«

»

The tragedy goes on..

I guess that since our lord and savior won the election, we better get used to pure propaganda stories about how awesome things are getting like this one.

CNN reports that practically all Americans went shopping over “Black Friday” weekend.

“A record 247 million shoppers visited stores and websites in the post-Thanksgiving Black Friday weekend this year, up 9% from 226 million last year, according to a survey by the National Retail Federation released Sunday,” the CNN reports reads. The headline reads: “247 million shoppers visited stores and websites Black Friday weekend.”

I guess I am either not an adult – I did zero shopping – or that number was pulled straight out of their asses. Have no doubt that this stuff is part and parcel of the propaganda campaign that is supposed to convince people that the abysmal economy has made a turn for the better because “The One” was reelected. The facts speak differently. Our government is spending far more than any economy could ever support, and the left refuses to admit that.

The narrative is why we are getting so much hot air about how republicans MUST give in to tax increases on the evil rich. As I pointed out in other posts, the amount of money that these rate hikes on the evil rich will produce are going to be of no consequence. There is a reason that the media keeps reporting the revenue that this roll back would produce over a 10 year span instead: you have to multiply it by 10 to even come close to matching the number we suppose they are currently over spending by each year. When you understand that our government is spending at least $ 1.2 trillion more than they collect -and without a real budget for the last 4 years, they could be spending twice that for all we know – and have plans to jack that spending up, this fight to stick it to the rich comes into perspective: it is a political stunt.

The reason the left is hell bent on pushing for this hike is simple: they believe that the propagandists in the LSM will spin it in their favor, and they can’t lose. The fact that the revenue it will raise is not going to matter much be damned. Look, what you as one of the people they want to dupe need to know is the following: if they propose to jack up spending by 10% then provide this massive “fiscal cliff” kabuki dance in which they cover 1% of that spending, it is not a good deal. Even worse is the fact that the left is pretending that since they are implying they will give us a 4 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to new revenue, that things will balance out. Even if we where lucky enough to get that cutting – and my bet is that it will basically all come out of defense if the left gets its way – we will still have increased deficit spending of 5%. We lose, they win.

19 comments

No ping yet

  1. Hal_10000 says:

    As I pointed out in other posts, the amount of money that these rate hikes on the evil rich will produce are going to be of no consequence.

    I agree that the taxes on the rich can’t close the entire gap. But the idea that $800 billion is of no consequence is bullshit. If the Republicans proposed $80 billion in spending cuts, it would be huge. Hell, they try to make a big deal about $80 million in spending cuts. You’re reminding me of what the Democrats were saying in the mid-90′s about balancing the budget: about how this was too small to make a difference, that was too small to make a difference, welfare spending was too small to balance the budget. But by taking “all of the above”, the budget got balanced.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  2. balthazar says:

    Its 800 billion over 10 years, that doesnt cover the deficit for ONE year.

    Tax increases are not going to cut it. We need a 10-1 ratio of spending decreases to tax increases to even come close.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Poosh says:

    I think I saw Bill Whittle crunch the numbers and he worked out if you literally sucked dry the richest people in America – ALL their assets, not just tax them, take EVERYTHING, it still wouldn’t do much of a dent in your debt.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  4. richtaylor365 says:

    If the Republicans proposed $80 billion in spending cuts, it would be huge.

    I think you meant,” If the Democrats proposed $80 billion in spending cuts, it would be huge”. The Republicans have proposed way more than that in spending cuts; it is the dems that are intransigent on this.

    But I have a question for you Hal. Given the obvious, that there are only two ways to balance a budget, raise revenue or cut spending, and given that the two sides have each picked one (The Republicans want to cut spending and the dems want to raise revenue), and assuming that each should bite the bullet and give up something, where in all these talks has the dems given anything? Where is the discussion about cutting spending?

    Right now all the haggle is over raising revenue, the Republicans want this handled through the elimination of loopholes and the dems want the marginal rates raised, so back and forth they go. But all the discussion is on the side of what the Republicans must give up, not a serious breath of air is spent on cutting spending.

    I get that Obama and his side won, fine, but why not just say ,”We won so suck it, we are not giving you dick, you must bend to our wishes, too bad for you”, at least this would be honest, more honest than all this “compromise” nonsense.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Hal_10000 says:

    Rich, you must be reading different sources than I am because there is a lot of discussion about spending cuts. And it’s the *Republicans* who are a big problem right now because they are opposing any cuts to the military (and not really enthusiastic about other cuts too). The Republicans have *not* proposed anything like $80 billion a year in spending cuts. Even the Ryan plan only cut spending in the out years.

    Here is the CBO’s projection of deficits (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43539). You can see that if we go over the fiscal cliff, the debt ratio starts shrinking (although going over cliff would be bad for the economy in the short term and mean 6 times the tax hikes we would get from the rich alone). Also not the alternative scenario where tax cuts are extended: the deficit keeps rising.

    You don’t have to make up the entire $1 trillion deficit in tax hikes or spending cuts. What you can do is get rid of about a third of it as the economy improves (indeed, the improving economy has cut about $300 billion off it in the last two years). An improving economy would also cut spending automatically as spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and other “stablizers” decreases. You could get much of the rest by growing spending only at the rate of inflation (more difficult than it sounds unless you control entitlements) and close the rest of the gap with tax increases. The exact mix varies depending on what your priorities are.

    What I am hoping for is a Grand Bargain that gets control of entitlement spending and caps discretionary growth in exchange for some tax increases. The spending caps might not happen but, as I said in my early tax post, if you make statutory changes to entitlements, those become very very difficult to undo. And you would get real spending constraint.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  6. Hal_10000 says:

    Incidentally, Obama’s proposal is going to hit a lot more people than just the rich. If your family makes over $100,000 a year, you’re getting a tax hike.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  7. richtaylor365 says:

    Rich, you must be reading different sources than I am because there is a lot of discussion about spending cuts

    That is the beauty of blogs like this; other members can share the info. they have read with the rest of the group, so share, what specifics in spending cuts have they put on the table? Dick Durbin said just the other day that SS and Medicare is off the table in these negotiations.

    Here is the CBO’s projection of deficits

    The problem with these “projections” is that it assumes laws in place today, but we all know that everything is going to change the first of the year, so you can throw all this right out the window. Your link even said as much;

    However, the outlook for the budget deficit, federal debt, and the economy are especially uncertain now because substantial changes to tax and spending policies are scheduled to take effect in January 2013

    .

    And

    Under the alternative fiscal scenario, deficits over the 2014–2022 period would be much higher than those projected in CBO’s baseline, averaging about 5 percent of GDP rather than 1 percent. Revenues would remain below 19 percent of GDP throughout that period, and outlays would rise to more than 24 percent.

    I like your rosy scenario, that when the economy improves (not if but when) that things will just work themselves out, the deficit will naturally shrink because everyone will be working and money will just be rolling in. The problem is that you have no basis to assume this will happen. From your own link:

    However, the persistence of large budget deficits and rapidly escalating federal debt would hinder national saving and investment, thus reducing GDP and income relative to the levels that would occur with smaller deficits. In the later part of the projection period, the economy would grow more slowly than in CBO’s baseline, and interest rates would be higher. Ultimately, the policies assumed in the alternative fiscal scenario would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective.

    There you go, all the things that this president has supported, onerous debt and deficits, a destabilized currency, massive regulations that inhibit growth and stymie innovation and risk taking, and the threat of even larger taxation, the very bane of entrepreneurial spirit, these are not policies that will improve the economy.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  8. AlexInCT says:

    I agree that the taxes on the rich can’t close the entire gap. But the idea that $800 billion is of no consequence is bullshit.

    This is the problem we face in America today: the idiotic logic that this revenue would yield $800 billion over a decade! Sure, that $800 billion is no chump change. But it ignores the fundamental underlying problem that we are simply spending far more than anything short of doubling everyone’s tax rate can produce enough income to balance things out (assuming you think there is no concequence of just taking even more money from the private sector and the ecnomy just goes on chugging as if nothing happened).

    It is disastrous that we are being lied to that this pocket change, in the scheme of things, is a good thing. So what that we are getting close to a trillion dollars over a decade in new revenue, when, if you ignore Obamacare and keep the current baseline, they then tack on $9+ trillion in new debt over that same decade? Even IF, and this is a huge IF, they cut some spending too, we will still end up realistically tacking something on close to $10 trillion in new debt, IMO anyway.

    The costs of Obamacare are being ignored in this discussion (they have taken it off the table completely and are pretending it is a zero sum event), and they are going to far exceed any predictions by orders of magnitude, as the consequences of social engineering and government takeover of healthcare play out. Anyone that believes anything else is delusional and has not paid attention to how this government hijacking of healthcare dollars and decision making has been going so far.

    Since the goal of this “tax the rich” scam is just that – a scam – is to use this to increase spending, the end result is that we get both an economic slowdown AND more debt. I am now convinced the left is playing out their Cloward-Piven strategy and the end goal is to break this country financially. Doubt they will need another decade to do that at the rate they are going.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  9. AlexInCT says:

    Rich, you must be reading different sources than I am because there is a lot of discussion about spending cuts.

    When? 10 years down the road? If you believe these cuts will ever happen, when the politicians that promised them will be long gone or their connection to these promises are long forgotten, then you also believe Obama is the second coming or that unicorn farts are worth big money.

    Unless the cuts are immediate, and to the bloated entitlement system, not just defense, they are going to amount to a hill of beans.

    Incidentally, Obama’s proposal is going to hit a lot more people than just the rich. If your family makes over $100,000 a year, you’re getting a tax hike.

    They can double everyone’s taxes and stop letting people under a certain level get money from others, and they will still not have enough money to cover what they are spending, let alon what they want to be spending. Nothing short of a centralized planning system where they control all the money will saitisfy these collectivst nanny staters. And we all know how well that system works out in the long run.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  10. Thrill says:

    Here is the CBO’s projection of deficits (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43539).

    I’d like to know what CBO is basing this on:

    The pace of economic expansion will average 4.3 percent from 2014 through 2017, CBO projects, although the economy will continue to operate below its potential level (when output reflects a high rate of use of labor and capital) until 2018.

    I don’t believe that and I don’t know where they’re getting such an optimistic projection from. Without real economic growth, none of this matters.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  11. Seattle Outcast says:

    First, there will be no spending cuts. There are never any actual spending cuts, just a shell game where they tell you how they are cutting spending without actually doing it. You know, savings to be realized at some point ten years from now if nothing changes, or how they slowed down the rate of increases for a week. If they do come up with spending cuts, within a week they will find a way to spend all that “extra money”, and then some, on a worthy goal.

    Second, CNN is about as accurate and meaningful as Time Magazine, The Village Voice, or a press release from South Korea; in other words, mostly fiction and a masturbation exercise in far left political cock-gobbling.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  12. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10

      
  13. AlexInCT says:

    Instructive that they felt the need to add this:

    How do you figure? I see this on a lot of blog sites. The bigger they are the more likely they have this sort of boilerplate language to protect themselves legally.

    Classy.

    Heh, at least they don’t ban people for their views like most of those liberal blogs do. But hey, grandstand and attack the messenger all you want CM. I am used to that sort of behavior from the left.

    How does this get translated into “All Adults in America Went Shopping”?

    In a country with around 320 million people, getting 247 million to go shopping literally implies that practically every adults had to go shopping. I wonder ho often you bother to question stupid shit from the left. No I don’t. That was rhetorical. I know you never do considering the shit you usually link to.

    Also, why does The Weekly Standard piece say they link to a CNN piece when it’s actually a “fox6now.com” piece on Yahoo News?

    Actually what they say is that CNN made that claim then they link to a different story.

    The actual CNN piece is here. The headline is “Black Friday shopping hits a new record”, not “”247 million shoppers visited stores and websites Black Friday weekend.” as claimed by The Weekly Standard.

    So all they can quote is what’s in the title? What about the content? I mean you linked it yourself. Let me bold it for you

    A record 247 million shoppers visited stores and websites

    There is that number. And since most kids don’t shop, you know, that leaves adults.

    Presumably as The National Retail Federation’s aim is to get people shopping, they’d be saying exactly the same thing no matter who was President. Their propaganda campaign is irrelevant to who is sleeping in the White House.

    Looks to me like you are flailing wildly and your strawman is still kicking your ass. It’s not like we are lacking proof that they report things differently depending who is in the WH? I mean a 4.5% unemployment under GWB was terrible, while unemployment over 8% in the Obama age is awesome, and oh yeah, blame Boosh!

    $1.089 trillion for 2012.

    Without a budget this is nothing but a guesstimate, and let’s wait until they revise it like they do all other numbers to match reality. Here is a clue: the revisions always make the “good news” stories look like the bunk they are.

    I just realised how much Seattle loves talking about cock.

    Did that turn you on? Why else bring it up?

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  14. balthazar says:

    I just realised how much Seattle loves talking about cock.

    Yes he does talk about you an awful lot. I wish he’d stop.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

      
  15. Seattle Outcast says:

    I just realised how much Seattle loves talking about cock.

    Shall we discuss your obsession with leg-humping and poor spelling?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. InsipiD says:

    I guess I am either not an adult – I did zero shopping – or that number was pulled straight out of their asses.

    I had to go to Walgreen’s.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  17. CM says:

    How do you figure? I see this on a lot of blog sites. The bigger they are the more likely they have this sort of boilerplate language to protect themselves legally.

    Ok. I haven’t come across it a lot. Clearly not going to the right places.

    Heh, at least they don’t ban people for their views like most of those liberal blogs do. But hey, grandstand and attack the messenger all you want CM. I am used to that sort of behavior from the left.

    Again, I don’t belong to any liberal blogs. If I was attacking the messenger though, I’d have left it there. I didn’t though. So I wasn’t.

    In a country with around 320 million people, getting 247 million to go shopping literally implies that practically every adults had to go shopping.

    Um, no it doesn’t. Try again. I even provided you with the reason why that’s not the case.

    I wonder ho often you bother to question stupid shit from the left. No I don’t. That was rhetorical. I know you never do considering the shit you usually link to.

    I no longer bother to wonder why you don’t question what you link to and quote from. Even when a mere minute of checking illustrates how lame the claim is, and it’s pointed out to you, you double-down.

    Actually what they say is that CNN made that claim then they link to a different story.

    Which is always something that should raise a red flag. Link directly to what you’re attacking, otherwise the red flags go up (well, they should, they clearly don’t for everyone, and that’s what they rely on). Surprise, surprise, they relied on Fox being accurate, and they weren’t. Dumb.

    So all they can quote is what’s in the title? What about the content? I mean you linked it yourself. Let me bold it for you

    Huh? They made a specific claim about the CNN headline in the first paragraph, lazily assuming the headline at their link was the original CNN headline. It wasn’t.
    This is the sort of standard you’re attaching yourself to Alex. But, hey, you keep on going. Don’t just agree that it was really poor or anything.

    There is that number. And since most kids don’t shop, you know, that leaves adults.

    Again, try again. I’ve already linked to the source material (The National Retail Federation press release). It explains the situation. Here is the key sentence in case you miss it once again: “The estimated # of unique consumers shopping in-store or online is 139.4 million adults shopping multiple days over the 4 day weekend.”

    Looks to me like you are flailing wildly and your strawman is still kicking your ass. It’s not like we are lacking proof that they report things differently depending who is in the WH?

    WTF? The National Retail Federation determines their press releases based on who is President? Man, the retailers of America need to get another Federation to represent them if that’s the case.
    Or perhaps you’ve lost the plot on this.

    I mean a 4.5% unemployment under GWB was terrible, while unemployment over 8% in the Obama age is awesome, and oh yeah, blame Boosh!

    As we’re talking about a National Retail Federation press release about retail sales over the holiday period, and The Weekly Standard’s inability to do basic research, or understand what the numbers actually mean, that’s a complete non sequitor.

    Without a budget this is nothing but a guesstimate, and let’s wait until they revise it like they do all other numbers to match reality. Here is a clue: the revisions always make the “good news” stories look like the bunk they are.

    You mean like when unemployment figures were revised down a month or so before the election? Isn’t that the exact opposite of what you’re trying to claim?

    Why else bring it up?

    I just realised how much Seattle loves talking about cock.
    The bolded part. He also likes talking about lube too. Not just cock.

    Shall we discuss your obsession with leg-humping and poor spelling?

    Some words are spelt differently down here. You should get out more often. I realise that’s probably difficult with your rigid leg-humping and cock-considering routines.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  18. Section8 says:

    Why didn’t The Weekly Standard go directly to the press release and report on that? It takes less than 1 minute to find. They might have then things like this:

    Umm chief, I just clicked these links. The Weekly Standard DID point out that the numbers were from visits to multiple websites at the end of the article, and that was the point of their article. CNN LEFT OUT that little detail, which they could have added in less than a minute but didn’t bother to. Anyhow, the whole argument as well as CNNs article seems frivolous to me either way.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  19. CM says:

    They stated:

    CNN’s numbers, however, include those who visited “websites.” The numbers so loose it could even include news website or the same person visiting multiple shopping websites.

    This leads to even more questions:
    Why would non-shopping websites possibly be included? Why would people assume something that makes no sense?
    Why do they call them “CNN’s numbers” when they are the National Retail Federation’s numbers?

    It IS frivolous. But this is what Alex is using as an example of a “pure propaganda story”. It’s all part of the conspiracy. Looks much more like pure mischief-making to me.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      

Comments have been disabled.