hogan
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
October 2018
S M T W T F S
« Sep    
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
03/04/13
IN LIEU OF LEW?
Filed under: POLITICS, ECONOMICS, OBAMACARE, #MUSIC, #MAGIC, #SOCIALISM SQUIBS
Posted by: J. P. Hogan @ 11:53 pm

To not be ad hominem, too specifically tet a tet from a distance, with Paul Krugman, as he licks his wounds, of his not too rosy Charlie Rose match fight, with Joe Scarborough, maybe I should start with it that Democrats generally are missing that what is a void in our economy is the Republican market music we all used to enjoy in an Adam Smith invisible hand kind of way.

We are of and American pie of music that has died with the Democrat Party assault on the Republican arts of good will by pursuit of self interests and how they had been making the world better for others, albeit too much as a rhythm from invisible hands.

Now that the Dems have much killed Adam Smith’s proven theorems, practically, these past four years, with their ideological over-reaching, there are matters so confused, and confounding, to air, discuss, and resolve many about, visibly of a drum beat not musical of or for economic growth.

I guess it is probably best to start with how the Democrats did work specifically to create a polarized and partisan new economic that had them hopefully to appear as if the only good guys in DC, and, that the Clintons are too little considered for which ever of their spousal efforts as foreign or domestic as they were.  If one doesn’t get the confounding of that Bill Clinton while embraced and treated as if another Bush kin would lie and go all “brassy” politically in a polarizing partisan construction standing on a character reference from the Bush friendship and to using such to get away with more than a few misstatements to aid those aligned against the Bush clan.  He essentially would as well call a Bush a liar and get away with using the Bush name as a “good” character reference to get away with “brassy” new lying and bolstering of his old falsities.

There are structural problems now in our body politick not exclusively of the domains of the Clintons.  On about the only light note here we can parlay that President Obama has since a youth felt a need to turn the world to Soviet “socialism” as if to fix his own family - as if to reunite his parents in the here or their hereafter - as if to go backwards to when his parents made him as a Soviet Studies LOVE Child.  Oh, but Paul Krugman went to never never land or no man’s land economically with his less than rosy notables tonight on PBS.

I can be reasoned that though Adam Smith’s economic theorems did get proven to be correct at least at times and quite workable for years we may now be of a time where they were assaulted so much that we cannot use that around the prudence of his premises that markets should let people individually act in their own self interest as if such would benefit all as if a grand economic music for growth by invisible musical composition and renderings.  We cannot now use “invisible hand” theory to get us back to where “invisible hand” economics had been grandly established to a global Republican artful co-habitated earthly era of potential in growth enabling notations.

What there is of a workable sense in spinning by Paul Krugman today, as he asked to only be questioned about today and not the inconsistencies of his body of work and history of past analysis relates to a heard comment about spending cuts not being needed for the next ten years, like. 

Before it can be politically feasible to move forward on such “analysis” it would be prudent to consider that we may have record revenues now only because President Obama didn’t get the vast additional amount of “stimulus” spending he wanted and that markets believe that Republican music will be visibly be allowed to get reconstructed so that our growth economy can return sooner rather than later.  We have to consider that additional stimulus spending now would be dangerous as so much of his earlier supported vast sums were because the marketing arm of Demonomics has stronger messaging to a new conservationism based on the sold GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM of an end of the world as we know it import preciously based on politicking on the emotions and undeveloped intelligence and reasoning of America’s youths. 

I am not saying:  You can only lie to our children so many times in a term, or two!  But, I am suggesting the marketing wing of Demonimics (Obamanomics) has been pushing such a note too long and too hard dangerously in a false advertising no man’s non musical conduction construct not synthesized to “artful.”

Again, it seems now certain that Democrats do not yet have an understanding of the economy of the 90s, and, that the political credit they have long claimed for its successes cannot be due them, actually.  These many mistakes do suggest that they at best lip synced there way along until now and that now it is time to like pay the piper - the actual pipers - however - however invisible.

What the Clintons brought to the economics of the 90s was too much growth and fattening about a good economy they had inherited as improved and taking off that didn’t need what they were selling to be able to sell them to a getting the credit for what they had actually just inherited from many more like of Republican music of growth in Adam Smith’s notation and beats.  Essentially the Clintons instead of selling regular sized McDonalds portions did sell instead the thought habit and addiction of “Bill” as if it were patriotic to also SUPERSIZE two Big Mac meals at least once a day. 

Their Clintonomics was of fattening an inherited economy that would have been better and more stable if the Clintons had not been elected to inherit it.  Someone some years ago presented himself as a doctor friend of the Clintons while about the Clinton vs Obama primary with a statistic that the USA could save a trillion dollars in healthcare costs if we could just reverse the onset of obesity during the Clintons’ guidance as First Parents - this person did “report” that the USA would like be able to save a trillion dollars in healthcare costs if it could be back to the average personal body weight from just before his friends took office.

Essentially it may be easier to take apart Krugman and the Clintons and especially the attempt tonight to offer that in 1997 we like should have thought to consider paying down our debts if we see it as a “fattening” and then so much as the clogging of arteries and such like that which might have killed President Clinton while of actually living like that badly himself.

To address though the proffered posit that economically we now do not need to address spending cuts for like ten years:  It is a loaded postulate proffered coyly - It is offered by Paul Krugman with the condition necessary to complement it of us actually getting back to having a growth economy.  By such we have the intelligence quotient consideration that though we may not need to address spending for ten years if we can get our economy growing again we may need to address it and effect such just to get our economy actually growing again.

This is in many ways someone or someones problem now as it wasn’t specifically before - eg Jack Lew.  Or is it “ie Jack Lew”?  Some parts of this that is of the Dems having polarized our economics in an real partisan visible new tao - for sure.

Odd, yes to think we have to explain to Democrats that they killed the music - a globally embracing not too government of man Republican music that was whence thence synthesized in Adam Smith notations of invisible uncredited hands.  And yet Adam Smith seemed so misunderstood recently with some commentary that had me stirred for speaking of Dem economics without fair enough regard for “costs” of general industry wide numbers for now being figured as the “costs” that are there providing jobs from competition and to the competition that then works to keep prices lower in such industry.  It is confusing to talk healthcare numbers and healthcare numbers if one in talking seizing gross industry revenue figures without figuring which part of such are industry costs that provide the jobs that are to the invisible benefits from a competitive intra-actions that are not redistributable to a government replacement without such removing the cost saving benefit from the competition that such jobs and competition keeps in the industry. 

Odd, quite that Paul Krugman can offer that it was wrong not to have back in 1997 instead focused on debt reduction when instead President Clinton took off dimly to burning our economic candle from both ends at once with his (”fattening”) chase of rare short-term political popularity possible if he did the thought impossible of running a surplus that grandly and also a new massive unfunded federal social program such as his risky loaning pimping was much set about also dimly as.  Unlike Paul Krugman tonight - I don’t mind if you ask me about any of my opinions about this back to the early 90s and to before the Clintons entered the 1992 race;  I do not mind you asking me since I still am much of the same confidence then as now and with little if any changes in my opposition to this mentioned economic “fattening” by Clintonomics even from those days as it happened.

I will have to explain though when it gets confusing like around Paul Krugman’s recent comments about spending cuts like not needed for the next ten years since I have been warning some away from too much cutting too quickly thinking if it is done thinking that the 90s cutting wasn’t of having cut too much too quickly.  These days to cut too much too quickly is actually likely safer that that which was cut so that Clintons could have that rarest of short term political popularity from having cut an extra trillion after the Republicans had found that thought impossible first trillion of cuts to that magical balancing whence.  See, now cutting too much too quickly has already caused the worst of the dangers it could have and a discussion now for these economic times necessarily is fundamentally different than that which is about discussing how the Clintons with Clintonomics did cut too much too quickly and oddly so as a way to sell a lack of discipline good for getting more to fatten up even if also like on two SUPERSIZED Big Mac meals a day.

Detroit types may remember knowing there fears were real after Clintons became our new First Parents without enough economic sense to know to try to listen to them asking for some “marketing” guidance as of a theme or direction for them to work invisibly and magically around.  That President Obama has wanted everything to be visible and visibly from and of him is a different problem than this I remember - than this I remember for having been the one that knew to listen to Detroit types and to offer to them that they should try to anchor around a new styling of 50s & 60s car styles but as compacts to help sell fuel efficiency indirectly with pop culture mashing and subliminal curb appeal. 

Right - It was the type of advice to Detroit one shouldn’t expect could or would have come from Bill Clinton as so then of SUPERSIZING life style of scandals as if of too many big car back seats recreationally used even if officially a State vehicle. 

Right - Bill Clinton as President was not at all naturally inclined to suggest that he could be involved in selling smaller back seats. 

Right - I may know what I am talking about when talking about the Democrats not knowing how the economy of the 90s actually worked but where it was being “fattened” by public visible efforts of the Clintons to provide a way for them also to be able to stand up and take credit for all of it - even that which they still seem not to understand that was inherited by them as a fix and ready to take off economy of real Republican invisible rhythmic notes and good beats.

Before it would be prudent economically to say that we don’t need to worry about spending cuts for the next ten years we have the category more to sociology to worry about as a real concern around us needing spending cuts just to restore market confidence enough to get the markets moving again - but only if we can either proclaim that President Obama has already successfully and heroicly saved the entire planet from GLOBAL WARMING or that we didn’t need to worry about that so much for tens year, as well.

Right - I have already shared in earlier recent columns some how the Clintons didn’t enter the 1992 race until after stuff I was already saying semi-publicly was tested with the Carville and Begala campaign management for Harris Wofford in Pennsylvania.  I had sent letters to Representative from Missouri offices of Richard Gephardt with concerns and a confidence that Dems could win in 1992 if they took to sounding like my shared notes and reasoning. 

Yes those were the days that George Stephanopoulus and Charles Koch’s son worked together side by side as equals in Gephardt’s office, and, that I was of a local connection long in New Haven wise to that my neighbor Stanley Greenberg was a political pollster while married to Rosa DeLauro.  At this time though she was no longer Senator Christopher Dodd’s AA and she that gave my sister an entry level opening as a receptionist when fresh out of college a couple years ahead of me.  By such time my friends’ step mom was our Congressional Representative.

Even Jack Lew should consider flushing all or most of what Paul Krugman is saying now - and try to ignore that Bill Gates even quoted him recently.  We seem stuck both by the Dems for having tried to polarize our foreign and domestic economics in a partisan new Government Handing, and, for that Dems seemed to have confirmed that they cannot yet know how or why the economy worked in the 90s but that by the “fattening” artery clogging “math” so “brassy” of Bill and Hillary guidance as our First Parents, how so our First Couple, indivisible in their “two-fer” co-holding of our office of the President.

Did I make my point in not too too ad hominem a way so suggesting just that so much now should just get flushed, and, that though we if we can get our economy growing again may not need spending cuts for ten years do definitely need them not towards getting a music of growth just playing softly again?  And, yes we are at a different kind of risk of cutting too much too quickly now than of my comments of the 90s economy of a historical remark that the Clintons did cut too much too quickly then and so by at least maybe an entire trillion.

If you are trying to sing now about Lew you may yourself be catching yourself wishful for days passed and missing what was much an invisible chorus of Adam Smith “invisible hand” (Republican) art magically working inspite of Clintonomics - knowingly.

And on heathcare ACA - Obamacare:  Yes it seems it would be wise to unfund it at least until the economy can start growing again and have time to get to where it is even possibly affordable.  Yes, it is reasonable to consider that our states all can find a way to compete locally with Romneycare in the mean time while Obamacare unfunded for National Security reasons.  Obamacare is an alternative system to an existing system that provides care more expensively - it is not a necessary system like much of our defense and intelligence securing budgets.  We should defund Obamacare as long as our economy is stuck and unable to afford it, and, because as well our states may actually be able to come up with a better way to resolved their local healthcare coverage neighborly and community inefficiencies if just given the time that a necessary defunding of ACA might afford.

This is just some of what President Obama has seemed to stick Lew with.  Does Congress yet have the Power to flush clean enough of this, and in time?

Comments are closed.