Michelle Malkin » So much for “rejecting the politics of fear”

So much for “rejecting the politics of fear”

By Michelle Malkin • February 5, 2009 09:41 AM

President Obama is losing the stimulus battle. Fiscal conservatives are winning the message war on the Generational Theft Act of 2009. Flailing and desperate, he has resorted to the very “politics of fear” he ran against during the campaign. In a WaPo op-ed this morning, he invokes Chicken Little tactics to scare Washington into ramming his massive, ineffective, debt-stimulating plan through Congress. At least he didn’t use Nan Pelosi’s “500 million” jobs line:

By now, it’s clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

The only thing we have to fear is fear-mongering itself.

If Senate Republicans can hold the line, they can avoid the same head-long rush toward repeat failure that led to bailout-mania and stimulus-palooza last year.

It’s a big “If.”

Do your part. Make a call: 202-224-3121. Go to Congress Whip. Join #TCOT’s campaign.

Kill the bill. Stab it. Stick a fork in it. Then start over from scratch.

Posted in: fiscal stimulus

Printer Friendly

comments (107)

trackbacks (27)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#101

On February 5th, 2009 at 2:29 pm, corkie said:

On February 5th, 2009 at 2:15 pm, Mister P said:

Nope instead we must increase the taxes in order to balance the budget.

Surely, you don’t call yourself a Republican. Right?

Then you must also consider property taxes and state taxes. As their costs go up (because of the increase in money supply, then the taxes go up also.

Crazy talk. Local and state costs go up because of the increase in money supply? Please detail the steps you missed in explaining the mechanism by which an increase in money supply raises state and local costs.

You still haven’t explained how the government can create money out of thin air.

Reread #69 and cease your sophomoric statements.
#103

On February 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm, Yashmak said:

Again, increasing money supply is a form of stealing (or taxation). One CAN NOT create money out of think air. That is why I think you are too loose with you definition of inflation.

– Mister P

Mister P is absolutely right on this note. Printing money at any rate higher than that required to replace that money which has worn-out will, to a greater or lesser extent dependent upon the volume, reduce the value of existing money, for the exact reasons he has described in his comments. It devalues our wages/salaries, as well as any savings we might have accumulated.

In effect, printing large sums of money is a tax on all our life savings and our current earnings.
#104

On February 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm, corkie said:

On February 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm, Yashmak said:

1. What exactly do you mean by “printing” money?

2. I never said that such actions wouldn’t contribute to inflation. What I said, and continue to insist, that such actions aren’t defined AS inflation.
#106

On February 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm, Mister P said:

What’s wrong with loosening and tightening monetary supply via interest rates to attempt to help boost and ease GDP? Most fed actions are viewed as being quarterly decisions only. You do understand what the federal reserve is and its sources of capital, right?

I agree that we need to decrease spending and balance the budget. However, you’re wrong about inflation. Increased deficit spending by the federal government (different than the federal reserve) DOES NOT EQUAL increased inflation. The inflation reported in the news. The inflation discussed along with GDP and productivity. The inflation that most people mean when they casually discuss inflation.

Of course other types of inflation exists. Budget inflation exists. Grade inflation exists. Hell, even tire inflation exists.

The “inflation that everybody means”? So if a lie is told often enough, in your mind it becomes the truth. But you sure are in DENIAL about the effects of an increased money supply. You seem to think one could create money out of thin air.

I am NOT a Republican. I am independant. I believe Political Parties ar unamerican. They are legalized conspiracies, and we are seeing what the Democrat Conspiracy is doing right now.

There is a myth that Bush decreased taxes. If you were an independant contractor you would know that is not true. Payroll taxes (over 15 percent) increased each year as it was taken from a larger gross limit. Bush did not balance the budget either. He engaged in Socialistic activities like (drug program, No Child Left Behind, Shamnisty, and an obviously illegal bailout).

The MUST from the earlier post comes from having too much debt and the effect it has on Income.

We are getting whacked in too ways by the BO Republicans, the Democrats and the Feds. The Fed prints money, thus devaluing the current money in circulation, and The Political Parties pass HUGE bailout/stimulous/patronage bills that increase the national debt.

It is one gigantic PONZI scheme and eventually it will lead to a crash. Again read the mises.org site as they are dead set against the Keynsian economy that we have engaged in since the creation of the Fed.
#107

On February 5th, 2009 at 3:04 pm, Mister P said:

corkie, again about the definition of inflation: http://mises.org/story/908

Because inflation is not a general increase in prices but rather increases in the money supply, it is an exercise in futility to devise a more accurate Consumer Price Index. Moreover, despite its popularity, the whole idea of a CPI is flawed. It is based on a view that it is possible to establish an average of prices of goods and services.

Suppose two transactions are conducted. In the first transaction, one loaf of bread is exchanged for $2. In the second transaction, one liter of milk is exchanged for $1. The price, or the rate of exchange, in the first transaction is $2/one loaf of bread. The price in the second transaction is $1/one liter of milk. In order to calculate the average price, we must add these two ratios and divide them by two; however, it is conceptually meaningless to add $2/one loaf of bread to $1/one liter of milk.
#108

On February 5th, 2009 at 3:06 pm, Mister P said:

Reread #69 and cease your sophomoric statements.

So you resort to being paternalistic. If you want to have discussions, you must learn express opinions without resorting to such insults.
#109

On February 5th, 2009 at 3:38 pm, John Deaux said:

The real inflation will take place when all that money that people and businesses are squirrelling away comes out again when the MSM lets the economy be good again.

Yes, the economy is bad, but not as bad as they would have us believe. Remember the role that consumer confidence plays in all of this. The MSM have that one locked down.
#110

On February 5th, 2009 at 3:42 pm, frostrt said:

On February 5th, 2009 at 3:38 pm, John Deaux said:
The real inflation will take place when all that money that people and businesses are squirrelling away comes out again when the MSM lets the economy be good again.

Yes, the economy is bad, but not as bad as they would have us believe. Remember the role that consumer confidence plays in all of this. The MSM have that one locked down.

—————————————

Convince people that they are doomed, economically speaking, and they will be afraid to spend money. Hence, they will stop spending, hence, the economy gets worse – unless people don’t let the fear of the MSM hold them back (and, no, of course they shouln’t live beyond their means; they just shouldn’t be so afraid that they cut back unnecessarily).
#111

On February 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm, darthdilbert said:

Kill the Bill

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w66/darthdilbert/tcot/killthebill.png
#112

On February 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, corkie said:

On February 5th, 2009 at 3:42 pm, frostrt said:

Convince people that they are doomed, economically speaking, and they will be afraid to spend money. Hence, they will stop spending, hence, the economy gets worse – unless people don’t let the fear of the MSM hold them back (and, no, of course they shouln’t live beyond their means; they just shouldn’t be so afraid that they cut back unnecessarily).

Agreed. And it isn’t just people. Corporate budgets tighten based on MSM generated fear, too.
#113

On February 5th, 2009 at 4:06 pm, MtsEdge said:

On February 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, corkie said:
On February 5th, 2009 at 3:42 pm, frostrt said:

Convince people that they are doomed, economically speaking, and they will be afraid to spend money. Hence, they will stop spending, hence, the economy gets worse – unless people don’t let the fear of the MSM hold them back (and, no, of course they shouln’t live beyond their means; they just shouldn’t be so afraid that they cut back unnecessarily).
Agreed. And it isn’t just people. Corporate budgets tighten based on MSM generated fear, too.

I think that’s why we get back to “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”…our own mental state (panic or calm) will dictate each of our individual responses (and as you noted, corporate responses, too)…not necessarily based on facts, just impulses and impressions…many times generated by the MSM.
#114

On February 5th, 2009 at 4:10 pm, frostrt said:

On February 5th, 2009 at 4:06 pm, MtsEdge said:
On February 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm, corkie said:
On February 5th, 2009 at 3:42 pm, frostrt said:

Convince people that they are doomed, economically speaking, and they will be afraid to spend money. Hence, they will stop spending, hence, the economy gets worse – unless people don’t let the fear of the MSM hold them back (and, no, of course they shouln’t live beyond their means; they just shouldn’t be so afraid that they cut back unnecessarily).
Agreed. And it isn’t just people. Corporate budgets tighten based on MSM generated fear, too.
I think that’s why we get back to “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”…our own mental state (panic or calm) will dictate each of our individual responses (and as you noted, corporate responses, too)…not necessarily based on facts, just impulses and impressions…many times generated by the MSM.

—————————————

Each person should look realistically at his/her own situation, and act accordingly. If you have no good reason to panic, DON’T PANIC because of what you see on the news.
#115

On February 5th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, corkie said:

On February 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm, Mister P said:

So if a lie is told often enough, in your mind it becomes the truth.

OK. Ya got me. I’m perpetuating the lie being told by the U.S. government, the fed, and everyone else that discusses the issue.

I wish I had known that you had some crazy passion for defining inflation as “money supply” – word which you also insist on defining broadly.

But you sure are in DENIAL about the effects of an increased money supply. You seem to think one could create money out of thin air.

Paternalism certainly is justified in dealing with you. Reread all my comments. I’m not in denial about the effects of an increased money supply. You just wish I was. We are debating the definition of the term inflation. How many times do I need to repeat that? GROW UP!

Previously you stated:

Nope instead we must increase the taxes in order to balance the budget.

You certainly aren’t a fiscal conservative.

Did you support Ron Paul? You’re not going to want to debate 9/11 truth next. Are you?
#116

On February 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pm, Speakup said:

By now, it’s clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis

What do you mean we..uh..uh..dude!

The Pres. must have a mouse in his pocket because his economics isn’t exactly a share the pain kind of a moment in history.

If the Constitution is so much more important to him than the last administration, he can twist his own throttle and leave everybody else’s cycle the hell alone.
#122

On February 5th, 2009 at 10:16 pm, scottthong said:

NO!!! NO NO NO NO NO!!!

Michelle, please refrain from BESMIRCHING the great and well-earned image of the one and only DOOM by linking him with a 143-day amateur!

DOOM DEMANDS IT!
#123

On February 5th, 2009 at 10:21 pm, Papa Louie said:

Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

By all means, then, let’s grease the skids with the stimulus package and slide full speed into the chasm.