Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Business Insider's Bizarre Attack on Ron Paul's Budget Plan

Business Insider continues to show its big government, left leaning ways.

The latest comes in an outrageous attack on Ron Paul's new budget plan. Zeke Miller at BI writes under the headline,"Here's Ron Paul's Crazy Plan That Will Destroy The US Economy":

Notably the plan does not include an analysis of the economic effects of Paul's proposed budget — though cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget would be an instantaneous 7 percent cut to GDP, nearly equivalent to the slowdown seen during the 'Great Recession.'
BI founder Henry Blodget chimes in with a tweet, which links to Miller's post, and adds this comment:

RON PAUL: I want to immediately put another 10mm Americans out of work http://read.bi/pDjOp1 [by cutting $500B of govt spending immed.]
Earth to Blodget and Miller, money that Ron Paul cuts from the budget doesn't disappear, it ends up in the private sector, where it can be used by entrepreneurs to work on projects that raise the standard of living of a country. Right now the country could sure use a trillion more in the private sector. Blodget, who appears downright cheap when handling the affairs of BI, suddenly gets starry eyed about money going into the hands of government where projects, which are notoriously bureaucratic and inefficient, are the funded. It's bizarre.


  1. Wenz, in html, are there a lot of breaks? <. br>

  2. "I want to immediately put another 10mm Americans out of work "
    Just insane fear mongering from the usual suspects.
    The way I read RP's plan is that he wants to cut the federal workforce by 10% (mostly through attrition, but never mind that, that's a word with too many syllables for Blodget et al). If 10% equals 10 mm, according to their estimates, that would imply that the feds employ 100mm people, a socialist's wet dream, no doubt, but not a reality (yet). I'd venture to say that an unemployed bureaucrat is much more preferable than one who is writing useless regs designed to make our standard of living to decrease).

  3. @Anon9:57

    No that's the problem. There is no way for me to remove the breaks, even in html.

    This weekend, I am going to play around with some of their new templates, which friends tell me don't have the problems I am having.

  4. Problem - GDP is an artificial construct. Gov't spending is a consumption item not a productive one. Intead of adding it to GDP it should be subtracted from it. Productive private sector capital transferred to gov't is immediately rendered inert to varying degrees. We need certain forms and amounts of federal gov't - just not as much as we have presently.

  5. They know what they are talking about - they are deliberately writing bs.

  6. Ah Grasshopper

    As they attack this fine man they do not understand that each attack on him only makes his position stronger. An honest man is the one thing a dishonest man can never understand - he is left totally bewildered. The truth can not be spun, subverted, ridiculed, or bought - it is the truth - it just is. Watch as the toadies line up to take their shots at him and embarrass themselves even further. (is that possible?)

    What scares the hell out of them is that the world is waking up. It is changing in ways they can not comprehend, and they have lost their control and power. The great propaganda machine is grinding to a halt. Does anyone believe anything that the MSM says anymore? Anyone?

    Be of good cheer, grasshopper. Something wonderful is about to happen...

  7. More broken window logic from the msm. Let's say that he's right that 10m more are put out of work, whether that is a bad or good out come is only relevant when compared to the alternatives. If anyone in the MSM thinks the US can run a decade of +$1T deficits, they are massively deluding themselves. If anyone in the MSM thinks you can close the budget gaps at the federal, state and local level by endless tax increases, once again history shows they are deluding themselves. The real questions is how many people will eventually be put out of work when the US can no longer monetize its debt? 5million, 10million, 20million, 40million? Who knows? How many people will have their lives turned upside down when SS and Medicare collapse? How much wealth destruction will take place between now and then making it even harder to recover?

  8. This plan is radical and extreme! Wolf blitzers interview with Ron Paul show he will put as many as 200,000 government employees out of a job. Many will go starving and homeless. He wants to abolish the TSA so our planes can all be hijacked! He wants to dismantle the entire military so we can be invaded by iran! He wants to audit the federal reserve, even Herman Cain agrees this is a waste and theres no secrets to be found! He wants to abolish the dept's, he hates education! He wants us all to die from polluted water and air! He wants driving in unsafe cars! He hates affordable housing! I can go on and on!

  9. Weird. Because some of your posts don't have this problem at all.

  10. For the benefit of those of us who haven't studied much economics, could someone explain how cutting government spending, when that spending is not financed by current taxes (i.e., when it results in a deficit), would result in an increase in the amount of money available in the private sector?

  11. That's right Blodget et al, let's keep everyone on the gov't payroll (much of the time producing NOTHING or wasting time) and blowing up the deficit. Worked for Greece after all, didn't it?

    I know someone who worked for a gov't agency (won't name it). For 5 years he checked in every morning at 9AM and left at 10AM. Nothing ever happened. Of course this may be an exception but I suspect there are many such cases. Or people who stay at "work" but play Facebook games all day (or, famously, watch pr0n).

  12. I quit reading B.I. some time ago. It is mostly silliness, distraction, and personality adoration.

    Hey, Henry: stick to what you do best, pumping lousy tech stocks. Real economics appears to be beyond your grasp. Shake off your Ivy League (really, bush league) indoctrination, man!

  13. @ Anonymous (October 18, 2011 11:46 AM)

    Thank you for that wonderful satire of left-liberal fear mongering idiots. I needed a good laugh.

  14. Anonymous @ 11:56AM -- reducing government spending means reduction in government borrowing - meaning that the money will become available to private businesses (banks have to loan money, eventually, their whole business is to borrow at lower rate and loan at higher rate).

    Reduction in government spending will also put damper on waste of real resources (fuel by military, etc, etc) and labor (these govt flunkies will have to start doing something productive for a living) - which will drive the price of business inputs lower, and will make business more profitable, resulting in its ability to expand and offer goods at lower prices - which is unquestionably better for us, mere peons of the State.

    The most important, however, is that balancing budget eliminates the biggest source of demand for money printing by the Fed - thus reducing inflationary tax on savings. More savings means more capital. More capital means more investment - and that, in turn, means higher productivity. Which is necessary for becoming wealthier.

  15. @ Anonymous (October 18, 2011 11:46 AM)

    Ok, just for the exercise, let's take these one at a time.

    1. "He will put as many as 200,000 government employees out of a job."

    He will do nothing of the kind. He will allow government to shrink through attrition, and freeze all new hiring. No one will starve or go homeless. As the government shrinks more resources will go to the private sector - the only place where new jobs and wealth can be created.

    2. "He wants to abolish the TSA so our planes can all be hijacked."

    How silly. If ever there was a useless organization the TSA would be at the top of the list. To date they have prevented nothing, confiscated millions of pocket knives, nail clippers, and bottles of water, groped and assaulted millions of innocent Americans, and pretty much run roughshod over the constitution and personal freedom. To say they have prevented a terrorist attack is like putting a string of garlic around your neck to keep the elephants away. The fact that there are no elephants appears to be a minor point with you.

    3. "He wants to dismantle the entire military so we can be invaded by iran."

    Wow, how do you even begin to address such profound ignorance. He wants a strong military to defend our country, not to preemptively attack others who have done nothing to us. Isn't it curious that the military is one of his biggest supporters. As for Iran invading us, unless you go over and pick them up they're going to have a long swim to get here.

    4. "He wants to audit the federal reserve, even Herman Cain agrees this is a waste and theres no secrets to be found." Anyone that has spent more than 30 seconds investigating the Federal Reserve realizes that is is one of the most corrupt, self serving, criminal institutions ever to exist. As for old Herman, could the fact that he is a former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Fed have any bearing on his position? Oh certainly not.

    5. "He wants to abolish the dept's, he hates education!"

    Let's just look at two departments. First the Department of Energy. Their mandate, when formed during the Carter administration, was to end America's dependence on foreign oil. How's that working out? Well, we are now more dependent on foreign oil than we have been at any time in our history. To say these guys have failed would be one of the understatements of all time.

    Second, the Department of Education. According to CBS News, of 30 comparable countries the United States ranks near the bottom. Take math - Finland is first, followed by South Korea, and the United States is number 25. Same story in science: Finland, number one again. The United States? Number 21. The single best thing we could do for our children is get the government out of education and return it to parents and teachers.

    6. "He wants us all to die from polluted water and air! He wants driving in unsafe cars! He hates affordable housing!"

    You left out: "Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!" (Ghostbusters, 1984)

    You state at the end "I can go on and on!", and I'm sure you will, as it seems you simply don't know any better. If you think this is the best we can do then you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

    My advice is simple. GROW UP!

  16. Business Insider is utterly useless, after the last debate they attacked Ron Paul because they claimed he had false eyebrows ... they seem to be running utter desperate rubbish at this point.

  17. Anon@618pm...you made me cry.

    Anyone who can't see the common sense and practical reality of what you wrote is too tied to their deadly Marxist beliefs to pay attention to. Bravo!

    Those people will drown as their system falls, and I wish I could give a good goddamn. Fuck them- their "philosophy" is what caused this mess!

  18. I wish ALL newsletter would start referring the MSM as to what they really are. LSM, or Lame Stream Media.
    The reason Ron Paul lost the election was because of all the BS blackballing by the LSM, and I'm sure this will happen again, regardless of his high ratings in those debates.
    So sad, and so CORRUPT!

  19. "money that Ron Paul cuts from the budget doesn't disappear, it ends up in the private sector..."

    Are they too stupid to understand this or are they just lying government-worshiping parasites...I suspect the second.

  20. Since employment is no longer the way to earn self suffiency and advancement to upper class once govt cuts military spending and foreign aid to raise money, will they still give money to corrupt pedophile religions, and corrupt social services programs that force people to get pregnant, remain addicts, fake mental illness and become convicts to qualify for housing and benefits?
    Will they make it possible to go directly to govt to apply for money to sustainn their lives and advancement to upper class?

    Does Ron Paul think the churches should be given the money and empowered to distribute social services as they see fit from the cut backs in military spending and foreign aid to ween us off govt dependence?
    Will they force people again to become church members, listen to sermons, engage in church support activites and cause further corrupt activities people will no doubt turn to to get help and favors from the church?
    Will they empower private institutions and charities who build a wall of qualifications no one could possibly meet just to keep the money and reallocate funds to frivolous pursuits?
    Will they empower poor individuals directly to advance to upper class?
    Will they create a fund or account that covers individuals rent, medical and education as necessary until self sufficiency is restored? ( in the past all you had to do was enroll at a community college and it was payed for completely covered from a fund no loan package required, will they just be able to swipe a card and have these expenses covered?)
    Since empowerment through employment is not possible who or what entity will be must people go through in order to gain access to these funds from spending cuts including social services and safety nets, housing vouchers, low wage employment traps, and such are all gone?
    will people again be turned away and denied because they can't get past that wall of qualifications and find funds reallocated to other pursuits?