So good economic news is bad because we may not spend the money properly?

Is George Will the nation's new Mrs. Grundy?
 
His column, titled: "The good economic news is actually bad. Here's why." shows that supposed intellectuals of his kind wield a lot of ignorance. Seriously, he really does say prosperity is bad for people because it leads to bad behavior, such as running up credit card debt and not saving for retirement.
 
This stroll down memory lane suggests this rule: All news is economic news, because everything affects the economy, or reveals attitudes or behaviors that soon will affect it. And all economic news is bad — especially good economic news, because it gives rise to bad behavior.
 
Essentially Will's argument is that if people and businesses feel too positive about the economy they may not spend their money in a prudent manner and won't save enough. 
 
Therefore, I assume we should shoot for the eight years of Obama with a slow economy, low confidence and fewer economic opportunities. Then we wouldn't risk the bad behavior. 
 
I wonder if Will or others ever considered that people don't have enough to save, even as just the edge of good times beckons, because they don't have as many economic opportunities as he does, and because of things like Obamacare which took up an increasing share of disposable income?
 
It appears that Will might agree with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats who would rather have the government keep the money because people might exhibit bad behavior. Of course, the government never exhibits bad behavior with our money, and it always saves enough, right?
 
Pelosi even says it is "crumbs" for lower and middle class workers to get thousand-dollar bonuses, raises, lower shell-out at tax time and other benefits. Somehow, it would have been better if they got the zero that Pelosi, the media and all Democrats wanted them to get. 
 
Will, of course is a swamp thing and hasn't lived much around the bad times in the flyover, just to start with. Isn't it nice that the median income of people around D.C. did very well in the last eight years and several of the richest counties are around D.C. where they produce nothing but regulations? I wonder if Will thinks their good economy caused bad behavior.
 
I think I will rewrite the title to Will's article. 
 
"Bad economic news is actually good. Here's why."  
 
The premise of the article would be that it is better for people and businesses to have less money in their pockets because if the have too much, they can't be trusted to spend it correctly and then they would have a better excuse for not saving. (people shouldn't have to worry because Democrats and the government will take care of them.)
 
If that sounds stupid, well, it truly is. Good economic news is always better for everyone and gives more economic opportunities for the poor and middle class. 
 
Since most of the media and almost all Democrats tried to defeat the tax reform and tax cuts, we will see many articles that downplay the results. The public can't be allowed to think the Republicans were right about how the benefits will flow through the economy so we will see many stories such as:
 

The tax cuts aren't enough.

The tax cuts don't benefit enough people.

The tax cuts don't benefit enough people yet. (As if seeing the tax cuts work in the first weeks of passage is critical, while eight years of Obamacare have yet to produce any beneficial results.)

The tax cuts are 'crumbs' because corporations (that hire people) are saving more.

No matter how clear it is that corporate investment is increasing much faster and more than predicted, and the economy is growing faster than predicted they will still predict the deficit predictions of CBO as if they were accurate.

And the most bogus stories of all will give credit to Obama for the substantial growth instead of to Trump for the regulations and taxes being reduced. (after an eight year delay his policies are what has caused the increased growth?)
 
It has been clear for a long time that facts have mattered little and the media has pushed an agenda instead. 
 
There are two recent examples that illustrate that the media will just repeat what they are told with no questions asked. Their curiosity gene has disappeared and their head is not just stuck in the sand, it is stuck in manure. 
 
When we were seeing record cold temperatures throughout much of the country, the climate change pushers said that the record cold was caused by humans causing global warming and that they predicted the record cold. It was pure garbage but the media never called them out.
 
It is truly dangerous to Americans' freedom when most of the media just repeats Democrat talking points. 
 
 
Is George Will the nation's new Mrs. Grundy?
 
His column, titled: "The good economic news is actually bad. Here's why." shows that supposed intellectuals of his kind wield a lot of ignorance. Seriously, he really does say prosperity is bad for people because it leads to bad behavior, such as running up credit card debt and not saving for retirement.
 
This stroll down memory lane suggests this rule: All news is economic news, because everything affects the economy, or reveals attitudes or behaviors that soon will affect it. And all economic news is bad — especially good economic news, because it gives rise to bad behavior.
 
Essentially Will's argument is that if people and businesses feel too positive about the economy they may not spend their money in a prudent manner and won't save enough. 
 
Therefore, I assume we should shoot for the eight years of Obama with a slow economy, low confidence and fewer economic opportunities. Then we wouldn't risk the bad behavior. 
 
I wonder if Will or others ever considered that people don't have enough to save, even as just the edge of good times beckons, because they don't have as many economic opportunities as he does, and because of things like Obamacare which took up an increasing share of disposable income?
 
It appears that Will might agree with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats who would rather have the government keep the money because people might exhibit bad behavior. Of course, the government never exhibits bad behavior with our money, and it always saves enough, right?
 
Pelosi even says it is "crumbs" for lower and middle class workers to get thousand-dollar bonuses, raises, lower shell-out at tax time and other benefits. Somehow, it would have been better if they got the zero that Pelosi, the media and all Democrats wanted them to get. 
 
Will, of course is a swamp thing and hasn't lived much around the bad times in the flyover, just to start with. Isn't it nice that the median income of people around D.C. did very well in the last eight years and several of the richest counties are around D.C. where they produce nothing but regulations? I wonder if Will thinks their good economy caused bad behavior.
 
I think I will rewrite the title to Will's article. 
 
"Bad economic news is actually good. Here's why."  
 
The premise of the article would be that it is better for people and businesses to have less money in their pockets because if the have too much, they can't be trusted to spend it correctly and then they would have a better excuse for not saving. (people shouldn't have to worry because Democrats and the government will take care of them.)
 
If that sounds stupid, well, it truly is. Good economic news is always better for everyone and gives more economic opportunities for the poor and middle class. 
 
Since most of the media and almost all Democrats tried to defeat the tax reform and tax cuts, we will see many articles that downplay the results. The public can't be allowed to think the Republicans were right about how the benefits will flow through the economy so we will see many stories such as:
 

The tax cuts aren't enough.

The tax cuts don't benefit enough people.

The tax cuts don't benefit enough people yet. (As if seeing the tax cuts work in the first weeks of passage is critical, while eight years of Obamacare have yet to produce any beneficial results.)

The tax cuts are 'crumbs' because corporations (that hire people) are saving more.

No matter how clear it is that corporate investment is increasing much faster and more than predicted, and the economy is growing faster than predicted they will still predict the deficit predictions of CBO as if they were accurate.

And the most bogus stories of all will give credit to Obama for the substantial growth instead of to Trump for the regulations and taxes being reduced. (after an eight year delay his policies are what has caused the increased growth?)
 
It has been clear for a long time that facts have mattered little and the media has pushed an agenda instead. 
 
There are two recent examples that illustrate that the media will just repeat what they are told with no questions asked. Their curiosity gene has disappeared and their head is not just stuck in the sand, it is stuck in manure. 
 
When we were seeing record cold temperatures throughout much of the country, the climate change pushers said that the record cold was caused by humans causing global warming and that they predicted the record cold. It was pure garbage but the media never called them out.
 
It is truly dangerous to Americans' freedom when most of the media just repeats Democrat talking points.