Obamatons lecture Howard Schultz about debt and the importance of leaving such matters to them < >
The Democrats just don't stop with Howard Schultz, do they?
The latest wave now, though, is particularly revolting, coming as it does from smug, self-satisfied, know-it-all Obama administration 'wonks.'
"America is not a company," [former Obama economic council head Jason] Furman, now a professor at Harvard University, told CNBC this week. "And in fact, many successful companies are much more leveraged than the United States," he said, adding that the present value of America's growth far exceeded its debt obligations.
Both Furman and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers insist that it's time for Washington to end its "delusion" with debt reduction. In a Foreign Affairs essay, the economists argued that large deficits are a function of falling revenues, rather than surging entitlement spending.
"More spending is not, by itself, something to be afraid of," they wrote, arguing that high levels of debt could be sustained in the medium-term, given that low interest rates mean borrowing costs are lower.
Oh what a pile of gobbledygook.
Anyone with common sense knows that excessive government spending on unproductive goals is a bad thing, not a good thing, for an economy. More money in government coffers means less money in private enterprise. Ask Venezuela what spending the company's oil earnings on welfare, pork shoveling and free stuff for Castro did to the country's economy, all the way into its exchange rate. Does 120,000% inflation sound nice? Do dictators packing up the nation's gold reserves for the flight out make good economic sense? Is spending like there's no tomorrow, ahem, 'sustainable'?
Now they're lecturing Schultz about money as if the self-made billionaire from the bottom of society, who founded and nutured the mighty Starbucks empire, employing hundreds of thousands of people, would know nothing about it.
They're lecturing him about money. Telling him not to worry his pretty little head about it.
And to trust them. Government, and government spending, should only be kept in the hands of experts, such as themselves. And surprise, surprise, it was that very philosophy that created the lowest growth economic recovery on record in the wake of the 2008 downturn. President Obama ran a slum of an economy with few jobs, low growth, central planning, bad investments in 'green' projects and no future. The Obama administration and all its smug, self-satisfied hipsters at their laptops was precisely what made President Trump possible as voters got up on their hind legs and voted for Trump. Summers is particularly irritating since he dates back to the Clinton years as a fixture, reported by my sources with Cheeto grease on his cuffs.
Now Schultz is coming in and talking about fiscal discipline and they've got their backs up. Someone doesn't trust them to run things anymore.
No wonder they don't like this guy.
All they're doing, though, with this irritating exercise telling us to leave it all in their hands, is reminding each and every one of us, why we voted for Trump.
The Democrats just don't stop with Howard Schultz, do they?
The latest wave now, though, is particularly revolting, coming as it does from smug, self-satisfied, know-it-all Obama administration 'wonks.'
"America is not a company," [former Obama economic council head Jason] Furman, now a professor at Harvard University, told CNBC this week. "And in fact, many successful companies are much more leveraged than the United States," he said, adding that the present value of America's growth far exceeded its debt obligations.
Both Furman and former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers insist that it's time for Washington to end its "delusion" with debt reduction. In a Foreign Affairs essay, the economists argued that large deficits are a function of falling revenues, rather than surging entitlement spending.
"More spending is not, by itself, something to be afraid of," they wrote, arguing that high levels of debt could be sustained in the medium-term, given that low interest rates mean borrowing costs are lower.
Oh what a pile of gobbledygook.
Anyone with common sense knows that excessive government spending on unproductive goals is a bad thing, not a good thing, for an economy. More money in government coffers means less money in private enterprise. Ask Venezuela what spending the company's oil earnings on welfare, pork shoveling and free stuff for Castro did to the country's economy, all the way into its exchange rate. Does 120,000% inflation sound nice? Do dictators packing up the nation's gold reserves for the flight out make good economic sense? Is spending like there's no tomorrow, ahem, 'sustainable'?
Now they're lecturing Schultz about money as if the self-made billionaire from the bottom of society, who founded and nutured the mighty Starbucks empire, employing hundreds of thousands of people, would know nothing about it.
They're lecturing him about money. Telling him not to worry his pretty little head about it.
And to trust them. Government, and government spending, should only be kept in the hands of experts, such as themselves. And surprise, surprise, it was that very philosophy that created the lowest growth economic recovery on record in the wake of the 2008 downturn. President Obama ran a slum of an economy with few jobs, low growth, central planning, bad investments in 'green' projects and no future. The Obama administration and all its smug, self-satisfied hipsters at their laptops was precisely what made President Trump possible as voters got up on their hind legs and voted for Trump. Summers is particularly irritating since he dates back to the Clinton years as a fixture, reported by my sources with Cheeto grease on his cuffs.
Now Schultz is coming in and talking about fiscal discipline and they've got their backs up. Someone doesn't trust them to run things anymore.
No wonder they don't like this guy.
All they're doing, though, with this irritating exercise telling us to leave it all in their hands, is reminding each and every one of us, why we voted for Trump.
1
