Who’s to say that those services or wages are needed?
This bit of sophomoric logic, aged in the American psyche through years of Heritage-funded (Koch-brother produced) repetition, comes, liberal and moderate America, from your political competition, the Tea Party. This in essence is the Teabagger philosophy. We would be better off without government is their belief. “Government is the problem” to quote the most beloved Republican of the twentieth century, contrary to the belief of the last great Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower who warned of the military-industrial complex and brought us the interstate highway system, contrary to JFK who pointed us toward a moon landing. Mind you a lot of these people, (the know-nothing Republicans, they vote Republican, they call themselves conservative; make no mistake about it, Teabaggers vote Republican and there is no difference just look at former Senator Bennett of Utah and his Teabagger replacement Mike “laughingstock” Lee who advocated a situation which costs his state tons of money by blocking “services or wages” which weren’t “needed”) mind you a lot of these people never rallied and complained about being taxed enough already (TEA’d) when the Bush Administration Curve-balled us into Iraq one of two-unfunded-unread-Bin-Laden-determined-to-attack-PDB wars. Tellingly, these “fiscal” conservatives never complained about two wars being not budgeted, remember the Teabagger rallies that didn’t happen during the Bush administatrion; they aren’t bright enough to know that the American economy lost the opportunity to focus on greater economic productivity (being greater competition to the Chinese and every one of our other economic competitors) by channeling all the manpower and resources to the misadventure which is Iraq. I challenge their concern about leaving debt to future generations and deficits because we never raised taxes to cover the cost of the war, so the cost including interest on the borrowed money used to fund the war make Iraq the gift that keeps on giving.
So when you hear a Teabagger, in response to cost estimates of the Teabagger orchestrated government shutdown:
Bad assumptions for the most part.
First, the impact on the economy. S&P calculates the $24 billion impact based on all the wages federal workers didn’t get, and thus didn’t spend, plus the side effects from that lack of commerce. But what S&P doesn’t take into account is that those federal workers will probably see an increase in their commerce once they get their back pay.
The furloughed workers are all likely to engage in about the same level of commerce as they would have had the shutdown never happened. The timing may have changed due to the furlough, but they still going to buy clothes, fuel and food and go out to the movies”
Just remember you’re listening to people who either have an agenda or who are operating unwittingly on behalf of people who have an agenda. The agenda is to castigate and undermine the functioning of government at every opportunity, as part of a grand privatization scheme benefiting an oligarchic donor class. To them, “Government is the problem,” except of course when they are diverting it to their friends like Haliburton or Blackwater in a no-bid kinda way). Some of the cohorts are so simple minded that they say things like:
“those federal workers will probably see an increase in their commerce once they get their back pay.”
The Teabaggers, and remember the “TEA” stands for taxed enough already, are perfectly ok with forcing a shutdown and then paying back-pay to workers who they forced to sit at home (“Federal employees sat home for a combined total of 6.6 million days, more than in any previous government shutdown”) because they, the Teabaggers, were attempting to defund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by monkeying with a continuing resolutions to fund the government. The shutdown-didn’t-cost-that-much argument (indicative of the mentality of a group which is properly referred to as “know-nothings”)is about as moronic as the equally clueless plea to congress to “keep your government hands off my Medicare” or “Social Security.”
Medicare was brought to you by a Democratic (LBJ’s) administration. And now conservatives now want to voucherize it so that 75 year olds can go into the private “junk” insurance market to buy healthcare((Paul Ryan’s plan) or in the case of Dr. Ben “I-need-my-head-examined” Carson, who is now Heritage’s (what’s a word that rhymes with stitch and begins with a b), you can just save the money to cover your old-age medical expenses. Conservatives never wanted you to have it, referring to it as socialized medicine; and now conservatives claim they want to preserve it, socialized medicine, for you the unwashed masses who should turn to your churches and are using too much healthcare, according to Dr. Ben “if-you-can’t-afford-that’s-just-tough” Carson?
Wait, here is more comedy. And that Social Security, that the Heritage Foundation (the Koch brother monstrosity) advocates be privatized so that you can make some Madoff or Ebbers rich before they go to jail, Social Security was brought to you by, wait for it, wait for it, another Democratic (FDR’s) administration
The great irony is that the safety-net which supplies enough societal stability to provide Americans with enough breathing room mentally, mental comfort, to leisurely form notions of government dismantlement was brought to you by progressive Americans, brought to you by liberal Americans. The magical thing about the CONNservative appeal is that many people who voted for Mitt Romney are, by his definition, takers (depending on government of the people for support, VA, disability, Sandy Aid, farm support, but not, in their opinion, the military-industrial complex); that is they are receiving some sort of government assistance but view themselves as superior to others who are receiving government assistance and want to attack “entitlements” but never complain about lobbyists writing laws which allow Romney-types to hide money in the Cayman Islands and corporations to outsource jobs and offshore profits which means that they, the poor and middle-class whites who voted for Romney-Ryan, have less resources to take care of themselves and contribute to the tax base upon which all those “entitlement programs” depend.
And that “increase in commerce” that this particular Teabagger estimates will occur says nothing about the time value of money (what was not accomplished because the money was not there on time when it was needed and used as planned for something like saving or investing) and what was lost in make-shift arrangements by those furloughed to make ends meet while the government was shutdown (like short-term borrowing and added expenses). No, the Teabaggers see this inconvenience and the very real costs the workers incurred as just a means to an end, the end being a destruction of a government that is too big. That Heritage-Foundation-too-big rubbish could only take root with the working-class due to mental insulation afforded by the productive foundation brought to Americans by past generations which gave us everything from the TVA, to the G.I. bill, to VHA and FHA loans to the interstate highway, most of which were brought about when tax rates where much higher on the upper income bracket. Heck, even the “big government” Postal service (which has its origins in the nation’s founding) was a boon to rural road development.
You’ll hear comments like the following in places like Forbes
“People who cancelled trips to D.C., national parks, or other sites may instead have taken a trip somewhere else.”
Did you notice the “may instead” in this theory? What if the trip was cancelled? What if no one received the funds through a sale or purchase because of elimination of the government services or functions? What if things were postponed? Can you say uncertainty, Teabaggers? Aren’t they, conservative, Teabaggers, always complaining about economic uncertainty and the affect of uncertainty on the economy? Funny, how the word just disappears from the conservative vocabulary in the context of a government shutdown. Business don’t invest because of uncertainty, goes the tale of the great pumpkin, I mean the tale of uncertainty. H E double hockey sticks, you even had a conservative at an institution of higher learning in Mississippi using “uncertainty” as a pretext for layoffs. Funny, how even in this continuing resolution device, the RepublCONs found a way to put a damper on economic activity and still complain about slow economic growth. You have to give them credit for the consistency and the diversity of their attack.
There are also Heritage feces loads like:
“Because the government workers are being paid for the days they did not work, the cost of government services will not decline and, therefore, neither will the government contribution to GDP.”
These clowns never heard of anything like multipliers and derivatives unless they are talking about Wall Street or the stock market. The government contribution to GDP does stop with the money paid to government workers. What conservatives never count is the money that is spent, the goods that are produced because the government employee is there. Just because you pay government employees after they have been idle doesn’t mean that the government contribution to GDP didn’t decline.
“Communities lost $500 million in spending in their communities as a result of shuttered National Parks.”
To say that those funds were spent elsewhere is just ludicrous. And the numbers don’t support the RepubliCONNED assertion. And if consumer confidence means anything at all, then those government employees would defy the notion if they spent at the same level as before the layoff and so would those people who depended upon their, the furloughed employees, expenditures and work product. And furthermore, with clowns like the Teabaggers in office, the economy must necessarily be adversely affected. In their continued effort to downplay the derivatives of their economic madness, CONNINGservatives are hoping to be successful in keeping people from seeing the
“continued government brinksmanship as a major factor holding back the U.S. economic recovery.”
The most sinister part of the shutdown strategy is that by destroying the ability of the government to function, the CONNINGservatives can make a better case for privatization. There is an OMB report which says
“The shutdown “risks seriously damaging the ability to attract and retain the kind of driven, patriotic Americans to public service that our citizens deserve and that our system of self-government demands,”
Those flag lapel pins CONNINGservatives wear should burn holes in their suits.