Thursday, February 21, 2008

Pretty Lady for President--NOT

Pretty Lady is quaking in her boots:
I don't think Obama is particularly economicly sound. Although certainly Clinton and McCain are not, either. I do think he's more honest than they are, but I'm afraid that's not necessarily saying a whole lot.

What I haven't heard any is of the three say: Guess what, like all Americans, the Federal Government not only has to spend no more than it takes in, it also has to pay off its debts. I've heard lots of talk about spending more on the military, on the poor, on health care, etc, but nothing about the debt. A little here and there about a 'balanced budget' but nothing about debt repayment.
I don't support any of those three. I'll have to see who the third parties put up before I make a choice.
Perhaps I should write in 'Pretty Lady'. (Okay, actually, Pretty Lady's author, since I've very carefully made sure I've got her name right, just in case someone asks about the t-shirt, you understand.)
Well, all that can be said about Pretty Lady and economics is that she believes in providing actual value for every dollar she earns, as she sternly told those people who tried to sell her some parasitic viral-marketing scheme last week. This has not made her wealthy, but at least she sleeps soundly at night.

But she is sorry to say that she is not running for President, and would turn down the position if it were offered. So you and David will just have to write in Ron Paul instead. The poor fellow needs the moral support.

Your economic concerns, Boysmom, are indeed valid. Pretty Lady rather suspects that a great many American citizens are going to have to adjust to some radical changes in standards of living, sometime within the next ten or twenty years, due to the subprime mortgage crisis, the effects of globalization, and this situation of the dollar vis a vis China, which is giving Pretty Lady nightmares. And it may be far, far too late for any action by the U.S. government to do anything about it.

However, the pointing out of a few facts is in order:

1) The Clinton Administration left office with a rather large budget surplus. This, as far as Pretty Lady understands it, was brought about by the technology-driven economic boom in the late 90's, which was spurred by individual creativity and entrepreneurship, bolstered by an existing infrastructure of communications and universities, which were at least partly government-subsidized.

2) The Bush administration tax cuts for the very wealthy have not produced anything like this sort of boom.

3) We are hemorrhaging money in Iraq.

4) Citizens who are assured of decent health care, education, food and shelter are better fitted for taking on entrepreneurial challenges than those who are clinging desperately to three minimum-wage jobs for fear of starving.

5) NAFTA didn't do American industrial workers any favors, and Mr. Obama knows it.

Pretty Lady could go on and on, about the connections between Islamic terrorism and poverty, the happiness quotient of the Danish people, and the pitfalls of unrestricted free-market capitalism. But suffice it to say that she'd rather have a government which admits it doesn't know everything, rather than one which thinks it knows all.


BoysMom said...

My thought on Pretty Lady and economics is that, like most Americans, Pretty Lady has, I believe, learned that one cannot spend more than one earns indefinitely. Unfortunately, our politicians seem to have never been in the position to learn that uncomfortable lesson.
I'm hoping for a decent third party candidate. I think the Republicans have done a remarkably good job of alienating the various subgroups that tend to support them, and may well, if a third party can get its act together, go the way of the Whigs. I think that may be for the best all around.
We could argue all day about health care, wars on everything, and other various political topics, which you and I would likely disagree over to a great extent, but at the end of the day, if we haven't the money to pay our bills and pay down debts, then it doesn't much matter what we'd like to do. And being regular sorts of people who are stuck paying off our debts when we've incured them, we're aware of this.
It seems very much that the political types who inhabit Washington are not.

Chris Rywalt said...

PL sez:
The Clinton Administration left office with a rather large budget surplus.

This can also be achieved by simply moving spending "off budget." They can do that? Why, yes they can. And do. The Post Office likes to brag that it hasn't cost the taxpayer any money in years, and that's because the entire Post Office operation was moved off-budget. Does that mean our government doesn't spend money on it? Heavens no! Without government money the Post Office would close down! It just means that spending isn't in the federal budget. Neither is Social Security.

My sources indicate that the Clinton administration started combining off-budget items with on-budget items in the budget totals so that the Social Security surpluses could even out the on-budget deficits. Bush & Co. sadly started out-spending even those, though. So Clinton's presidency wasn't exceptionally thrifty, really; but our current administration is shockingly wasteful.

Of course, we mostly owe the money to ourselves, anyway, so it's all kind of pointless.

k said...

During the many-multi billion - or trillion - dollar bank and S&L failures of the 1980's and early 1990's, I was a bank & S&L liquidator. Most of my job consisted of doing workouts and foreclosures on multi-million dollar commnercial real estate loans.

The entire debacle was off-budget, via President Reagan.