Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog

There is quite a bit of irony in watching governors like Newsom say this

Newsom told CNN’s “State of the Union” that a state bailout was not “charity” and that Congress has a “moral and ethical obligation” to help Americans across the country.

Let’s point out three things:

First: The Trump boom.

Until the virus hit the country had been booming tax revenues were pouring into states from the strong economies and for all their anti Trump talk, blue states with their excessive pension plans and spending where the one who stood to gain the most from these extra revenues.

Second: The wasted chance

A lot of states that didn’t vote for Trump took that extra revenue that the Trump boom generated and blew it. Massachusetts for one:

Six months ago if you were a Massachusetts business, you were thinking about how you would use those tax cuts to grow your business, now you are thinking if you have 50 employees you are going to have to make sure you can generate an extra $100,000 next year and $400,000 by 2023 to cover the wage increases for those fifty folks, not to mention the taxes that come along with it.

So while business in other states take advantage of both the Trump boom and the Trump tax cut to expand their production, modernize equipment, bring in new workers, pay bonuses to reward their best workers businesses in Massachusetts are going to have to think twice before taking any steps knowing those low skill workers will add $8000 to the debt side of their ledger each.

It would have been wiser to pay down pensions debts, or let the Tax revenue come in but in fairness to Baker, with Democrat super majority in each house the best he can do is get something in a deal. In a lot of other states with Democrat governors there isn’t a need for a deal it was all in for party time.

Third: Praying for Disaster

For two years we heard Democrats publicly, even hope for a recession because they thought that the strong economy which was good news for the country, was also good news for Trump. Like this:

Rep. John Delaney spoke with reporters in Altoona, IA, where he told @ajjaffe, “it feels like some Democrats are cheering on a recession because they want to stick it to Trump.” When I pressed him if he thought some Democrats were hoping for a recession, said, “I didn’t say that” pic.twitter.com/wrmTlsfOHE

— DJ Judd (@DJJudd) August 21, 2019

And this:

Bill Maher said Friday that he is “hoping” for the bottom to fall out of the economy and for the country to enter a recession so we can “get rid of Trump.” He said one way to do that is a “crashing economy.” Maher said he is “sorry” if it hurts people, but rooting for a recession is a prevention measure to losing democracy

and when they couldn’t bring it about themselves they talked it down as best they could:

Attempting to talk the country into an economic recession is perhaps the lowest the Democrats can go in order to gain power.  It illustrates that power, not the good of the country, is their ultimate goal.  It is a sickening turn of events for a political party already in the gutter.

Well the left got their Made in China recession with unemployment spiking and business’ closed via decisions advised by the best and brightest based on computer models that have proved less than accurate. Furthermore as those models have happily proved inaccurate they have kept their states closed promising (and delivering) punitive action against those who did not obey while with their left/media allies have done all they can to demonize states that have reopened or as AJ Branco put it:

pic.twitter.com/czsKFXpQDv

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) May 13, 2020

So to sum up, after wasting tax revenues from Trump boom, praying for recession, finally getting it in the hopes it will Damage POTUS and doing what they can to keep it rolling in their states despite the loss of the Tax Revenue that the Trump Boom brought NOW they want POTUS to bail them out?

HA!

Jedediah Tucker Ward: It’s not hypothetical to Dr. Pavel, he wrote it

Michael Grazier: So he says.

Jedediah Tucker Ward: So he says under oath

Class Action 1991

PM James Hacker: (On Phone): No, no, leave me out of it. A routine visit. (Listening) All right – a routine surprise visit. (Listening) Well, say they were invited earlier, but the NATO exercise got in the way. Now they’re not needed, they’re going anyway. (Listening) All right. Nobody knows it’s not true. Press statements aren’t delivered under oath.

Yes Prime Minister A Victory for Democracy 1986

One of the principles of Capitalism is the cost benefit analysis ie: Does the cost of a particular action or decision produce a sufficient benefit to make it worthwhile. It’s risk vs reward. It’s a principle that is older than the word “capitalism” itself

Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion?  Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say, ‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’

Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops?  But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms.

Luke 14:28 -32

The revelations from the now declassified documents have taught us one thing about our Democrat friends. That while they might be big fans of socialism and even bigger fans of Feudalism (with them in the role of the Lords of the manor) when it comes to the whole “Trump conspired with Russia” business they are strictly capitalists fully in the cost benefit analysis business.

When there was the prospect of being featured on national news programs, thus increasing speaking fees, book sales or their prospects of profitable employment in various Democrat/Liberal institutions they were all in confidently declaring that there was plenty of evidence of the Trump administration colluding with Russia, that General Flynn was corrupt, and that the Obama Administration had no knowledge of FBI investigations into Flynn or Trump

But once it was a question of being under oath with the full penalty of law for perjury applicable, suddenly the story was very different. Like good capitalists they weighted the cost of lying under oath and told the truth instead

Of course since this testimony was classified and was not coming out except as leaks if at all, this did not affect the public statements given to the press or on cable networks. They figured the benefit of their lies outweighed the risk

And then, these documents were declassified.

Suddenly we discovered that these statements that the professional left were making were suddenly not the ones they were saying under oath or saying in classified meetings.

So what lesson should we take from this? What is our cost benefit capitalistic call? It’s this:

Unless a Democrat is under oath anything they say concerning Trump, or Flynn or anything else should be taken with a grain of salt.