20 Reasons Why The U.S. Economy Is Dying And Can’t Recover As Long As Democrats Control the Levers of Power
posted at 7:58 pm on February 6, 2010 by directorblue
[ Economics ]
Business Insider has the cheery analysis, listing 20 reasons we’re in for a world of economic hurt. The most significant?
You want to see a hockey-stick graph? Try this unemployment chart, as businesses retract in fear over health tax mandates, cap-and-trade, card check, and heaven knows what else. In December, 6,130,000 workers had been unemployed for 27 weeks or more — another Obama record. That’s the highest total since they started keeping track in 1948.
In December, there were also nearly one million “discouraged” workers. Those are the folks who’ve given up looking for work and are therefore not counted in the official stats. You guessed it: it’s another Obama record — the highest level ever recorded.
25 state unemployment insurance funds are already broke and 15 more states are on track to go bust within 24 months. States are now borrowing tens of billions from the federal government, which also is guaranteeing all losses incurred by the “job shop for unemployed Democrats” called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
More than 37 million Americans currently receive food stamps with around 20,000 joining the club each and every day. Never mind that unchecked use of food stamps encourages dependency, single-parent families and crime. Those are facts, you see, and unimportant to Democrats.
Public-sector unions like the SEIU have rung up some unbelievably outrageous bills for states, counties and cities. And many locales are simply going broke, burdened with underfunded pension plans and overly rich compensation packages. For example, more than 6,100 retired California government workers receive pensions in excess of $100,000 from CalPERS. The states’ unfunded liabilities: as much as $3.2 trillion.
The delightful Democrat inventions of Social Security and Medicare are doomed. Millions of baby boomers are retiring and the trillions they poured into the systems during their working years were stolen by bureaucrats — swept into the general fund and spent. There’s no way to make the math work. It’s that simple.
The U.S. federal debt has exploded since 2006, doubling in three years to $12.3 trillion and headed much, much higher with the proposed Obama budgets. Who will purchase the debt? What will happen when interest rates inevitably rise, adding huge additional interest payments to the debt? Just thank a Democrat.
How has the government responded to this dire situation? Has it tightened its belt? Hell, no. Last week, Senate Democrats last week raised the debt ceiling, which will allow the U.S. national debt to reach approximately $14.3 trillion. That’s $48,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
So how is the U.S. funding its operations? Why, through a massive Ponzi scheme that would make Bernard Madoff blush. The Federal Reserve bought nearly 80 percent of all U.S. Treasuries issued in 2009. In other words, the entire Democrat-controlled government is a pyramid scheme — and taxpayers are the suckers at the bottom.
99 weeks of unemployment compensation. Unchecked welfare payments. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Disastrous socialized retirement and health care systems that are nothing more than gigantic Ponzi schemes.
And that’s before socialized medicine, cap-and-trade, card check and other disastrous policies — hawked incessantly by the Party of Economic Destruction — that simply choke free enterprise.
Democrats must be crushed in November at the ballot box, before it’s too late.
Cross-posted at: Doug Ross @ Journal.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
What are the Republicans offering, or likely to offer, that confronts these problems – BI’s 20 reasons – effectively?
I mean that question in all seriousness, and without meaning to imply that there’s “no difference” between the parties.
CK MacLeod on February 6, 2010 at 8:05 PM
CK: good question.
The Constitution is the playing field — and conservative Republicans who map the Democrats’ language and actions to it… and can articulate its values with a modicum of coherence… are certain to win.
Deconstructing the unconstitutional messages of the current, Soros-controlled Democrat Party is job one.
I have a hunch that more and more members of the GOP are on the same page.
directorblue on February 6, 2010 at 8:39 PM
Hope you’re right. I’m always telling people with a more radical frame of mind – and who remain fairly un-invested in the current and next round of elections – that if we can get people in who are pointed in the right direction, we have a much better chance when events force them to make difficult choices.
That’s what the far left types told themselves when they got behind BHO. The difference is that the populace, or the electorate anyway, is still – even after generations of counter-indoctrination – in favor of the smaller government, greater freedom, constitutional solution.
But I’d still like to see the Rs, since it looks like they’ll have to be the vehicle, facing the issues more squarely,able to speak about the implications and what jobs two and three might look like.
CK MacLeod on February 6, 2010 at 8:48 PM
Agreed. Both parties are content to spend for appeasement rather than for growth. In managing a business that strives to grow, year after year, you have to expose your business to some risk. The risk is spending cash to derive profits or other gains. If no profit is derived then your risk clearly is a loss and you must cut your losses at once. The shape of a successful future politician is that of one who is going to identify spending losses and cut them out. I wouldn’t care as much what party they were if the were fiscally conservative and prepared to cut losing cash-guzzling programs.
ericdijon on February 6, 2010 at 8:59 PM
Ericdijon — there is a difference between the parties.
The Republicans would never have nominated a Marxist.
The current crop of Republicans have stood strong against socialized medicine, cap-and-trade and other egregious crimes against the Constitution.
If you’re insinuating the notion of a third party, be aware that I believe you’re a crypto-Obama supporter. Third parties have no chance of success in the American system.
Even Teddy Roosevelt failed to get more than a tiny fraction of the populace with the Bull Moose Party.
Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected. Twice.
It’s time to quit playing games and politically crush the likes of Lindsay Graham, Charlie Crist and John McCain, who stand for nothing.
We stand for the Constitution. And, like Reagan, the GOP must be the party we use to eradicate the Soros left.
directorblue on February 6, 2010 at 9:37 PM
Remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s phrase to describe the coarsening of society — “Defining Deviancy Down”? My guess is by 2012, the Obama people and their supporters in the Democratic Party and the big media will have come up with a new strategy; “Defining Recovery Down”, in which any unemployment rate below 9 percent or any minute increase in the number of jobs will be considered a major success story, while other job and retail numbers that would have been unacceptable over the past 30 years will suddenly be more than good enough to warrant another four-year term for the president.
And if they’re questioned on it, you can expect to hear that either the presidency is just too big for one person alone (the spin during the 1980 election) or that the nation’s problems are now both systemic and intractable, and you can’t solve them, you can only hope to manage them (which is what New Yorkers heard in 1993, after all the wonderful promises they were given four years earlier for the city, if they’d only elected the city’s first African-American mayor over Rudy Giuliani, simply turned to dust).
jon1979 on February 6, 2010 at 11:35 PM
The proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan has received some attention recently:
A TRUE ROADMAP TO FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY
Roadmap to Solvency
WaPo: Hey, a Republican budget plan actually cuts the deficit
hpb on February 6, 2010 at 11:38 PM
Excellent analyis.
One point of exception:
In fact, this is very important to them. It’s what they desire, and the 21st reason why there can never be a recovery under democrats. They reject every traditional American definition of prosperity and embrace the opposite: dependency.
rrpjr on February 7, 2010 at 12:27 AM
Americans are watching and listening. BarryO’s election, as bad as it has been for America, may have been that face slap needed to get the marginally aware conservatives back in the game, the more important issues squarely in everyone’s focus. Although there are many conservative Americans that follow these freedom reducing programs and people, it obviously wasn’t enough over the last eight years. Perhaps the benchwarmers have gotten back in the game, or will over the next three years. We’ve seen some remarkable surprises over the last year in state elections. So, there’s hope. From all indications the 2010 election cycle will be a pretty good guage of the future of America overall.
Whatever else happens, it’s going to take a chainsaw to the budget to get anywhere close to taking America back to solvency.
Robert17 on February 7, 2010 at 5:53 AM
Director,
you have it exactly backwards wrt Republican opposition.
Try this:
Democrats are not in power in spite of Republican resistance of Big Government. Democrats are in power because of Republican support of Big Government.
Once you open your mind to this idea things will start to make sense.
Niko on February 7, 2010 at 6:01 AM
You got that from what I wrote? Well then. The chin strap on your Republican helmet is a bit too tight. Unsnap it for an hour and inhale some reality. Then snap it back up and if you want to go back in the corner and continue to smear that stuff on the wall – go ahead – it’s your page.
What’s up with paranoia anyway? It is obviously quite blinding.
ericdijon on February 7, 2010 at 6:38 AM
There is a known effort among the Leftists to strengthen the notion of a third party among conservatives. This effort is intended to split the vote.
The parties are not the same: even today. How has nationalized health care been repelled so far? How was cap-and-trade suspended on its way to law?
I’m a Reagan Republican, which means we throw out the mooshy-centrist GOP’ers who stand for nothing — and replace them with solid conservatives at every level.
Talk of a third-party means one of two things: (a) you don’t read history books; or (b) you’re a crypto-Sorosite intending to split the vote.
Either way, a third-party is the road to conservative ruin.
directorblue on February 7, 2010 at 9:15 AM
Absolutely right. And I agree that every time the idea rears its head we need to refute it as strongly and clearly as you just did.
rrpjr on February 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM
As things currently stand, I agree without hesitation that a third party would be self-destructive for the right. The Republican Party gets a chance, a good long fair open chance to realize what it’s survival depends on and where its future lies – completing the Reagan Revolution. If it instead goes in some neo-statist muddle-through direction, and puts up an electrified fence to keep the Tea Party and other newly engaged “common sense conservatives” from upsetting their insider games, then, and only then, a third party becomes necessary and inevitable, amidst a struggle for the fate of the nation and potentially immense social strife (don’t forget that last time it took a civil war to sort things out). It will happen almost on its own, and it won’t be a “third” party for very long.
We’re not there, thank God, but we’re closer than we’ve been in a long time, so naturally the idea comes up. Look how far the Tea Party has come in a year. Look how quickly Perot shook up politics in the ’90s, amidst a much less difficult situation for the country.
CK MacLeod on February 7, 2010 at 12:18 PM
DB,
You’re not very good at this game. You’ve totally sized me up incorrectly. No hard feelings.
ericdijon on February 7, 2010 at 8:59 PM
The free market (Laissez-faire Capitalism) did not cause this crisis, the government (CRONY Capitalism/Socialism/Communism) did.
The free market did not create Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae and Sallie Mae, the government did.
The free market did not pass laws that force banks to lend to those who do not qualify for a loan, the government did.
The free market did not take us off the gold standard, the government did.
The free market did not dump trillions of dollars of cheap money into the system causing the largest asset bubble in history, the government did.
The free market did not create multiple multi-trillion-dollar unfunded entitlement programs, the government did.
The free market did not write a 60,000+ page tax code that punishes work, rewards sloth and buys the votes of special interest groups, the government did.
The free market did not destroy our public school system and graduate (or fail to graduate) generations of civically and financially illiterate citizens, the government did.
The free market did not drive our jobs overseas and kill our entrepreneurial spirit with over-taxation, over-regulation and frivolous lawsuits, the government did.
The free market did not ban drilling for oil, vilify coal and block the building of nuclear power plants in the United States, thereby transferring hundred of billions of dollars of American wealth and many thousands of energy-industry jobs to foreign countries, the government did.
This crisis is the result of a giant social engineering experiment and vote-buying scheme gone tragically wrong.
The free market does not try to engineer society or buy votes, the government does.
The government caused this crisis, the free market did not.
The government cannot fix the crisis, the free market can.
painesright on February 8, 2010 at 11:26 AM
Mark Levin on the founders and the folly of a third party (mp3).
directorblue on February 9, 2010 at 7:16 PM