Spitballin'
If you want to see liberal "logic" exposed, check out the disinformation campaigns being waged by the Left in states where newly elected Republican governors have initiated major economic turnarounds.
States such as Wisconsin, New Jersey, and New Hampshire are thriving. Their pro-growth, limited government agendas are eliminating deficits, creating jobs, lowering rates of unemployment, attracting new businesses, and discouraging existing ones from fleeing.
But, if you listen to the apoplectic Left, desperate to explain away the not-so-surprising successes of conservative economic orthodoxy, it's all come at much too high a cost.
That's right, the laid off bureaucrats and pared-back programs are a pox, not to mention an inequitable trade-off for the orders of magnitude more people/programs helped and/or spared a similar fate. Forget about the millions benefiting from renewed economic vitality—the businesses not forced to close; the homeowners not driven to foreclosure; and the citizens able to find gainful employment. Yep, none of that matters. It's better for all to suffer. The whole class has detention because the weaselly kid won't cop to hitting the teacher in the back of the head with a spitball. A new Lib gets his wings.
The Left thinks that by pointing out certain casualties (e.g. a particular impacted program, etc.), it can call into question not only the efficacy of each relevant GOP policy, but more importantly, the morality of the entire agenda. Because, in Liberal-land, there can be no casualties, at least none that are Democrats. No individual or group can suffer, even if their adversity is an unfortunate consequence of preventing something similar or worse from happening to a thousand times more people.
So, the 2012 election will most certainly be determined by how people evaluate such situations.
If you believe it's reasonable to think we can and should attempt to prevent/disallow all economic suffering, and that we can do so in a vacuum—one where there is little or no impact on anything else, then you'll most assuredly be pulling the lever for Obama.
If, on the other hand, you're pretty confident that perfect is the enemy of the good, and that there are material, deleterious economic consequences for pursuing the "perfect", you're probably going to vote for Obama's opponent.
Have you ever thought about why economists consider 4% to 6% unemployment to be full employment? Could it be that the cost of securing a job for every last person, including those who really don't want to work (and therefore require outrageous incentives), might be so enormous that the unintended outcome would be spiralling joblessness?
See the parallel?
Sorry, just spitballin'.
States such as Wisconsin, New Jersey, and New Hampshire are thriving. Their pro-growth, limited government agendas are eliminating deficits, creating jobs, lowering rates of unemployment, attracting new businesses, and discouraging existing ones from fleeing.
But, if you listen to the apoplectic Left, desperate to explain away the not-so-surprising successes of conservative economic orthodoxy, it's all come at much too high a cost.
That's right, the laid off bureaucrats and pared-back programs are a pox, not to mention an inequitable trade-off for the orders of magnitude more people/programs helped and/or spared a similar fate. Forget about the millions benefiting from renewed economic vitality—the businesses not forced to close; the homeowners not driven to foreclosure; and the citizens able to find gainful employment. Yep, none of that matters. It's better for all to suffer. The whole class has detention because the weaselly kid won't cop to hitting the teacher in the back of the head with a spitball. A new Lib gets his wings.
The Left thinks that by pointing out certain casualties (e.g. a particular impacted program, etc.), it can call into question not only the efficacy of each relevant GOP policy, but more importantly, the morality of the entire agenda. Because, in Liberal-land, there can be no casualties, at least none that are Democrats. No individual or group can suffer, even if their adversity is an unfortunate consequence of preventing something similar or worse from happening to a thousand times more people.
So, the 2012 election will most certainly be determined by how people evaluate such situations.
If you believe it's reasonable to think we can and should attempt to prevent/disallow all economic suffering, and that we can do so in a vacuum—one where there is little or no impact on anything else, then you'll most assuredly be pulling the lever for Obama.
If, on the other hand, you're pretty confident that perfect is the enemy of the good, and that there are material, deleterious economic consequences for pursuing the "perfect", you're probably going to vote for Obama's opponent.
Have you ever thought about why economists consider 4% to 6% unemployment to be full employment? Could it be that the cost of securing a job for every last person, including those who really don't want to work (and therefore require outrageous incentives), might be so enormous that the unintended outcome would be spiralling joblessness?
See the parallel?
Sorry, just spitballin'.
Comments