush era policies are just as much to blame for all this as the Democrats are. They’re all a bunch of vote buying prostitutes.

    Btw – want to throw Wall Street in jail? Go for it! I wouldn’t miss reading about their million dollar birthday parties with Lil’ Kim personally:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/24swagger.html