Monday, September 06, 2010

Happy Labor Day

Happy at least, if you have a job.  In spite of spending more money than the entirety of the Iraq war on the so called "stimulus" the actual rate of unemployment is probably closer to 16% than to the 9.6% that is the official rate.  Yes, yes, I know that the answer is that the Obama administration didn't appreciate how bad things were.  Well then, why in the hell were they allowed to tinker with something that they admit is too complicated for them to understand?
But today we celebrate American labor, and yes, I use the small l version of labor.  The large L version has done more to destroy jobs than anything else, and they have done it with the cooperation of the Democrats. As the mid term elections near, they are getting ready to spend their members dues on making sure that Democrats retain control in order to keep doing such a great job as they have been,  Three unions alone are planning on spending over $150 million for Democrats this year.
Think about it, union pensions are getting ready to implode from being underfunded, and the unions are going to spend $150 million on buying politicians.  It may not appear to make sense, but by buying those politicians, they can vote to have the tax payer pay for the busted union pensions.
Win - Win for everyone but the taxpayer!  And who really cares about them anyway?


Steve T. said...

Wow. The spending in the stimulus equals about $500 billion. Spending on the Iraq War exceeds $3 Trillion. Did you make that falsehood up or are you just mindlessly regurgitating again?

Steve said...

Steve - You really shouldn't rely on your father for statistics.

"According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.

The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion."

If I could put a hyperlink in the comments without going through all sorts of gyrations I would. But just google cost of iraq war versus stimulus and CBO.

Steve T. said...

A. By leaving out the medical care of returning veterans - certainly the largest cost of the war - you're being either deliberately deceived or deliberately deceptive. I'm gonna guess a little bit of both.

B. Notice how both in your post and in my comment, we talk about the amount of spending in the stimulus. About one third of it was tax cuts, not spending - a fact you conveniently ignore. The Laffer curve is a fantasy for you now that Obama is President, though it seemed to work perfectly fine for the eight years beforehand.

Don't be so stupid.

Steve said...

Hey, while we're at it, let's throw in the food stamp program for all of the vet's families, and the highway costs, since we had to move them by road to the airports, and, and, and . . . .

Doesn't change the original statement, and you are still wrong. Worse, you are unable to recognize that you are wrong and admit it.

I feel sorry for you.

Steve T. said...

So... caring for wounded veterans should not be taken into account when figuring the cost of the war.

Gotchya. I'll sure remember that, you bumbling idiot.

Steve said...

Let me see, I state a fact, you claim I made it up, I show where it is a fact, you change the parameters of the discussion.

Yes, you are right, I must be an idiot for dealing with you.

Steve said...

Oh, by the way, using your "facts" then, the cost of the healthcare for the wounded vets is now $2.3 Trillion dollars?
I think you have been making up facts again. So don't accuse me of what you do.

Steve T. said...

You said: In spite of spending more money than the entirety of the Iraq war on the so called "stimulus"...

And you are now saying that:

A. Caring for wounded, disabled, and otherwise traumatized veterans (not to mention paying the families of the ones who are killed in action) doesn't count as part of the cost of the war - an argument no one else would ever make. Seriously... they'd at least be smart enough to dance around it.

B. The tax cuts in the stimulus plan was actually spending. (huh?)

So you're right... assuming that you considered both of those things in your original post, I'm absolutely changing the parameters of the argument. Unfortunately, the paramenters of the argument that you set up were really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really stupid.

You see, Steve... that's because you're an idiot. Have I mentioned that yet?

P.S. Here.

Steve said...

Coming from you, it does hurt, what with all of your experience. I yield to the Master.