This is a powerful and accurate portrayal of the current state of our nation.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The noxious effects of Obama's proposed tax hikes
And this stuff doesn't even consider the VAT he and his cronies are gleefully expecting to additionally impose.
Summary:
"Since 1996, Congress after Congress has voted to lighten the tax burden on Americans. The current Congress will decide this fall whether to continue this policy or to significantly raise personal income taxes. President Obama has advanced a plan that reverses the long-standing successful policy: The President and his supporters are calling for tax increases, primarily on upper-income taxpayers and businesses— including small businesses, the primary job creators in the country.
Those who will be most burdened if this plan becomes law are the millions of Americans just starting their economic lives and the millions more trying to find work after the worst recession in 60 years. The rest, whose lives are affected by the investments and business decisions of those taxpayers in the high-income classes, will share the burden. No income earner will be unscathed.
Instead of extracting more income from the private economy, Congress should immediately reduce its spending and enact fundamental entitlement reform that supports strong economic growth. Heritage Foundation economists explain why employment and the economy cannot be made to grow through higher taxes—and how crucial it is for Congress to recognize this fact."
Summary:
"Since 1996, Congress after Congress has voted to lighten the tax burden on Americans. The current Congress will decide this fall whether to continue this policy or to significantly raise personal income taxes. President Obama has advanced a plan that reverses the long-standing successful policy: The President and his supporters are calling for tax increases, primarily on upper-income taxpayers and businesses— including small businesses, the primary job creators in the country.
Those who will be most burdened if this plan becomes law are the millions of Americans just starting their economic lives and the millions more trying to find work after the worst recession in 60 years. The rest, whose lives are affected by the investments and business decisions of those taxpayers in the high-income classes, will share the burden. No income earner will be unscathed.
Instead of extracting more income from the private economy, Congress should immediately reduce its spending and enact fundamental entitlement reform that supports strong economic growth. Heritage Foundation economists explain why employment and the economy cannot be made to grow through higher taxes—and how crucial it is for Congress to recognize this fact."
More effects of the marvelous Obamacare program
McDonald's Says It May Drop Health Plan
Noteworthy:
"The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.
Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for 'mini-med' plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.
....McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees."
We haven't even begun to see the incredibly wide extent of the noxious effects of this outrage known as Obamacare.
Noteworthy:
"The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.
Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for 'mini-med' plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.
....McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees."
We haven't even begun to see the incredibly wide extent of the noxious effects of this outrage known as Obamacare.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
"Cafeteria Constitutionalists", and the coming rejection of relativism
Lisa Fabrizio, at Intellectual Conservative:
" America is now experiencing this inclination of a large number of citizens to disregard the founding principles that underpin our nation in favor of their own ideas of what our government is and should do; all the while insisting that they support and defend our Constitution. It is at times like these that non-Catholics share with us our frustration when reading the opinions of our brethren who pick and choose which, if any, precepts of the Faith they might respect.
...Those who do not understand how liberals can claim to love America while disdaining the simple and direct strictures of the Constitution, need only look to so-called Christian sects that support and even employ as preachers, practicing homosexuals and others living in direct contravention of specific biblical admonitions against same. In the case of the Anglican Church, this fact alone is driving many true believers into the arms of Rome; in much the same way as the deliberate flaunting of our Constitution by the Obama Administration is fattening the membership of the Tea Parties with otherwise non-political Americans.
The reason is the same: there remain in this world people who cling to eternal principles as rock-solid and worthy of adherence, while there are others who proceed from the nauseating viewpoint that all progress is good and we must therefore change with the times. Contrary to the views expressed in the 1960s, this way of life is not liberating, but is every bit as stifling as the chains of any tyrant. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned shortly before his election as Vicar of Rome, 'We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. '"
Indeed.
Read the whole thing.
" America is now experiencing this inclination of a large number of citizens to disregard the founding principles that underpin our nation in favor of their own ideas of what our government is and should do; all the while insisting that they support and defend our Constitution. It is at times like these that non-Catholics share with us our frustration when reading the opinions of our brethren who pick and choose which, if any, precepts of the Faith they might respect.
...Those who do not understand how liberals can claim to love America while disdaining the simple and direct strictures of the Constitution, need only look to so-called Christian sects that support and even employ as preachers, practicing homosexuals and others living in direct contravention of specific biblical admonitions against same. In the case of the Anglican Church, this fact alone is driving many true believers into the arms of Rome; in much the same way as the deliberate flaunting of our Constitution by the Obama Administration is fattening the membership of the Tea Parties with otherwise non-political Americans.
The reason is the same: there remain in this world people who cling to eternal principles as rock-solid and worthy of adherence, while there are others who proceed from the nauseating viewpoint that all progress is good and we must therefore change with the times. Contrary to the views expressed in the 1960s, this way of life is not liberating, but is every bit as stifling as the chains of any tyrant. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned shortly before his election as Vicar of Rome, 'We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. '"
Indeed.
Read the whole thing.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Remembering George Blanda
As a young man, I remember Blanda quarterbacking the old Houston Oilers, the main rivals of my beloved Boston Patriots, in the early years of the AFL.
He was certainly one for the ages, a true football player's football player, and a man's man.
Godspeed, George.
Good policy, good politics
Michael Barone@NRO:GOP Battle Cry: Repeal Obamacare, Cut Spending:
"... the macroeconomy is in a very different place than it was during the Gingrich era. Then, we were well launched into an economic recovery, one aided by Republicans’ partial victories on budget and tax issues. Money didn’t seem scarce, and shutting down the government seemed extreme.
Today, we are in, if not an official recession, at least an agonizingly slow recovery. And if Democrats complain that it’s unfair for government and public employees to be limited to what they got in 2008, Republicans can reply that an awful lot of their constituents would be very happy to go back to the income levels and the housing equity and the 401(k) balances they had in 2008.
Everyone has been suffering. Why should government be exempt? Wouldn’t it function better if it went on a diet?"
Most of us are tired of hearing the Democrat whining--
"But the public LOVES health care reform when they are told about the individual provisions!"
"Tax cuts for the rich are eeeeeeeeeeevil!"
"The Stimulus worked, but we need more!"
"Millions of jobs saved or created! Unemployment numbers increase? What unemployment numbers increase?"
.....and on and on and on and on and on.
"... the macroeconomy is in a very different place than it was during the Gingrich era. Then, we were well launched into an economic recovery, one aided by Republicans’ partial victories on budget and tax issues. Money didn’t seem scarce, and shutting down the government seemed extreme.
Today, we are in, if not an official recession, at least an agonizingly slow recovery. And if Democrats complain that it’s unfair for government and public employees to be limited to what they got in 2008, Republicans can reply that an awful lot of their constituents would be very happy to go back to the income levels and the housing equity and the 401(k) balances they had in 2008.
Everyone has been suffering. Why should government be exempt? Wouldn’t it function better if it went on a diet?"
Most of us are tired of hearing the Democrat whining--
"But the public LOVES health care reform when they are told about the individual provisions!"
"Tax cuts for the rich are eeeeeeeeeeevil!"
"The Stimulus worked, but we need more!"
"Millions of jobs saved or created! Unemployment numbers increase? What unemployment numbers increase?"
.....and on and on and on and on and on.
Pay attention, FCC
It's time to abandon your little quest for so-called "Net Neutrality"
Excerpt:
"So what have we learned? That Internet reclassification and Net Neutrality are drastic alleged 'solutions' to an imaginary problem – with very real, across the board, bipartisan, multi-governmental branch opposition."
Best guess? They won't move on.
The Obamalanders' fetish for control over every aspect of our society is too great. And, as is the case with widespread public discontent with other political, social, and economic factors, Team Obama just doesn't get it.
They never will, not even after we remove these bums' power and influence.
Excerpt:
"So what have we learned? That Internet reclassification and Net Neutrality are drastic alleged 'solutions' to an imaginary problem – with very real, across the board, bipartisan, multi-governmental branch opposition."
Best guess? They won't move on.
The Obamalanders' fetish for control over every aspect of our society is too great. And, as is the case with widespread public discontent with other political, social, and economic factors, Team Obama just doesn't get it.
They never will, not even after we remove these bums' power and influence.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Small Business and Obamacare
As John Goodman describes it, these are stunning poll results
There's more of this sort of thing to come.
MUCH more.
November is coming. It's time to take political advantage of a crisis, just like the Dems/Lefties/"Progressives"/Sorosites/Unions/Media and every babbling hopey changey blogger did in 2008.
The only difference will be that we are not the ones who created this crisis in the first place. The afore-mentioned fools are STILL the culprits.
There's more of this sort of thing to come.
MUCH more.
November is coming. It's time to take political advantage of a crisis, just like the Dems/Lefties/"Progressives"/Sorosites/Unions/Media and every babbling hopey changey blogger did in 2008.
The only difference will be that we are not the ones who created this crisis in the first place. The afore-mentioned fools are STILL the culprits.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Why Obama's policies are counter-productive
Robert Samuelson, at The Locker Room:
"Confidence is crucial to stimulating consumer spending and business investment, and Obama constantly subverts confidence. In the past year, he’s undone some of the good of his first months. He loves to pick fights with Wall Street bankers, oil companies, multinational firms, health insurers, and others. He thinks that he can separate policies that claim to promote recovery from those that appeal to his liberal base, even when the partisan policies raise business costs, stymie job creation, or augment uncertainty—and, thereby, undermine recovery. His health-care “reform” makes hiring more expensive to employers by mandating insurance coverage; the moratorium on deepwater drilling kills jobs. No matter.
Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on personal incomes exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles) is the latest example of his delusional approach. It satisfies the liberal itch to 'get the rich.' Well, the rich and most other taxpayers will ultimately have to pay higher taxes to help close budget deficits. But not now. Raising taxes in a weak economy doesn’t make sense. Just consider: these affluent households represent almost a quarter of all consumer spending, says Zandi. Richard Curtin, director of the University of Michigan’s Survey of Consumers, says his data suggest that uncertainty about the extension of the Bush tax cuts has already caused affluent buyers to cut their spending.
Some small businesses would also be affected, because many (sole proprietorships, partnerships, and subchapter S corporations) file their taxes on personal returns. Higher taxes would discourage hiring and expansion. No one knows by how much, but the Tax Policy Center estimates that higher business taxes would affect 725,000 returns with about $400 billion of business income. Some of these are partnerships of doctors, lawyers, and accountants. Others are contractors, restaurant owners, florists, and plumbers."
(Emphasis added)
But merrily Obama and cronies will roll along, indiscriminately killing jobs and dousing the sparks of economic recovery.
We can't say that we weren't warned about this throughout 2008.
"Confidence is crucial to stimulating consumer spending and business investment, and Obama constantly subverts confidence. In the past year, he’s undone some of the good of his first months. He loves to pick fights with Wall Street bankers, oil companies, multinational firms, health insurers, and others. He thinks that he can separate policies that claim to promote recovery from those that appeal to his liberal base, even when the partisan policies raise business costs, stymie job creation, or augment uncertainty—and, thereby, undermine recovery. His health-care “reform” makes hiring more expensive to employers by mandating insurance coverage; the moratorium on deepwater drilling kills jobs. No matter.
Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on personal incomes exceeding $250,000 ($200,000 for singles) is the latest example of his delusional approach. It satisfies the liberal itch to 'get the rich.' Well, the rich and most other taxpayers will ultimately have to pay higher taxes to help close budget deficits. But not now. Raising taxes in a weak economy doesn’t make sense. Just consider: these affluent households represent almost a quarter of all consumer spending, says Zandi. Richard Curtin, director of the University of Michigan’s Survey of Consumers, says his data suggest that uncertainty about the extension of the Bush tax cuts has already caused affluent buyers to cut their spending.
Some small businesses would also be affected, because many (sole proprietorships, partnerships, and subchapter S corporations) file their taxes on personal returns. Higher taxes would discourage hiring and expansion. No one knows by how much, but the Tax Policy Center estimates that higher business taxes would affect 725,000 returns with about $400 billion of business income. Some of these are partnerships of doctors, lawyers, and accountants. Others are contractors, restaurant owners, florists, and plumbers."
(Emphasis added)
But merrily Obama and cronies will roll along, indiscriminately killing jobs and dousing the sparks of economic recovery.
We can't say that we weren't warned about this throughout 2008.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Who funds "EMILY's List" and their abortion agenda?
.....and just who does "EMILY's List" support?
EMILY’s List’s ‘Super PAC’ Rakes in Cash From SEIU, Mega-Donors - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets
EMILY’s List’s ‘Super PAC’ Rakes in Cash From SEIU, Mega-Donors - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets
Monday, September 13, 2010
Best campaign ad so far this season
Dennis may not win, but you've got to love his accurate description in this ad.
De Tocqueville was right.....
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
-Alexis de Tocqueville
Hat tip: North Carolina History ProjectThe problem with electric cars
"Myth: The Future Belongs to Electric Cars"
Noteworthy:
"I advise caution: Do not be surprised if electric cars do not follow the trajectory of personal computers and mobile phones. Leaving aside the prohibitive prices, the infrastructure needed to support wide-scale use of electric cars is nonexistent. How readily will the requisite millions of batteries be available when manufacturers are quick to unveil new, bold electric car plans but slow to commit to massive battery orders? And how will people in large cities, where 30 to 60 percent of cars are parked curbside, charge their vehicles? Mass construction of charging stations must precede mass ownership of electrics outside of the suburbs, where vehicles could be charged in garages. This is why researchers at IHS Global Insight put the share of pure electrics at just 0.6 percent of world sales in 2020, and why any claim that electric cars will soon take over the market is utterly unrealistic."
Noteworthy:
"I advise caution: Do not be surprised if electric cars do not follow the trajectory of personal computers and mobile phones. Leaving aside the prohibitive prices, the infrastructure needed to support wide-scale use of electric cars is nonexistent. How readily will the requisite millions of batteries be available when manufacturers are quick to unveil new, bold electric car plans but slow to commit to massive battery orders? And how will people in large cities, where 30 to 60 percent of cars are parked curbside, charge their vehicles? Mass construction of charging stations must precede mass ownership of electrics outside of the suburbs, where vehicles could be charged in garages. This is why researchers at IHS Global Insight put the share of pure electrics at just 0.6 percent of world sales in 2020, and why any claim that electric cars will soon take over the market is utterly unrealistic."
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Want to know why health care costs are so high?
Here's why:
Mark Perry:
"The graph above (Census data here) highlights the #1 reason why medical costs have risen, and will continue to rise: Out-of-pocket payments for medical costs have been falling for the last fifty years, and are projected to continue to decline, and will fall below 10% by 2017.
Mark Perry:
"The graph above (Census data here) highlights the #1 reason why medical costs have risen, and will continue to rise: Out-of-pocket payments for medical costs have been falling for the last fifty years, and are projected to continue to decline, and will fall below 10% by 2017.
By way of comparison, out-of-pocket payments accounted for almost half (46.78%) of total medical costs in 1960. When we're spending less than 10 percent of our own money on health care costs, one outcome is almost 100% inevitable: health care costs will continue to rise, and there's nothing about Obamacare that will change that."
Saturday, September 11, 2010
No, that proposed mosque is not at Ground Zero, is it?
Here's some very important information to remember on this ninth anniversary of the death and destruction brought to America in the name of Islam.
Friday, September 10, 2010
"The American Christian: A Believer Among The Dismissers"
Defending the Faith:
"To my Christian brethren, I say: I am with you. I feel the inhibitions as you do. I try not to let them thwart me. I don't always succeed. But I stand by our faith, and what it provides us:
Guidance: A map for navigating around the moral and ethical shoals of life.
Comfort: Reassurance that each individual's life, however he's regarded by those around him, has meaning to an Interpreter who requires no external justification.
Courage: The supreme virtue, upon which the exercise of every other virtue, great or small, depends: the willingness to accept the consequences, foreseen or not, of doing what we know we should do, and being who we've elected to be.
Be not afraid."
"To my Christian brethren, I say: I am with you. I feel the inhibitions as you do. I try not to let them thwart me. I don't always succeed. But I stand by our faith, and what it provides us:
Guidance: A map for navigating around the moral and ethical shoals of life.
Comfort: Reassurance that each individual's life, however he's regarded by those around him, has meaning to an Interpreter who requires no external justification.
Courage: The supreme virtue, upon which the exercise of every other virtue, great or small, depends: the willingness to accept the consequences, foreseen or not, of doing what we know we should do, and being who we've elected to be.
Be not afraid."
Sebelius threatens health insurers
Under the Obamanation, free speech only applies to those who support The Agenda (TM).
Captain Ed thinks that Obama and Sebelius are convinced that the Holy Obamacare scripture nullifies the 1st Amendment:
A disaster of a mid term election will probably convince them to try their cram-down two minute warning drill to get even more of The Agenda (TM) into law.
"President Barack Obama's top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won't tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law.
'There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases' Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby."
Captain Ed thinks that Obama and Sebelius are convinced that the Holy Obamacare scripture nullifies the 1st Amendment:
"Rarely have we heard a Cabinet official tell Americans to stay out of political debates at the risk of losing their businesses. It points out the danger in having government run industries and holding a position where politicians can actually destroy a business out of spite. It also demonstrates the thin skin of our current administration, where Hope and Change means keeping your mouth shut and pretending that everyone is happy while businesses slowly circle the drain.
Of course, maybe Sebelius won’t go as far as to lock them out of the state exchanges for disputing the Official Smiley-Face Rhetoric Enforcement Squad at HHS. Perhaps she’ll just send them to a re-education facility instead."
These agenda driven autocrat idiots never learn, do they?
A new "Progressive" meme: Muslim Outrage, 24-7
Never mind the hypocrisy, never mind the fabrications, the Muslim right to be offended is now permanently enshrined into the "progressive" agenda talking points.
Noteworthy:
"Shhhhhhh, we’re told. Don’t protest the Ground Zero mosque. Don’t burn a Koran. It’ll imperil the troops. It’ll inflame tensions. The 'Muslim world' will 'explode' if it does not get its way, warns sharia-peddling imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Pardon my national-security-threatening impudence, but when is the 'Muslim world' not ready to 'explode'?
.....When everything from sneakers to stuffed animals to comics to frescos to beauty queens to fast-food packaging to undies serves as dry tinder for Allah’s avengers, it’s a grand farce to feign concern about the recruitment effect of a few burnt Korans in the hands of a two-bit attention-seeker in Florida. The eternal flame of Muslim outrage was lit a long, long time ago."
Regarding Obama's "like a dog" whine
Victor Davis Hanson:
"Obama in just twenty months has developed a reputation for being petulant, unusually sensitive to the normal run-of-the-mill criticism. His latest pushback was his strangest so far: 'And they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, it’s just — but it’s true.'
Given that Obama has previously called out talk radio critics by name — Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh — attacked everything from limb-lopping surgeons to vacationing at Las Vegas, and in condescending fashion tsk-tsked those who attend Glen Beck rallies, rural Pennsylvanians, and his own 'typical white person' grandmother who raised him, his thin-skin touchiness seems inexplicable.
...But enough speculation over motives for the origins of Obama’s strange and growing petulance. All that matters for the country is that the current president of the United States seems surprised that as our chief executive he is earning scrutiny not previously accorded him — and that he finds that demand for accountability both exasperating and abjectly unfair. Thus this week’s latest “like a dog” whine.
For some reason, Obama believed that those who expected after his campaign promises a real upturn in the economy, or fiscal responsibility, or inspired foreign policy would be satisfied, as they had in the past, merely with soaring rhetoric and superficial reassurance. When they were not, and voiced such displeasure, as ingrates they had supposedly reduced Obama to canine-like status."
Barack Obama is the perpetual campaigner, constantly seeking the ego reinforcement that feeds his undeserved arrogance.
Despite the constant effort, his immense failure, gross malfeasance, and utter incompetency as the President of the United States of America becomes more evident by the minute. the coninuing judgment of the american people is obvious, as is the coming slaughter to be inflicted November 2 on his partisan minions in Congress.
"Obama in just twenty months has developed a reputation for being petulant, unusually sensitive to the normal run-of-the-mill criticism. His latest pushback was his strangest so far: 'And they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, it’s just — but it’s true.'
Given that Obama has previously called out talk radio critics by name — Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh — attacked everything from limb-lopping surgeons to vacationing at Las Vegas, and in condescending fashion tsk-tsked those who attend Glen Beck rallies, rural Pennsylvanians, and his own 'typical white person' grandmother who raised him, his thin-skin touchiness seems inexplicable.
...But enough speculation over motives for the origins of Obama’s strange and growing petulance. All that matters for the country is that the current president of the United States seems surprised that as our chief executive he is earning scrutiny not previously accorded him — and that he finds that demand for accountability both exasperating and abjectly unfair. Thus this week’s latest “like a dog” whine.
For some reason, Obama believed that those who expected after his campaign promises a real upturn in the economy, or fiscal responsibility, or inspired foreign policy would be satisfied, as they had in the past, merely with soaring rhetoric and superficial reassurance. When they were not, and voiced such displeasure, as ingrates they had supposedly reduced Obama to canine-like status."
Barack Obama is the perpetual campaigner, constantly seeking the ego reinforcement that feeds his undeserved arrogance.
Despite the constant effort, his immense failure, gross malfeasance, and utter incompetency as the President of the United States of America becomes more evident by the minute. the coninuing judgment of the american people is obvious, as is the coming slaughter to be inflicted November 2 on his partisan minions in Congress.
Dumbest local statement of the week
....from someone named Peter Udo, in an N&R Letter to the Editor:
What are the actual causes? Did somebody force these people to illegally migrate? Did they just get lost, and by gosh by golly found themselves across the border by some strange twist of fate? Or perhaps their space alien cousins decided to teleport them across?
" People do not leave their home countries to illegally migrate on purpose."
Really?
What are the actual causes? Did somebody force these people to illegally migrate? Did they just get lost, and by gosh by golly found themselves across the border by some strange twist of fate? Or perhaps their space alien cousins decided to teleport them across?
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
"Economic Malpractice"
Our current malaise is a great example of the price we pay for putting agenda-driven economic amateurs in charge.
Noteworthy:
"How did they get it so wrong? It is because they have an economic theory, which did not and does not work in practice. If Team Obama had known American economic history, it would have known there was no case where a big increase in government spending — correctly measured as a percentage of gross domestic product — led to both higher private consumption and significant job growth (including World War II, when private consumption by necessity was severely restricted).
....To fund the stimulus spending, Team Obama is forced to sell an extra trillion dollars or so in government bonds. To whom does the government sell these bonds? The buyers are U.S. businesses and individuals (often through funds), and foreigners. When businesses and individuals buy these government bonds, they have less money for productive investment (government bonds primarily fund transfer payments, not productive investment) or private consumption. Less productive investment and/or private consumption means fewer private-sector jobs. Government can create government-sector jobs at the expense of private-sector jobs, but not at a higher real wage — which is one reason why a growing welfare state and/or a socialist economy always fail. Team Obama seems to have missed these basic historical lessons.....
....Team Obama persists in passing and implementing legislation and regulations that are obvious job-killers, yet it seems to be surprised when other countries that are not engaged in self-flagellation and economic malpractice are growing more rapidly and creating many new jobs."
Noteworthy:
"How did they get it so wrong? It is because they have an economic theory, which did not and does not work in practice. If Team Obama had known American economic history, it would have known there was no case where a big increase in government spending — correctly measured as a percentage of gross domestic product — led to both higher private consumption and significant job growth (including World War II, when private consumption by necessity was severely restricted).
....To fund the stimulus spending, Team Obama is forced to sell an extra trillion dollars or so in government bonds. To whom does the government sell these bonds? The buyers are U.S. businesses and individuals (often through funds), and foreigners. When businesses and individuals buy these government bonds, they have less money for productive investment (government bonds primarily fund transfer payments, not productive investment) or private consumption. Less productive investment and/or private consumption means fewer private-sector jobs. Government can create government-sector jobs at the expense of private-sector jobs, but not at a higher real wage — which is one reason why a growing welfare state and/or a socialist economy always fail. Team Obama seems to have missed these basic historical lessons.....
....Team Obama persists in passing and implementing legislation and regulations that are obvious job-killers, yet it seems to be surprised when other countries that are not engaged in self-flagellation and economic malpractice are growing more rapidly and creating many new jobs."
Monday, September 06, 2010
"Not Enough Labor Day"
How the government is destroying jobs.
Excerpt:
"Paying people not to work, barring them from taking wages they would be willing to accept, and penalizing companies that hire them? It's an ingenious formula for destroying jobs, and it seems to be working."
Excerpt:
"Paying people not to work, barring them from taking wages they would be willing to accept, and penalizing companies that hire them? It's an ingenious formula for destroying jobs, and it seems to be working."
A Labor Day notice to our American entrepreneurs from your helpful government
"I'd like to make you a business offer.
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in - as long as it's legal.
But I can't give you any capital - you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor - that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.
You're also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now ... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out - to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is 'fair' - some people never can afford to retire - is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like ... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20 percent of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.
I know, I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.
Oh ... and one more thing.
Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees, I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50 percent of whatever your estate is worth.
After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's 'fair' for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you're a very if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public, you'll end up paying me more than 75 percent of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me, but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me - or cheat me on any of my fees or rules - I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.
That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn't it?"
That's the offer America gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington (and in the "progressive" media and on the "progressive" blogs) wonder why there are no new jobs.
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in - as long as it's legal.
But I can't give you any capital - you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor - that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.
You're also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now ... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out - to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is 'fair' - some people never can afford to retire - is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like ... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20 percent of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.
I know, I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.
Oh ... and one more thing.
Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees, I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50 percent of whatever your estate is worth.
After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's 'fair' for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you're a very if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public, you'll end up paying me more than 75 percent of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me, but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me - or cheat me on any of my fees or rules - I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.
That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn't it?"
That's the offer America gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington (and in the "progressive" media and on the "progressive" blogs) wonder why there are no new jobs.
Friday, September 03, 2010
High Speed Rail...High Speed Cost...Low Speed Service...Extremely Low Speed Benefit
Not So High-Speed Rail in North Carolina and Raleigh
Not that any such facts will move the political and social "elites" from their steadfast belief that somehow, someway, High Speed Rail is "good for us."
Noteworthy:
Most newspaper accounts of this new rail system mislead readers by reporting that the train will go 110 mph. This is the maximum speed possible on some limited routes. The average speed in North Carolina due to track conditions and stops is far from 'high-speed' because it averages only 55 to 75 mph, about the same as auto travel on interstate highways.
...North Carolina’s state and federal taxpayers are not only on the hook for building the expensive system, they will be stuck with the nearly $25 million in operating subsidies every year. What is the benefit of these high costs? The average North Carolinian will take one round trip on these trains only once in every 27 years
...With all of these negatives, who does support the system? Who benefits from it? Average taxpayers who will be paying the multibillion-dollar bills certainly are not benefiting. Since the rail lines are designed to connect center cities, the beneficiaries are wealthy business and government elites — lawyers, bankers, and bureaucrats — who live or work downtown. They see an advantage to traveling center city to center city, rather than using faster air travel and then renting a car to drive to meetings downtown. And they are not shy about sticking us with the bill for personal convenience."
The reality is that it's only good for them, and their special interests.
NY Times implies New Yorkers are bigots
......because they're not "progressive" enough to have a kumbaya feeling over the insult and outrage of the Ground Zero mosque proposal.
Even more insulting and outrageous is the Times' arrogant conclusion:
"New Yorkers, like other Americans, have a way to go. We stand with the poll’s minority: the 27 percent who say the mosque should be built in Lower Manhattan because moving it would compromise American values. Building it would be a gesture to Muslim-Americans who, of course, live here, pray here and died here, along with so many of their fellow Americans, on that awful September morning. But it’s all of us who will benefit."
"Compromise American values"? "A gesture to Muslim-Americans"?
American values are compromised when we forget the essential nature of the threat that caused the 9-11 events: Terrorism fueled by religious fanaticism, which continues in many areas of the world, including here at home.
Any "gesture" should originate FROM Muslim-Americans, who need to say with no uncertainty that they're Americans first and foremost, and will not tolerate those who commit terror against our nation.
The New York Times has reached a new low in scum sucking bottom feeding.
Even more insulting and outrageous is the Times' arrogant conclusion:
"New Yorkers, like other Americans, have a way to go. We stand with the poll’s minority: the 27 percent who say the mosque should be built in Lower Manhattan because moving it would compromise American values. Building it would be a gesture to Muslim-Americans who, of course, live here, pray here and died here, along with so many of their fellow Americans, on that awful September morning. But it’s all of us who will benefit."
"Compromise American values"? "A gesture to Muslim-Americans"?
American values are compromised when we forget the essential nature of the threat that caused the 9-11 events: Terrorism fueled by religious fanaticism, which continues in many areas of the world, including here at home.
Any "gesture" should originate FROM Muslim-Americans, who need to say with no uncertainty that they're Americans first and foremost, and will not tolerate those who commit terror against our nation.
The New York Times has reached a new low in scum sucking bottom feeding.
Financing terror, financing the GZ mosque
Outside of those with the perpetually warped worldview, is there anyone really surprised to read this?
Mosque Investor Was Terror Contributor
Mosque Investor Was Terror Contributor
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Tom Ross: A history of funding various left wing activism
He was quickly confirmed to replace Erskine Bowles as head of the UNC system, but serious questions linger about his judgment.
Noteworthy:
"A friend to many far-left organizations and a relative novice to higher education, Thomas Ross makes for an unfortunately predictable choice to be the next President of the University of North Carolina System. From a career in law to his seven years as Executive Director of the far-left funding mechanism - Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation - and President of Davidson College for three years, Ross is set to succeed current UNC President Erskine Bowles in January 2011. What is really alarming about the North Carolina Board of Governor's choice of Ross as the heir apparent is his long history of steering hundreds of thousands in contributions to dubious organizations like ACORN.
...A friend to many far-left organizations and a relative novice to higher education, Thomas Ross makes for an unfortunately predictable choice to be the next President of the University of North Carolina System. From a career in law to his seven years as Executive Director of the far-left funding mechanism - Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation - and President of Davidson College for three years, Ross is set to succeed current UNC President Erskine Bowles in January 2011. What is really alarming about the North Carolina Board of Governor's choice of Ross as the heir apparent is his long history of steering hundreds of thousands in contributions to dubious organizations like ACORN.
...After scrutinizing Ross's record, it seems clear that the UNC System is positioned to take a decidedly left turn, and the new President's credentials leaves much to be desired. One can only hope that the implications of his leftist background and being a neophyte to the realm of higher education won't be passed on to the hundreds of thousands of North Carolinian students he will oversee."
It's just more Business As Usual at the statewide level.
Noteworthy:
"A friend to many far-left organizations and a relative novice to higher education, Thomas Ross makes for an unfortunately predictable choice to be the next President of the University of North Carolina System. From a career in law to his seven years as Executive Director of the far-left funding mechanism - Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation - and President of Davidson College for three years, Ross is set to succeed current UNC President Erskine Bowles in January 2011. What is really alarming about the North Carolina Board of Governor's choice of Ross as the heir apparent is his long history of steering hundreds of thousands in contributions to dubious organizations like ACORN.
...A friend to many far-left organizations and a relative novice to higher education, Thomas Ross makes for an unfortunately predictable choice to be the next President of the University of North Carolina System. From a career in law to his seven years as Executive Director of the far-left funding mechanism - Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation - and President of Davidson College for three years, Ross is set to succeed current UNC President Erskine Bowles in January 2011. What is really alarming about the North Carolina Board of Governor's choice of Ross as the heir apparent is his long history of steering hundreds of thousands in contributions to dubious organizations like ACORN.
...After scrutinizing Ross's record, it seems clear that the UNC System is positioned to take a decidedly left turn, and the new President's credentials leaves much to be desired. One can only hope that the implications of his leftist background and being a neophyte to the realm of higher education won't be passed on to the hundreds of thousands of North Carolinian students he will oversee."
It's just more Business As Usual at the statewide level.
Did Obama say anything of note last night?
Apparently not. And no one is really surprised.
Charles Krauthammer:
"I thought the speech was both flat and odd."
Jennifer Rubins:
"Obama is still candidate Obama, never tiring of reminding us that he kept his campaign pledge and ever eager to push aside foreign policy challenges so he can get on with the business of remaking America. All in all, it was what we were promised it would not be — self-serving, disingenuous, ungracious, and unreassuring."
NRO:
"If we still don’t know how the Iraq war is going to end, an engaged, strategically far-sighted commander-in-chief is essential."
...which we most certainly do not currently have by ANY stretch of the imagination, in ANY area of national concern foreign or domestic.
We won't even begin to talk about the hypocrisy of candidate-turned President Obama on the entire Iraq issue.
Charles Krauthammer:
"I thought the speech was both flat and odd."
Jennifer Rubins:
"Obama is still candidate Obama, never tiring of reminding us that he kept his campaign pledge and ever eager to push aside foreign policy challenges so he can get on with the business of remaking America. All in all, it was what we were promised it would not be — self-serving, disingenuous, ungracious, and unreassuring."
NRO:
"If we still don’t know how the Iraq war is going to end, an engaged, strategically far-sighted commander-in-chief is essential."
...which we most certainly do not currently have by ANY stretch of the imagination, in ANY area of national concern foreign or domestic.
We won't even begin to talk about the hypocrisy of candidate-turned President Obama on the entire Iraq issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)