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..."

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."

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?

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.

No, there are no good reasons to close our borders, right?

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.

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.

Sebelius threatens health insurers

Under the Obamanation, free speech only applies to those who support The Agenda (TM).

"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 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.

"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."

Dem strategy to hold the House?

.....run against their beloved health care "reform" bill.

Noteworthy:

"Party officials insist they’re not bothered by the ads boasting of 'no' votes. They know that members in more conservative districts need to put distance between themselves and their party’s leadership, and they say rank and file should be out telling voters that they’re willing to vote their consciences and put their district’s wishes above all. "

M"Party officials insist they’re not bothered by the ads boasting of 'no' votes. They know that members in more conservative districts need to put distance between themselves and their party’s leadership, and they say rank and file should be out telling voters that they’re willing to vote their consciences and put their district’s wishes above all. "

My, my!

What a far cry from the grandstanding, posturing, babble, dribble, drool, and spew we heard from them all through the process of ramming the outrage down the public's throat before it was enacted.

Remember how the party "leadership" twisted arms, bribed, blackmailed, or threatened Democrats who didn't want to support the monstrosity of Obamacare?y, my!

What a far cry from the grandstanding, posturing, babble, dribble, drool, and spew we heard fall through the process of ramming the outrage down the public's throat before it was enacted.

Remember how the party leadership" twisted arms, bribed, blackmailed, or threatened Democrats who didn't want to support the monstrosity of Obamacare?

Assessing the State of the Economic Union

For the Obamanation and its partisan enablers, the economic reality can't be denied any longer.

Noteworthy;

"There is an instinctive conclusion among the American public that President Obama's stimulus package has failed to create a sustained recovery. Unemployment has increased, not declined; consumers have retrenched; housing starts have crashed along with mortgage applications; and there is a fear that a double-dip recession may very well be in the pipeline. The public perception, reflected in Pew Research/National Journal polls, is that the measures to combat the Great Recession have mostly helped large banks and financial institutions, and that's a view common to Republicans (75 percent) and Democrats (73 percent). Only one third of either political leaning thinks government policies have done a great deal or a fair amount for the poor.

There is another instinctive conclusion among the American people. It is that the national deficit, and the debts we have accumulated, are of critical political importance. On the national debt, the money the government has spent without the tax revenues to pay for it has produced mind-numbing numbers so large as to be disconnected from reality. Zeros from here to infinity. The sums are hard to describe; it is hard to describe an elephant, but you know one when you see one. The public knows that, shuffle the numbers as you may, the level of debt is unsustainable.

....Obama must know that if he doesn't address this, he will be the president who drove us toward a debt crisis. And so too must Congress, for both have now participated in the most fiscally irresponsible government in American history."


It will be up to the Republicans to solve this mess. Let's hope they're up to the task.

Is it November yet?

CATO@LIBERTY:"New York Times Seeks Higher Taxes on the ‘Rich’ as Prelude to Higher Taxes on the Middle Class"

Noteworthy:

"Most advocates of big government understand that it will be impossible to turn America into a European-style welfare state without a value-added tax, but they don’t want to publicly associate themselves with that view until the political environment is more conducive to success. Most important, they realize that it will be very difficult to impose a VAT without seducing some gullible Republicans into giving them political cover. And one way of getting GOPers to sign up for a VAT is by convincing them that they have to choose a VAT if they don’t want a return to the confiscatory 70 percent tax rates of the 1960s and 1970s. Any moves in that direction, such as raising the top tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent next January, are part of this long-term strategy to pressure Republicans (as well as naive members of the business community) into a VAT trap.

Shifting to other assertions, the editorial claims that 'more revenue will be needed in years to come to keep rebuilding the economy.' That’s obviously a novel assertion, and the editors never bother to explain how and why more tax revenue will lead to a stronger economy. Are the folks at the New York Times not aware that both economic growth and living standards are lower in European nations that have imposed higher tax burdens? Heck, even the Keynesians agree (albeit for flawed reasons) that higher taxes stunt growth.

The editorial also asserts that, 'Since 2002, the federal budget has been chronically short of revenue.' I suppose if revenues are compared to the spending desires of politicians, then tax collections are – and always will be – inadequate. The same is true in Greece, France, and Sweden. It doesn’t matter whether revenues are 20 percent of GDP or 50 percent of GDP. The political class always wants more."

Let's see:

- VAT

- Cap 'n Trade

- Higher health care costs, poorer health care service

- More regulation that generally raises costs across the board in many other areas

- Perpetually high true un- and under-employment

- Continued depressed capital investment

- Recurring creation of new bubble economy sectors

- More and improved corruption to pay for the Agenda (tm)

....and it STILL won't be enough for the providers and enablers of bad government, bad policy, continued malaise.

The truth is that these.....people......have absolutely no intent to stop spending, and have no intent to reduce the deficit. They just want MORE MONEY, MORE SPENDING, MORE AGENDA FULFILLMENT.

Are we not smart enough to put a stranglehold on these problems nationally on November 2nd, to be followed up with other action to cure the cancer that's growing?

Health care "reform" lobbyists advise Dems to pretend Obamacare doesn't exist

They've finally figured out that their beloved health care "reform" is going to remain a huge negative for them politically.

Noteworthy:

"Looping back to Mr. Obama's political advice, his government takeover of health care is unpopular because it is arguably the worst legislation since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, and the voters know it. Still, it's amazing to see Democrats now pretend for election purposes that the bill they said would be an achievement for the liberal ages is something other than what they passed. Voters should demand DNA samples, aka, Democratic voting records."

"The Increasingly Self-Pitying Obama White House"

Peter Wehner, in reference to the malaise at the Obama White House:

"What we are seeing, I think, is a group of supremely arrogant people humbled by events. They are turning out to be a good deal more incompetent than they (and many Americans) ever imagined. They see impending political doom in the form of the midterm elections. Yet this is not leading them toward any apparent serious self-reflection; rather, they are engaging in an extraordinary degree of whining, finger-pointing, and self-indulgence."

That's the best description yet regarding this disaster of a President and his Administration.

Democrat pollsters: Obama's a divider, not a uniter

WSJ Online:

"Barack Obama promised a new era of post-partisanship. In office, he's played racial politics and further split the country along class and party lines."

Excerpt:

"Rather than being a unifier, Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship. Moreover, his cynical approach to governance has encouraged his allies to pursue a similar strategy of racially divisive politics on his behalf. "

Let's be clear about this. Caddell and Schoen are clearly liberal torchbearers, as is made clear by other portions of their opinion piece. However, they understand the destructiveness brought forth on our nation by this failure of a president and his equally divisive congressional enablers.

The American public understands these things too, whether the apologists like it or not.

Obamacare: The more you know, the more you dislike it

James Capretta:

"While it is true that the program is a massive entitlement, specifically designed to get the American middle class fully hooked on another expansive government benefit, Obamacare also — unlike the Medicare drug benefit — creates millions of losers. Democrats riddled it with budget gimmicks and sleights of hand to create the illusion of a fully financed program; but what it really does is redistribute resources within the health sector away from those who have good coverage today.

As millions of today’s happily insured citizens begin to find out that their current arrangements have been disrupted, and, in some cases, terminated, to pay for the Obama administration’s government-centric takeover, their views of Obamacare will only sour further."

Remember that "we have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it", as prevaricated by one the essential cogs of the most transparent administration in history's agenda.

Think that's bad? Just wait until all the nonsense in the new "financial reform" law becomes known. And just think of the secret delights Dems/Lefties/"Progressives" have in store for us with their renewed Cap 'n Trade, "net neutrality", "fairness doctrine", illegal immigrant amnesty, and VAT "enhancements" if we don't castrate their destructive agenda this November.

Economic Fish Stories

Michael J. Boskin:

"President Obama says 'every economist who's looked at it says that the Recovery Act has done its job'—i.e., the stimulus bill has turned the economy around. That's nonsense.

Opinions differ widely and many leading economists believe that its impact has been small. Why? The expectation of future spending and future tax hikes to pay for the stimulus and Mr. Obama's vast expansion of government are offsetting the direct short-run expansionary effect. That is standard in all macroeconomic theories.

So, as I and others warned in 2008, the permanent government expansion and higher tax rate agenda is a classic example of what not to do during bad economic times. Worse yet, all the subsidies, bailouts, regulations and mandates are forcing noncommercial decisions on the economy, which now awaits literally thousands of new diktats as a result of things like ObamaCare and the financial reform bill. The uncertainty is impeding investment and hiring."

More economic fish stories are found here and here

As well we know, that particular blog, and many of its commentators (some of whom actually profess "expertise" in the subject) are routinely at the top of the clueless list on the general subject of the economy, just like their big brother hero.

Illustrating the Obama "Recovery"

Hat tip: the Mark Levin Show

It's official: It's not really your money

......according to the Dems/Lefties/"Progressives", it's the government's income.

Jim DeMint:

“Sen. Dorgan just said a vote for tax cuts is a vote to ‘reduce this country’s income.' To Democrats, it’s the government’s money. Not yours.”


Erick Ericson:

"Really Senator Dorgan? Voting to give Americans back their own money was a vote to “reduce this country’s income with the biggest benefits going to the wealthiest Americans?”

Certainly cutting taxes reduces the governments’ income in a static calculation, but we also know that revenue into the treasury went up after those tax cuts.

The Democrats really do think it is their money."

Notice how Dipsquat Dorgan lies about the unemployment benefit extension?

As noted elsewhere, Republicans were more than willing to vote for the extension-- as long as funding from the failed stimulus paid for it, or funding from another program covered the cost.

Regarding St. Shirley

Andy McCarthy:

"Ms. Sherrod's Speech Was Most Certainly Not About Transcending Racism."

Noteworthy:

"Pardon me, but I think I'll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she's still got plenty of racial baggage. What we're seeing is not transcendence but transference. That's why the NAACP crowd reacted so enthusiastically throughout her speech.

With an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy assuming overlord status in what used to be private industry and private matters, are we supposed to feel better that this particular bureaucrat's disdain, though once directed at all white people, is now channeled only toward successful white people ... most of whom — like successful black people — worked very hard to become successful?

Are we supposed to forget that when the Left says, 'It's always about the money,' you don't have to have a whole lot of money to find yourself on the wrong side of their have/have-not equation? Are we supposed to take comfort in having our affairs managed by bureaucrats who see the country as a Manichean divide beset by institutionalized racism?"

More, from Power Line:




Paul Mirengoff:

"Sherrod claims to have transcended racism. Maybe so. Her attack on Breitbart is not necessarily motivated by his race. But by making the unfounded and absurd charge that Brietbart favors slavery for blacks, Sherrod show she has not transcended racial irresponsibility."