HuffPo Editor: 'Bleeding Cash Conservatives Wasting Money To Punish Vulnerable Americans'
Peter Goodman, the business editor for the perilously liberal Huffington Post, has come up with a new highly-derogatory term for people on the right that believe there isn't an unlimited amount of money at the government's disposal.
His Monday headline read, "Bleeding Cash Conservatives Wasting Money To Punish Vulnerable Americans":
Not so long ago, the term "bleeding heart liberal" had currency in American politics as a way to accuse someone of costly naïveté. Here was a label that could be slapped on anyone who advocated policies that aimed for fairness and decency, pursuing feel-good outcomes at the supposed expense of taxpayer interest, public safety and common sense.
These days we need a new term to describe a strain of politics that has become dominant in many areas of civic life, from the foreclosure crisis to long-term unemployment. We are living through what may be called the age of "bleeding cash conservatism," a time when powerful and mean-spirited authorities waste taxpayer money on their own version of feel-good policies that punish vulnerable people who have landed in trouble.
What was Goodman's gripe? One was people who borrowed more money in the previous decade on homes they couldn't afford not being bailed out by taxpayers:
We see this notion at work in the continued unwillingness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- the government-controlled mortgage behemoths -- to write down loan balances for underwater borrowers (those who owe the bank more than their homes are worth). Housing experts and even economists inside these two institutions have calculated that forgiving some loan balances would be a net benefit to the American taxpayer, who is now on the hook for Fannie's and Freddie's books.
How awful for taxpayers that didn't over-leverage themselves nearly into bankruptcy to not want to spend their money to bailout those that did.
But Goodman wasn't done pointing fingers:
We see this same strain of thought at work in Congress and in state houses across the land, where Republicans have managed to limit the continuation of emergency unemployment benefits for many of the 5.1 million people who have been officially jobless for sixth months or longer.
Yep, 99 weeks or almost two years isn't enough. Taxpayers should continue forever I guess to fund the unemployed.
That's worked so well in Europe the past couple of decades, hasn't it?
Regardless, Goodman scolded, "They are bleeding cash conservatives, adopting policies that are guaranteed to weaken the economy while pursuing outcomes that feel satisfying, bravely drawing the line on sending a few hundred dollars a month to people who would presumably use their checks to buy yachts and country estates."
Well, the bleeding heart liberals took over Congress in January 2007 when the unemployment rate was 4.4 percent and 36.5 million Americans were in poverty, or 12.3 percent.
After over five years of liberal policies, the unemployment rate stands at 8.2 percent and 46.2 million are in poverty, or 15.1 percent.
So Mr. Business Editor for the Huffington Post, how are liberal policies working out?
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Well...lets see...
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 06/04/2012 - 11:36am.
The government gets its money from taxing those who work and actually produce an income. So we have approximately 85% of those who could be working who actually are, and about 15% are not working but recieving 80% of the money that they would be if they were working at their last job. So...If this benefit didn't end and was just to continue forever, why would anyone want to go get a job where they had to work 40-60 hours per week, just to make 20% more (or even less) than they could make just staying home and collecting unemployment? How long before more and more people who were working and supporting these folks decided to become part of the benefit takers and not part of the people supporting them? At what point does the system collapse where you have a smaller and smaller % of the population supporting a growing % of the population? Ask Europe...they are almost there.
Apparently the Huffington Post hires idiots who think that the money government has is free and created out of thin air for nothing. And this person is supposed to be the "business editor"? Did he actually graduate High School?
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
Well, at least part of this hit the nail
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Mon, 06/04/2012 - 12:33pm.
"Here was a label that could be slapped on anyone who advocated policies that aimed for fairness and decency, pursuing feel-good outcomes at the supposed expense of taxpayer interest, public safety and common sense."
Most, if not all, liberal social programs fit this description to a "T". If a program isn't working, the dem answer is to throw more and more money at it. What is "fair" about someone glomming off of those who have some sense of pride and actually WORK for their money? What is "decent" about inner-city girls using abortion as a birth-control method - all at the taxpayer's expense? What is "fair" or "decent" about someone who refused to (not can't) work haveing their kids college tuition paid for in full by those who go to work every day yet can't AFFORD to send their own kids through college?
This is the problem with the philosophical, true believer (as opposed to intionally scheming for power) liberals. They NEVER factor in human nature and have blinders on when it pertains to the haves and have-nots. People who are essentially encouraged not to work, since all their needs will be taken care of by the government, WILL NOT WORK. And people who work their a$$es off to support not only their own families but those who WILL NOT WORK get pissed. If the giveaway programs were to cease, there would be no democrat party. The philosophical liberalsdon't have the numbers to even make dems a contender. Without the hard-core base of entitlement beneficiaries, they would be reduced to a minor fringe party.