Why the Left Doesn't Care about $9.7 Trillion Debt

[joeydb]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...lion_debt.html

Why the Left Doesn't Care about $9.7 Trillion Debt
By Dennis Prager

As reported by The Washington Post, "President Obama's proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday."

CNN adds, "Of that amount, an estimated $5.6 trillion will be in interest alone."

The Post continues: "The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and the White House (are) ... both predicting a deficit of about $1.5 trillion this year -- a post-World War II record at 10.3 percent of the overall economy. But the CBO is considerably less optimistic about future years, predicting that deficits would never fall below 4 percent of the economy under Obama's policies and would begin to grow rapidly after 2015.

"Deficits of that magnitude would force the Treasury to continue borrowing at prodigious rates, sending the national debt soaring to 90 percent of the economy by 2020, the CBO said."

CNN adds that "By 2020 the (CBO) estimates debt held by the public would reach $20.3 trillion, or 90 percent of GDP. That's up from 53 percent of GDP in 2009."

I suspect that most Americans, if asked whether these numbers trouble the Democratic leadership and President Obama, would answer in the affirmative.

They would be wrong.

They would be wrong not because the Democratic Party or the president are economically illiterate or bad individuals, but because the Democratic Party and the president are leftists. And most Americans, including most Democrats, do not understand the left. They may understand liberalism; but President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and most Democratic representatives and senators are not liberals; they are leftists. And most Americans do not understand the difference between liberal and left. They do not realize, for example, that there is no major difference between the American Democratic Party and the leftist social democratic parties of Western Europe. They do not know that from Karl Marx to Obama, the left (as opposed to liberals) has never created wealth because it has never been interested in creating wealth; it is interested in redistributing wealth.

Therefore, unprecedented and unsustainable debt, a debt that will negatively affect most Americans' quality of life, renders the dollar increasingly undesirable, and undermines America's prestige and power in the world -- these developments do not particularly disturb the left. They may trouble the president, the Democratic Party, and others on the left on some political level, but that pales in comparison to what the left really wants: a huge government overseeing a giant welfare state and a country with far fewer rich Americans.
Achieving those goals is far more important than preventing a decline in the American quality of life. The further left one goes, the more contempt one has for the present quality of American life in any event. The left regularly mocks many of the symbols of that life -- from the three-bedroom suburban house surrounded by a white picket fence to owning an SUV (or almost any car) because Americans should be traveling on public buses, trains and bicycles.

As for the dollar, I can bear personal testimony to the decline of the dollar's prestige. I am writing this column in Morocco. In Casablanca, my wife and I and another couple hired a Moroccan driver for the day. And when it came time to pay, the man refused to accept dollars; he wanted to be paid in either Euros or Moroccan dirhams. Yes, dirhams rather than dollars. But the demise of the dollar as the world's currency disturbs the left as much as does America's not getting a gold medal in curling at the Winter Olympics.

And as for America wielding less power in the world, that is a positive development for the American left. It is the world community as embodied in the United Nations that should wield power throughout the world, not an "overstretched," "imperialist" and "militarist" United States.

I used to believe that left and right have similar goals for America, that they just differed in the means they wanted used to get there. I was mistaken. The left has a very different vision of America than those who hold the founding values of America, most especially individualism and small government. And if the price of a once in a lifetime possibility of getting to a giant welfare state dominated by the left is America's steep financial decline, that is a price fully worth paying.

[sham]

The author is confused. He is actually describing progressives and they are not that complicated. They are much like teenagers when it comes to fiscal responsibility. To say 'we cannot afford it' means nothing to progressives as long as they believe an expenditure is for a noble cause. If you argue--How can we afford it? Progressives will counter--How can we NOT afford it? Progressive reside in both parties by the way.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Conservatives get in, and what? Cut taxes on the Oprahs, n' Meg Whitman Billionaires. Which mathematically would work if you cut spending, but they can't stay in office if the poor live like they do in Bangladesh. So, they cut taxes, and keep spending. The Progressive gets in, and does things to help the poor/ middle class. However, they don't raise taxes enough on the Billionaires etc. So (big surprise,) we have deficit spending created by both sides. The ignorant thing about the whole Conservative Fantasyland is that everything will be just awesome if we cut spending, cut taxes, and cut regulation. That's a sure 100% guarantee of concentrating the wealth of the nation in the fewest hands. Unregulated Capitalism results in that. We don't have to conduct the experiment. To say otherwise is like telling people honey grows hair. Really, you have a country full of people that haven't seen or heard of uncontrolled Capitalism. So, they'll believe your sht, but it doesn't create this rosey picture you describe. It always has resulted in a situation like we had in the 1890's Guilded Age. Your fantasy will result in more (and richer) Vanderbilts, Astors etc. It won't help the poor, or the middle class. Unregulated Capitalism destroys the middle. It picks a side (rich, or poor) for them to join. Seems almost everyone thinks we can do better without much Gov't, but the middle class is only around due to Gov't forces. Try it (without Gov't.) You'll see. Look, you've got people like Meg Whitman making a billion bucks while producing what product? Nothing..nada..zip...zero. You wonder why we're in trouble? We give people a billion bucks for not having to make a product (except manipulation.) Not only that, but then you want to put them in charge of Gov't. Yea, o.k., guess what they will do? They'll give out tax breaks (n' other advantages) to more manipulators that don't actually make a product.

[Antitrust32]

par a graphs

[joeydb]

They won't live like in Bangladesh when they go get a job...which will be easier once the punitive tax rates are done away with.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

par a graphs

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Conservatives get in, and what? Cut taxes on the Oprahs, n' Meg Whitman Billionaires. Which mathematically would work if you cut spending, but they can't stay in office if the poor live like they do in Bangladesh. So, they cut taxes, and keep spending. The Progressive gets in, and does things to help the poor/ middle class. However, they don't raise taxes enough on the Billionaires etc. So (big surprise,) we have deficit spending created by both sides. The ignorant thing about the whole Conservative Fantasyland is that everything will be just awesome if we cut spending, cut taxes, and cut regulation. That's a sure 100% guarantee of concentrating the wealth of the nation in the fewest hands. Unregulated Capitalism results in that. We don't have to conduct the experiment. To say otherwise is like telling people honey grows hair. Really, you have a country full of people that haven't seen or heard of uncontrolled Capitalism. So, they'll believe your sht, but it doesn't create this rosey picture you describe. It always has resulted in a situation like we had in the 1890's Guilded Age. Your fantasy will result in more (and richer) Vanderbilts, Astors etc. It won't help the poor, or the middle class. Unregulated Capitalism destroys the middle. It picks a side (rich, or poor) for them to join. Seems almost everyone thinks we can do better without much Gov't, but the middle class is only around due to Gov't forces. Try it (without Gov't.) You'll see. Look, you've got people like Meg Whitman making a billion bucks while producing what product? Nothing..nada..zip...zero. You wonder why we're in trouble? We give people a billion bucks for not having to make a product (except manipulation.) Not only that, but then you want to put them in charge of Gov't. Yea, o.k., guess what they will do? They'll give out tax breaks (n' other advantages) to more manipulators that don't actually make a product.

cutting taxes worked scuds , it brought more $$$ into the treasury than under clinton , there were other mistakes (spending side) , but , i think they got the revenue side right - just follow the numbers

[hi_im_god]

it's better that scuds expresses himself in dense undigestible blocks of solid words.

you know you're wading into some weird crazy **** that way. i usually check out his stuff if it's 3-4 lines or less but just assume it's another idiosyncratic off center rant if it runs over that.