Showing posts with label Libthink. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libthink. Show all posts
Friday, March 11, 2011
Thursday, December 02, 2010
FCC: "Merry Christmas!"
"Here's your Net 'Neutrality' that you don't need, but WE need for agenda enhancement, and a further extension of Uncle Sugar's long reach into every aspect of our society. Oh, by the way: We don't need no stinking Congress to stand in our way."
Noteworthy:
"This plan was an improvement from earlier calls by regulation proponents to ban nearly all types of traffic management. But the case-by-case approach leaves vast discretion in the hands of the FCC: Could a provider take steps to limit 'bandwidth hogs' who are consuming vast amounts of available capacity? Could it offer 'priority service' to willing content providers for a fee? These questions are left for the commission to handle at its discretion. Such discretion is not only dangerous, but it is hardly likely to create the consistent regulatory atmosphere necessary to encourage needed investment in the Internet."
Noteworthy:
"This plan was an improvement from earlier calls by regulation proponents to ban nearly all types of traffic management. But the case-by-case approach leaves vast discretion in the hands of the FCC: Could a provider take steps to limit 'bandwidth hogs' who are consuming vast amounts of available capacity? Could it offer 'priority service' to willing content providers for a fee? These questions are left for the commission to handle at its discretion. Such discretion is not only dangerous, but it is hardly likely to create the consistent regulatory atmosphere necessary to encourage needed investment in the Internet."
Saturday, October 09, 2010
A typical conversation these days among Democrat politicians
More context here:
"Have you seen the interview with President Obama in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine? In it, President Obama proves why he’s one of the most polarizing figures in politics today, and how deep his disconnect is with voters."
Friday, October 08, 2010
Let's put the idiotic "Tax Cuts for the Rich" bleat into context
The problem is NOT "too little revenue, we can't afford the tax cuts". the problem CLEARLY is too much spending, whether "progressives" like it or not.
.....from Daniel Mitchell at Cato, who adds:
"Amazing how the problem becomes obvious when you look at real numbers and don’t get trapped into using “baseline” math..."
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Correcting Austan Goolsbee about the pending Obama tax increases
Read about it here:
"Despite the constant repeating of myths by Goolsbee and other Obama Administration officials, these myths remain just that. The American people recognize that higher tax rates on high-earners wouldn’t just hurt the rich but would hurt Americans at all income levels because they would destroy jobs, reduce wages, and limit prosperity for everyone."
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Your Obama "stimulus" at work
"Unemployment Likely Increased to 9.7 Percent in September"
Imagine that!
Noteworthy:
"The amount of unemployment we’ve already got and the slowness of recovery lead to predictions that we could have 9-plus percent unemployment even through the next presidential election."
Things are not looking too peachy in Obamaland, are they?
Imagine that!
Noteworthy:
"The amount of unemployment we’ve already got and the slowness of recovery lead to predictions that we could have 9-plus percent unemployment even through the next presidential election."
Things are not looking too peachy in Obamaland, are they?
The current state of "Blame Bush-Foreign Policy Dept."
"As the antithesis of Bush is learning, foreign dictators are likely to bite the hand that strokes them."
VDH:
"But suddenly Barack Obama’s brief tenure has reminded us that, in fact, almost all the world’s crises arose before the Bush presidency and continued during and after it.
Examine current American foreign policy toward every region, and one of three general patterns emerges: Either things are no better since the end of 2008, or they are much worse, or the Obama administration has reverted to the Bush way of doing things — despite constant assurances to the world that Bush was at fault, American foreign policy was now reset, and global animosity arose out of past misunderstanding, insensitivity, and American hubris."
Imagine that!
We are less secure as a nation with Obama as President, enabled by partisan fools both inside and outside of Congress and the tank media.
VDH:
"But suddenly Barack Obama’s brief tenure has reminded us that, in fact, almost all the world’s crises arose before the Bush presidency and continued during and after it.
Examine current American foreign policy toward every region, and one of three general patterns emerges: Either things are no better since the end of 2008, or they are much worse, or the Obama administration has reverted to the Bush way of doing things — despite constant assurances to the world that Bush was at fault, American foreign policy was now reset, and global animosity arose out of past misunderstanding, insensitivity, and American hubris."
Imagine that!
We are less secure as a nation with Obama as President, enabled by partisan fools both inside and outside of Congress and the tank media.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
"Bernanke : Defict threats are 'real and growing' "
Ya think?:
Still, Bernanke doesn't get it. He doesn't think Obamaland needs to stop the on-going crony capitalism spending campaign:
"Bernanke, in a speech prepared for delivery, reiterated his belief that the government shouldn't raise taxes or slash spending now because the economic recovery is still too fragile."
It could be worse. He could be advocating for massive tax increases (over and above the expiration of the Bush tax cuts), and massive increases in spending, as advocated by leftist agenda clowns who masquerade as economists, like Paul Krugman.
Still, Bernanke doesn't get it. He doesn't think Obamaland needs to stop the on-going crony capitalism spending campaign:
"Bernanke, in a speech prepared for delivery, reiterated his belief that the government shouldn't raise taxes or slash spending now because the economic recovery is still too fragile."
It could be worse. He could be advocating for massive tax increases (over and above the expiration of the Bush tax cuts), and massive increases in spending, as advocated by leftist agenda clowns who masquerade as economists, like Paul Krugman.
Monday, October 04, 2010
"Emancipation From What...Capitalism?"
Brian Wesbbury and Bob Stein:
" 'In the year 1000, the average infant could expect to live about 24 years. A third died in the first year of life. Hunger and epidemic disease ravaged the survivors. By 1820, life expectation had risen to 36 years in the west, with only marginal improvement elsewhere. After 1820, world development became much more dynamic. By 2003, income per head had risen nearly ten-fold, population six-fold. Per capita income rose by 1.2 per cent a year: 24 times as fast as in 1000-1820. Life expectation increased to 76 years in the west and 63 in the rest of the world.'
Angus Maddison, Contours of the World Economy.
To paraphrase - for 1800 years, progress was virtually non-existent; then it accelerated sharply. It takes a severe case of denial for someone to ignore these lessons of history. What they show is that when freedom prevails, the ingenuity and inventiveness of people creates incredible wealth. This is the true source of improvement in the human condition.
The US Constitution was crucial in the process of freedom. It established a new country with protected property rights. The Declaration of Independence declared the “unalienable Rights” of 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' It also declared that 'whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government….'
Yes, the US has its history with slavery and women’s suffrage, but the Civil War, and 13th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution fixed those wrongs. It wasn’t easy, but the system worked. No system of social and economic organization has done more to lift living standards than the US system of 'free market capitalism.' No system of governance has improved the lives of so many people.
So, why is this system under attack? Have we uncovered problems with free market capitalism that are the equivalent of slavery and women’s suffrage?
President Obama thinks so. In a speech last week, he called belief in capitalism 'blind faith.'He said this philosophy, of letting people 'fend for themselves' has 'failed.' He added that “people are frustrated, they’re anxious, they’re scared about the future. [But] now is not the time to quit....We’ve been through worse.... It took time to free the slaves. It took time for women to get the vote.'
This is the Progressive’s mantra – 'Capitalism is unjust, unfair...A new system must be put in its place and this takes time.' There is only one problem with this logic. It’s not really progress and it has never, ever worked. Today’s progressives are the ones that ask for blind faith. They want people to believe that they have finally figured out how to do it right
But this is just wishful thinking. Every economic system, no matter how it is described, is a system that distributes resources among competing interests. In a Progressive system, government officials control this process. In a free market system, resources flow to those who use them best to improve the lives of others. The market votes every day on these products and services and the successful ones are given more resources. To prove how fluid this system is, more businesses fail each year than succeed.
This is not true of government. Once started, government programs rarely fail. The system perpetuates them with more money and more resources. The waste increases over time until it becomes so overwhelming that the entire system fails. The Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, Greece, California and Illinois are all the evidence needed.
The real problem with the economy these days it that we have moved too far away from free market capitalism. As government spending has increased, so has unemployment. This is not a mystery; the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector and the less dynamic the economy. If there is any emancipation needed these days it’s from the government, not from capitalism."
" 'In the year 1000, the average infant could expect to live about 24 years. A third died in the first year of life. Hunger and epidemic disease ravaged the survivors. By 1820, life expectation had risen to 36 years in the west, with only marginal improvement elsewhere. After 1820, world development became much more dynamic. By 2003, income per head had risen nearly ten-fold, population six-fold. Per capita income rose by 1.2 per cent a year: 24 times as fast as in 1000-1820. Life expectation increased to 76 years in the west and 63 in the rest of the world.'
Angus Maddison, Contours of the World Economy.
To paraphrase - for 1800 years, progress was virtually non-existent; then it accelerated sharply. It takes a severe case of denial for someone to ignore these lessons of history. What they show is that when freedom prevails, the ingenuity and inventiveness of people creates incredible wealth. This is the true source of improvement in the human condition.
The US Constitution was crucial in the process of freedom. It established a new country with protected property rights. The Declaration of Independence declared the “unalienable Rights” of 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' It also declared that 'whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government….'
Yes, the US has its history with slavery and women’s suffrage, but the Civil War, and 13th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution fixed those wrongs. It wasn’t easy, but the system worked. No system of social and economic organization has done more to lift living standards than the US system of 'free market capitalism.' No system of governance has improved the lives of so many people.
So, why is this system under attack? Have we uncovered problems with free market capitalism that are the equivalent of slavery and women’s suffrage?
President Obama thinks so. In a speech last week, he called belief in capitalism 'blind faith.'He said this philosophy, of letting people 'fend for themselves' has 'failed.' He added that “people are frustrated, they’re anxious, they’re scared about the future. [But] now is not the time to quit....We’ve been through worse.... It took time to free the slaves. It took time for women to get the vote.'
This is the Progressive’s mantra – 'Capitalism is unjust, unfair...A new system must be put in its place and this takes time.' There is only one problem with this logic. It’s not really progress and it has never, ever worked. Today’s progressives are the ones that ask for blind faith. They want people to believe that they have finally figured out how to do it right
But this is just wishful thinking. Every economic system, no matter how it is described, is a system that distributes resources among competing interests. In a Progressive system, government officials control this process. In a free market system, resources flow to those who use them best to improve the lives of others. The market votes every day on these products and services and the successful ones are given more resources. To prove how fluid this system is, more businesses fail each year than succeed.
This is not true of government. Once started, government programs rarely fail. The system perpetuates them with more money and more resources. The waste increases over time until it becomes so overwhelming that the entire system fails. The Roman Empire, the Soviet Union, Greece, California and Illinois are all the evidence needed.
The real problem with the economy these days it that we have moved too far away from free market capitalism. As government spending has increased, so has unemployment. This is not a mystery; the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector and the less dynamic the economy. If there is any emancipation needed these days it’s from the government, not from capitalism."
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
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.
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 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)