Category: Entitlement

Simple

A friend of mine asked me a simple question: Why do people vote for the socialist policies of far-left liberal democrats? The answer is easy, but comes in two parts.

1) People are stupid. Really. So stupid that many who buy into far-left socialist dogma think that the funds needed to pay for their programs come from “the government”. However, even some liberals know that there is no such thing as “government” money. The government collects all its money from taxpayers, thus “government” money is more correctly referred to as “taxpayer” money. But even those who know that the government doesn’t really have any money believe the additional taxes that they might be forced to pay will be far less than the benefit they expect to receive. In short, they expect to pick the pockets of their betters. Unfortunately (here comes the “stupid” part), they forget that they, too, are someone’s better.

2) People are lazy (and greedy – really, flip sides of the same coin). But I can’t blame them for this – it’s simply natural that they want the greatest pay for the least work. However, reason would seem to indicate that it would be impossible to demand something that had not been produced (since they did not produce the benefit they expect to receive, or equivalent production of something they can trade for it); this takes us back to point 1 (someone else will have to produce it).

So, in summary, people vote for socialist policies because they are stupid and lazy.

See? I told you it was simple.

 

 

Buying votes with your money…

I predicted that the Biden administration would use this “carrot” right up to the midterm election. Guess it starts now:

White House extends federal student loan repayment pause after heavy progressive criticism

This is essentially using taxpayer money (approximately $1.6 TRILLION of it) to buy votes – 45 million of them. With a total voting-age citizen population of ~232 million, this amounts to nearly 20% of the voting population who will be beholden to Biden and the Democrats in the hope that they cancel their student debt.

 And it’s wrong. Let me count the ways:

1) It’s $1.6 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! Are you KIDDING ME? That’s damn near the annual budget of the United States.

2) This isn’t non-existent money, fictional money – it was paid out of the treasury, will have to be made up from somewhere. This amount is equal to collecting ~$5000 from each and every person living in the U.S. – legal, illegal, citizen, non-citizen, woman and child. That’s a lot of money.

3) But, don’t worry! The “Squad” will make the 1% pay! Yeah, THAT’S the ticket… make the 1% pay. For the 1% (this is one out of every one hundred people, for you math-challenged, “math is racist” types), this means an additional tax burden of $500,000 per person (not household). How long before they move somewhere else – and take their job-creating companies with them? How long before Tesla is a Japanese auto manufacturer? Think not? Think Detroit…

4) Only the student’s benefited from the money. Why should others have to pay?

5) How is this any different than someone borrowing money to buy a car, then wanting the government to forgive their loan? Why don’t we just forgive their car and mortgage loans? Wouldn’t that put more money into the economy, just like paying off people’s college loans? Oh, wait… inflation from more money not backed by production flooding the economy…

6) Many of us worked through college to avoid graduating with debt – where’s our check? How about those who paid their debt dutifully, before the Democrats promised to pay? Knowing that politicians were willing to buy my vote by paying off my student loans would certainly encourage people to pay their loans, wouldn’t it (yeah, right!)?

There are many other reasons why this is bad; use your imagination. And your vote!

Prediction

Prediction: student loan debt will not be cancelled before the mid-term elections.

Dems again urge Biden to cancel student loan debt as payment restart looms

Once most people with student debt have their debt forgiven they will have no need for this administration and its “free money” policies; they know it’s unsustainable. But the promise of debt forgiveness will keep them voting for Biden and his allies until then.

I mean, let’s be serious – the only thing that will save the Democrats at the mid-term election is the dangling carrot of more free money (only, it’s never free). Over 41 million people currently benefit from the student loan payment moratorium. That’s a lot of carrots… and votes.

What they don’t tell you

Yes, the jobs report was “bad” last month. Only 210,000 new jobs added. But that is only half the story:

Hiring slowed sharply in November, even before omicron, with 210,000 jobs added

The truth is that there are plenty of jobs – the JOLTS report (which reflects jobs open rather than filled) indicates there are more than 10 million available jobs at the end of September. So why were only 221,000 filled? Good question.

It turns out that the number of people in the workforce has dropped. It is currently 61.8%; pre-pandemic it was 63.3%. This means that roughly 4 million people are sitting out the recovery. A big reason might be the $300/month/child parents are being paid to … well, be parents. I know, I know – by itself the $300/month/child doesn’t seem like much, but when added to child care cost savings it will tip the scales towards staying home. Not a problem, if I wasn’t expected to pay for it.

Average day care per child is running about $200/week. This amounts to about $800/month. Assuming 3 children, that’s $2400/month. Add to that the child tax credit currently paid monthly, $300/month/child x 3 children = $900. Now we’re up to $3300/month in child care savings and government payments for a family with three children – that’s nearly 40K/year to stay home. Now, I don’t mind people staying home to raise their children – I just don’t want to pay them to do it. Not my child, not my pageant. Raise your own damn children. BTW, this increase in the child tax credit (it’s not so much a child tax credit as it is a tax on childless couples) was originally part of COVID relief legislation, but Biden’s “Build Back Broker” plan wants to make it permanent. The BBB plan includes “…permanent refundability for the Child Tax Credit…“, further incentivizing people not to work.

Now, again, I don’t mind people staying home to raise their children. And it’s fine that they remove themselves from the workforce to do so. But paying people to stay home and not work will only result in inflation. Think about it: money added to the economy (that we borrowed, no less) when less is being produced – the only possible outcome is inflation (unless our politicians balance the budget – fat chance of that ever happening…!).

And don’t give me any crap about how these parents are doing “valuable work” raising their children and thus should be paid; I’m not buying it. The work has value ONLY TO THEM, and thus it is only they who should pay for the work. Their circular argument goes something like this: I can’t afford to pay for a gardener, so I’m going to do my own gardening. But gardening is productive work, so I want to be paid for it – and thus the government should pay me. But the bullshit part of this argument is that the person who benefits from the labor is the one who should pay – in this case, the homeowner benefits from the work. They are free to pay themselves what they would have paid a gardener, but the result will be a wash. They did the work, they benefited from the work. Account closed. Get the hell out of my wallet!

The alternative is that the parents not be paid to stay home, and only reap the benefit of the child care savings. This would be fine – and since it introduces no new (unearned) money to the economy, inflation is not affected. Former childcare workers could actually go on to do other productive work. All is good with the world.

If we want the economy to improve, we must stop incentivizing people to not be productive, and – more importantly – we’ve got to stop paying them for non-productive (to the rest of the world) work like raising their own children. Only then will the workforce participation rate return to normal and inflation be tamed.

Of course they did…

Far left (pronounced “socialist”) politicians have immediately chastised the Supreme Court over their decision to vacate the CDC’s expansive extension of its eviction moratorium. They seem to forget that the Supreme Court doesn’t answer to them; it answers to the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Examples of their wrath, from a recent news article:

“This is an attack on working people across our country and city,” [New York City mayor] de Blasio tweeted Thursday.

What about the CDC’s attack on landlords, Bill?

Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., claimed that if the Supreme Court “thinks this partisan ruling is going to stop us from fighting to keep people housed, they’re wrong.”

Keep fighting all you want, Cori; just don’t force landlords to buy your votes.

House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries claimed the “Supreme Court does not have a scintilla of credibility” after the decision.

Upholding the Constitution? That’s not only credible, Hakeem, it’s their job!

Now, to be fair, let’s include a few quotes from the Supreme Court decision:

…careful review of that record makes clear that the applicants are virtually certain to succeed on the merits of their argument that the CDC has exceeded its authority. [emphasis mine]

It strains credulity to believe that this statute grants the CDC the sweeping authority that it asserts.

The moratorium has put the applicants, along with millions of landlords across the country, at risk of irreparable harm by depriving them of rent payments with no guarantee of eventual recovery.

Could the CDC, for example, mandate free grocery delivery to the homes of the sick or vulnerable? Require manufacturers to provide free computers to enable people to work from home? Order telecommunications companies to provide free high-speed Internet service to facilitate remote work?

I made this very argument (although with different “free” services/products) in a previous post; where would the CDC’s authority to spend other people’s money end if this moratorium were allowed to stand?

Does this ruling mean that millions of people will be evicted? Possibly. For renters who have simply relied on the moratorium to spend their rent money elsewhere, with no evidence of financial hardship and no effort to negotiate in good faith with their landlords – probably (and rightfully so). But all renters who are behind on their rent? I don’t think so. To whom will the landlords rent to then? What is the likelihood that the majority of rental seekers will simply be those previously evicted for not paying rent? Instead, I think this ruling will provide incentive for renters and landlords to negotiate in good faith (and for renters to apply for the available rental assistance funds) rather than allowing rents to go unpaid with no recourse.

Wealth redistribution via moratoriums

I’m glad someone finally came to their senses – even if it was just the “conservative wing” of the Supreme Court:

Supreme Court strikes down Biden administration’s eviction moratorium

The rent moratorium was a bad idea from the start. It negated the right to own, utilize and dispose private property, essentially seizing property in defiance of the 5th Amendment:

No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Some have argued that it was not a taking, since it only delayed the ability to collect rent but did not excuse  the debt. I disagree; when the government sees fit to nullify the only available leverage to ensure payment… well, that sounds like a taking to me. What if these people need a car? Should the dealer be forced to give them one under the government’s promise of later repossession once the car’s life has been exhausted? How about food? Should the local grocery store be required to give credit with no means to collect?

But the worst part of the rent moratorium is what it does to ordinary, moral people. What do you think such people will do when their neighbors – taking advantage of the government’s benevolence, flush with enhanced unemployment benefits and no rent to pay – enjoy the finer things in life that they have not yet earned? How long will it take the normally moral to succumb to the siren song of free money? And once seduced will they ever become moral again, or will they line up at the socialist’s feeding trough to leach off of those still foolish enough to work and pay rent? How long before the leaches outnumber the productive? How long before the feeding trough is empty?

This is the promise of socialism. Welcome to the new world.

Nancy who?

Nancy Pelosi breaking with far-left demands? Will wonders never cease?

Pelosi says Biden doesn’t have the power to cancel student loan debt

An interesting paragraph from the story:

Pelosi on Wednesday acknowledged some policy concerns about giving some borrowers a break, while previous borrowers had to faithfully pay off their loans. She also questioned whether it was fair for families that didn’t go to college to have their tax dollars forgive the debts of someone who did.

She missed one: what about those of us who worked our way through college so as to graduate debt-free? Where’s our refund? Well, at least she’s acknowledged the unfairness.

Now, let’s look at the root cause of the student loan “crisis”: the government’s propensity for loaning money to students no matter how useless or worthless the degree. Maybe we should only lend money in amounts commensurate with the earning potential of the degree; at least that would incentive useful behavior.

Someone needs to send Nancy’s doctor a thank you note for finally getting her meds right…

The entitlement doctrine

Have critical thinking skills been eliminated entirely from our public school curriculum?

Why Did It Take a Pandemic to Show How Much Unpaid Work Women Do?

“Cleaning the house and taking care of children has real economic value, and women have been doing it for free for too long.”

Yes – cleaning house and taking care of children has real economic value – but only to the people whose house is being cleaned and whose children are being raised. Why should I pay to have someone clean their house?  Do I get to live there? Why should I pay to raise their children? Are they going to mow my lawn? Are these children going to take care of me in my old age?

And as far as women claiming that they have been singled out for this specific work – well, in this day and age that’s a matter to be discussed with the members of their immediate household. But even if the housework and childcare is unevenly divided, what about the other chores that have typically been relegated to men? I shoveled snow for 2 full days this week – that work, too, has real economic value; why should I not to be paid for it? Once again, the same argument applies: if the work only benefits the worker, then the result of the work is their only pay. Don’t ask someone else to pay you again.

Arguing that women (or men) should be paid for work from which only they benefit is like a burglar insisting that he is “earning” his loot by performing the work necessary to obtain it. The flaw in logic is the same: the “work” is of value to no one but the “worker”. If work is to be paid, then it must be productive work that benefits the payer.

Yes – raising children is both expensive and time consuming work. If you don’t want the trouble and expense, then don’t have children. But if you do, don’t ask others to pay; they are your problem, not theirs. And if the work in your household is not evenly divided – by task or equivalent economic value –  that is something for you to address with the members of your household, not the American taxpayer.

“Government money” and dependency

The government has no money. They get their money from you in the form of taxes. Even money the government collects in taxes from businesses is eventually paid by you via higher prices or lower wages. The government has no savings for a “rainy day” either, and instead currently has a deficit of over $27 trillion dollars (that’s $27,000,000,000,000). This amounts to almost $84,000 owed by every single man, woman and child in the United States. Let that sink in a bit: the average family of five is nearly $420K underwater from the start.

Joe Biden and congressional Democrats, who recently eliminated a House rule requirement that new spending programs must be deficit neutral (translation: they can borrow as much as they want – in your name – to buy your vote), now want to add almost $2 trillion dollars to our deficit – and that’s only the beginning. This first “relief” package (although I don’t feel very relieved) amounts to almost another $6000 borrowed against each and every citizen of the United States. But you’re only going to get $1600 of it.

The rest of the $6000? You mean the remaining $4400 per person that the government is borrowing in your name? Oh, that’s earmarked for important things… yes, important things…. Like the financial bailout of Democrat strongholds whose social policies have resulted in economic disaster, for instance. Oh, and money to keep public union members like firefighters, police, and school teacher paid (yes, even when teachers refuse to work because of COVID and instead go on vacation). Not a government union worker? For you we’re going to increase the minimum wage to $15/hour. But don’t worry; we’re also increasing unemployment benefits for when we’ve priced ourselves out of the labor market and all our jobs go to China.

I know to many of you this all sounds great (f##king morons!). Only we can’t borrow ourselves into prosperity; it simply won’t work. And I know what you’re thinking: it’s OK to for the government to borrow massive amounts of money because each of us believes that we can stick our rich neighbor with the bill. But what about your less well-to-do neighbors; aren’t they thinking the same thing about you? Don’t worry, though; no one expects anyone to repay this money. In fact, the politicians want to borrow even more on your behalf. It’s really all about control – control through government dependence.

Politicians will obtained this control initially by bribing you with “government money”, but later you’ll surrender control willingly when the economy dips and you find yourself in need of their social welfare programs. Once we are fully dependent on the government for our daily alms, then the politicians who have control over these programs will have full control over our lives, our opinions, our voices – and our votes. We will be ruled by a political oligarchy running a command economy, members of a society where basic necessities and jobs will require membership in the ruling party and strict compliance with their doctrine. Say, this is beginning to sound eerily familiar…

Think not? Think again. All that is needed to implement what I have outlined above is control – and there are few better means of control than dependency. But they won’t stop there – they are also working on control of the media so that we are all able to regurgitate the politically correct propaganda of the day. “One of us… one of us…”! Those who don’t agree will be unceremoniously cancelled. Permanently.

If you haven’t already, I’d recommend you read both George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984”, and also his socialist allegory “Animal Farm”. While you’re at it, I’d also recommend Ayn Rand’s classic tale of liberalism run amuck, “Atlas Shrugged”. I think, in the end, you’ll find each of these books to be quite prophetic.

Stop the absurdity!

Congress has been busy handing out our money – to us. Only we’re too stupid to realize that it’s our own money, or that it will have to be repaid (or worse, we think that someone else will be forced to foot the bill for us – aka, the “rich”):

Congress passes stopgap bill to avoid government shutdown; coronavirus relief deal reached

A couple of choice tidbits from the above-referenced article:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a joint statement their goal is to “crush the virus and put money in the pockets of the American people.”

Only I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution where it is the function of Congress to put money into our pockets – particularly money they have to borrow from us.

…the deal is expected to include $600 checks to most Americans…

Why?? If people are working like normal, what the hell is the government doing paying them a bonus? Don’t people realize that this is THEIR OWN MONEY being doled out to them by the government? Don’t they realize that the government has borrowed this money, money that they will eventually be required to repay? I wonder how many people would take these checks if they were presented as a loan rather than a bonus? Because in reality that’s what these payments are – a loan, plain and simple. And one day that loan will come due.

According to congressional leaders, the agreement would establish temporary $300 per week supplemental jobless benefits…

Extending unemployment benefits is a reasonable action to take, so long as the money used to pay these benefits is recouped through unemployment insurance premiums when the crisis ends. But increasing the amount of unemployment payments by $300 – which amounts to an additional $7.50/hour NOT to work – is absurd. The unemployment insurance system should pay only the benefits it would normally award, but extended the period for benefits as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. That is a reasonable response to the pandemic – not bonuses for being unemployed.

Stop the absurdity before it’s too late; there is no such thing as free money. We’ll eventually pay for all this spending with lost jobs (from overtaxing businesses) and/or lost wages (from lost employers and overtaxed workers).