Sunday, April 17, 2011


Is Ben Stein auditioning for another comedy role?

Stein starts off the below clip by saying the U.S. government will not go broke. He then describes exactly why it is likely to do so.

He accurately points out that the deficits can not go on the way they are.
He then goes on to say that the government will not go broke because the Fed can just print money to pay for any deficit. In the next breath he says that this won't work because (surprise) it's inflationary.

He then suggests a solution (surprise) taxes must be raised on the rich. He also says there are a lot of rich, which means he thinks you are rich.

He also suggests cutting spending, but neo-con that he is, he says the military budget should not be cut.

So bottom line, according to Stein, there is no debt problem, but there is one. The solution is to tax the rich, by which he pretty much means anyone that has an internet connection. He realizes that spending must be cut, but the military-industrial complex must continue to be funded.

Does anyone understand what he is mumbling? Anyone?


  1. When Ron Paul said on Larry King that the Muslim terrorists hate us because of our involvement in their affairs, Ben Stein called him anti-semetic. At around 1:55:

  2. I was unfortunate enough to witness these asinine comments as they aired this AM, and your characterization is spot on. Cognitive dissonance at its best (worst?), and Orwell would be proud of the doublethink and doublespeak.

    I used to like Stein when he was sticking it to liberal dogma, but his gross ignorance of economics and the consequences of military intervention- both financial and moral- has soured me completely.

  3. The government will not go broke because the Fed can just print money to pay for any everyone more, but call for this increase under the safe cover of demanding to loot the rich...cut the budget, but not the aggression budget...blah, blah, blah. It's like listening to croaking toads.

    How about we call this policy Shaqonomics? This avoids giving that financial expert any extra publicity, which he plainly does not deserve, and it will remind people that there can be bad consequences for kissing a neocon who disguised itself as a toad.

  4. Had people listened to this moron in 2007 and 2008, they would have lost a bundle when he was talking the banks and investment houses up as cheap. He's more clues then Krugman. This guy should have zero credibility after the financial collapse of 2008. He should stick to comedy.