Category: Economics

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The past couple of weeks has been difficult for the Biden Administration. Aside from its usual level of tone-deaf incompetence, its signature infrastructure bill, Build Back Better, has been getting criticized more than Dave Chappelle’s recent Netflix special. But unlike the aforementioned special, the Build Back Better agenda isn’t intentionally funny.

The more that comes out about Build Back Better, the less it seems to get people’s support. Of course, it doesn’t help matters any that information about it comes out in dribs and drabs, all while being promoted as costing nothing. As you might expect, I’m a little skeptical.

And by a little, I mean a lot.

This week, let’s look at the agenda and try to piece together what it is.

Build Back Better

What the Left thinks it means – an important approach to rebuilding our infrastructure, create jobs, and achieve more energy independence

What it really means – a laundry list of programs and expenditures that will do little-to-nothing towards infrastructure

Back in my youth, I loved this time of year because that meant all the national chain department stores would send out their Christmas-themed catalogs. There you could see all sorts of cool toys and gadgets to make children’s Christmas lists a lot easier to make, but more expensive to fulfill. These days, the best we can hope for is a list of things we’re going to be paying for on the federal credit card. With Build Back Better, we are hoping in one hand and shitting in the other and seeing which hand fills up first.

Let’s just say you might want to hold off giving high fives for a while.

Build Back Better is shrouded in mystery, mainly because the Left doesn’t want us to know what’s in it to avoid having to answer questions. Don’t get me wrong, there is some infrastructure in Build Back Better, but so far not a lot of what we know about it would qualify. Instead, much of it is recycled Leftist ideas that didn’t go over well the first time, including what I would call a soft reboot of the Green New Deal (complete with money going to the Socialist Socialite because reasons). And, surprise surprise, there are people out there who want more details before we spend $3.5 trillion.

Like Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

Well, the Left hasn’t taken this too well, considering they’re all-in on harassing the Senators and calling for them to be recalled, removed, or otherwise defeated in the next primary. To date, neither Manchin nor Sinema has changed their minds and it’s unclear whether pinning the Left’s failure to make an argument in favor of Build Back Better on them is going to work. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say…it’s not.

In a rare moment of self-awareness, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted Democrats haven’t done a good job in selling the benefits of Build Back Better. Granted, there may not be much there to sell, but I have to give the Speaker credit for acknowledging the lack of persuasion. And for staying sober long enough to do it. Combine this with the “ram it through at all costs” approach used on Sens. Manchin and Sinema, and you have an image problem worse that Jon Gruden right now.

This begs the question of why there’s a problem getting people to support Build Back Better outside of the party faithful. A lot of it goes back a few months to the Left’s “X is infrastructure” approach. Child care, health care, living wages, and so on were thrown into the same bucket and people started to wonder why, including your humble correspondent. It created a lot of jokes outside of the Leftist hivemind, but the fact anything under the sun could be considered infrastructure if you wanted it to be undercut the validity of any infrastructure proposal by cheapening the idea of infrastructure. (And that is how you fit one word into a sentence multiple times without looking like you’re just trying to pad out a weekly blog post about words the Left uses…okay, let’s move on.)

Let’s not overlook the lack of transparency in this situation. Yes, it’s called Build Back Better, but what does that consist of and how is better being determined? Even the Biden Administration can’t come up with concrete answers, and it’s their fucking plan! When the people who came up with the thing can’t tell you what it’s about, you know it’s either horrible or they’re incompetent.

Insert “Why Not Both?” meme here.

Seriously, though, Build Back Better proponents can’t seem to get out of their own ways and level with us. Instead, we’re hearing how it will cost nothing (which it won’t, but try telling Leftists that offsets of costs don’t mean there weren’t any costs in the first place) and how it will make the wealthy pay their fair share (except the top 1% pays around 40% of the federal tax burden as of this missive). These are red-meat issues for Leftists, but they don’t play that well on Main Street. Most people today care about paying their own bills and ignore politics because it’s pointless. Except for a select few of us, that is, who pay attention to the minute details of every soundbite, campaign promise, or proposed spending.

Geez, we desperately need hobbies!

As long as Build Back Better is more high concept and less brass tacks (and more high tax), it’s going to be a hard pass from me. However, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I’ve come up with a new name for it, and the Biden Administration won’t even have to change the abbreviation. I call it Biden’s Big Boondoggle. Catchy, isn’t it?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

While President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better bill languishes in Congress, Leftists are trying to shame people into supporting it, including members of “The Squad.” For those unfamiliar with them, The Squad is the political equivalent of “The View”: a bunch of uninformed harpies whose voices create more cringe than YouTube. A member of The Squad, Rep. Ilhan Omar, recently tweeted America has a problem with greed.

By the way, this is one reason I don’t have a Twitter account: too many twits.

The Left loves to attack greed, but do they understand what it entails? Let’s just assume not and head right into this week’s Leftist Lexicon.

greed

What the Left thinks it means – unnecessarily hording money so others can’t use it to better society

What it really means – the lust for money, especially money that doesn’t belong to you

Greed is a human emotion everyone has, but the Left has found a way to weaponize it. To the Left, there is a direct line from greed to dag-nasty evil once you connect the dots. The problem is the dots don’t connect nearly as neatly as the Left will have you believe.

Take Amazon founder and executive Jeff Bezos, for example. In spite of his near-perfect record of supporting Leftist causes, he’s still in the crosshairs of the Left because of the money he’s made due to COVID-19. Gee, I wonder how Bezos could have made so much money delivering packages to people stuck inside due to a global pandemic…it’s a mystery!

Granted, the way Amazon treats warehouse workers makes China look good by comparison, which is a valid criticism of the Bezos way, but that’s usually not what the Left talks about first. It’s his money and what he’s done with it, namely going up into space. Shortly after Bezos and fellow rich Leftist Richard Branson took their money and built rockets that took them into space, Leftists went berserk…er. They said the money they (and non-Leftist Elon Musk) spent on what they termed joyrides could have been used for better purposes, such as education and the environment. Heck, they were so serious they made it into a meme! A MEME, PEOPLE!

Here’s the funny thing. Bezos, Branson, and Musk do contribute to society. Bezos alone gave $10 billion to fight climate change. Wait…isn’t climate change something the Left says they care about? Why, yes! Yes, it is! Combine that with the $2 billion and the millions of dollars Branson and Musk have given to numerous charities, respectively. And that’s not even getting into the Warren Buffets and Bill Gateses of the world. And what has the Left contributed?

A meme trying to get us to believe billionaires were bad people because they were greedy for wanting to go into space.

That’s a concept the Left can’t seem to get their heads around: it’s not their money in the first place. It shouldn’t be any of our business how people spend their money so long as it doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights, and I’m going to say taking a craft into space isn’t hurting anybody but NASA and the Left. Not that I advocate either, mind you. It’s a matter of keeping things in perspective, i.e. staying in your lane.

The Left doesn’t recognize that, though, because to them everything is or should be under their control, and I do mean control. If they can figure out a way to create federal control of anything, they will make it happen. Just look at their attempt to federalize fact-checking on Facebook, as helped by a “whistleblower” who just happens to give money to the Socialist Socialite. But I’m sure that was totally a coincidence, though!

The end goal for bringing up greed is to get the Left in control of as much money as possible. Instead of working to, you know, earn it, they try to guilt it into their wallets, and it usually works. That’s why a lot of wealthy people lean Left. Either that, or they’re trying to keep the Left off their backs for a little while. Either way, the Left isn’t satisfied with the money they get from wealthy Leftists. They need to have it all, and will use any means necessary to get it.

Which, oddly yet appropriately enough, is the very definition of greed.

No matter how righteous the Left thinks they are in trying to make things equal…ly bad, the fact remains they epitomize the very thing they claim to be fighting. Aside from the delicious irony and pure comedic gold this brings, there is no up-side to making people feel worse because they have more money than others. Personally, I don’t care if you made your money working in a factory or making TikTok videos because it’s not my purpose to tell you how to make money. If you want my sanction, you’ll have to talk to someone else. (It was part of my wedding vows.)

Besides, what exactly is wrong with being wealthy? The fact someone has more doesn’t mean the world has less. Money isn’t pizza, folks. There’s enough for everyone. Of course, if you made your money  harming others, then I have a problem with it. Fortunately, most wealthy people I know (because I hobnob with the elites on weekends) don’t do that. Even the worst among them have done something to earn their fortune, even if it is just being born into a wealthy family. The point is greed is neither good nor evil, per se, because it’s how we use it that makes the difference. If we use greed as a motivator to become the best in an industry, that’s positive. If we use greed to malign others because we’re too busy playing scratch-off tickets to work, that’s negative.

Let’s just say the Left has scratch-off crumbs on them.

Ultimately, though, we shouldn’t let knuckleheads from The Squad use greed as a weapon to support a $3.5 trillion dollar boondoggle. The only thing greater than the Left’s greed is their lack of self-awareness about it.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To hear Leftists talk, the world is coming to an end. Granted, this is their default position on anything they don’t understand, but this week it’s been an impending government shutdown, and the only solution is to raise the debt ceiling so Congress can spend more money. After all, if we can’t pay our bills, past, present, and future, we’ll go into default and everything will go to Hell! People dying in the streets! Climate change causing floods and famine! Nickelback going on tour!

What is the debt ceiling? It’s not part of a government building, but it is something we need to deal with before it swallows us whole without so much as a courtesy chew.

debt ceiling

What the Left thinks it means – a necessary increase so the country can continue to spend money and provide services

What it really means – a way to enable bad fiscal policy

To put it mildly, the federal government has the spending problems of a shopaholic with an Amex Black card. It continues to spend and spend without consequence, save for the rare occasion when an incumbent gets toppled by an opponent. And, just like the aforementioned shopaholic, we’re buying some really stupid shit. Just look at the proposed $3.5 trillion President Joe Biden wants to spend on stuff like tree equity, making nursing homes more inclusive to LBGTQ folks, and reinventing an environmental service program that failed under FDR because the Socialist Socialite wants it.

If only the government were addicted to shoes instead of boondoggles…

Raising the debt ceiling is extending a line of credit to the federal shopaholic knowing we’ll never pay it back, but will ask to get more down the road. And those who helped us get the national debt higher than Willie Nelson in Colorado on 4/20 are the ones who get to decide whether we get that line of credit. A great gig if you can get it, but not a good way to run a country.

If only we had some guide to help our elected officials commit to spending money on specific things. You know…like a budget? Well, bad news, kids. Congress hasn’t done an actual budget since…2006. That leads to the question of how we kept our doors open without a budget. Thanks to a little thing called a continuing resolution, Congress is able to spend and spend without worrying about being tied down to specific numbers and purposes. Even when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, we kept funding things under a continuing resolution and asking for raising the debt ceiling when we got close to running out of money. Unfortunately, efforts to create a Congressional budget have failed to date, thus making it easier for politicians to spend without end on whatever caught their attention.

Here’s where things get tricky. At some point, we will run out of money, even with the vast resources the government can draw upon if they want to liquidate them. (Spoiler Alert: they don’t want to liquidate anything.) When we reach that point, raising the debt ceiling will be futile because we won’t have the money to have it raised. And unless we want to be the stereotypical brother-in-law who sleeps on our couch and never looks for a way to pay his share of the household costs, we have to do something major to affect change. Besides, I don’t think any of us has a couch big enough for the country to crash on while they look for jobs and Internet porn.

First off, we need fiscally responsible Republicans to come up with a budget when they get control of Congress again. Then, we need to stick to that budget without calling for raising the debt ceiling, even for things they want us to believe are vital interests. Our primary interest from an economic standpoint is getting our fiscal house in order sooner rather than never.

In fact, let me go a step further here. I think we should make raising the debt ceiling illegal, period. Imagine what that could do to a Congresscritter if he or she has to watch what they propose and keep an eye on how much it’s going to cost. You know, just like the rest of us have to do with our own budgets?

At the very least, we need to stage an intervention. Get the federal government into a room and have taxpayers tell them how it’s hurting us and it needs to get help for its spending addiction. And if we can turn it into a reality show, we might be able to recoup some of the debt on merchandising alone!

The Return of Fuzzy Math

It’s finally here, kids! Democrats have put together a $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill that, according to them, will cost us zero dollars. If you’re like me, and God help you if you are, you’re reaching for your brown BS flag to challenge the math. Now, if we only had a press corps that would do that job for us…oh, well. We can’t expect the media to stop cheerleading for the Biden Administration and start doing their jobs, right?

Anyway, the infrastructure bill is full of Leftist pet projects, including (and I’m not making this up) “tree equity.” The Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of the idea is it’s not fair poor people don’t have trees in their neighborhoods, so the federal government is going to fight the problem by planting trees. A noble idea, to be sure, but I’m not sure if I trust the same government that can’t figure out how to pass an actual budget to plant a flower bed, let alone a tree.

Oh, but don’t worry! All $3.5 trillion is accounted for thanks to tax increases on the wealthiest Americans. That means, according to Leftist logic, it won’t cost us a dime. Wellll…not exactly.

I will admit this next part of this entry is as boring as an Al Gore speech, but it’s important to understanding the situation and the lies surrounding it. I promise not to go into too much detail because, really, there isn’t any need for it. Like your appendix or another “Scary Movie” sequel.

The zero-cost claim is based on a bit of creative bookkeeping on the government’s part. What they do is spend the money over a few years and attempt to “pay it off” through increased income, i.e. taxes. Slap a popular idea on it and everything works out for the best.

Except when it doesn’t, which is most of the time.

A glaring problem with this approach is the fluidity of money. Thanks to market forces, inflation, and confidence in the strength of the dollar, what you buy today may not be able to buy as much tomorrow, and that includes government spending. And when you’re dealing with the kind of numbers we are now, it gets expensive.

Then, there’s a looming tipping point when the takers outpace the givers. For now, we’re on the positive side of that, but we’re a lot closer to the edge than we think. Leftists will reply, “Well, that’s because the wealthy aren’t paying their fair share,” and for once I agree with them. The rich and powerful in America are not paying what they owe to keep this country afloat.

They’re paying much more.

As of this writing, the wealthiest 1% pays around 40% of the tax burden. Although the Left says this is only reasonable given how much money they’re making, the fact we expect such a small percentage of Americans to support close to half of our tax burden is concerning. By the time you get to the top 25%, the tax burden is almost completely paid in full. I don’t know about you, but that seems a bit…unfair.

And the Biden Administration wants the rich to pay more than their fair share so they can pay their fair share?

I’m just as confused as you are.

The other thing to keep in mind regarding government spending is it’s never enough. There will always be some new wrinkle that only the government can screw up…I mean fix. And what’s the best way the Left can come up with to fix problems? That’s right, kids: throw more money at them! I mean, it’s worked with public education, right?

Let’s take the “tree equity” part of the spending bill, for example. During the rollout phase, invariably someone will say “This is great, but what about X?” And, just for the sake of an example, let’s say X is Antarctica. The sensible thing to do is realize trees may not grow there because, well, it’s Antarctica. The Leftist thing to do is create Make Antarctica Green Again and send millions of taxpayer dollars to whatever Leftist think-tank came up with the dumb idea in the first place. And, surprise surprise, it will always find a way to get funded year after year, even after it’s been determined trees don’t grow in Antarctica.

But I’m sure this infrastructure bill will be different…

The biggest underlying flaw with the no-cost idea is it defies common sense. No matter how many offsets you claim will occur, there will still be costs involved. Time, effort, sweat, and, yes, even money go into every endeavor we undertake from putting trees in Antarctica to getting up in the morning. And, yes, I know Leftists are trying to make a distinction between net and gross costs in trying to justify the zero-cost statement, but remember these are the same people who think free college is going to be a thing. Of course, I wonder who’s going to tell college professors they will be working for free…

Regardless, there is a lot of room to doubt the Biden Administration’s claims the proposed infrastructure bill will cost us nothing, mainly because the Left and economic literacy aren’t on speaking terms. Meanwhile, we will be adding more debt to future generations to address long after we’re gone.

But at least we’ll get “tree equity.”

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are some things about the 1970s that I miss. Great music. The Bicentennial. The lack of millennials. Yet, there are some things I wish would stay there.

One of those things is leisure suits, but since they’re not really that relevant, we’re going to talk about inflation. If you’ve been watching your nickels and dimes lately, you’ll see those nickels and dimes aren’t going as far as they used to, say, a year ago. Hmmm…I wonder what happened within the past year that could have caused that to happen. I don’t know, but I’m Biden my time, if you know what I mean.

But if listen to the Left, this current round of inflation is no big deal and we shouldn’t freak out over rising costs. Of course, these same Leftists think Paul Krugman is knowledgeable on economics, so you can take that with a grain of salt. Meanwhile, let’s take a look at inflation from someone who isn’t notorious for being wrong.

inflation

What the Left thinks it means – a normal economic condition that shouldn’t concern us

What it really means – an economic condition worsened by bad economic policy

I recognize economics is a subject so dry it makes the Sahara Desert look like Atlantis, but I do have to go into a bit of it to give us a baseline of knowledge to understand the impact.

When the cost of business goes up, goods and services get more expensive, resulting in the producers getting less money for the same effort. The producers then have to make a decision to address the shortfall, everything from adjusting the price to firing employees. More often than not, they raise prices, which in turn affects the value of our money.

But that’s not the only thing that affects monetary value. Politicians indirectly have an impact on it through legislation, regulation, and regurgitation (of talking points). One glib comment from a politician or squawking head and the economy can tank faster than a Proud Boys stand-up act at the Apollo. Even the hint of some new taxes or regulations of a particular industry can create economic instability.

Fortunately, we don’t have a current President who is notorious for making ill-informed staaaaa…oh, crap.

Say what you will about Donald Trump (and, believe me, I have), but one thing I will give him credit for is understanding how the economy works. And before you comment on the number of bankruptcies he’s filed, keep in mind Trump has been a part of the American social fabric since the mid 80s. He’s been all over everything from casinos to reality shows to steaks to online education. He’s the orange Ron Popeil.

Compare that to the laundry list of political and media knuckleheads who can’t tell their assets from a hole in the ground, and yet have the power to impact the economy without knowing how it works. (I’m looking at you, Socialist Socialite.) And, as it turns out, these are the ones who make the statements that cause the most economic headaches.
Take the aforementioned Paul Krugman, for example. He may have a Nobel Prize, but the fact he’s wrong more often than he’s right condemns both Krugman and the Nobel Committee. I mean, would you follow the advice of someone who said the Internet was a fad and would go the way of the fax machine (it didn’t) and advised people to get out of the Stock Market after Donald Trump was elected because it was going to crash (it didn’t)?

Oh, and did I mention Krugman is also one of the people saying inflation isn’t that big of a problem right now?

Although inflation is a pretty easy concept to grasp, the Left doesn’t get it, mainly because they aren’t economically-minded (except when it comes to their own bottom lines). A big reason for that is because they rarely think of money as a tangible matter. To them, it tends to be symbolic in nature, namely as a symbol for the rich oppressing the poor, men oppressing women, and so on. As a result, their “solutions” to the problems they make up…I mean find are simplistic. Just take X amount from Person A and give it to Person B and all will be right with the world!

Of course, they never see themselves as being Person A because they love spending other people’s money on stuff they want. They see money as power, which I can grant them to an extent. As long as they have money, they think they have power, but only they know how to use it property. Just ask them. That’s why there are a lot of rich Leftists out there. And the irony of their greed while chastising others for it is not lost on your humble correspondent.

The problem is their lack of understanding of the actual costs of inflation usually winds up hurting the people Leftists always want to court come election time. When prices go up, the ability for a significant chunk of the population to buy even basic goods goes down. The Leftist solution is to give more of other people’s money to that population while getting them to believe they deserve it, or should I say entitled to it. It works great to keep rich white Leftists in power, but it sucks if you’re constantly on the economic treadmill trying to make ends meet. But it’s never the Left’s fault. It’s always someone else. For example, President Joe Biden blamed the rising cost of beef, chicken, and pork on…wait for it…the meat producers! To believe that, though, you have to believe the Left had no influence on prices skyrocketing due to inflation when they have control over the laws getting passed and policies getting enacted.

But they don’t care because a) they assume everyone is as dumb as they are, and b) most of the Leftists who are okay with rising inflation make enough money to afford it. And it all goes back to their greed. After all, as long as it doesn’t inconvenience them, the Left is fine watching people suffer at their hands.

The Party of Compassion, everybody!

In order for us to weather the self-inflicted economic storm, we need to use our heads when it comes to spending. Cut coupons, comparison shop, budget for needs rather than wants, and do what you can to keep costs down, including learning how to make or grow what you might need to buy. Granted, not everyone is Bob Villa or has a green thumb, but it’s never too late to pick up some pointers or ask questions from those who are more knowledgeable. The one currency that never experiences fiscal ups-and-downs is human kindness. Even if today’s more divisive world, you can find someone willing to lend a hand in times of need.

The other thing we can do, which might a bit harder, is to vote for candidates with a strong understanding of economics. This isn’t a “Vote Straight Ticket Republican” idea, since the knuckleheads who got us into this mess come from both major parties. Take a hard look at what a candidate says and grill him or her on the economy. If they give a half-hearted or nonsensical answer, strike them from your short list. If they give a solid answer or an answer that checks out from the research you do ahead of time, give them a second look. Even if they aren’t your favorite person, ask yourself if you can afford a popular dullard impacting any part of the economy and vote accordingly.

The dollar you save might be your own.

Sometimes Less Is Moratorium

Last week, the nation’s Capitol was awash in moratorium fever, and not even a cowbell would have quelled it. House Democrats started beating the drums about the end of the eviction moratorium put in place due to COVID-19 and told us it was important that it get extended by the end of July. Of course, they knew about this in June, but they just had to get it taken care of with mere hours to spare.

Any parent who has worked until 2 AM on a science project due later that day for a son or daughter knows this feeling.

As much as I would love to dunk on the process in this case, the actual subject of this piece is the eviction moratorium itself. What started off as an act of kindness in the midst of a fracking pandemic has become a hot button issue where very few people pushing for the moratorium extension have fully thought out the implications. (I know. I’m as shocked as you are that a dumb Leftist idea wasn’t planned.)

The eviction moratorium seeks to forgive past due rent due to the economic impacts of the pandemic. With businesses either slowing down or going out of business altogether, it made sense to allow some flexibility. The only problem with that is some people will take advantage of it. What was considered a safety net was quickly and easily turned into a hammock, all with the help of people like the Leftists pushing to extend the moratorium. Between the handful of economic relief checks and the changes to the unemployment process, it became easier and more profitable to sit at home and let the government take care of the details than it was to find a new job.

Oh, and to spend the “free” money on big-ticket items instead of, you know, paying the rent as outlined in the rental contract.

Wait a minute…am I saying the renters had to sign a contract to live in someone else’s property? Yes, yes, I am. Maybe they didn’t cover this at Leftist colleges and universities, but a rental agreement is a contract and getting Big Daddy Government to step in on your behalf doesn’t negate the contract. At least, not yet. If Leftists get their way, the federal government will be able to undo any contract it wants, even ones they’re not a party in. That in and of itself should scare you, but if not, I can put on a Frankenstein’s Monster mask and say it because, damn it, I care.

But this has a much larger impact than what the Left want to believe. Instead of sticking it to landlords, who are often regular people instead of megacorporations, the moratorium extension has the power to make it so the megacorporations get to own more rental property. Here’s how. When you are the owner of rental property, your income is dependent upon rental income coming in on a regular basis. COVID-19 put a King Kong-sized monkey wrench into this situation. Instead of being able to count on rental income, the owners either had to take the lumps without expecting to get paid or wait for a government bailout. And since the latter doesn’t quite fit with the Left’s strategy or their understanding of basic economics, the landlords had to eat the losses. Great if you’re a renter struggling to find a use for a Bachelors degree in Albino Native American Feminist Slam Poetry Studies, but bad if you’re the landlord.

If the moratorium becomes a permanent thing, it’s likely fewer people will rent out properties, provided those properties aren’t foreclosed upon due to…non-payment! Once the properties get foreclosed, usually anybody can snatch it up including a little organization called BlackRock. BlackRock just happens to be one of the largest property management companies in the country. Oh, and I forgot to mention they have former employees working in the Biden Administration as economic advisors after serving in government roles under President Barack Obama.

Scummy as hell, but hey. No mean Tweets, right?

Now, here’s the Rod Serling style twist. By pushing for the federal government to extend the eviction moratorium, Leftists are making it possible for a corporation to corner the rental property market. Brilliant! But I’m sure the Socialist Socialite has already figured that out and is lobbying against the moratohhhhh yeah, she’s in favor of it. Just goes to show you people can get a degree in something and still not know a damn thing about it.

Anyway, the Leftists pushing the moratorium haven’t thought through the issue carefully enough to be informed. Then again, that’s never stopped them before, so it’s not that hard to imagine they would spout off about the moratorium without considering the economic and legal implications which will screw over members of their base while enriching at least some of their donors.

At least there aren’t mean Tweets, though, amirite?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

While we are waiting for a stimulus check from a government that didn’t have to go without during COVID-19, a potential stumbling block came up in the form of a separate bill related to foreign aid. Although this is a global pandemic, the stuff our money is being spent on is…well, peak 2020 levels of insanity. One of the big ticket items, and I swear I’m not making this up, is funding gender studies programs…in Pakistan. Now, I’ll admit I don’t follow Pakistan that closely, but I’m thinking they have worse problems than gender studies. Maybe it’s so if/when India drops bombs on them, they know how to sex the bombs?

Regardless, at a time when Americans are struggling to find ways to make enough money to survive, it seems absurd we would continue to spend millions of dollars overseas, gender studies programs or no. Even at times when the only pandemics we worried about were the ones in the game Pandemic, we would be spending moneys in foreign countries like drunken sailors. Wait, wait, I take that back. I’d trust the fiscal responsible of a drunken sailor before I would trust the federal government to buy a pack of gum, let alone spend money.

Since we have the time, let’s take a look at foreign aid.

foreign aid

What the Left thinks it means – money and goods we give to foreign countries to help them

What it really means – money and goods we give to foreign countries to curry favor with them

Here is a fundamental truth the Left doesn’t understand: no matter what sociopolitical ideology you subscribe to, the world speaks capitalism. Whether you’re an anarcho-socialist or a corporate type, everything you believe comes down to how similar or different it is from capitalism. The same concept applies to foreign aid. No matter if you think capitalism is the Great Satan or the great savior of the Western World, if somebody gives you money, your first instinct is to take it.

Let’s just say the American government has been very generous with our tax dollars and the recipients have yet to decline it.

And usually that comes with some strings, namely that the recipients do something or not do something as the case may be in exchange for the money. In some cases, like with Israel, the foreign aid comes with easier strings, namely not letting the country be turned into glass or into the Jerusalem franchise of ISIS. For others, it’s a bit more complicated, i.e. contradictory to anyone playing along at home. (I’m looking at you, Iran, but we’ll get to them here in a bit.)

But that’s only part of the issue. The other part of the foreign aid issue is there are no consequences if the countries receiving the aid don’t follow through on their promises. And when you consider some of the recipients of our largesse hate our guts, it’s kind of important that we hold them to their word. That brings us back to Iran. (See? I told you we’d get to them!) After the Obama Administration freed up funds allegedly owed to Iran since the hostage crisis, Iran took the money and…continued its nuclear weapons program. You know what was done?

Nothing. Not even a sternly-worded memo.

Regardless of whether you maintain it was their money, the fact of the matter is there are leaders who will take our money and not do what they said they would. Just ask Bob Geldof. When there are no consequences for non-compliance, the dishonest will act with impunity. Imagine how different things might have been if we had parked a fleet or two in the Strait of Hormus to ensure Iran was abiding like The Dude. Iran might not even have developed glow sticks, let alone glow-in-the-dark nuclear bombs.

And the saddest part? The Left thinks this kind of diplomacy actually works. Then again, their solution to a lot of problems is throwing money at them, so it’s not that unusual. Still, it’s hard to say if foreign aid actually moves the needle for us, positive or negative. The best outcome I can see from this approach is the countries that already think we’re jerks will tolerate us as long as the money keeps coming.

With the incoming Administration, I have no doubt we will continue to see a steady outflow of cash in an attempt to, well, buy friends. The difference from the Trump Administration to the Biden Administration will be who we consider friends. Let’s not forget the Arab Spring came about due to the Obama Administration’s diplomatic efforts under former Secretary of State and current sore loser Hillary Clinton. Say what you will about former Secretary of State John Kerry (and believe me I will), but at least his foreign policy helped people remember James Taylor was still alive and performing. Not that it did anything, mind you…

I know we’re in a global economy right now, but that doesn’t mean we have to deal with everyone who hits us up for aid. In fact, I think we need to be a bit more choosy, especially in the face of the global pandemic, because if there’s nobody to write the checks to these foreign countries because everyone died, the checks stop. We have an enlightened self-interest to turn our fiscal focus inward to see what needs to be done to keep us afloat. Our real allies will understand, and any other country that doesn’t might not really be our allies. Although it might make things a little difficult in the short term, on the plus side it keeps down the number of people on the President’s Christmas card list.

The fact Congress decided gender studies in Pakistan was more important than the American people is a slap in the face to all of us and should be grounds to start grabbing torches and pitchforks. (By the way, I have a new business venture that sells torches and pitchforks just in case you want to go ahead with that.) If America was as on-top of everything as we like to think we are, maybe we could justify it, but we’re messed up more than Charlie Sheen partying with Lindsey Lohan in Las Vegas on All the Blow You Can Snort Night. I’m thinking we should hold off on sending other countries our money so we can work on the infrastructure the Left reminds us is crumbling around us, but never does anything about it when they control the purse strings.

But, hey, $600 is $600, amirite?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To start off this week’s edition of the Lexicon, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is we may finally get to see another round of COVID-19 relief in the near future. The bad news? It looks like it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 per person, or in other words, the cost of a large popcorn and drink at your local movie theater, give or take a few thousand dollars.

Granted, if President Donald Trump gets his way, that amount may get boosted to up to $2000, so you might be able to afford to get some nachos with that popcorn. Still, there are questions, primarily from the Left, about whether the proposed stimulus package will be enough to help people. It’s a valid point, but it’s just one of the questions we need to explore before we cash the stimulus checks.

stimulus

What the Left thinks it means – monetary support necessary due to the economic hardships brought on by COVID-19

What it really means – the government returning a portion of the money it takes from us and expecting us to be grateful for it

If you really think about it (and I have because I don’t have anything better to do during quarantine), we’ve been played for suckers this past year because of the political weaponization of COVID-19. This isn’t to say COVID-19 is a hoax or a political scheme, mind you. What I’m saying is people more powerful than us have taken a medical issue and turned it into a way to manipulate the public into acting and acting in a certain way as a means to condition our responses under the guise of “believing the science” and “we’re all in this together.”

The endgame is pretty simple, really. If those who have the most to benefit from turning COVID-19 into a political football can get us to react predictably, they can use that to push a wider agenda using the same thinking that got us to this point. To do that, the powerful (namely Leftists) need a carrot to dangle in front of our faces to keep us Torgo-walking towards being happy little drones for the State.

Enter the stimulus package.

For all of their faults, the Left have an impressive understanding of the human psyche and an even better understanding of how to use us against us. Most people today have the economic understanding of a tuna fish sandwich, so it’s easy for the Left to play to that and our innate sense of greed and jealousy to make us chase the quick buck instead of taking a moment to ponder why there are so many good intentions paving this road to Hell. As we’ve seen since declaring war against poverty, it works.

Of course, that quick buck moves at the glacial progression (this is the government we’re dealing with here, after all), so we never quite reach the finish line. Every time we get close, there always seems to be a reason we have to keep going. Thus, we become George Jetson on that mechanized treadmill used to walk Astro. No matter how much we progress, there will always be a way to not only downplay what we’ve done, but also to set another goal even further away than where we’ve come. And as long as we keep following, the Left will keep that carrot in front of our faces.

There’s another side of this, however, that isn’t talked about much (due to either the Left trying to keep it hidden or, you know, the tuna fish sandwich thing), but is just as important to understand. The bulk of Leftist economic theory comes from John Maynard Keynes, who postulated the way to stimulate the economy is to have government pump money and resources into it and to lower taxes. Seems the Left forgets that last part and only focuses on the government spending side of the equation, but that’s neither here nor there in relation to this blog post. What’s important to keep in mind is who the Left thinks can solve economic problems. Spoiler Alert: it ain’t us, kids. In a crossover event no one but the Left asked for, social and economic policies are joined together in a Man With Two Heads monstrosity that has the potential to turn us all into unwitting wards of the State.

However, a government that has the power to give you the world has the power to take it away from you. And if we follow this line of thinking, we eventually come to the question of where our government is coming up with the money to give to people. It’s not coming from the Left nor the rich who are “paying their fair share.” It’s coming from us. Whether it’s $600, $2000, or one meeeelion dollars, we’re funding it with money the government says we have based on…well, I’m still trying to figure that part out given our national debt is higher than Charlie Sheen partying with Keith Richards in Amsterdam. And I’m not willing to take the government at its word that it has the cash. Call me a cynic, but any government who spends $600 for a hammer without getting a second opinion from Ace Hardware isn’t on my short list for entities to contact for financial advice.

The question then becomes what happens if the money we’re getting from ourselves with the government acting as a middle man isn’t enough. The short term answer from the Left is “people need more money.” And if that money gets allocated, we will be continue to spend money the government doesn’t have, which means we go further into debt, which means the government will tax more to make up that shortfall, which means things will get more expensive, which means the economy doesn’t get any better, which means people will need more help, which means the Left will say “people need more money,” and the cycle begins again.

I got winded just writing that last sentence! I’m gonna need a minute.

Hopefully in that minute you see the insanity of the Left’s stimulus process. As much as I would like to say the people can figure out the correct next steps to get our economy back on track, I really can’t. Economic literacy isn’t something that can be taught with emojis or hashtags or even TikTok videos. However, it is essential to understanding the next steps. One thing I can say is don’t depend on the government to provide for you and yours. To paraphrase the Margaret Thatcher, the problem with a Leftist stimulus package is eventually you run out of your own money. Only you know what you need for yourself and your loved ones. Expecting a politician to know that on your behalf is like trusting your retirement to an embezzler.

Come to think of it, is there a difference between the two?

In either case, all I can ask for you to be smart with the stimulus money. It is your money, after all.