As the pundits trade barbs and the data crunchers crunch, one thing is certain. The economy of the United States is in a bad spot. Debt that keeps rising. Deficits that see no end in sight. An employment market that is stagnant. Consumer confidence that is paltry and a wildly fluctuating stock market.
These things can all be agreed upon as the numbers for both sides show that the "Summer of Recovery" is becoming a punch line for the late night talk show circuits. But what can't be agreed upon is whose fault the stagnation is? The right will say it is President Obama's explosion of spending and failed stimulus package that has done nothing to bring the numbers up to promised levels and has grown the debt and deficit as well as the uncertainty of future plans that has put us in this situation. The left will say that they are still cleaning up a mess that belongs to the past administration's tax cuts, wars and the other side of the aisle obstructing progress. Both may be correct to an extent but the one question that no one on the left can seem to answer is....................
When do the numbers become Obama's? When do his policies have an effect?
When we see economic promise? When unemployment drops back to acceptable levels? When real estate prices rise above the debt owed on them? When the deficit and debt are at controllable levels? When?
Every professional pundit and amateur U4Prezzer on the left can seemingly point to the exact point in time that the bad things began to happen. You would think with that keen insight and ability to pinpoint trouble that they could also pinpoint the exact time at which Obama's current policies have taken effect and have had an impact on the economy. It seems they have the economic foresight to call a bad move by merely seeing a policy enacted from the right and are able to quote verbatim the effect it had or will have on the economy at the very moment it is or was enacted. I am simply curious as to why the same foresight cannot be used to tell us exactly when President Obama's policies are impacting the economy?
Logical thought would tell us that having the ability to directly point the time and policies that started the economic downturn would also lend themselves to be able to do the same with current policy. But then again I said 'logical'.
The left is correct that the policies of George W. Bush started the economic slide. Where they fall off the credibility wagon is when they fail to take the same insight that allowed them to see the economic fault in the Bush policies and direct them at the Obama policies.
I would like to do a bit of an experiment. I would like one member from each side of the aisle to cut and paste this blog somewhere for safe keeping. You never know, we could not have U4Prez in 2 years, just to see if the following does not come true. Here is my theory: As long as the economy is on the downside, it will never be because of the policies of the Obama Administration that it is continuing to do so. Only when it recovers will Obama then step up and will the left use their keen insight to point to a moment in time that made it all happen. No matter if it takes 8 years. 10 years. 12 years. It could be 2030 for all I know so whomever takes on this responsibility must put the content of this blog and prediction in a very safe place.
Please respond below if you are willing to participate in this grandiose experiment. I need one person from the left and one from the right. Lets step up people!
It's for the sake of science!
|
|
| |
|
|
Do you like him any better now?
NO?
Then you are not a racist.
|
U4President Erock and Vice President Smashey took a break from their 'Beer Summit' this afternoon to get in 18 holes of mini golf and some go cart laps in Osage Beach, MO at Lake of the Ozarks.
Hailing the trip as an 'informational' one to test the theories of global warming on beer, the administration took time off to enjoy the lake and the amenities it supplies. Although the official score is unknown an aid for the President contends that he 'kicked the VP's ass. The VP's camp states that the President won based on the 'Clinton Mulligan' rule made famous by former President Bill Clinton. An aid for the VP stated however that the President did in fact "get his ass lapped" during a heated go cart race.
But what does this trip mean to many u4prezzers as the issues hang a dark cloud over the administration while they take in fun and sun on the taxpayer dime.
A reporter who wished to remain anonymous allegedly overheard Erock on the golf course stating "Screw em". The same reporter also stated that VP Smashey insisted moving to the front of the line using his expectant wife as cover. He was heard screaming at many small children who had been waiting for hours in the 100 degree temps to "move it rug rat, lady with a baby!"
Both camps were unavailable for comment on the reporters accusations.
How this will be seen by the u4prez community is yet to be seen but as the economy continues to downslide can the trip be seen as anything but arrogance on the part of the administration?
|
|
| |
|
|
I thought this was a cool article about Friday the 13th:
Welcome to Friday the 13th. You may not know why Friday the 13th is considered such an unlucky day, but it's worth learning about for anyone who's concerned about protecting his assets, especially from high taxes and confiscation.
While Obama might be defeated in 2012 and a GOP win would certainly be a slight improvement over the socialist democrats, I see little difference in Democrat or Republican administrations. Only in their election-time rhetoric and the speed at which they travel down the road toward bigger government, higher taxes and national debt do they differ, and only to a slight degree. Between Bush and Obama, for example, there has been little difference in foreign policy, deficit and national debt creation or bailouts except for the identities of the favored recipients of government money. Expect no real changes even if the GOP returns to power with one of its usual champions.
Friday the 13th is like most bad dates; they all have something negative to do with politicians – usually war, street battles or theft. For example, as Americans we all know the evil meaning of April 15th each year or the December 7th attack by Japan. Before the invention of the income tax, politicians and governments stole most of their wealth from groups rather than from their entire population. Small wars and plain old outright confiscation of property on trumped-up crimes and charges were the norm.
Friday 13th gained its association with trouble from such a government enterprise in the year 1307. As today, there was an empire swamped by debt and with a desperate political leadership looking for wealth to steal. The hero in charge was King Phillip the 4th of France, who had earlier stolen most of the wealth of his Jewish subjects. After running through that money, he decided to go after the very wealthy Knights Templar, who had accumulated much wealth and, in their folly (remember this, China), had lent Phillip and the French government far more than they could ever repay.
Phillip developed a secret plan to imprison the entire order in France on Friday 13th, using trumped up charges, then steal their assets and destroy his largest creditor in the same stroke. It worked, at least to the extent that plundering can ever work. He escaped his debts to the Templars and got all of their vast real estate holdings in France – but not their portable property. They were able to secretly move their treasure out of the country, and even today people still search for the lost Templar gold.
So what does the unlucky Friday 13th and King Phillip have to do with your wealth and our modern-day and political system? Quite a bit, actually, as there are several theories about where the lost Templar wealth was hidden and how it was used. The most plausible drop-off location is Scotland. Many historians believe Scotland's King Robert the Bruce won the Battle of Bannockburn, in the first War of Scottish Independence, largely with mounted Knights Templar.
There also is scholarly speculation that some Templars escaped to Switzerland and that remnants fought in the 1315 Battle of Morgarten with the Swiss peasants from the newly independent Swiss forest cantons. Switzerland does have a long history in the wealth protection business.
So part of the Templar gold may well be sitting in a bank vault under the Zurich Bahnhofstrasse, but suffice it to say on this Friday 13th, remember that your wealth is an easy target inside your home country whenever desperate politicians decide they need what is yours.
August 13, 2010
Ron Holland [send him mail] is a contributing editor to the Swiss Mountain Vision Newsletter and Swiss Confidential published by Appenzeller Business Press.
|
|
| |
|
|
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.
Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.
"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.
Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.
Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.
"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.
Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.
What the data show:
•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.
•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.
•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.
|
|
| |
|
|
Today I had a very good debate. Good in the aspect that not only was it well played by both sides and amicable as well, but it was with Friday and not either Imagine or FnG. Who are usually my opponents on U4Prez.
That being said, after I went and ate dinner I returned to check out the site and saw a soundbite by Rob Diesel. Now, I respect Rob and on many issues we fall on the same side. However, I have a retort to his soundbite that "There is no Constitutional right to marriage".
He is correct!
No where in the Constitution does it state that marriage is a right.
Kudos Rob.
The question I would like to pose however are the rights it does give. And after being corrected in my beer induced haze by the Wiz I will correct my argument to read, the Founders instead of the Constitution.
Specifically the statement that "All men are created equal". as well as "endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights" such as "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
I am well aware that I capitalized the word creator. It was not a typo, and here is why.
The Constitution may not specifically give a right to 'marriage'.
The founders of the country however state that all men are created equal. Now I am not a lawyer nor do I claim to be an esteemed student of the law but I am assuming that the word ALL would include homosexuals.
The founders also state that those men (previously agreed to be equal) are endowed by their CREATOR with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Now I don't claim to have studied theocracy. Nor am I a man of the cloth. But I am assuming that the word "Creator" is referring to God.
So, if I am reading the founders correctly they just stated that all men who are created equal ,including homosexuals, are endowed by their creator, God, with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So, although the Constitution does not specifically state that marriage is a right, the founders state that homosexuals are equal and that God gave homosexuals the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do they not?
Being that the Constitution which is a document of the founders, is the document that some like to tout as the law of the land, and being that the founders state that all men, even homosexuals, are created equal and that said men were endowed by God with certain unalienable rights, is it a bit hypocritical to use the Constitution and God as the argument against two people of the same sex who want the same rights as those of the opposite sex while always referring to the Constitution and God as the argument against it?
Open for debate.........
|
|
| |
|
|
By Robin Harding in Washington
Published: August 1 2010 17:57 | Last updated: August 1 2010 17:57
If Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve chairman, expected the release of second-quarter growth data to clear up the “unusually uncertain” outlook for the US economy, then he will have been sorely disappointed.
On the surface, the numbers were easy to interpret. Growth over the previous quarter at an annualised rate fell from 3.7 per cent in the first three months of this year to 2.4 per cent in the second. That fits with many other signs that the recovery is slowing down.
The details, however, hide a series of economic mysteries – about how fast the economy can grow, how weak it actually is, and what US consumers have been up to for the past few years – that policymakers will have to solve.
The most interesting numbers in the release were not about the second quarter at all – they were revisions for 2007, 2008 and 2009. These showed that the recession was even deeper than previously thought. Output in 2009 was 1 per cent below the previous estimate.
“The recession was unusually long and unusually severe and has proved unusually resistant to unusual amounts of stimulus,” says Neil Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse in New York.
There are two ways to read the revisions. One is that the economy is even further from using its full capacity than previously believed – an argument for more easing by the Fed. The other is that the economy’s capacity to grow is less than thought.
Paul Ashworth, senior US economist at Capital Economics, says he leans towards the latter explanation because inflation numbers remain the same. Less growth for the same inflation suggests a lower potential to grow.
Another question is quite how weak the economy actually is. Purchases by US consumers and businesses grew a lot faster in the second quarter than in the first – up by 4.1 per cent from 1.3 per cent – it is just that many of them came from abroad.
Companies also added less to their inventories, which lowers growth but not final demand in the economy.
Some of the imports seem to have been businesses buying IT kit, an idea borne out by strong results from the technology sector and logistics companies such as FedEx. Technology investment should be good for future growth.
On the other hand, the 0.7 percentage points that real estate investment added to second-quarter growth look odd because most surveys say residential and commercial markets are still weak. The extent of the past revisions is a reminder to be cautious about all second-quarter numbers: they may yet be heavily revised.
Contributions to Q2 growth
Imports have dragged down growth in the US (change in percentage points)
• Consumption +1.15
• Investment +2.09
• Inventories +1.05
• Exports +1.22
• Imports -4.00
• Gov spending +0.88
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
A final area of mystery is the consumer. Consumption in 2007, 2008 and 2009 was revised down but consumer incomes were revised up as statisticians found more dividend income. The result is that savings rates are much higher than previously thought: 5.9 per cent in 2009 instead of 4.2 per cent.
Consumers who are saving more may be better able to increase their spending in future and boost the recovery. It also suggests the economy has moved further towards relying on investment rather than consumption as a source of growth, although net exports are still lagging behind.
One challenge of economic mysteries is that the clues keep changing in this way. The people who have to find the solution are Mr Bernanke and his colleagues at the Fed.
Mr Bernanke will deliver a speech today that might give some hint to his thinking but much depends on non-farm payroll figures, which are due on Friday before a federal open market committee rate-setting meeting next week. If private job creation is well below 100,000 for the third month in a row, it will be strong evidence that growth continues to stagnate.
Some members of the FOMC have trimmed their own growth forecasts since the last meeting in June and the committee is likely to reflect the weaker data by changing its statement on the economy.
There is also likely to be some formal discussion of the tools available if the Fed does decide to ease further. But drastic changes to policy, such as restarting asset purchases, are still unlikely unless the economy suffers another shock.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.
|
|
| |
|
|
Ok, so as I used Imagines own words against him and trapped him in a few untruth's in my last blog I noticed another comment that would show he doesn't apply his own standards to himself:
"I did generalize the entire GOP as being "just opposition" as opposed to "loyal opposition" but I did not generalize the entire GOP as birthers or racists. I also generalize Erock and Smashey as hardcore, partisan Republicans who pretend to be so independent and libertarians to try to get some street cred. I could see you voting for social conservatives sometimes if you like some of a specific candidates platform like I have vote for moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans if I like them individually. But you both belong to a socially conservative party. That is LOL.
posted by imagine89 on 08/01/2010 @ 4:09 PM"
So, by using Imagine's own words and logic in the statement he made above could I deduce that if he believes that Erock and I are 'hardcore partisan Republicans' and believes that he could 'see' us voting for social conservatives if we like some of their platform just like he himself admitted he does for Democrats, then he is a hardcore partisan Democrat correct?
Just checking. I mean, if he wants to label others off of his ability to 'see' them voting for someone and then admits that he does the same thing then shouldn't that label be applied to himself?
I could be wrong.......just asking
|
|
| |
|
|
Thought this was a great article.
The Ruling Elite Called
by Jim Quinn
I just got off the horn with the Ruling Elite. We had an emergency conference call and to tell you the truth, they ain’t happy. You little people are not responding the way you are supposed to. A significant portion of you are not getting more optimistic because they tell you to. Instead of just reading the headline on Bloomberg that durable goods orders skyrocketed in June, you actually read the details that said durable goods orders plunged. It is getting difficult for the ruling elite to keep the masses sedated and dumbed down. These damn bloggers, with their facts and critical thinking, are throwing a wrench into the gears. Obama and his crack team are working round the clock to lock down the internet, but it will take time. Not that they are totally dissatisfied. They’ve been able to renovate their penthouses and purchase new mansions in the Hamptons with the billions in bonuses you supplied through TARP. The $1.2 trillion supplied by your children and grandchildren to buy up toxic mortgages off their balance sheets was a godsend. They will never call you suckers, to your face.
Their spirits were buoyed by the 2,600-page DONK (Dodd/Frank) financial reform bill. So many loopholes, so little time. Obama and his crack team of Obamanistas in the White House, supported by their mouthpieces in the mainstream media, have been able to easily manipulate the non-thinking masses into believing this bill would have stopped the last financial crash and will stop the next one. The Ministry of Truth has been working overtime utilizing Federal Reserve paid shill economists like Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi to perpetuate the myth that the actions taken in the last 18 months have averted a Depression, saved 8 million jobs, created a long-lasting recovery, wiped out Swine Flu, and earned Paul Krugman a Nobel Prize in fiction.
This is where we have a problem. The worshippers of Keynes, that rule the country, are pissed off at you. Don’t you realize that government spending of your money, borrowed from the Chinese, with the bill passed to your grandchildren, was supposed to reinvigorate your animal spirits? They handed you other people’s money to buy cars and homes and what do you do? You stop buying cars and homes as soon as they stop paying you to buy cars and homes. You ungrateful bastards. Bennie has been hugely successful at ruining the retirements of millions of grandmothers by paying them 0.20% on their money market accounts while forcing mortgage rates for 30 years down to 4.5%. And still you don’t buy houses. Timmy has instructed Fannie Mae to make home loans to anyone with a pulse who can make an X on a piece of paper. No money down, no proof of income, no assets. Just like the good old days. Still you don’t buy houses. What is wrong with you?
The criminal banking elite have more than bent over backwards to get this economy humming. They have patiently stood by while you haven’t made your mortgage payments for two years while still residing in the house. They’ve pretended to go along with the brilliant HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) plan, masterminded by the rocket scientists in the White House. Just because virtually no one has been able to qualify for the plan and the redefault rate is 75%, doesn’t mean it hasn’t worked wonders for the economy. The awesome part of not making people pay their mortgages is that they were able to make payments on their credit cards. That allowed the mega elite banks to pretend that consumers are flush and relieve their loan loss reserves while not writing off the bad mortgages and reporting billions in profits for the 2nd Quarter. It is good to be the ruling elite.
The ruling elite are letting you slide on your mortgages and you have the gall to withdraw $20 billion from U.S. equity funds and not buy into this fake stock rally. Don’t you realize that when the stock market goes up, the economy follows? Everyone knows this. But, instead you sit on the sidelines and refuse to invest in the stock market. The super computers of the mega-banks are getting tired of trading with each other and single-handedly making the stock market appear safe. Just because the ruling elite have vaporized $10 trillion of your net worth in the last two years, you hold a grudge? Remember the mantra “Stocks For the Long Run” that the ruling elite burned into your brains through CNBC and the rest of the shillstream media? Why are you so suspicious of our advice? Ignore the fact that the S&P 500 today is at the exact level it reached on March 24, 1998. They meant the really really long term.
Here is the message from the ruling elite to you ignorant masses: Debt got us into this mess and it sure as hell is going to get us out. They have convinced the mainstream media that the reason the economy is sputtering is because the average Joe is not doing their part. This crazy concept of saving for a rainy day seems to be catching on. This is very dangerous. Savings could lead to investment and long-term stability. The ruling elite will have none of that foolishness. The mainstream media is telling you that this new-found austerity will push us back into recession. The talking heads continue to pound away that you have reduced your spending too much, when anyone with a calculator and half a brain (Krugman doesn’t make the cut) can determine that the decrease in consumer debt outstanding is completely the result of write-offs by the mega-elite banks. Consumers are living off their credit cards at this point.
The military industrial complex continues to do the heavy lifting for this economy. If they weren’t blowing up bridges, power plants and orphanages in foreign countries and then rebuilding them at ten times the expected cost, how would they possibly spend $895 billion per year. It ain’t easy to waste that kind of money annually. Whenever some crazy dude like Ron Paul questions the need to spend as much as the rest of the world combined on the military, some potential terrorists are captured in the nick of time and the threat level is raised to Orange (thanks Tom Ridge). The “professional” journalists on the major networks then do their part in this farce by spreading fear among the general population. Rinse and repeat.
So, we now find ourselves at the edge of the abyss again. The ruling elite have a great plan. It involves more debt, more stimulus, more printing, more accounting fraud, more pain for the masses, and of course more bonuses for Wall Street. If you, the little people, will just follow this 10-step plan, the ruling elite will be just fine:
1. Stocks are undervalued according to the same "experts" who told you they were undervalued in October 2007. Take out a loan and buy mega-banks stocks, commercial real estate developers, and bankrupt car companies.
2. General Motors, in a brilliant strategic coup, has bought "subprime" auto loan company Americredit. What else does a government/union owned car company need? The fact that GMAC has lost $10 billion of taxpayer funds in the last year shouldn’t worry you about your investment in GM. If you can’t sell cars to people with no income, no job and no prospects for repaying the seven year 0% loan, who can you sell a car to? When the government pays Goldman Sachs millions to convince you to buy the stock of GM in its Fall IPO, ask no questions and just buy buy buy.
3. Ignore the fact that Citicorp, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo would be declared insolvent if the FASB had not caved in to threats from the Federal Reserve and Treasury. Just buy their stocks. Trust Wall Street.
4. Enough austerity already. You haven’t bought a new HDTV in six months. It’s like you’ve been living in a 3rd-world country. If you have any equity left in your house, borrow against it and buy something big and glitzy. Make sure you show it off to your shallowest neighbors. They will go out and buy something bigger and glitzier on credit. Before you know it we have a recovery. Keynesianism 101.
5. Stop frequenting financial blogs like Naked Capitalism, Credit Writedowns, Dollar Collapse, Market Oracle, 321Gold, Jesse’s Cafe Americain, Of Two Minds, Zero Hedge, Mike Shedlock, or Barry Ritholtz. These sites will just shower you with facts, analysis and truth. Watch CNBC, Fox, MSNBC and the other corporate media to get the ruling elite approved view of the world.
6. If you are currently renting or living in your mother’s basement, have no job, no savings and no prospects, Fannie Mae wants to put you in your very own house. Mortgage payments are optional. The 50% of Americans that pay taxes will gladly fund your new abode.
7. If you are approaching the 99th week of unemployment, have no fear. The ruling elite will use the MSM to run hundreds of sob stories about only two years on the dole being immoral and cruel. The White House will present a study from "impartial" economists that proves that extending unemployment benefits to 156 weeks will create or save 3 million jobs.
8. The stress of this recession has been too much. You need to whip out that credit card and book a trip to Disney World or Dollywood. Worry about funding that 401k sometime in the future.
9. Unquestioningly accept the fact that Iran is an imminent threat to your safety and liberty. Support the obliteration of this evil nation based upon information provided by the CIA (WMD slamdunk) and the Israelis.
10. Lastly, call your Congressman and tell them to extend the tax cuts for the rich. As you have probably concluded, the ruling elite are rich. They don’t like paying taxes. That is why they employ thousand of tax lawyers. Since the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will hurt the ruling elite the most, a full court press of disinformation is in order.
The ruling elite expect you to comply without question. Have they ever led you astray before?
July 31, 2010
Jim Quinn [send him mail] is Senior Director of Strategic Planning at an Ivy League university. This article reflects the personal views of Jim Quinn. It does not necessarily represent the views of his employer, and is not sponsored or endorsed by them.
|
|
| |
|
|
So.......
My sometimes debate buddy Imagine tried to claim he didn't make a generalization that he actually did. And when I called him out on it.....he logged off like a beeyotch.
For posterity's sake here is the conversation:
"Leave it for Kempite to call the Republicans the "loyal opposition." They aren't "loyal opposition", they're just opposition. I am loyal opposition. I oppose the current administration, but I don't want the country to completley collapse just to get it out of power. The Republicans do. They're not loyal opposition. They're just opposition because they're whiny sore losers that can't stand having a black guy tell them what to do.
posted by imagine89 on 07/31/2010 @ 6:26 PM"
"How did Weiners rant turn into a "the GOP hates Obama because he's black" diatribe? Oh yeah.....that's the liberal excuse for dissent against bad policy.
posted by smashey on 08/01/2010 @ 1:37 AM"
"Have I accused Erock of being a racist? No. because he's not a birther and he doesn't say Obama's a muslim. We have Kempite here who constantly tries to polarize any Democrat that calls out the paranoid, schitzophrenic right wing for what they are. Then of course Smashey the hardcore Republican comes out to deffedn the GOP. You know smashey, I may trash the Democrats but trash the Republicans way more, but atleast I'm not actually a member of either party and atleast I actual do trash both sides. You're a hardcore Republican that won't even say anythign bad about the Republicans and I bet your registered Republican too. Which would be fine if you didn't pretend to be so independent. What Obama's doing is carrying on most of the same old policies Bush was doing...policies I bet you voted for in 2000 and 2004 when I bet you voted for George Bush.
posted by imagine89 on 08/01/2010 @ 1:46 AM"
"I'm a Libertarian you dumbass. You are a liberal and won't admit it. Your independent streak is about as legitimate as your latest profile attemt at legitimacy on this site. I never said you accused erock of shit and either did he. Ypu did because you cant defend yourself against my statement. You nade comments about Republicans being against Obama necause of race. I didn't. I asked a simple question. You can' answer because you are a joke. Defend your statement or shut the fuck up.
posted by smashey on 08/01/2010 @ 1:50 AM"
"Since when have I said I'm not a liberal? I thought that it was implied with the big "socialist" next to my name. Can we atleast agree that socialism is a liberal ideology? I thought that was common knowlege. Further, do you want me to deffend that my comments regarding race are relevant here? If so, they are not really relevant. I just like to try to take Kempites blogs off topic because he does it to mine. Or do you want me to deffend that my statements are true? If so, they're true because the birthers and the like don't just hate Obama's policies. They hate him. They try to make him out to be a muslim and a kenyan and they can get people to believe it because he's black and has a funny name. They're trying to say he;s illegitimate because he's kenyan, he's muslim etc. because he's black. I don't care if the birthers get sad when I say they are racists. They are fucking racists. Are ALL republicans birthers? NO. So quit your fake outrage over a generalization that didn't happen. But what kind of libertarian are you? The kind that votes for socially conservative republicans? Or the kind that areactual Libertarian Party members who vote for social conservative LP candidates like Bob Barre?
posted by imagine89 on 08/01/2010 @ 1:56 AM"
"Here are your exact words dipshit-----"Leave it for Kempite to call the Republicans the "loyal opposition." They aren't "loyal opposition", they're just opposition. I am loyal opposition. I oppose the current administration, but I don't want the country to completley collapse just to get it out of power. The Republicans do. They're not loyal opposition. They're just opposition because they're whiny sore losers that can't stand having a black guy tell them what to do. posted by imagine89 on 07/31/2010 @ 6:26 PM------------so don't tell me the generalization didn't happen. It's down there in YOUR words. So you are either completely dumb or a liar. You made a generalization and then tried to correct it with your 'birther addition on the next comment. Busted little man. Your a joke.
posted by smashey on 08/01/2010 @ 1:59 AM"
"I don't disagree with your birther statement but your first statement made a generalization and you can't deny it. It's there.
posted by smashey on 08/01/2010 @ 2:00 AM"
So there you have it. Imagine, either high or just stupid, claiming he didn't make a generalization that he clearly did a few comments down. Then instead of being a man and attempting to defend his 'mixup', he logs off like a pansy ass.
Imagine, you are a joke. You get discredited with one profile, you start another. Stand up for your statements. At least I could respect you then. A little life lesson - BE A MAN. If you make a mistake then admit it. At least try and make a bullshit excuse. Not replying doesn't do you or your third profile here any good. FnG may be a crazy bastard but at least he's a man and owns up to it. Get some balls, then come try and start an argument with me. Until then...you're way the hell out of you're league.
|
|
| |
|
|
So a while back I threw out a bet to my good debate pal Fatngassy regarding the economy. As we all know, Fatngassy believes the economy is chugging right along, the stimulus has worked wonders and that the numbers are moving in the right direction. I threw out a monetary amount that only a man who honestly believed his statements would dare take. A mere $10,000.
FnG humbly declined my offer because in his words "It would be foolish to bet money I don't have". I agree 100% with him (although I found it comical that he has no issue with the government spending money it doesn't have). But being a stand up guy FnG came up with another bet. If the unemployment rate is below 8% by next July I will have to do 50 push up's on video and post it to U4Prez. If it is above 8% he has to do the same. All in good fun, I accepted. Not a difficult bounty to provide should a divine miracle occur and I lose. I'm 6'0 and 190lbs of solid steel and sex appeal and he is, well.......fat and gassy.
Just to make it a bit more interesting I would like to open this challenge up to anyone else on U4Prez who would like to take it. Simply comment below with what side of the 8% you are betting on and make sure you can do 50 push up's without an inflatable date beneath you.
And just to clarify FnG - You do have to be clothed during the filming of your push ups. This isn't a Chris Farley tribute site. ;)
|
|
| |
|
|
Not that I want to get into the FnG/Kempite/Austin Proclimation "fag" argument but I must address a comment made by Imagine regarding the situation.
"Republicans don't want to call them "fags"....they just want to deny them the hundred of civil protections provided by marriage and to condemn homosexuality in public as often as possible. "Sinner", "abomination", "disgusting". Those words are cool, but "fag" goes too far? LOL. If anything should be said of Kempite, it's that he's an idiot for supporting a party that hates him."
That little quip was posted by Imagine on Austin's condemnation in the bills section. Now, I don't condone what FnG said as he is, more times than not, wrong. He has a right to be an offensive prick if he so chooses and I will stand up for his constitutional right to say ignorant things and here is why - FnG NEVER has claimed to be holier than thou. He has always used offensive words to describe minorities as well as homosexuals and he does it proudly and without shame. In short he is what he is and doesn't claim to be anything else.
On the other hand I have seen Imagine time and time again claim to not be partisan. He has called Kempite and various others partisan hacks and has attempted to disregard them as Conservative "idiots" and "Conservatives good, Liberals bad" to use his own words. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with that. It is his opinion and he is entitled to it. My point is that unlike FnG, Imagine doesn't always practice what he preaches. So here are my questions to your statements today that seem a bit at odds with your claims of being holier than thou in regards to partisan politics:
In regards to your statement above, what have the Democrats done to help with gay marriage and rights since they have had the White House and Congress? Last I checked gay marriage was not legal on a federal level. If it were the complete fault of the Republicans then why haven't the Democrats come forward and passed a gay marriage law either? Seems fishy to me that you would state that Republicans are continuing to deny gay rights at a time when the Democrats are in a position to do something about it if they so wished and haven't.
Also, regarding your blog today about billionaires flooding Karl Roves 527 with funds: Why no mention of George Soros and the billions that he funnels into his own 527's as well as various others that support liberal agenda's? I just find it strange that you would omit the donations to the Democrat and liberal 527's in a blog that was pointing out unlimited individual donorships to 527's.
Now, I don't want this taken as a personal attack on Imagine. Though we have had heated banters at time, we have also agreed as well. These are merely questions that I am asking to clarify his stances. Stances that appear to be partisan to one side while he, at the same time, condemns others for the same thing.
To me, that is worse than an unapologetic FnG calling someone a "fag".
|
|
| |
|
|
Oxford University researchers have discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (symbol=Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called pillocks. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.
A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as a critical mess. When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (symbol=Ad), an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many pillocks but twice as many morons.”
|
|
| |
|
|
Of all the arguments on U4Prez there is one that makes me laugh more than the others. That is the argument that somehow there is a policy difference between George W. Bush and Barack H. Obama.
Point #1: SPENDING. George W. Bush presided over a huge amount of deficit spending and resulting debt while claiming to be a conservative. Obama campaigned on reigning in that debt and even had a 'fiscal responsibility summit'. He has exacerbated the deficit spending and resulting debt faster than even Bush. Call me crazy but claiming to be responsible and then raising the deficit and debt while merely printing money to cover the interest on said debt is exactly the same fiscal policy. No difference here except for the speed at which one is surpassing the other. Fiscal policy for both - Deficit spending bankrolled by printing of fiat currency and additional debt.
Point #2: GUANTANAMO BAY DETENTION FACILITY. There is a small difference here but the end result is the same. Bush actually admitted the facility was needed and was proud of it. Obama signed an order to close the facility but never followed through and won't publicly admit the facility is needed. Guantanamo policy for both: The facility remains open and in use.
Point #3: IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN. Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq and continued to fight 2 wars in the name of stopping terrorists. Obama continues those 2 wars and has stepped up the one in Afghanistan while continuing on the Bush timeline to scale back in Iraq. only small difference: Bush publicly wanted to whoop someones ass. Obama maintains that we want to get out as soon as possible. Iraq and Afghanistan policy for both: Continue to fight both wars in the name of stopping the terrorists.
Point #4: IRAN. Bush presided over the first inkling that Iran was attempting to obtain nuclear capability. He pushed for sanctions and repeatedly made public that Iran having nuclear capability was not going to be an option all the while watched as Iran laughed and went on with it. Obama, to be honest, is doing the exact same thing here. The only difference is their pronunciation of the word 'nuclear'. Iran policy for both: Place worthless sanctions and verbally condem the actions.
Point #4: DISASTER IN THE GULF. Bush sat back claiming that the federal government couldn't intercede until the states asked for assistance. However government interference didn't bother him in any other policy he made. Obama is sitting back saying it is not the governments place, but BP's to stop and clean the oil leak. However, government intervention doesn't seem to bother him in any other policy he has made. Gulf disaster policy for both: Interfere in everything else unless there is a problem in the Gulf of Mexico. Then claim it is not the governments place.
I could go on but you get the point. Arguing that Obama is better than Bush is not really factual and vice-versa. They have the same policies. One major difference being one flat out stated what he was going to do...the other tries to talk around it. Bottom line - The policies have the same end result. Quit the bickering.
|
|
| |
|
|
As I read through the rhetoric and facts and statements that make up the blogs today I have noticed one similar aspect that binds them all. Everyone thinks everyone else is an idiot. Some of these claims are close to the truth and some are far off but one fact remains true no matter what your political ideology. It depends on the subject.
Now i'm not claiming moral superiority here in what I am about to write as those who have known me know that is far from where I am. What I will try to do however is make a point regarding how one man's opinion of another man's intellect gets made and how wrong he is in making that paint brush statement that he is 'smarter' than the other.
Case in point: My family used to own a hauling company. It was rather large, over 25 municipal contracts, and covered a 250 square mile radius in north Missouri. When my grandfather retired, he passed the company on to my father who was in the insurance business. My father wanted nothing to do with the company so my mother and I took the reigns. I was in college at the time and was going after a degree as well as working over 40hrs to ensure the trucks ran on time, the contracts were signed and our landfill was 100% compliant with the MODNR. I drew up the contracts for municipalities as well as construction companies and industrial businesses, put the bids in, went to the city council meetings, dispatched the trucks, handled the purchase orders, did AP & AR and ordered parts and labor for the heavy equipment operators on the site. All while handling a full workload at a university that was 45 miles one way from where the business was located. I was handling 2 divisions of the business and going to school. I was the man.
I was handling a huge responsibility for my age but I loved it. The part I liked the most was the HR aspect. I loved hiring employees and dealing with the diverse group of people that we employed. One day I hired a man named Merrill. Now Merrill wasn't the most clean cut, well educated man I had ever met but I needed a general laborer to work in the landfill division and he was willing to handle it. It was about the least desirable position on the planet and was tough, hard, smelly, physical labor but Merrill was good at it and had no complaints. Even when relegated to pulling plastic trash bags out of the compost site. One day while everyone was eating lunch I went in to eat mine as well. Everyone was eating, talking and looking at magazines. One of the heavy equipment operators asked Merrill to pass him the Newsweek magazine that was behind him on the counter mixed in with several other magazines. Merrill turned and looked at the magazines rather perplexed and grabbed one. After several minutes of the guys razzing him about grabbing a copy of Motor Trend instead I realized something. Merrill couldn't read.
How could that be I thought? He had a drivers license and filled out his application fine. He seemed to function as someone who could read would. At least to the casual observer. What mistake did I make in hiring someone who couldn't read to work around heavy equipment and large trucks on a daily basis? Jesus, his stupidity could get someone killed.
After that day, I made sure that I regulated Merrill's responsibility to the menial task of picking up blowing paper in the landfill. No longer could I trust an idiot who couldn't read to help clean tracks on a dozer or tarp a truck or to fix the scales. He had to be matched in a job that fit his education. Picking up paper it was. After all, I was going to college and running 2 divisions at the same time. I knew what was best for him.
Merrill labored at the menial task never asking why or never complaining. He simply did his job that I decided he was best suited for because he couldn't read. Then came July 4th. I had a municipality call and ask if we could deliver 4 40yd roll-off containers for their celebration and pick up the smaller ones that they had on hand. I made some calls and got 3 truck drivers that agreed to come in and make the run, a dozer operator to handle it once it got to the landfill and Merrill who agreed to come in and clean up the site after the containers were dumped. The drivers arrived, fueled up their trucks, loaded their containers and were ready to roll. As they made their way out of the site and onto the road I received a radio call from one of the trucks. He had stalled out in the middle of the road and the other 2 trucks could not get around him. I attempted to get a hold of our mechanic but with the holiday he was no where to be found. What the hell am I going to do now?
I hopped in the company truck and headed to the road. Merrill was coming up off the site for some water so I asked him to jump in with me and we headed to where the trucks were blocking the road. All 3 drivers were looking under the hood of the truck and trying everything they knew to resolve the problem. Merrill and I looked on as everything the attempted failed. Great, I thought, not only will we not meet our obligation to the city but I have trucks blocking the road and will have to attempt to find a tow company with a semi-tower on the 4th of July to come get us out of the jam. Fantastic. After at least half an hour of the drivers tinkering with the truck I left Merrill to watch for traffic and headed to the office to try and find a tow truck. After leaving several messages I headed back to the road to check on the progress of the drivers. What I saw when I got back blew my mind. Merrill was up under the hood messing with the engine of the truck. As I got out of my vehicle and was about to lay into the drivers for letting this guy that couldn't even read mess with the engine of a $90,000 truck Merrill yelled at the driver to 'hit it'. The truck fired right up.
As the drivers patted Merrill on the back and set out to deliver the containers I stood in stunned silence. This man was by far the most uneducated simple individual I had ever met, yet he solved the problem and fixed a Cummings diesel engine that 3 drivers who knew the engine couldn't. As we drove back to the site I asked Merrill the question I should have asked a long time ago, "So what else do you know that you could be doing here?" He explained that his father was a mechanic and he learned from him at a young age how to work on diesel engines. When we returned to the office I sat Merrill down and asked him another question. Can you read? He hung his head and stated that he had to quit school at a young age and help his father earn money for the family. I then asked him another. Do you want me to help you learn? He said he did but was embarrassed. I assured him no one had to know besides us. I then told him that I would like to apologize to him. He asked me what for. I had been nothing but nice to him. I explained that when I realized that he couldn't read I wrote him off as being stupid. Too stupid to do anything else but pick up blowing paper and that was the reason he had been relegated to those duties as of late.
He paused for a few seconds and then said thank you, but I know i'm not the smartest guy in the world so it doesn't bother me if people think i'm stupid. I thought for a second and then said, "Merrill, you aren't stupid. When we were standing around the truck perplexed as to why it wouldn't start my college education and those drivers knowledge of that truck did us no good. At that point in time you were the smartest man on the planet and we were the dumbest." "It all depends on what you know I guess", he said. I replied, "For someone who thinks he's stupid, you are exactly right......Again".
|
|
| |
|
|
I have seen many conversations in the past few years on U4prez that relate to fiscal policies and many different candidates definitions of them. Conservative policies, liberal policies, socialist policies, libertarian policies and so on. Each person has thier own, individual take on each philosophy and we have debate the in's and out's of each.
We have debated our own individual understandings of each economic philosophy and we have done it with the common understanding in the end that there are distinct differences in the various policies and philosophies that we all believe in and adhere to day in and day out. We didn't always agree and probably never will, but we debated our points and listened to the others, making various distinctions along the way that have shaped and molded our individual ways of thinking.
One phrase that always stood out, was always at the forefront of the debates and was the common denominator in all of the philosophies was 'Fiscal Responsibility'. Everyone claims to have it. Everyone claims to advocate it. But what does it mean? Is that phrase the one link between all the various economic and fiscal policies?
Some have debated that it is economic equality for all. Some have debated that it is a balanced budget. Some have debated it is spending on social program and the list goes on.
Through all of these different aspects and definitons of fiscal responsibility one thing has become clear. We all can agree that fiscal responsibility is important to all sides of the political spectrum.
I have written this blog not to try and define fiscal responsibility for all as that cannot be done given the vast array of political thought and beliefs that U4prez encompasses. I have written this blog to try and bring fiscal responsibility to the forefront once again. No matter what your econimic philosophy I want to know how we all define fiscal responsibility in the current economic situation we are in. Has our definition changed? Do we mold our definition to fit the times? These are the questions that I wish to seek answers to through this blog. What does fiscal responsibility mean to you?
|
|
| |
|
|
Ok. There have been many smart little quips on the soundbites and in the blogs about ways to cut the debt. None of which ACTUALLY CUT THE DEBT!!!!!!!
Let me explain again for those that don't understand what debt actually is.......
To start from the beginning, debt is borrowed money. Money that is borrowed to cover a budget deficit. A budget deficit is what you get when you spend more money than you are taking in.
Now.....
The only way to cut or shrink the debt is TO PAY IT! You cannot, as some have suggested, cut the debt by cutting spending. Cutting spending cuts into the deficit. It will make the debt not grow, but it does NOT CUT THE DEBT. If you cut every program and agency in the government the debt will remain the same......until you pay it.
You also cannot, as some have suggested, cut the debt by cutting spending and use the savings to pay the debt. If you are using the savings to pay the debt, then you are not really saving anything. You are still spending that amount. You may be paying on the debt but since you are still using the money, the deficit (which is the cause of debt) remains the same and simply adds back into the debt.
So in summation.......The only way to cut the debt is to pay it after stopping deficit spending and raising new revenue to put towards it. There is no other way. So if you haven't figured it out by now if you want to cut the debt you must first balance the budget and then raise revenue to be put exclusively towards the debt.
|
|
| |
|
|
So...now that the title has grabbed your attention let me start off with a disclaimer to head off any claims that I am a fan of the fiscal prowess of our former President. I am not. As has been well documented on this website I believe that W spent us into a hole we may not be able to get out of. Always have, always will.
But that is where I deffer from some of my liberal counterparts. I believe that all debt and deficit spending is counter productive to a good, long-term healthy economy. Some of my liberal counterparts believe that it is only bad when the President in office is of the Republican persuasion. For the sake of argument I will refer to that side of the spectrum as liberal because that's what they are. It is their ideology. I will refer to W as a Republican. Because lets be real here, he wasn't really a conservative in fiscal terms. You can refer to them however you see fit however. It doesn't impact the point of the blog.
Now lets think back a few years to when the country's President was George W. Bush. After the tragedy of the 9/11 terrorist attacks then President Bush began making some highly unpopular decisions. We began a 'war on terror' with 2 fronts. One in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq. The costs of which were driving our federal deficits and our national debt to all time highs. Many liberals screamed of the cost of those wars. Not only in lives but in dollars. The President was mortgaging the lives of our children. They will be paying this debt for years to come. He's going to bankrupt the nation, and so on and so forth. Day after day the media and political opponents alike took shot after shot at the massive debt and deficit that the Bush administration was building. A few examples of which:
"This run-up in debt represents the most rapid, predatory looting of public wealth in the history of the world. The interest costs alone will consume the government and, soon, the entire economy. In fiscal 2004, interest costs came to $321 billion against a deficit of $415 billion. So three quarters of all the current year borrowing is spent paying interest on past borrowing. This is the most immediate symptom of the deficit death spiral."
Published on Friday, October 22, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
The Bush Budget Deficit Death Spiral
by Robert Freeman
Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid, leading a chorus of alarm in his party, called the Bush budget "fiscally irresponsible and highly deceptive".
Democrats criticise Bush budget for fudging Iraq costs
* Elana Schor in Washington
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 February 2008 14.33 GMT
"HUGE, UNPRECEDENTED INCREASES in the National Debt that both George Bushes (and Ronald Reagan) have created! Since Ronald Reagan promised to reduce the National Debt (he must have had a lot of laughs over that joke), THE NATIONAL DEBT HAS INCREASED MORE THAN TEN TIMES
OVER!!!"
http://www.lafn.org/gvdc//Natl_Debt_Ch
art.html
http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2
009/10/nakedemperornews-senator-obamas-warning.htm
l - which has video of Senator Obama talking about the problem of Debt and gives a chart of the debt during the bush years as well as Obama's.
"The Bush administration recently released its mid-session review of the federal budget for fiscal 2006. The new data reveal that in spite of repeated promises of fiscal responsibility by the Bush administration and congressional Republicans, things are bad and getting worse. After five years of Republican reign, it's time for small-government conservatives to acknowledge that the GOP has forfeited its credibility when it comes to spending restraint.
When it comes to spending, George W. Bush is no Reagan. Hell, he's not even"
Nick Gillespie & Veronique de Rugy | October 19, 2005
"With no fanfare and little notice, the national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion during George W. Bush’s presidency. It’s the biggest increase under any president in U.S history. On the day President Bush took office, the national debt stood at $5.727 trillion. The latest number from the Treasury Department shows the national debt now stands at more than $9.849 trillion. That’s a 71.9 percent increase on Mr. Bush’s watch. But wait, there’s more: The bailout plan now pending in Congress could add hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt – though President Bush said this morning he expects that over time, “much if not all” of the bailout money “will be paid back.” But the government is taking no chances. Buried deep in the hundred pages of bailout legislation is a provision that would raise the statutory ceiling on the national debt to $11.315 trillion. It’ll be the 7th time the debt limit has been raised during this administration. In fact it was just two months ago, on July 30, that President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, which contained a provision raising the debt ceiling to $10.615 trillion."
by Doug Mataconis @ 3:18 pm on October 4, 2008.
All fantastic points and I agree with them. Yes you heard it correctly, I agree with them. The deficits run by the Bush administration and the growing national debt were a travesty. It is a gigantic example of fiscal irresponsibility and a historic one at that. Bush was a fiscal moron.
But.................if you take the logic being applied to defend the accelerated debt and deficit spending by the Obama administration, you could deduce that George W Bush was a fiscal genius years ahead of his time. I mean come on, if Obama's spending and debt is necessary for the economy to bounce back and will drive jobs and revenue then he owes it all to the man who led the way, George W Bush. I know some of the liberals who may have taken the time to read this are probably stuttering and saying, "But...but...but...it's different" Really? How is it different? If Obama's budget deficits and Debt spending is a good thing by your logic so should the spending and debt of Bush. I'm merely taking the political rhetoric and arguments from 2002 - 2008 and comparing it with the same political rhetoric and arguments being used now. If Obama's deficit and debt spending is a good thing then George W Bush was the liberal fiscal pioneer.
"But Obama is spending on good things instead of war". Ok, i'll address it. He is actually still spending on both wars. However, you may see the health care spending as good and for the sake of argument i'll give you that one. But put this in your pipe and smoke it - Does it matter where the money is going? In reality a dollar is a dollar is it not? Taxes are taxes and income is income. It is all the same in the world of debt. When you write a bad check does the bank care what you wrote it for? The only thing that matters in the end is the amount.
So, according to liberal logic George W Bush was a fiscal genius who was ahead of his time and a pioneer for Barrack Obama's federal budget. Wow. And here I was believing the left hated Bush. Sorry....I guess I was wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
How Capitalism Saved the Whales
by James S. Robbins
It is an article of faith among environmentalists that the ills of the world can be traced to economic and technological development, especially since the industrial revolution. The changes that took place in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, such as harnessing new sources of energy (moving from water to coal power, for example), the development of the factory system, and the human population explosion, they say, led directly to the current problems with waste disposal, air and water pollution, overcrowding, and misused resources, not to mention global warming, ozone depletion, acid rain, and other highly speculative developments.
Fixation on doomsaying can cause environmentalists to forget that the negative consequences of industrialization are minute compared to the positive developments of the industrial age. People are healthier, live longer, and are more productive than ever before in history. But defenders of industrialism can go even further to show that in many cases technological progress has benefited the environment. This is vividly demonstrated in the case of one of the most emotion-laden symbols of environmentalism, the whales.
At the dawn of the industrial age, whales were an important natural resource which humans had been exploiting for centuries. Whales were especially valued for their oil, which was used primarily as fuel for lamps. It was also used for heating, for lubrication, soap, paint and varnish manufacturing, and the processing of textiles and rope. The Japanese among others had long acquired a taste for whale meat. Regular whale oil ("train oil") was extracted from the blubber which encased the whale's body. But the best oil was spermaceti, found only in the nose of the sperm whale. If exposed to air it would congeal, and was used for smokeless candles, regarded as the finest quality candles ever made.
The sperm whale also sometimes produced ambergris, a sticky substance from the intestines used in the manufacture of perfume. Baleen, the bony, plankton-straining ribs in the mouths of most whales (excepting the sperm whale), was lightweight and had good tensile qualities. It was used for a variety of things, including corset stays, umbrella ribs, fishing rods, buggy whips, carriage springs, and skirt hoops. Bones from the body were generally used as fertilizer.
Whaling was a major industry in the 19th century, and the United States was the pre-eminent whaling nation. According to tradition, American commercial whaling began in 1712 in New England. Whaling expanded through the 18th century, but was disrupted by the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. In 1815 came peace and rapid growth in the industry. By 1833 there were 392 American whaling vessels. By 1846 there were 735 whalers, comprising 80 percent of the whaling fleet of the entire world. Each year whaling produced 4-5 million gallons of sperm oil, 6-10 million gallons of train oil, and 1.6- 5.6 million pounds of bone. The price of train oil rose from 35 cents per gallon in 1825 to 95 cents in 1855.
Though large, whaling was not a robust industry. Even with rising prices, profit margins were always slim, and one in ten ships typically lost money on a voyage. In 1858, a very poor year, 64 percent failed to make a profit. But whalers could always count on an increasing demand for their products, as populations grew and markets expanded accordingly. Had the whaling industry matched the 300 percent population growth from 1850 to 1900, many species of whale would have been extinct long ago.
The Role of Technology in Saving the Whales
Yet, the American whaling industry peaked in the 1850s. The reason for its decline was not because of public awareness of the evils of whaling, it was not because of consciousness-raising efforts by pioneer environmentalists, and it definitely was not because of legislation. The whales were saved because of the march of technology.
The first step that led to saving the whales was made by Dr. Abraham Gesner, a Canadian geologist. In 1849, he devised a method whereby kerosene could be distilled from petroleum. Petroleum had previously been considered either a nuisance, or a miracle cure (an idea originating with Native Americans). Earlier coal-gas methods had been used for lighting since the 1820s, but they were prohibitively expensive. Gesner's kerosene was cheap, easy to produce, could be burned in existing lamps, and did not produce an offensive odor as did most whale oil. It could be stored indefinitely, unlike whale oil, which would eventually spoil. The American petroleum boom began in the 1850s. By the end of the decade there were 30 kerosene plants operating in the United States. The cheaper, more efficient fuel began to drive whale oil out of the market.
The man most responsible for the commercial success of kerosene was John D. Rockefeller. In 1865, at the age of 25, he went into partnership with Samuel Andrews, the part-owner of a Cleveland refinery. Rockefeller had sensed that too much capital was being invested in finding and extracting oil, and not enough was being invested in its processing. Backed by investors, he set up a network of kerosene distilleries which would later develop into Standard Oil.
As kerosene became generally available throughout the country, the demand for whale oil dropped precipitously. The 735-ship fleet of 1846 had shrunk to 39 by 1876. The price of sperm oil reached its high of $1.77 per gallon in 1856; by 1896 it sold for 40 cents. Yet it could not keep pace with the price of refined petroleum, which dropped from 59 cents per gallon in 1865 to a fraction over seven cents in 1895.
Rockefeller, too, would eventually find himself having to adapt to the changing market. A new invention soon snuffed out both flame-based lighting systems. In 1879 Thomas A. Edison began marketing the incandescent light bulb he had invented the previous year. Arc-light technologies had existed since the turn of the century, but it was Edison who devised the modern, commercially feasible light bulb, which produced an even light, burned longer and brighter than oil or kerosene, and was much safer than an open flame. As the country was electrified, whale oil and kerosene were both driven from the illumination market.
American whaling might have expired then, but for the vagaries of fashion. The peripheral market in baleen and whalebone suddenly exploded as more women began to wear corsets, bustles, and other garments that relied for their shape upon the pliant material. From 32 cents per pound in 1870, whalebone rose to $1.12 in 1875, and $3.25 in 1878, reaching $5.00 at the turn of the century. Whalebone constituted 80 percent of the value of a bowhead -sperm whales were given a respite because of their lack of baleen. But by 1908, this market crashed as well. Spring steel replaced whalebone in women's fashions, and as automobiles supplanted horse-drawn carriages, demand for whalebone buggy whips and wagon suspensions collapsed. A few American whalers stayed in business, but their time had passed. The last American whaler left port in 1924, and grounded on Cuttyhunk Island the next day.*
Stopping technology in its tracks in the 1850s would have doomed the whales. But suppose whaling had been outlawed then, as it is now? The immediate effect would have been a dramatic decline in quality of life. Would kerosene and electric lamps have come on the scene any faster, in reaction to the sudden surge in demand for substitutes ? Maybe-but at the cost of the spirit of innovation which brought the inventions on the scene in the first place. A government which can squelch one endeavor, such as whaling, can outlaw any enterprise. The unpredictability and capriciousness of the state is the true enemy of innovation. Gesner, Rockefeller and Edison had no intention of saving the whales. Their primary motivation was to make a profit. If the government fosters an atmosphere in which innovation and profit making potential are subject to whims of bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians, and not based in the abilities of creative people to find innovative solutions to public needs, innovators will not set their minds to the task, and no state whip can force them to do so. In its time, killing whales was rational, goaloriented activity, fulfilling human needs. It was not "mindless slaughter" for fun or sport. And the decline of whaling was also rational; human needs remained, even increased-but human ingenuity had found better ways to meet those needs. The whale industry declined-not because of concern for the whales, not because of legislation, but because they were no longer a necessary resource.
The whales were not the only beneficiaries of the technological advancements of the 19th century. The Galapagos tortoise was driven almost to extinction because the islands were in the center of a major whaling area, and sailors killed the tortoises for fresh meat. In northern climes, whalers sometimes killed blubber-rich arctic seals to augment their oil stores. Both of these animals were saved by the decline of whaling. Oil-drilling in Pennsylvania restored many lakes which had been contaminated by natural petroleum leaks. These were all unintended consequences; but the fact that technological development under capitalism manages to produce such consequences consistently argues in favor of the system.
Humans are problem solvers, and the human mind should not be prevented from doing what only it can do. Creative solutions are superior to state restrictions because they strike at the causes of problems, not their effects. Furthermore, just as creative action produces unintentional positive consequences, restricting innovation multiplies negative effects. No one, especially government agencies or neo-Luddites, can anticipate the indirect or unintended favorable consequences of technological innovation. This is why Abraham Gesner, John D. Rockefeller and Thomas Edison saved more whales than Green Peace ever will.
|
|
| |
|
|
Limited government is one of the greatest accomplishments of humanity.
It is imperfectly enjoyed by only a portion of the human race, and, where
it is enjoyed, its tenure is ever precarious. The experience of the last
century is surely witness to the insecurity of constitutional government
and to the need for courage in achieving it and vigilance in maintaining it.
Advocates of limited government are not anti-government per se, as
some people would charge. Rather, they are hostile to concentrations of
coercive power and to the arbitrary use of power against right.With a deep appreciation for the lessons of history and the dangers of unconstrained
government, they are for constitutionally limited government, with the
delegated authority and means to protect our rights, but not so powerful
as to destroy or negate them.
The American system was established to provide limited government.
The independent existence of the United States was based on certain truths:
that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the
Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the
Governed, 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,laying its Foundation on such Principles, and
organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness.
On that foundation, theAmerican Founders established a system of government based on delegated, enumerated, and thus limited powers.
The American Founders did not pluck those truths out of thin air, nor
did they simply invent the principles of American government. They drew
from their knowledge of thousands of years of human history, during
which many peoples struggled for liberty and limited government. There
were both defeats and victories along the way. The results were distilled
in the founding documents of the American experiment in limited government:
the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the
state constitutions, and the Constitution of the United States.
The American Founders were careful students of history. It was Thomas
Jefferson, in his influential A Summary View of the Rights of British
America, prepared in 1774, who noted that ‘‘history has informed us that
bodies of men as well as individuals are susceptible of the spirit of
tyranny.’’ Another Founder, Patrick Henry, devoted great attention to the
study of history. He summed up the importance of history thus: ‘‘I have
but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of
experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.’’
History—the lamp of experience—is indispensable to understanding and
defending the liberty of the individual under constitutionally limited, representative
government.
Through the study of history the Americans learned about the division
of power among judicial, legislative, and executive branches; about federalism; about checks and balances among divided powers; about redress and representation; and about the right of resistance, made effective by the legal right to bear arms, an ancient right of free persons. Liberty and the Rule of Law and limited government were not invented in 1776; they were reaffirmed and strengthened. The American Revolution set the stage for the benefits of
liberty and limited government to be extended to all.
The struggle for limited government was a struggle of liberty against
power. The demands for religious liberty and the protection of property
were fused in the heroic resistance of the Netherlands to the Empire of
Spain in their great revolt. The Dutch inspired the English to rise up against the Stuart kings, who sought to fasten upon the English the absolutism that had made such headway on the Continent. The American Revolution was one link in a long chain of revolutions for liberty.
The Dutch, like the British and the Americans after them, became a
shining example of what was possible when people were free: prosperity
was possible without the guiding hand of the king and his bureaucrats;
social harmony was possible without enforced religious conformity; and
law and government were possible without an unlimited and absolute sovereign.
-Exerpts from a CATO Institute Handbook. www.cato.org
|
|
| |
|
|
Health care reform has passed but out of the smoke a new challenge has arisen. One that will have a larger impact than all of the bills in the world. One that has been at the heart of America since it's inception. The challenge that has been argued between sides for centuries.
What is the true interpretation of the Constitution?
Progressive/Liberals interpret the Constitution to give the federal government unlimited power over it's people and over it's states. Constitutionalist/Libertarians interpret the Constitution to mean that the federal government only has the power strictly allocated to it by the states. The health care debate of the last year may soon give us an answer as to the constitutional direction of the country for decades to come.
With several states poised to challenge the reconciled passage of the health care reform bill the Constitution of the United States will be directly challenged. The argument - does the federal government have the authority to dictate to it's states how they must spend their revenue? Specifically, can the federal government force the states to use a portion of their revenue to pay for medicaid/medicare funding that is tied to the health care reform bill? Or can the federal government force states to either follow their bill or 'opt out' as long as they spend funds to set up their own system?
More important than any debate on health care reform over the past year are those 2 simple questions. This battle isn't about health care reform. This battle isn't about left or right. This battle is about the constitutional direction of our country for years to come.
The battle will surely make it's way to the doorstep of the Supreme Court. There we will find out the fate of our Constitution. A fate not delegated to the advocates of health care reform or to the opposition of this bill. It will be a fate delegated to every single American past. present and future.
As we head towards this battle for our constitutional definition I hope everyone takes the time to reflect on our founding fathers and their reason for leaving their home countries and founding this great nation. I haven't been in school for many years but from what I recall it had something to do with..............Freedom.
|
|
| |
|
|
In an effort to run the most ethical congress in history, House and Senate leaders are considering using a rules change to pass health care legislation that may not even have enough support within their own party to use the reconciliation process they were preparing to use to ram through a highly unpopular bill:
House Democrats looking at 'Slaughter Solution' to pass Obamacare without a vote on Senate bill UPDATED!
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
03/10/10 4:17 PM EST
Would House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democratic leaders try to cram the Senate version of Obamacare through the House without actually having a recorded vote on the bill?
Not only is the answer yes, they would, they have figured out a way to do it, according to National Journal's Congress Daily:
"House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.
"Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
"Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. 'Once the CBO gives us the score, we'll spring right on it,' she said."
Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Would that rationale fly with the public? Is it logical? Of course not. But remember, these folks have persuaded themselves that a majority of the American people really want Obamacare. A blog post on House Minority Leader John Boehner's blog described the approach as a "twisted scheme."
How much fun will it be for Democrats representing congressional districts carried by John McCain in 2008 to be constantly reminded about the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Slaughter Solution, the death panels, $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, individual mandates, etc.-------(end article)
So, as the advocates of "we have to do something" applaud the efforts of a few top Democrats to skirt not only the will of the American people but of the Constitution of the United States as well, one can only ask.....Should we even have elections anymore? Do the rules even matter?
It is obvious that the leaders of the Democrat party don't think so. Their willingness to make an attempt at doing away with the fillibuster as well as to change the rules so they can do what they wish with impunity against the will of their constituents shows that it's not by the people for the people anymore. Needless to say the political price will be high. But will what we get instead be any different? Not if we the American electorate keep telling the power brokers that we will keep being complacent with their 2 party politics and 1 party mentality. Not different by a long shot.
|
|
| |
|
|
Since Gurr has went MIA, your duly elected administration has decided to follow through with a few of the promises that were made by the powers that be. Welcome to the 1st 2010 U4Prez Campaign Video Contest. Although we cannot bribe you to participate with cash prizes the winners will have bragging rights in which to shove in everyone's faces as they see fit.
Here are the rules for submission of our video's:
1. Videos can be no more than 60 seconds in length.
2. Any video deemed offensive due to the use of profanity, nudity, racial or religious slurs, etc. will be disqualified immediately.
3. The video must be related to the candidates campaign on U4Prez or be used as a smear campaign against another candidate as long as it does not violate rule #2.
4. All videos will be judged based upon video quality, argumentative quality of subject matter, originality and entertainment value.
5. Videos will be open for submission Sunday, Feb. 28th through Saturday, March 6th. Judging will begin on Monday the 7th and winners will be announced on Wednesday, March 9th.
6. Submissions will be accepted by providing a link to your video in the comments section of this blog.
Good Luck and please PM me with any questions..
|
|
| |
|
|
Is U4Prez on auto-pilot?
As Vice President of this fake Presidential campaign website I have no power. None whatsoever. Never believed that I did and never believe that I will. It's all in fun, the debates, the campaigning, the runoffs, the general election. None of it means anything. It's entertainment after all.
But as said and duly elected VP for the 2010 U4Prez election cycle I would at least expect the site moderators and ownership to show up. It is true and well documented that after the election and the new site modifications that interest, even from those who have been here since the sites infancy, died off. Another 'mock' site popped up in protest and any real debate left as well. Call it the "Twitter" effect if you will. The site became a one stop shop to drop a soundbite off and leave. The debates were taken off front and center and the quick snippet became the main focus. Add to that a search function that is non-existent and you have some issues that candidates want, and have asked, to be fixed.
But that is not the reason I am writing this blog. I am writing this blog to address un-kept promises and un-opened PM's by site ownership and moderators. It seems as if U4Prez is on auto-pilot.
Those of you that were here during the 2009 election may remember a few comments that were made as the site modifications were coming online. Promises of blog contests and the return of the video contests along with the return of the cash prizes to drive traffic to the site. More money invested in advertising the site and building a candidate base. Press releases....yada yada yada. But just like closing Gitmo, pulling out of Iraq and keeping unemployment below 8%, it has failed to materialize.
Now I am one of the first to realize that these things take money and that if Eric Gurr doesn't want to invest in it, it is his right. It's his property and we should be thankful that he allows us to come here and play. And we are.
However what I have been asking for takes no investment and costs nothing. All it takes is opening a PM and responding with a yes or a no. So far in the past month or so 4 PM's have yet to even be opened on the U4Prez profile. Hell, maybe i'm sending them to the wrong profile. Maybe that one has been abandoned. I have sent PM's there before and gotten rather quick responses but maybe there has been a change I was unaware of. If so then cool, I will send PM's to another one, just let me know which one is being used as the official U4Prez profile and I will communicate through that one.
Blog and video contests would be a welcome addition back to the site. Hell, i'm not even asking for there to be cash prizes. Kempite has taken enough of Gurr's money. I'm merely asking for the site ownership and moderators to move forward with some of the things they threw out there when the new site was launched. If we have to do it on our own then so be it. I was just under the impression with the new site launch that someone other than the candidates on this site cared.
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I misread the gestures but I sure didn't expect to be put on auto-pilot.
|
|
| |
|
|
BEIJING, Feb 5 (Reuters) - China will levy heavy anti-dumping duties on U.S. chicken products, its Commerce Ministry said on Friday, a move likely to aggravate trade relations and antagonise one of the few U.S. industries that profitably exports to China.
The ministry's initial investigation showed that U.S. companies had dumped chicken products into the Chinese market, according to the ministry's website (www.mofcom.gov.cn).
The preliminary tariffs were announced a day after China requested a World Trade Organisation ruling on European Union duties on shoes made in China. That was the most recent of many cases demonstrating China's embrace of the WTO to keep markets open to the exports on which it depends.
The United States and China are engaged in a series of trade disputes, particularly over the value of the Chinese currency, with President Barack Obama this week vowing to get tough in dealing with complaints that U.S. exports are at a disadvantage.
"The world needs strong U.S.-China economic engagement now, not a ratcheting up of trade tensions," said Michael Barbalas, president of the American Chamber of Commerce in China.
Chicken wings and feet, virtually worthless in the U.S. market, are a delicacy in southern China. Many U.S. poultry producers count on the Chinese market to round out their profits.
"Chicken feet and wings are not wanted in the U.S. so they sell them to China, they dump them below cost," said Wang Xiulin, president of the Chinese Poultry Association.
"For over a decade, the U.S. has sent big volumes of chicken to the Chinese market, hurting producers here. Last year, the Chinese poultry industry was really hurting so we asked for this investigation."
Tyson Foods (TSN.N), an active investor and lobbyist in China, got the lowest duty of 43.1 percent. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. (PPC.N) was hit with an 80.5 percent duty. Most other firms, including Sanderson Farms (SAFM.O), face a 64.5 percent duty.
Those that did not appeal the finding would pay duties of 105.4 percent, the ministry said.
Duties go into force on Feb 13, or Chinese New Year's Eve, ensuring the price of the popular delicacies remain steady for holiday shoppers already fretting about vegetable inflation. The rates could be adjusted in the final ruling, in several months.
GAME OF CHICKEN
The U.S. poultry industry had been lobbying for Congress to revoke a prohibition on U.S. inspectors certifying Chinese cooked poultry plants, a prohibition that China is fighting at the WTO.
That prohibition is lifted in the latest Congressional budget, although U.S. inspectors have yet to tour Chinese plants. The author of the prohibition had cited food safety concerns if cooked chicken were imported from China, which has undergone a series of food safety scandals, including the delibrate lacing of milk with melamine, a chemical product that causes kidney stones.
China began its investigation in U.S. chicken parts after the U.S. imposed safeguard duties on Chinese-made tyres, which China is fighting at the WTO [ID:nLDE60I1H8].
The new tariffs could close a lucrative market for the U.S. poultry industry, which supplie more than ¾ of China's imports.
Chicken feet and wings fetch about 2 U.S. cents per pound in the U.S., but land in China at about 42 U.S. cents - a figure that Chinese rivals say represents the cost of the freight only.
A flat import tax of 500 yuan ($73) a tonne and a 13 percent value-added tax mean U.S. wings and feet can enter the Chinese market at about 54 cents a pound - compared to the Chinese wholesale price of about 76 cents.
Additional duties mean that U.S. imported chicken parts will cost about 5 cents per pound more than their Chinese competitors. (Writing by Lucy Hornby; Editing by Ron Popeski)
|
|
| |
|
|
I know we have all seen the statistics. Is it good? Is it bad? Is it temporary? Is it sustainable?
Those who believe that the way out of our economic woes is to print and borrow money so we may fund temporary infrastructure jobs will say it is going great. Those who believe that inflationary printing of money, borrowing to add to the debt and artificially holding down interest rates to prolong market corrections and cause bubbles will say it is terrible.
I happen to hold the latter of those 2 beliefs. I love the debate however with those who hold the other beliefs. It is good and it is healthy. It is how problems get solved. Through both sides arguing their points and coming up with the best solution for the country.
That is.....if they truly believe their statements.
It is well known on U4Prez that I will not back down from a good debate and will always back up what I believe with facts and statistics. It is also well known that I expect the same from those on the other side of the debate. However, as of late, it has become increasingly difficult to get those things from my colleagues on the other side. The response lately has been lackluster and non-responsive.
In an attempt to challenge my debating partners I have begun to lay down the opportunity for them to show just how much they actually believe what they are saying (or regurgitating) in regards to our economy. Those challenges have been monetary in value and have received no response even after numerous prodding attempts at getting someone to take the bet and backup their beliefs.
Now, I know times are hard and the amounts I have been laying down may have been a bit high. Taking that into account I wish to take a new angle on those challenges. I will issue those challenges and let my colleagues decide what amount they are comfortable with wagering on their beliefs. Their amount, whatever they are comfortable with. That way they can put their money where their mouth is and show just how sure they are that their print, borrow and spend method is the best way.
We can argue all day long until we are blue in the face but putting up something of substance will separate the men from the boys and the women from the girls. That is if you believe in your statements.
So here is the first challenge: My belief is the GDP growth in Q4 '09 is inflated due to increased production and inventory levels going into the holiday season. It is temporary and will not be sustained into Q1 '10.
There it is. If you believe differently and think that the fiscal policy set forth by the President is to be lauded for GDP growth then name your amount. Also explain how if it is bad it is Bush's fault but Obama gets the credit for a false Q4 GDP gain? Sorry. LOL Couldn't help calling you out on that either. :)
|
|
| |
|
|
President Barack Obama has embraced a contradiction. He wants both a freeze of a lot of discretionary spending and a new “jobs” bill — which is made up entirely of new discretionary spending.
Before the House of Representatives’ recess last year, it passed, by a narrow 217-212 vote, a $155 billion stimulus bill to fund more “shovel-ready” projects and jobs for state and local government bureaucracies. Its passage raised a serious question that still must be answered. The $700-plus billion stimulus package that was passed in February has proved a failure in just about every way a piece of legislation can fail. Why continue on with a second stimulus?
Consider:
1. The stimulus failed politically. It is seen as ineffectual and wasteful. President George W. Bush had broken the budget. Obama’s stimulus shattered it. Cue persistent, predictable American fears about large budget deficits. That slowed the Democrats’ efforts to pass substantial legislation and may have finally killed health care reform.
2. It failed economically. The stimulus failed to pull off the Keynesian voodoo trick of substituting public for private demand. The Obama administration projected much lower unemployment than the 10 percent that currently worries most Americans as we enter this new decade.
3. It failed the laugh test. Jobs “created or saved” is now a punchline, with good reason. Estimates vary wildly, but the administration did not manage to create many new jobs, each one came at great cost and the reporting of these supposed new jobs has not been rigorous — to put it charitably.
4. It failed to help Democrats, mostly. Take one item that “worked” — the bill’s generous COBRA subsidies to help people between jobs keep their insurance. That robbed would-be health care reformers of all kinds of horror stories of workers losing both their jobs and their health insurance.
So why double-down with more stimulus now?
In a recent white paper, Heritage Foundation resident labor economist James Sherk persuasively argues that the real problem for the economy now isn’t mass layoffs but the dearth of job creation in the private sector. A second round of stimulus would do nothing to help this situation and arguably would hurt it.
The short answer is that this is really about a handout for labor unions. Organized labor worked mightily to elect Democrats to Congress and the White House in 2008. While labor’s highest-stated legislative priority — card check, which would effectively end the private ballot for unionization elections — stalled in the Senate, that doesn’t mean labor has gone empty-handed.
In fact, one way that the stimulus has been a success so far has been in shoring up unionized jobs. A lot of that subsidy to state governments has gone toward holding off mass layoffs in the states’ heavily unionized work forces, which now constitute a majority of unionized labor in America.
Obama has privileged union shops above their competition for government contracts. He has threatened to withhold stimulus funds from states, such as California, that are trying to force cuts in union wages and benefits to balance their budgets.
By pushing a second stimulus package so hard, Democrats seem to be conceding that a lot of the big things that labor wants simply are not likely to happen in what is shaping up to be a tough election year. That makes the bill less about jobs and more about payback.
Jeremy Lott is editor of Capital Research Center’s Labor Watch newsletter and author of “The Warm Bucket Brigade.”
|
|
| |
|
|
What iceberg? Full speed ahead! - Michael Goodwin, New York Post
The Thursday decisions to punish banks for making money and to exempt union workers from an onerous health-care tax appear to have little in common, but they actually share a vital link. Both are the spawn of rank politics, with Obama using government power to reward friends and punish enemies.
First came the bank tax and, like so many other bad initiatives, his announcement was chock full of misleading arguments. It's an ominous sign when truth is the enemy.
Even the name distorts, with the tax called the Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee. Get it? It's not a tax. It's a fee. And it's got a moral basis -- hence "responsibility."
"We want our money back, and we're going to get it," declares the greatest spendthrift ever to inhabit the White House. He was so full of self-righteous anger, I feared his teleprompter might explode.
But who does he mean by "we" and "our money"?
Certainly not "We the people." A clear majority of Americans opposes virtually every one of his policies and his disapproval ratings nearly match his approval. He responds by doubling down on partisanship as he tries to tap into the paranoid fringe that sees Wall Street as the fountain of evil.
The truth is that most of the banks helped by bailouts have more than repaid taxpayers. The bailouts even turned a handsome profit, estimated at $52 billion last year.
Shhhh -- don't tell anybody. Facts don't matter.
Among other bailouts, it's Obama's to GM, Chrysler and the one started under George Bush to AIG that are still deepest in the red. So the logic of penalizing the banks that are prospering to get "our money back" doesn't pass the smell test.
Even worse, the tax works against the White House goals of increasing lending and creating jobs. Because of reserve requirements, every dollar the banks pay in taxes means they have $10 less to lend to small businesses -- the engines of job growth.
And what does Obama intend to do with the $90 billion the tax would raise? Why, spend it, of course. It won't be used to pay down the deficit or anything sensible. "Our" money will become another Chinese-financed slush fund for him.
The second awful idea was the deal with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid to exempt unions, including those in government, from the 40 percent tax on so-called "Cadillac health plans." The tax had two aims: raising money to fund coverage for the uninsured and reducing the overall national health bill.
But unions objected, threatened to scuttle the legislation -- and so were spared. The tax won't kick in for them until 2018 and even then will be less onerous than on non-union workers. Others will just have to pay more.
It's a scandal that reveals the mind-boggling dimension of corruption in the health care horse trading. What the president pretends is "reform" is largely a patchwork of payoffs and bribes to favored interest groups, lawmakers and industries. Individual Americans will wonder what hit them if the package of scams ever becomes law.
They sense as much, which is why only one out of three voters support the legislation. But who cares what they think? The agenda must be served.
Michael Goodwin is a New York Post columnist.
|
|
| |
|
|
Bloomberg the Bigfoot (in Carbon)
by JIM DWYER
Published: December 12, 2009
The average New Yorker uses one-half to one-third the electricity of other Americans. Our carbon footprints are just 29 percent of people who live outside the five boroughs, and City Hall has practical plans to reduce even that amount by nearly a third over the next two decades. No wonder that this month, in a talk at the New York Academy of Science, Rohit Aggarwalat, the mayor’s chief adviser on sustainability, said the city was “the most environmentally efficient society in the United States.”
So it makes perfect sense that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is going to Copenhagen on Monday and Tuesday to address the international conference on climate change: his administration is working to head off problems that will not emerge until long after he is gone.
A strong case can be made that when it comes to energy and climate issues, Mr. Bloomberg is the most visionary public official in the country.
And a strong argument can also be made that on a personal level, he ranks among the worst individual polluters ever to hold public office.
Mr. Bloomberg owns a helicopter and two jets, both Falcon 900s. He flies everywhere on private jets, by far the least efficient form of transportation on or above the earth. He takes his jet to Bermuda many weekends. He has flown around the globe on it. He uses it to go to Washington. He is planning to get to Copenhagen for the climate conference by private jet, too.
The carbon math works out like this: by taking his Falcon 900 to Denmark, Mr. Bloomberg will be responsible for the release of 37 times the carbon dioxide than if he and his entourage flew on a scheduled commercial flight. The calculations were done at my request by Dimitri Simos, the developer of software used by the airline industry to assess aircraft emission and performance. Mr. Simos said that a Falcon 900 carrying eight people from Newark to Copenhagen would produce 21.6 tons of carbon dioxide. By adding eight people to the scheduled Scandinavian Airlines flight, the aircraft, usually an Airbus A330-300, would produce an additional 0.58 tons of carbon dioxide.
Mr. Bloomberg’s routine trips to Bermuda are even more carbon costly: the private jet produces 130 times more emissions than going commercial. On those jaunts, Mr. Simos said, the Falcon produces 4.3 tons of carbon dioxide; putting another two people on an American Airlines Boeing 757-200 that flies to Bermuda would produce only 66 more pounds.
This is not Bloombergian hypocrisy; it is a paradox, shared by most of humankind. I’ve lived within a block or two of a subway station since birth, yet owned a car since I got a driver’s license. There is a long list of public figures — from movie stars to politicians to journalists — who preach conservation for everyone else, while living in mega-homes and flying in Gulfstreams. It is probably not a good idea for the rest of us to look down our noses at people who cannot resist such temptations until we can afford them ourselves.
In the case of Mr. Bloomberg, his addiction to private jets is striking because in so many other parts of his life, he appears fastidious about shared resources. The lighting and electronic gear in his family foundation building use 20 percent less energy than typical offices; the foundation recycles rainwater to irrigate a green roof; even most of the construction and demolition debris were recycled.
Moreover, you can watch generations of elected officials — at all levels — come and go without having the nerve, wisdom or generosity to grapple with tomorrow’s tough problems. You see just the opposite with Mr. Bloomberg’s PlaNYC, a set of strategies to make the city habitable and more efficient in 2030, complete with goals that must be met each year.
Those who have flown in private jets say they have much to recommend them — none of this arriving at the airport two hours ahead of time and taking off your shoes to get to the boarding gate. You drive up to the hangar, get on, and the flight attendant brings a glass of wine and a plate of sushi. The business aviation industry says that its jets are getting more efficient and that they account for a tiny fraction of human-made carbon emissions. They are very expensive to operate, but even when Mr. Bloomberg travels on official business, he always picks up expenses for himself, his staff and the police security detail.
As it happens, Mr. Bloomberg is also a great public evangelist for high nutritional standards, but shakes salt on his pizza and loves a Big Mac.
There is a lesson here for everyone, whether they are in Copenhagen or New York or elsewhere. Human beings will produce as many tons of carbon emissions as they can afford. And we’ll have the fries with that.
|
|
| |
|
|
By EAMON JAVERS | 12/9/09 8:49 AM EST
President Barack Obama will meet with chief executives of major banks on Monday and is expected to urge them face-to-face to lend more money to help promote economic recovery, banking sources tell POLITICO.
A source familiar with the planning said invitations went out to CEOs last weekend for what will be a morning session at the White House.
The CEOs expect to hear from the president about why banks ought to be lending more, why they shouldn’t oppose his financial reform initiatives, and why they ought to hold the line on bonuses and compensation, the sources said.
The lending issue irks some in the industry. “The White House’s political people like [senior adviser David] Axelrod tell us to lend more,” said one banking official. “But the regulators are saying the exact opposite. They’re saying, ramp up your capital ratios, and if you see default risk on the horizon, cut back on lending.”
The White House’s Jen Psaki said: “The president is looking forward to meeting with members of the financial services industry on Monday to discuss our shared interest in economic recovery, the need to increase small business lending and the Administration’s plans for financial reform.”
Great. Back to loaning money to people who can't pay it back. All I can say about the economic policy of this administration is WHAT THE FUCK?
|
|
| |
|
|
$248,273.27.
How much does it cost to create or 'save' someone's job? If you read the number at the beginning of this blog you will have the governments answer. At least the answer that falls in line with the amount of jobs they have claimed to have created or saved since the stimulus package went into effect. If you believe, as I do, that those numbers have been exaggerated then the cost is much higher. So what kind of job will $248,273.27 buy?
By it's own admission the administration has claimed to have created jobs through infrastructure programs. The building and re-building of roads and bridges throughout the country. Sounds great doesn't it. I'm sure we have all been driving through our states and towns wishing that someone would come fix the potholes or widen the streets. It is a good thing to invest some funds in our infrastructure. However, as a job creation plan, it is a long term path for failure. If the states and municipalities could maintain these jobs on their own, they would have already. In short - as soon as the federal stimulus money stops, so will the job. $248,273.27 for a temporary position. Not a very economically sound fix for an unemployment issue that continues to rise.
Also by it's own admission the administration has 'saved' many jobs as well. Most of these positions have also been on the state or local level in the way of municipal utility jobs, construction jobs and teaching positions. Jobs that would have been lost if not for the federal stimulus dollars rolling in to these states, cities and towns. Again we ask the same simple question: What will happen to these jobs when the federal stimulus funds are gone? If the recipients of the funding could fiscally maintain these positions long term on their own would they have needed saving in the first place? No. Once again, as soon as the federal funds run dry, so will the positions created or saved.
Those who have the mindset that this economic plan will actually work long term will point to the fact that the economy only lost 110,000 jobs in October as compared to 250,000 in previous months. Those who know anything about the job market answer with a resounding, "DUH!" As we move into the holiday shopping season many industries including, but not limited to, retail, transportation, manufacturing, wholesale, package handling, etc. hire hundreds of thousands of temporary seasonal positions to keep up with the temporary increase in holiday traffic and spending. I will wager that January's unemployment figures will go back to the 250,000 plateau if not higher, depending on the holiday sales reports. So once again,we have a temporary spike created being touted s a long term success. Are we beginning to see a pattern here?
As with Cash for Clunkers, the mentality of this administration seems to be to pay a large amount of taxpayer money that is quickly turning into deficit and debt, on small, temporary number spikes so it may have something positive to claim in regards to the economic cluster that is happening. We had a jobs summit between the government, the unions and a few big corporations to attempt to find a solution to the employment problem. The problem is, it is the government, the unions and a few big corporations that have caused many of the employment issues in the first place. And I thought this guy was supposed to be smart.
|
|
| |
|
|
With health care debate, a war in Afghanistan and a unfaithful golfer taking up most of the news coverage as of late, let us not forget about the looming debate over the Waxman-Markey bill. Known more globally as Cap and Trade. The CBO's initial estimates of cost per household are by their own admissions, leaving out key economic data that would ensure the cost to be much higher. It leaves out the impact on the job market all together.
The Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.
For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.
To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.
The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."
The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.
When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.
Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.
Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.
The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.
Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.
The other reality forgotten in this bill is the reality that the additional costs will hit not only families because of higher energy costs, but business and industry. Business and industry that have already made or are making job cuts in this fragile economic situation. More taxes = more job loss = less revenue = more deficit and debt. Not a smart economic model if you ask me.
* source - The Wall Street Journal, page A12 JUNE 26, 2009
|
|
| |
|
|
By VICTORIA MCGRANE | 11/30/09 5:19 AM EST
Is libertarian rock star and Texas Republican Ron Paul going mainstream?
He’s got everyone from South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint to Minnesota moderate Democrat Collin Peterson to California liberal Barbara Boxer on his side in his audit-the-Fed crusade. He’s drawing liberal support in his push to rein in the cost of the war in Afghanistan. Senate candidates like Democratic Rep. Paul Hodes of New Hampshire are finding Dr. No’s populist economic anger to be useful in the campaign, echoing Paul’s criticism of the Federal Reserve.
Even Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is delivering backhanded compliments, taking credit for merely allowing a vote on Paul’s amendment to audit the central bank.
This convergence of odd bedfellows, and the economic angst that’s driving it all, is yet another signal that President Barack Obama is going to have more and more trouble keeping his traditional Democratic allies on his side as the economic debate continues. It seems that everyone is looking for something new to latch on to in the economic debate — even if those ideas belong to one of the more eccentric members of Congress.
“This brought people together [from] the whole political spectrum, from progressives and liberals and libertarians and conservatives. ... they all came together. That, to me, is what is really so important,” said Paul, who has been introducing his audit-the-Fed measure since the early ’80s.
After so many tries, this time Paul’s measure attracted 313 co-sponsors in the House, representing every possible point on the political spectrum. It also scored a strong vote in a key committee and has a companion in the Senate that’s supported by a bipartisan coalition of senators.
And Paul’s economic views, long dismissed by the political establishment, seem to be resonating more broadly than just the audit-the-Fed measure, both in the larger financial reform debate and the growing concern about the cost of continuing the war in Afghanistan.
To be sure, Paul’s bill to abolish the personal income tax or to end the United States’ membership in the United Nations still puts him well outside the mainstream.
But lawmakers — and, more important, the voters they represent — are starting to believe that the financial meltdown and the dramatic government rescue effort seems to have gotten Wall Street back on its feet quite nicely while leaving regular folks on the curb, analysts say.
“On financial regulation matters, most Americans sympathize with Ron Paul’s outrage,” said Cook Political Report House analyst Dave Wasserman.
Take Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a firebrand liberal who infamously declared that the Republican health plan is for people to die instead of to use the health system. Despite being on opposite sides of the political universe from Paul on a wide range of issues, Grayson paired up with Paul to help push the amendment version of the Fed audit bill in the House Financial Services Committee.
The committee victory for the Paul-Grayson amendment came at the defeat of a weaker alternative offered by Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) and backed by Frank. In normal times, the Watt amendment was just the kind of chairman-backed compromise Democrats would usually dutifully embrace. Instead the committee, including more than a dozen Democrats, opted 43-26 for the more intrusive Paul-Grayson measure.
“So far, the Federal Reserve has refused to answer questions about special loans and deals for Wall Street banks. I support an audit of the Federal Reserve to provide answers for working families and to protect New Hampshire taxpayer dollars,” said Hodes, a Democrat who is running for Senate in New Hampshire and backed the Fed measure.
Even Frank, who voted against the amendment, went out of his way during committee debate to associate himself with Paul’s effort. And a YouTube video of Frank’s remarks was quickly posted by a top pro-Paul website.
“I do want to claim credit as chairman of the committee for being the first one in 26 years who gave the gentleman from Texas the chance to [offer] this legislation,” said Frank, an expert at reading the political winds.
“I have never been a Fed worshiper,” Frank continued, before explaining his concerns that the amendment in its present form would raise inflationary expectations.
But Paul isn’t stopping with the auditing measure. He sees the other financial reform proposals throughout Congress as adding, not subtracting, from the vast Fed powers. And he has allies in the heart of the Democratic Caucus.
Democrats like Peterson and Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, along with liberals such as Ohio Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur echo concerns shared by Paul that the Fed gains too much power under the financial reform legislation authored by Frank and the Obama administration. Under Frank’s bill on systemic risk, the Fed would be the primary agent of a new council to regulate big, complex “too big to fail” financial firms, a position that would expand the central bank’s current oversight powers.
“Why are we even thinking about giving more power and authority to the Fed?” Peterson, a rural Democrat, asked during a hearing. “It is one of the more unaccountable parts of federal government. Its governance is influenced more on the wishes of major banks and the American people.”
And Sen. Chris Dodd, a liberal Democrat from Connecticut, surely wouldn’t credit Paul, but his sweeping financial reform draft legislation proposes stripping the Fed from bank oversight powers that the central bank has held since its creation.
Paul’s long-standing critique of American foreign policy has also earned him some new allies. Paul joined Reps. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) on Nov. 18 in a series of House floor speeches to argue against committing more resources to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The members of this bipartisan team were all signatories of a Sept. 25 letter to Obama that carried 53 other Republican and Democratic names opposing sending more troops to Afghanistan.
“I don’t think we can win the argument,” Paul recalled telling his three co-speakers as they planned the debate. “But eventually we’ll win — not because they’re going to listen to us and have another foreign policy. But we’re going to win because we don’t have any money, we’re broke and the troops will come home.”
“All empires end through a flawed foreign policy,” Paul said at another point in his interview with POLITICO.
For Paul and his vibrant grass-roots supporters, the next item on the legislative agenda is to continue pushing the Fed audit measure all the way to the president’s desk. Campaign for Liberty, a coalition of pro-Paul activists that grew out of the Texas Republican’s 2008 presidential campaign, has dropped hundreds of thousands of petitions on both sides of Capitol Hill in support of the measure. They and other online groups have been drumming up phone calls to congressional offices as well.
“The Senate’s not as close to the people as the House is, so it’s a little harder,” Paul said. “It will take some work over there; there’s no doubt about it. Believe me, the defenders of the Fed are still around, and we’ll still hear a lot from them.”
|
|
| |
|
|
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration, battling a foreclosure crisis that shows no signs of relenting, will step up pressure on mortgage companies to do more to help people remain in their homes, officials said Saturday.
The administration will announce its expanded program on Monday, Treasury spokeswoman Meg Reilly said.
"We are taking additional steps to enhance servicer transparency and accountability," Reilly said. She said the goal was to increase the rate that troubled home loans were converted into new loans with lower monthly payments.
Industry officials said the new effort would include increased pressure on mortgage companies to accelerate loan modifications by highlighting firms that are lagging in that area.
The Treasury is also expected to announce that it will wait until the loan modifications are permanent before paying cash incentives to mortgage companies that lower loan payments.
Under the $75 billion Treasury program, companies that agree to lower payments for troubled borrowers collect $1,000 initially from the government for each loan, followed by $1,000 annually for up to three years.
The government support, which is provided from the $700 billion financial bailout program, is aimed at providing cash incentives for mortgage providers to accept smaller mortgage payments rather than foreclosing on homes.
The program has come under heavy criticism for failing to do enough to attack a tidal wave of foreclosures. Analysts said the foreclosure crisis is likely to persist well into next year as high unemployment pushes more people out of their homes.
Rising foreclosures depress home prices and threaten the sustainability of the fledgling economic recovery.
A report last week from the Mortgage Bankers Association found that 14 percent of homeowners with mortgages were either behind on payments or in foreclosure at the end of September, a record level for the ninth straight quarter.
The Congressional Oversight Panel, a committee that monitors spending under Treasury's bailout program, concluded in a report last month that foreclosures are now threatening families who took out conventional, fixed-rate mortgages and put down payments of 10 to 20 percent on homes that would have been within their means in a normal market.
Treasury's program, known as the Home Affordable Modification Program, "is targeted at the housing crisis as it existed six months ago, rather than as it exists right now," the report said.
Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, said the industry supported many of the changes Treasury was proposing.
But he said the foreclosure problem, which began with heavy defaults on subprime mortgages, was expanding to more traditional types of mortgages because of unemployment which has now hit a 26-year high of 10.2 percent.
"The subprime problem has regrettably morphed into an unemployment problem," Talbott said. He said there was no government program to help the unemployed who are in danger of losing their homes but "many private lenders are modifying loans for the unemployed on their own."
Treasury's Reilly said the expanded program would, among other steps, make more aid available to struggling borrowers and expand the number of organizations providing help.
|
|
| |
|
|
With the new Administration set to allow the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, the proposed health care 'surtax' in the House and a proposed 'war surtax' all aimed at the highest earning Americans, the government is setting up a historically bad path for the economy and the job future of many Americans. Although the Bush tax cuts were ill timed with the massive increase in spending on 2 wars and rise in our debt, they did spur the business and investment sector to record heights, which is the backbone of the American employment numbers. If you read the book "The End Of Prosperity" by Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore and Peter Tanaus you would see how the tax and spend Democrat economic plan is a recipie for disaster. Since you probably haven't read it I have posted a summation below from Paul Dykewicz.
The book forecasts draconian economic fallout if tax rates soar and the tax cuts previously enacted during the administration of President George W. Bush expire. Indeed, the authors argue that the wrong federal policies on taxes could create something akin to a “perfect storm” that would ravage the economy and leave future generations of Americans paying for the profligacy of misguided lawmakers.
Ironically, history shows that low tax rates generally spur economic growth enough to boost the government’s tax receipts more than can be achieved by raising taxes, the book documents. With support for tax hikes coming from President Obama and key members of Congress, the authors leave no doubt that adopting such a policy would doom the already weak U.S. economy.
Reversing Supply Side Gains
Rather than single out Democrats or Republicans for criticism, the authors take a bi-partisan view and spread the blame for excess tax-and-spend policies of both political parties. The book’s theme is that a clear connection exists between pro-business federal government policies and economic growth.
For example, the supply-side economic policies championed by President Ronald Reagan preceded an economic recovery that was largely sustained during the succeeding years when the gross domestic product more than doubled from $5 trillion to roughly $12 trillion, the book explains.
Between 1981 and 1989, the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs a year. The U.S. economy created another 20 million jobs in the 1990s. That robust employment growth shows that tax cuts spur hiring, the authors concluded
During the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, obstacles to growth had been winnowed by limiting taxes, tariffs, regulations and inflation. Those policies contributed to stable prices, a dependable and strong U.S. currency, a lower and flatter tax rate, and freer trade. Until the advent of so-called supply-side “Reagonomics,” the Dow Jones Industrial Average suffered one of its worst bear markets in history by falling nearly 8% a year on an inflation-adjusted basis between 1966 and 1982. In the Reagan Administration, the stock market averaged a rise of 12% a year.
Supply-Side Merits
The authors’ ideas about the merits of supply-side economics are not new. Economist Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that high taxes can reduce consumption of taxed commodities and government revenue that otherwise might be drawn from assessing more modest taxes. Opponents of supply-side policies often trumpet the views of British economist John Maynard Keynes, who urged the government to stimulate demand for products and services by deploying idle resources.
The authors counter that Keynesian economic policies, government planning, and demand-side economics inhibit business investment and economic growth. They warn that, by 2010, America could be the nation with the highest tax rate on investment, savings, corporate profits and stock ownership of any country in the world.
The result could be economic disaster. The authors cite the example of a 12-year economic slide that began in the 1930s during the Great Depression amid an era of trade protectionism, high taxes, and government-spending growth. The government’s funding of New Deal social programs during that time worsened rather than improved conditions, the authors write. The cold reality then was that one of every four Americans was unemployed, while the combined federal and state tax rates exceeded 80% in certain instances.
Tax-Caused Recession
The damage inflicted by new taxes also became glaringly apparent in recent decades. When President George H.W. Bush agreed to a compromise with liberal Democrats to raise taxes in 1990 in direct opposition to conservatives, the economy slipped into its first recession in eight years. The policy also failed to reduce federal deficits and increased government spending. Another example of a flawed tax policy cited by the authors occurred when President Bill Clinton and his then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, a former Goldman Sachs CEO, chose to raise taxes in hopes of reducing the budget deficit and spurring investment. The authors say that the resulting fallout may explain why Republicans gained control of the House and Senate in 1994, and President Clinton became a stauncher proponent of free-market policies thereafter.
When free-market policies took hold, tax receipts averaged 10% growth starting in 1995. During the second half of Clinton’s first term, Clinton’s modified policies validated the supply-side economic model by promoting free trade and tight-fisted budgets, signing a capital gains tax cut, appointing Alan Greenspan twice to the Federal Reserve Board, and enacting welfare reform, the authors wrote. In addition, the number of Americans on welfare declined from 4.4 million to 1.9 million -- a 58% drop -- between August 1996 and December 2005. This dramatic improvement was a domestic policy equivalent to President Richard Nixon going to China, the authors wrote. They also declared that it affirmed a supply-side economics maxim that the best antipoverty program is a job.
Two consumer-focused tax cuts during the administration of Clinton’s successor, President George W. Bush, proved ineffectual. But the latter leader’s supply-side initiatives provided incentives to stimulate the business sector. The supply-side strategies included cutting tax rates on: dividends from 49.5% to 15%; capital gains from 20% to 15%; personal income for the highest earners from 39.6% to 35%; and business investment in plant, machinery and equipment. Stocks climbed about 20% within two years of the Bush tax cuts. Overall asset values rose by $6 trillion between 2003 and 2007. Business spending advanced from declines of 4.8% in 2001 and 6.1% in 2002 to increases of 7.4% in 2004 and 9.5% in 2005 -- reflecting a “classic” supply recovery, the authors wrote. Indeed, the economy grew by 8 million jobs between 2003 and the end of 2007, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The largest four-year revenue increase in American history took place between 2004 and 2007, after George W. Bush’s tax cuts spurred revenue to rise by $785 billion. Once again, reduced tax rates created a virtual chain reaction of higher economic growth, more jobs, increased corporate profits, and, ultimately, more tax receipts, the authors opined. In 2008, the fruits of the Bush tax cuts preceded a drop in U.S. government interest rates on 10- and 30-year bonds to their lowest level in 30 years.
Excessive taxation is detrimental to the poor and rich, women and men, and old and young, the authors concluded. If the tax cuts enacted during the administration of George W. Bush expire at the end of 2010, tax rates on capital gains, dividends, inheritance, and personal income will increase automatically. The heightened dividend and capital gains taxes would hurt the after-tax return on investment directly and trigger a fall in stock values, the authors warn. Since share prices are based on the stream of future earnings of a company after taxes are paid, the higher the tax imposed on the earnings, the lower the value of stocks. In contrast, when George W. Bush signed legislation to cut taxes on dividends and capital gains, the share value of U.S. stocks rose by 10% to 15% within just weeks of the new law’s enactment. Stock values also rose after the Bill Clinton-led 1997 capital gains tax cut.
Although levying a tax hike on the richest Americans may sound good and fair to those who do not fall into that tax bracket, it is historically damaging to those Americans who rely on those who do to invest in American business.
The Bush tax cuts obviously helped spur economic growth and revenue. Unfortunately the massive spending on 2 wars by the administration outweighed any gains the policies made. Which allows history to tell us, if we keep spending under control and allow Americans to keep more of what hey earn, revenue grows as well as each Americans opportunity to prosper.
|
|
| |
|
|
By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN
President Barack Obama took office promising to lead from the center and solve big problems. He has exerted enormous political energy attempting to reform the nation's health-care system. But the biggest economic problem facing the nation is not health care. It's the deficit. Recently, the White House signaled that it will get serious about reducing the deficit next year—after it locks into place massive new health-care entitlements. This is a recipe for disaster, as it will create a new appetite for increased spending and yet another powerful interest group to oppose deficit-reduction measures.
Our fiscal situation has deteriorated rapidly in just the past few years. The federal government ran a 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion—the highest since World War II—as spending reached nearly 25% of GDP and total revenues fell below 15% of GDP. Shortfalls like these have not been seen in more than 50 years.
Going forward, there is no relief in sight, as spending far outpaces revenues and the federal budget is projected to be in enormous deficit every year. Our national debt is projected to stand at $17.1 trillion 10 years from now, or over $50,000 per American. By 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) analysis of the president's budget, the budget deficit will still be roughly $1 trillion, even though the economic situation will have improved and revenues will be above historical norms.
The planned deficits will have destructive consequences for both fairness and economic growth. They will force upon our children and grandchildren the bill for our overconsumption. Federal deficits will crowd out domestic investment in physical capital, human capital, and technologies that increase potential GDP and the standard of living. Financing deficits could crowd out exports and harm our international competitiveness, as we can already see happening with the large borrowing we are doing from competitors like China.
At what point, some financial analysts ask, do rating agencies downgrade the United States? When do lenders price additional risk to federal borrowing, leading to a damaging spike in interest rates? How quickly will international investors flee the dollar for a new reserve currency? And how will the resulting higher interest rates, diminished dollar, higher inflation, and economic distress manifest itself? Given the president's recent reception in China—friendly but fruitless—these answers may come sooner than any of us would like.
Mr. Obama and his advisers say they understand these concerns, but the administration's policy choices are the equivalent of steering the economy toward an iceberg. Perhaps the most vivid example of sending the wrong message to international capital markets are the health-care reform bills—one that passed the House earlier this month and another under consideration in the Senate. Whatever their good intentions, they have too many flaws to be defensible.
First and foremost, neither bends the health-cost curve downward. The CBO found that the House bill fails to reduce the pace of health-care spending growth. An audit of the bill by Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, found that the pace of national health-care spending will increase by 2.1% over 10 years, or by about $750 billion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's bill grows just as fast as the House version. In this way, the bills betray the basic promise of health-care reform: providing quality care at lower cost.
Second, each bill sets up a new entitlement program that grows at 8% annually as far as the eye can see—faster than the economy will grow, faster than tax revenues will grow, and just as fast as the already-broken Medicare and Medicaid programs. They also create a second new entitlement program, a federally run, long-term-care insurance plan.
Finally, the bills are fiscally dishonest, using every budget gimmick and trick in the book: Leave out inconvenient spending, back-load spending to disguise the true scale, front-load tax revenues, let inflation push up tax revenues, promise spending cuts to doctors and hospitals that have no record of materializing, and so on.
If there really are savings to be found in Medicare, those savings should be directed toward deficit reduction and preserving Medicare, not to financing huge new entitlement programs. Getting long-term budgets under control is hard enough today. The job will be nearly impossible with a slew of new entitlements in place.
In short, any combination of what is moving through Congress is economically dangerous and invites the rapid acceleration of a debt crisis. It is a dramatic statement to financial markets that the federal government does not understand that it must get its fiscal house in order.
What to do? The best option would be for the president to halt Congress's rush to fiscal suicide, and refocus on slowing the dangerous growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He should call on Congress to pass a comprehensive reform of our income and payroll tax systems that would generate revenue sufficient to fund its spending desires in a pro-growth and fair fashion.
Reducing entitlement spending and closing tax loopholes to create a fairer tax system with more balanced revenues is politically difficult and requires sacrifice. But we will avert a potentially devastating credit crisis, increase national savings, drive productivity and wage growth, and enhance our international competitiveness.
The time to worry about the deficit is not next year, but now. There is no time to waste.
Mr. Holtz-Eakin is former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. This is adapted from testimony he gave before the Senate Committee on the Budget on Nov. 10.
|
|
| |
|
|
Senator Harry Reid has given what has been referred to as $300 million in 'concessions' to LA Senator Mary Landrieu to gain her yes vote for moving the Senate health care bill to he floor for debate in what is being touted as the new Louisiana Purchase.
So what is the difference between purchasing a vote on the floor of the Senate and purchasing a vote at the ballot box? At least the concession gained from the other holdout, AR Senator Blanche Lincoln, benefits everyone. A 72 hour window to review the legislation. Senator Landrieu was flat out purchased. She was even happy enough to tout that the reporters had the amount incorrect. To quote the very happy and seemingly unapologetic Senator, "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."
The Senator did go on to say that she would vote to proceed with the debate -- but that she'd be looking for much bigger concessions before she gives her blessing to a final version of the bill. Last I knew that was what the FBI referred to as a shakedown. She just should have came out and said, "And to get my final vote I want $600 million."
It is a shame that this is what our political system has come down to. What ever happened to listening to your constituents? I guess even the people can be bought off with a new museum or new street lamps.
If you or I would have offered Senator Landrieu $300 million dollars for her vote we would have been arrested and jailed for bribing a public official. I guess it is OK however when another Senator buys the vote. The crappy thing is Reid didn't use his own money, he used ours. It is the taxpayers who are handing over the $300 million.
Do we even have a Senate anymore or should we refer to it as La Cosa Senta? Michael Corleone would be proud. Mary Landrieu was made an offer she couldn't refuse. And they didn't even have to put a horse head in her bed to do it. Pelosi was busy. ;)
|
|
| |
|
|
‘Climate change pushes poor women to prostitution, dangerous work’
JOSEPH HOLANDES UBALDE, GMANews.TV
The effects of climate change have driven women in communities in coastal areas in poor countries like the Philippines into dangerous work, and sometimes even the flesh trade, a United Nations official said.
Suneeta Mukherjee, country representative of the United Nations Food Population Fund (UNFPA), said women in the Philippines are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the country.
“Climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing, possibly driving some women into sex work and thereby increase HIV infection," Mukherjee said during the Wednesday launch of the UNFPA annual State of World Population Report in Pasay City.
In the Philippines, small brothels usually pop up near the coastal areas where many women perform sexual services for transient seafarers. Often, these prostitutes are ferried to bigger ships by their pimps.
Based on the UNFPA report, there are 92 million Filipinos in the country as of 2009 and that number is expected to balloon to more than 146 million in the next 40 years.
Of the 92 million Filipinos, about 60 percent are living in coastal areas and depend on the seas for livelihood, said former Environment secretary Dr. Angel Alcala.
Alcala said that “we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our marine environment."
But as the sea’s resources are depleted due to overpopulation and overfishing, fishermen start losing their livelihood and women are forced to share the traditional role of the man in providing for the family.
Alacala, who also heads the Angelo King Center for Research and Environmental Management in Siliman University, said some women often pick out shellfish by the coastlines, which exposed to storm surges.
Women who can no longer endure this work often go out to find other jobs, while some are tempted to go into prostitution, Alcala added.
In an interview with the Inter Press News Agency, Marita Rodriguez of the Centre for Empowerment and Resource Development, Inc. said women are taking the brunt of climate change.
"Aside from their household chores and participation in fishing activity, they have to find additional sources of income like working as domestic helpers in affluent families," she said.
The UNFPA noted that the temperature in the earth’s surface has risen 0.74 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years. The 10 warmest years globally since 1880 have also been recorded in the last 13 years.
“Slower population growth, for example, would help build social resilience to climate change’s impacts and would contribute to a reduction of greenhouse gas-emissions in the future," the UNFPA report said.
The UNFPA suggested five measures to mitigate climate change and overpopulation:
* Bring a better understanding of population dynamics, gender and reproductive health to climate change and environmental discussions at all levels;
* Fully fund family planning services and contraceptive supplies within the framework of reproductive health and rights, and assure that low income is no barrier to access;
* Prioritize research and date collection to improve the understanding of gender and population dynamics in climate change mitigation and adaptation;
* Improve sex-disaggregation of date related to migration flows that are influenced by environmental factors and prepare now for increases in population movements resulting from climate change; and
* Integrate gender considerations into global efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change.
|
|
| |
|
|
In light of recent posts by certain candidates who wish to bitch, piss and moan about anything any other candidates attempt to do to make U4Prez a more enjoyable I felt it necessary to dig up my old toilet seat blog title to address it.
We all know and have known for quite some time that the runoff system was easily manipulated. 4 votes per IP address is what we are allowed. Some people took advantage of it with fake profiles and some did not. They were breaking no rules in doing so, they were within the rules of U4Prez. We have had many fake profiles gain access to runoffs and a few actually win them. Again, a bit over the top, yes. But not against the rules laid out by U4Prez. There also were highly publicized instances of actual vote cheating and they were handled when uncovered.
Then came "Votegate". A couple of candidates wanted to bring to light, in an extreme manner, how easy it was to manipulate the voting system on U4Prez. I 100% endorsed this method when it first took hold because I understood the point behind it. After a week of 100+ vote runoffs.......nothing changed. But the manipulation continued. This I didn't quite understand. You did it, it didn't work, what is the point of continuing it? But it happened. I would also like to state for the record that they broke no rules in doing so. Then came the 2009 GE.
The 2 candidates in question claim to have hand picked their opponents for the general election. How much truth lies in that statement I do not know. I do know that if I hadn't switched parties in mid-year that I would have won the nomination. If they manipulated it to get Erock there after that happened then fine, whatever. Back to the topic at hand. They claim to have continued their manipulation right up until the general election. Then the results came out and Erock and I won. The candidates in question claim that Mr. Gurr allowed votes from his created profiles to stand for Erock and I while wiping out votes for the Lucky/BD ticket. That may very well have happened. I don't know. What I do know is that it certainly wasn't asked for or done with the knowledge of Erock or I. That is besides the point and that point is:
What the hell did you expect was going to happen when you attempted to make the owner of the site look foolish with crazy runoff totals while calling him names all year long? If what you claim is true, he got pissed and beat you at your own game. Man up. He was better than you.
Secondly, why attempt to tear down everything that other candidates are trying to do to improve the site? Is it because your own attempt failed or is it because not only did it fail but to top it off Gurr was lying in wait to knock you off your pedestal during the GE?
It really doesn't matter why. What matters is that there are candidates on this site who are making legitimate attempts to make improvements. Yes it all depends on if Mr. Gurr is willing to spend a little. Some of it is also doesn't have a price tag attatched at all except for the time and effort certain candidates have put into it.
So why does that irk you so? You can claim all you want that Gurr won't do anything and that we are all idiots and you may be right. However it cannot hurt to try actually being diplomatic and working WITH him instead of calling him a jackass and making a bigger farce of his site through the runoff manipulation. It didn't work to well for you guys in the end. We are going to try another method.
If you don't like it, you are free to not participate. However the bitching and moaning about how the efforts of others are in vain is a bit pre-mature and a bit immature. I did not expect it from you at all and have been surprised at the hypocrisy of claiming all year to be fighting for the betterment of the site and then attempting to tear down other attempts just because yours failed.
If the site is dead as you claim the feel free to run along to other ventures. There are some of us who wish to stick it out and see if we can drive legitimate traffic to the site. you can actually help us if you wish. We would welcome any and all input that is positive and free of the bitching that has been happening since the GE. If you used that energy to try and make positive changes instead of manipulating the system maybe we wouldn't be having to do what we are doing now. But you can continue to bitch if you want while others continue to try and make U4Prez better. It's up to you. It's of no matter to us. We are going to go forward with it regardless of your opinion.
We choose to put the toilet seat down. You can choose to bitch about it being up. But that certainly isn't going to shut it.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Erock/Smashey administration would like to announce it's official endorsement and use of the Candidate Based Site Improvement Center as the preferred way to compile all candidate site issues into one central location to allow better tracking and management of all candidate site issues on U4Prez. The site may be found at the following:
http://www.u4prez.com/ProfileView.aspx?UserID=6196
One of the many ground breaking ideas from the mind of Republican candidate Kempite, the Candidate Based Site Improvement Center is a centralized location where all U4Prez candidates may debate site issues as well as ideas for site improvements. It is the belief of the Erock/Smashey administration that it would be a dis-service to the membership of U4Prez if we did not recognize and utilize the forum that Kempite has created as the best way to compile all issues and ideas for consideration by U4Prez moderators and ownership.
We recognize a need to bring concerns, ideas and issues to U4Prez ownership on a united and coordinated front. It is our belief that Kempite and the Candidate Based Site Improvement Center provide this front.
It is with great pleasure that we announce a coordinated effort with Kempite to utilize his Candidate Based Site Improvement Center as the official forum for getting candidates ideas and concerns passed on to site ownership for consideration.
The Erock/Smashey administration thanks Kempite for his dedication to improving U4Prez for everyone and also for his allowing us to endorse his site as the 'official' site for issues and ideas to flow through. His effort and dedication to the site are greatly appreciated and are to be commended.
If you have any questions regarding the Candidate Based Site Improvement Center please contact the Erock/Smashey administration or candidate Kempite. We will be happy to assist you in any way we can.
|
|
| |
|
|
So the 2009 General Election on U4Prez is over. The winner has been chosen but not without the usual drama and accusations being thrown around. The arguments in the day since the GE was 'officially' decided have now turned away from the candidates and towards the powers that be behind the scenes at U4Prez. Regardless of whom the usual suspects on the site wish to blame for this or accuse of that one thing has been lost in the rush to the soap box. We have the power to decide what U4Prez is, will and can be.
When I first came to the site in February of 2007 there were fewer candidates and political issues were the topic of discussion day in and day out. Kempite, Hawk, Jseagraves, Catbus, Hak, Erock, New Deal, Rightway, MDuminiak, Buckeye Kid, etc. were active members and the political debates were what drove the site. No one had to tell us to. We just did it because we all had a passion for it that brought us to the site. The race for President was secondary. The debate and the issues drove the site. Many of the things we see now on U4Prez were born in that era. The Liberty Caucus, the first caucus on U4Prez, was actually a profile made up of members of the GOP, Democrat and Independent parties whom tackled issues and talked them over to come up with legislation that would then be brought out to the scrutiny of the rest of the candidates. Many other issue based caucuses formed soon after and U4Prez seemed to be the place to be. Gurr allowed pretty much unfettered debate on the issues and let the candidates work their brains to help in the development of the site. Again, he never told us to. We just did it.
Somewhere along the way, that focus was lost. Some say it began when Faustus took the money and didn't return. Some say it was when revelations about the validity of the voting came about. I don't blame Gurr for pulling the money from the election. The election and the money is what began the site down the path it has been on. All of a sudden winning became the focus and debate became secondary. When winning became the main focus and the 4 votes per IP address became public we began to see many fake profiles popping up and the vote manipulation we see now. The voting became the primary function of the site and the debate secondary.
Here is the issue with that: Debate cannot be manipulated. Either you can argue your point or you can't. Another 3 votes wont help you in a abortion debate with Friday or a women's rights debate with KT or a constitutional debate with MDuminiak. You have to rely on your own merits to get by. The votes, as we are all very aware, can easily be manipulated allowing certain candidates to reach a level they would never be able to without the system. Now do we understand why new members don't stick around for long?
The site states "start a virtual campaign for President". That is why we all were drawn here in the first place. We set up a profile, laid out our positions and debated them day in and day out. We had press releases and caucuses. We had moderated debates and radio shows. It was never about the votes back then, it was about the entertainment of the campaign and the political debate that came with it.
I have heard the arguments the last 2 days that until Gurr cares enough to make changes that the site will die. I believe that to be a cop out stance to take. All Gurr has ever done is give us a forum. WE made of it what we wanted to and he let us. It is all he has always done. Nothing changed from Gurr's end, it changed from OUR end.
We have the power to decide what the site becomes. We can continue to manipulate the voting system and piss and moan about why no one will fix it or we can focus on the entertainment aspect of a campaign and the debates that come out of that. WE used to have that. WE let it evolve into what we have now. Yes Eric and Matt have shown that if they want to invest the time that they can, to an extent, control the vote manipulation. I hope to see them continue it during the 2010 primaries. but that is up to them. It is Gurr's money and his empolyee's time. We don't control that. What we do control however is whether or not we choose to manipulate the system. What we do control is the direction of the site from a vote based mess to a debate driven politics site that happens to have an election at the end. WE have the power to direct U4Prez.
We are the ones who decide if we choose to debate issues or whine about the system. The system never changed. We did. And we alone hold the power to change back.
|
|
| |
|
|
As we begin the final day of the 2010 U4Prez General Election I would like to take this time to lay out why I feel the Erock/Smashey ticket is the best decision.
#1. As Wiz so eloquently asked a few days ago: Who the hell is on here more than Erock? The answer is simply - No one. Not one candidate has been more dedicated to U4Prez than Erock. It could be said, albeit unfairly, that Erock had time to dedicate as he was searching for employment. And while that may be somewhat true, name one other candidate who dedicated time when they had it. No one is as dedicated to U4Prez as Erock. He dedicates more time to debating issues on the site than any other candidate bar none. A part time President he will not be.
#2. The other campaigns have been non-existent. Sure Brin wrote an issues blog before the vote even began suggesting that Lucky was bi-curious for BD but where has he been all week as issues were being debated? Maybe Nintendo is more important to him, I don't know. I like Brin but does he really want the responsibility of being the President of the site? I don't think so. KT has been on this week carrying the load for the campaign but has spent more time asking erock questions than answering them and the campaign has laid out no unified front on the issues. I just don't know if they have the time to mess with it. Sure Lucky finally put out an issues blog after I mentioned that Erock and I were the only ticket to do so and he has been on debating this week. That brings up the million dollar question: Where is BD? It seems like their campaign has been more like weekend at Bernie's. Lucky has been hauling BD's big heavy baggage around and trying to make his lips move but it's just not the same. It appears as if Lucky is Chippetto to BD's Pinnochio. I wont even get into the voting scandal. I supported it at first. I understood the premise when it first began but after no changes happened what was the point?
#3. I read Kempite's blog about leadership and I must cordially disagree. Not all 3 tickets have shown lack of leadership. I pose this question to everyone: Who better to lead U4Prez than the most dedicated candidate for President and the VP that can reach across lines and bring together the masses to better the site or the President who has deferred all debate to his VP so far and the ticket who's claim to fame is running up vote totals to make a point that didn't change anything?
I think it is obvious. And if all else fails I promise to assassinate Erock and rule alone!!!! ;)
|
|
| |
|
|
The Erock/Smashey campaign believes that the Constitution of the United States is a literal document, meant not to give power to the federal government, but to limit the power the federal government has. According to the 10th amendment to the Constitution, all powers not delegated to the federal government by the states and not prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.
It was a guarantee that any political decisions were made by localities rather than a distant central government that would be impossible for them to control as had happened under British rule.
Below are our beliefs on the biggest debates of Constitutionality.
War: In accordance with the Constitution Congress reserves the exclusive right to declare war. The President, as Commander in Chief, directs the war once it is declared. It is our belief that any war, not declared by Congress as outlined in the Constitution, is therefore unconstitutional. Congress has no constitutional authority to delegate a declaration of war to the executive branch. It is exactly what the framers were trying to avoid, yet exactly what we have allowed since Korea. The Erock/Smashey campaign holds strongly the view that all war must be declared by Congress.
Social Policies: We believe that social policies such as abortion should not be decided by federal courts, but should be regulated to the states as outlined in the Constitution since such decisions were not given to the federal government. Article 3, Section 2 gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over broad categories of cases. By a simple majority, Congress could strip the federal courts of having jurisdiction over abortion and overturn Roe v Wade. At that point the issue would revert to the states where it constitutionally belongs. The Erock/Smashey campaign sees abortion as morally wrong and strongly advocates education and adoption as alternatives. We also however believe in following the law, whatever it may be. Americans have come to believe that it is normal for us to allow 9 judges in Washington DC to decide the social policies that affect every neighborhood and individual in the United States. One side hopes that the court will see it their way. The other side hopes they will see it their way. It is the belief of the Erock/Smashey campaign that every American neighborhood is not the same and that disputes over competing values should not be decided by a broad federal court. We believe that the constitutional approach is to allow the decisions that are not spelled out explicitly in our founding document to fall to the states. Let the neighbors decide for themselves.
Which brings us to our next belief: Removing politics from politics.
The Erock/Smashey campaign believes that if the citizens of the United States were faithfully bound to the Constitution , we would have no need or desire to be especially concerned when someone of a differing political philosophy is elected. Our Constitution relegates very few tasks to the federal government so it should be of almost no consequence as to who is elected. We would not have to worry if a policy that we disapprove of will be imposed on our neighborhood by a new President or Senator and their appointed federal judges. We would also no longer have to sit by and watch as those with the monetary power to donate large sums and hire numerous lobbyists decide what direction our government takes.
The Erock/Smashey campaign believes this: The more power we allow the federal government and explicitly the executive branch to have will also be available to whomever takes office next. We believe both sides should remember that small detail as that person or philosophy may not be one in line with your own. Are you willing to give the other side that power? Once we believe that the Constitution is a living document to be interpereted how the courts and federal leaders see fit, we must be willing to accept it and the decisions that are made when the other side is in control.
The Erock/Smashey campaign believes that respecting a literal Constitution is the best way to ensure that we have a power of the people, by the people and for the people. Not for the whim of the few at the top of a centralized government.
|
|
| |
|
|
These are the core beliefs from which the Erock/Smashey campaign will operate. They are beliefs that promote freedom, prosperity and choice. They are based on constitutional values, personal freedom and opportunity.
We will be writing blogs throughout the week detailing each of the core beliefs outlined below. Please feel free to question, advocate or debate any of them as the election winds on. We will be happy to entertain any debate and speak to as why we feel our core beliefs will bring a happy, successful society.
1. Economic Responsibility: The Erock/Smashey campaign holds the belief that the only way to ensure economic prosperity for ours, as well as generations to come, is to end budget deficits, pay down debt, and balance the federal budget. Spending, borrowing and printing money has led to a devalued dollar, a huge debt and budget deficits that continue to grow. We believe that we cannot sustain this path. We believe that you cannot spend your way out of debt at home and that the government cannot operate that way either. We hold the belief that the United States government must live within it's fiscal means and not burden future generations with taxation that takes money out of the pocket of it's citizens, so it can continue to spend.
2. Taxes: Although no taxes would be the perfect scenario, we believe it to also be one that is unrealistic. With that in mind, the Erock/Smashey campaign holds the belief that a flat tax will put more money into the hands of the Americans that earned it. We believe this to be central to economic recovery. We also hold the belief that we need to repeal the death tax as well as the capital gains tax to spur investment and to not punish those who are willing to take the risks to invest in America. We also hold the belief that lower taxes for businesses means more investment in jobs. We believe in not punishing those who have gained success by burdening them with an unfair taxation. We believe in promoting success by allowing everyone to keep more of what they earn and spend it how they see fit.
3. Scope of Government: The Erock/Smashey campaign holds the belief in a small federal government as outlined in the Constitution of the United States. We believe that any power not specifically given the federal government in the Constitution is there by relegated to the individual states. We hold the belief that the federal beauracracy is outgrown it's means and that many government entities are un-necessary to the operation of the government.
4. The Constitution: The Erock/Smashey campaign holds the belief that the Constitution of the United States is a literal document not a living one. We believe that the founders designed the Constitution to protect the citizens of the United States from the very power they left behind to form our great nation. We hold the belief that if it is necessary to change our constitution or the literal meaning of it, there is an amendment process built in that allows us to do so. We do not believe in translating and legislating from the bench.
5. Freedom: The Erock/Smashey campaign believes that personal freedom is the greatest asset one can have. We hold close the belief that people make the best decisions for themselves. We believe that everyone should be allowed the utmost freedom to do as they wish as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others to do so. We believe that the individual has the power, not the government. We believe that everyone has an opportunity to succeed.
Thank you for taking the time to read the core beliefs of the Erock/Smashey campaign. We look forward to debating these issues throughout the election week. We will be posting blogs throughout the week detailing these beliefs. Thank you for your time and we welcome any and all debates.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Constitution. The law of the land by which the United States of America is granted it's freedoms. Freedoms that our founders did not have before leaving on their journey to the new world. Freedoms that they wished to live under and wished for their children to live under. Freedom from the rule of one leader to rule by the people. The Constitution.
There have been many arguments regarding the Constitution and the many political interpretations therein. Some see it as a literal document, meant to be followed to the letter and only changed when amended to do so as laid out in it's pages. Some see it as a living document, meant to be interpreted with the times by those in power at the time. It is the latter vision of the constitution that I desire to address in this blog. Not because I carry the literal vision of the Constitution, but because some that carry the living vision have forgotten one small detail that makes their view a hypocritical one. A living Constitution must live for BOTH sides.
Case 1: War. According to the Constitution, Congress is to declare war and the President, being the commander in chief, is to direct the war once it is declared. This premise was followed to the letter up until the Korean war. Now the belief that the President has the sole authority to take the country to war has become conventional wisdom on both sides. When Ron Paul asked that Congress declare war on Iraq in 2002, he was told by the Chairman of the International Relations Committee that, "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them."
Liberals were up in arms to the fact that the Republican administration went to war without following the letter of the law as laid out in our founding document. The cries of "illegal" and "unconstitutional" were loud and frequent throughout the Bush administration.
Case 2: Health care. This is the debate that sparked my feeling the need to write this blog. It came up in a debate about the AG of the United States being publicly against a law he was sworn to uphold. Keeping right with the times, the subject soon turned to health care and the belief from the left that the government forcing everyone to carry insurance was the best thing to do. This premise was questioned on constitutional grounds which brought up the term "living document" from the gentleman who was advocating the right of the government to force citizens to purchase health care. Who knows if it will pass. However, that is not the point here.
This is:
The same side that was against a "living" interpretation of the Constitution when it involved going to war was now advocating a "living" Constitution to allow the government to force insurance upon it's citizens. On he other side, the same individuals on who advocated a "living" interpretation of the Constitution going to war with Iraq was arguing about the unconstitutional "living" interpretation in regards to health care. It's called having your cake and eating it too. You cannot have it both ways. If you advocate a "living" document in one instance, you must advocate it when the shoe is on the other foot.
That is why I am strongly against giving any additional power to the federal government. Those powers can also be used by whomever takes power next and that person may not be to my liking. If interpreted literally, that possibility will be taken out of play. If we follow the constitution to the letter, amending it if we see necessary change to be inevitable, it shouldn't matter who is in power. the Constitution delegates very few powers to the federal government so who is in office should be indifferent.
The founding fathers came to this great nation to escape the rule of monarchs and tyrants. Interpreting the Constitution as a "living" document grants powers to those in charge that our founders were trying to avoid.
Just remember this when advocating your sides interpretation of the Constitution: The opposing side will also get it's chance to interperate it as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
The Candy Economy
Dale Steinreich once wrote that Halloween has a "socialist tenor" because "menacing figures arrive at your door uninvited, demand your property, and threaten to perform an unspecified 'trick' if you don't fork over. That's the way the government works in a nutshell."
And yet, for overall kid excitement, Halloween seems to surpass Christmas, at least from what I can observe. The kids spend months preparing their costumes, and thrill to ever detail of the ceremony: pumpkins, scary things, and of course candy. For the children, too, there is the attractive fact that parents are not all that happy about Halloween with its goblins, gore, and gluttony.
But, a deeper lesson to be drawn is that there is also an economic dimension to Halloween that goes far beyond simply demanding property with menaces, however light-hearted.
Unlike at Christmas, where kids must only be good little citizens all year in order to be showered with gifts from their beneficent Guardians, at Halloween, kids must actually work in real time for their candy.
Because there is no taboo in place about trading one's proceeds, the kids also have a chance to participate in genuine market experiences.
For starters, they work hard on their costumes, under the very real expectation that those who hand out candy tend to be more generous to those with better costumes. Nor is the labor done there, for it clearly continues with the long walk around the neighborhood, with the prospect that each house visited will yield a gain of only one or two candies, at most.
This in itself forms an interesting feature of the ritual, since all of these same kids have lots of candy back at home that is being given out to other kids even as they tramp through the cold October evening. What could be the point of seeking out abroad what you already have at home?
There are two reasons: first, though the kids may not consciously recognize it, they surely appreciate the candy more if it represents something they have to go seek out for themselves, and second, by mixing their labor with the process of candy acquisition, they have a greater sense that the candy partakes of qualities of duly earned, private property.
No child really believes that the bowls of candy at home really belong to him or her, but, by contrast, the candy that the child collects from the neighborhood is said to be his or hers exclusively, even if mom or dad still oversees the overall patterns of distribution.
The candy you collect is yours, a product of your own efforts, and nothing can quite replace that feeling of merited ownership. And yet, the real thrill is far from over.
What children truly adore about Halloween is what takes place after the candy has been brought back to home base: the trading. Here is where the excitement begins.
No child can fully control what he or she is given, so it is up to that child to make exchanges with others in order to obtain what he or she really wants, and to do so in a strategic manner so that overall wealth is enhanced.
This process of trading began at our house at 8pm and lasted for about 30 minutes, at which point, the children concluded that they had come as close as was possible to what they wanted most and so, that there was no more trading left to do.
During the 30 minutes of active haggling, nine kids sat around the dining room table and participated in a hectic, yet orderly — if complex — interchange, bearing a good deal of resemblance to a Wall Street trading floor.
Some traders shot up and shouted prices, deals, proposals, results, changes in preferences, new resource discoveries. Other traders remained quiet and moved with great subtly and surprise. The more strategic the plan, the more impressed the other kids were by it.
It was fascinating to watch as the trading began slowly and as the first barter relationships began to form.
One for one; two for one; three packages of Nerds for one popcorn ball; two Snickers for one candy necklace; a Blowpop for two pieces of caramel; and so on.
All children brought to the table their own subjective sense of what was valuable — a sense which was strongly influenced by the corresponding opinions of the other players, but one which also added to it a degree of prediction concerning just how the subjective values of others would stack up.
It wasn't long before barter relationships, even those involving 3 or 4 simultaneous transactions, did not suffice.
What those around the table needed was some means to achieve indirect exchange. They needed to hit upon a good which everyone would desire to posses because of its more certain, onward marketability among all the other kids.
This entity did not need to be highly valued from the outset by everyone present. What the kids only needed to notice was that there was something which a sufficient number of their group tended to want more than any other competing candy on offer.
It was a short step from there to the dawning of a realization would occur to one or two kids. These would then try to acquire that particular candy, not to consume it themselves, but to use it to trade it for whatever other candy they really wanted to enjoy.
As more and more of the participants copied them, this one candy would come to play a role in more and more indirect exchanges. Child A would accept it from Child B for a less desired kind of candy and would instantly swap it again with Child C who happened to have the goodie he or she really preferred, but who hadn’t wanted any of A’s originally proffered treats.
This way, this one candy would come to posses a quality none of the others had. It would come to be money.
In general, money, whatever specific form it takes, tends to have a high value per unit of weight and yet it should be spilt into units small enough to cope with any scale of exchange. It should ideally have a fixed supply. Above all, it must be the one thing most readily accepted in settlement of a trade because the acceptor knows it is something which can, with the highest available degree of certainty, be used to facilitate additional future trades.
There is no way to know ahead of time what will fulfill this role; only the market process itself will reveal make this choice.
In our house, the popcorn ball would not work since there were only four of them and these were not divisible into smaller units. The Twizlers did not pass the test because only one child had any knowledge of what they tasted like and hence no one else had any concept of their value.
Though this problem might seem an intractable one, as it happened, it only took a few minutes for everyone to discover what would become money for the evening: a micro-size Three Musketeers bar.
Before people realized the true measure of its usefulness, a 3M would trade for as little as a Smarty package. But, then, it began to rise in value — selling for the Smarty and a Tootsie Roll.
Once it became clear that 3M was the commodity of the most use in exchange, it didn't matter whether you actually liked it or not. You were happy to trade the candies you didn’t much care for in order to obtain a 3M simply because this could then be traded again for something which really did make your mouth water.
Once the 3M became money, its own value was seen to rise as a consequence. What was occurring was that this extra property of "tradability" was being added to the underlying demand for it as a consumption item.
Indeed, by the end of the session, this value reached such a height that it became an instant legend as, at its peak, one solitary 3Mcase changed hands for no less than three Tootsie Rolls and a tootsie Pop!
Once this money was settled upon, it became much easier to price such candies as Reese's and KitKats, which had previously had an illiquid and uncertain market.
Now they began to sell for one-half and one-quarter of a 3M, despite the fact that they had started out with much the same intrinsic value as a snack item. From there on, their prices hovered within a narrow trading range, roughly comparable to that of a small Tootsie Roll, while Snickers did slightly better than all of them.
Extreme scarcity led to very high prices — anything up to four 3Ms in the case of JollyRancher hard candy. Skittles, too, were highly prized and sold for as many five 3Ms. Reese's "Inside Out" sold at a premium over the plain variety.
However, showing that scarcity is not just a numerical concept, the parents of all these kids had long discouraged gum chewing, so despite the gum’s similar rarity, no-one wanted it.
In fact, the price quickly fell to zero where it was eventually given away free to the one child who was permitted to chew it.
Thankfully for the future of civilization, even that child soon lost interest in it!
Interestingly, the advent of money also encouraged the kids to think beyond the immediate trading round. Instead, they began to acquire a surplus, to be saved for successive rounds where it was hoped better terms might be on offer.
The kids soon adopted different strategies.
Some started saving ("hoarding") 3Ms to trade them in at the end of the trading session, speculating that the goods price of 3M would continually rise.
Others would acquire this valuable thing solely in order to consume it (this money, after all, originated as a consumable good and so it remained).
But mostly — and this was the satisfying part for those anxious to observe the entrepreneurial discovery of money — kids would acquire 3Ms solely to facilitate other exchanges.
Outside observers of a Misesian bent imagined the following: let's say someone arrived at the scene and threw down 100 3Ms on the table. All kids know precisely what would happen. The goods-price of 3Ms would tumble. Each one would purchase far less than it had before.
The "inflation" might be so extreme that 3Ms might even cease to be money—the good everyone wants to acquire in order to acquire other goods—and some other candy might take its place instead.
Imagine the chaos that would ensue, as the kids came loudly to bewail their recent exchanges of worthwhile candy for this now devalued commodity.
Imagine the loss of innocence as they saw honest bargains frustrated and vowed to be more cautious of extending their trust upon the market.
Imagine the general loss as trading once more became scattered and choices were again restricted as the idea of money fell into disrepute.
But, fortunately, no Halloween bogeyman from the Federal Reserve Candy Factory came to ruin their game. So the kids could remain free to trust in the soundness of their candy unit.
At last, the kids became exhausted by this frenzy and the market closed — not because someone sounded a bell, but simply because, in general, everyone came to see that each was as satisfied as they were likely to be with what they had.
This was the Misesian "plain state of rest."
In Mises's words: "people keep on exchanging on the market until no further exchange is possible because no party expects any further improvement of its own conditions from a new act of exchange. The potential buyers consider the prices asked by the potential sellers unsatisfactory, and vice versa. No more transactions take place."
Once the trading had ended, the status of the 3Ms promptly reverted to that of a purely consumable item, since the end of the trading game signaled the loss of their monetary properties, leaving them just a plain candy, much like any other.
Some kids left with a far lesser quantity of candy than when they first arrived, but that did not prevent them feeling far wealthier because now what they owned was a much closer approximation to their ideal mix.
As for the other kids, well, they were astounded to discover that their own bags were far heavier than before, that they too felt wealthier — and that nobody was complaining to mom about the fact!
Indeed, all children left the table with smiles and happiness, each feeling as if he or she had gotten a great deal after all.
What a stunning achievement!
After all, the available physical resources were unchanged. Nor had anyone planned or policed the trading. It had all happened spontaneously.
One was left wondering at the true magic of that Halloween — namely, at the transforming effect of something as simple as the opportunity for free exchange, for the chance to derive mutual benefit from the difference in tastes between individuals.
In this, at least, Halloween was all about treats, and, despite what the opponents of the exchange economy will tell you, there was no trick about it anywhere you looked.
By Jeffrey Tucker
Published 10/31/09
|
|
| |
|
|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy grew in the third quarter for the first time in a year, beating market expectations, as consumer spending and new home-building rebounded, signaling the end of the worst recession in 70 years.
The Commerce Department, in its first estimate of third-quarter gross domestic product on Thursday, said the economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate, the fastest pace since the third quarter of 2007, after contracting 0.7 percent in the April-June period.
The growth pace in GDP, which measures total goods and services output within U.S. borders, was above market expectations for a 3.3 percent rate. The economy last grew in the second quarter of 2008.
"Better than expected GDP is confirming that the Great Recession has ended," said Kevin Flanagan, fixed-income strategist for Global Wealth Management at Morgan Stanley in Purchase, New York.
"The question going forward is, is this more of a statistical recovery or are we going to get some meaningful momentum on a sustained basis."
U.S. stock index futures prices rose after the economic data. The dollar rose against the yen, and U.S. government debt prices extended their decline on the better-than-expected reports.
Recessions in the United States are dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research and the private-sector group often takes months to make determinations. The economy slipped into recession at the end of 2007 and has been in the worst downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The third-quarter recovery was generally broad-based, with solid gains in consumer spending, exports and home construction.
It was also driven by government programs like the popular discount on some new motor vehicle purchases, which stimulated auto sales and production, and a $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers.
The auto discount program ended in August and the home tax credit is due to expire next month. In the absence government support, there are fears that the sprouting economic recovery could falter, with rising unemployment also inflicting damage.
Consumer spending, which accounts for over two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, surged at a 3.4 percent rate in the third quarter, the fastest advance since the first quarter of 2007. Spending fell at a 0.9 percent rate in the previous quarter.
Residential investment, which was the main force behind the downturn, jumped at a 23.4 percent rate in the third quarter, contributing to GDP for the first time since 2005, after declining 23.3 percent in the April-June period.
The surge in consumer spending and residential investment was likely driven by government stimulus programs.
The economic recovery in the third quarter was also supported by a sharp moderation in the pace of inventory liquidation by business. Business inventories fell $130.8 billion, slowing from a record $160.2 billion plunge in the second quarter.
The change in inventories added nearly 1 percentage point to real GDP in the third quarter.
Analysts are hoping that the slowdown in the inventory decline by businesses will continue to support the economy in the fourth quarter, even as consumer spending is expected to retreat under the weight of the worst labor market in 26 years.
Excluding inventories, GDP rose at a 2.5 percent rate compared to a 0.7 percent increase in the second quarter.
The weak dollar boosted exports, but a rise in imports subtracted from real GDP during the quarter. Federal government spending contributed to growth, but both state and local governments were a drag.
Business investment fell at 2.5 percent pace, with investment nonresidential structures dropping 9 percent, a reflection of ongoing problems in the commercial property market.
A separate report from the Labor Department showed the number of U.S. workers filing new claims for jobless benefits dipped by 1,000 last week to 530,000 last week.
Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast claims to fall to 521,000 last week from 531,000.
Continued claims of people still on jobless aid after an initial week of benefits slid by 148,000 to 5.797 million in the week ending October 17. It was the lowest reading since March.
|
|
| |
|
|
I cannot seem to post bills at this time so I am posting this as a blog. Please feel free to comment.
THE SMASHEY HIRING/RETENTION BILL OF 2009
MISSION: The Smashey Hiring/ Retention Bill of 2009 seeks to make incentive for good, viable businesses to hire and retain new employees, spurring job growth and helping the economy and the American public.
This bill seeks to accomplish it's mission through the following manner:
* Provide every business, with a viable and strong balance sheet, a $2,800 tax credit for each full time employee hired that is retained for at least one calendar year.
* Each business will have to provide legal documentation of each employee hired including but not limited to - photo I.D., 1-9 documentation, pay and hours worked records.
* Upon providing legal documentation regarding each individual employee hired and retained, said business can apply for the $2,800 tax credit which will be applied to the next fiscal year proceeding the employees one year anniversary of employment.
This bill is designed to provide an incentive to hire new employees instead of cutting costs to drive stock price. The largest controllable expense any business has is payroll. The cost cutting has helped the stock market but hurt the employment of millions of Americans. This in turn hurts revenue to the federal government and results in borrowing and printing of money as well as an increase in debt, deficit, taxes and inflation.
We believe the key to America's economic success is employment. This bill seeks to spur job growth and to assist in the economic recovery of all Americans and the country as a whole.
|
|
| |
|
|
"These are the very taxpayers who stood by America's banks in a crisis, and now it's time for our banks to stand by creditworthy small businesses and make the loans they need to open their doors, grow their operations and create new jobs," Obama said.
"It's time for those banks to fulfill their responsibility to help ensure a wider recovery, a more secure system and more broadly shared prosperity," said Obama.
The President said the administration will "take every appropriate step to encourage them to meet those responsibilities." He did not specify what those steps might be.
Those were the words of President Obama in his radio address. Sounds good.
Small businesses need loans and capital to expand and create jobs. I can not and will not disagree with that. It seems on the surface that someone in the White House is finally understanding the the road to economic recovery is paved with jobs. But are there strings attatched to the small businesses that take loans from banks who received bailout money?
We are all very aware, as are the companies that took federal bailout or stimulus money (see GM's 'former' CEO), that taking and spending those funds came with strings attatched. Strings that allow the federal government to dictate pay, jobs, facilities, production, etc. at the 'behest' of the taxpayers. Some of the strings were tied to necessity, some were tied to nothing. Banks are still failing and bankruptcies still happening in companies that took the government golden egg. CEO's were fired from the oval office and profitable dealerships shut down. Many jobs were still lost and control over some companies fate went from their shareholders to the government. The price you pay for doing business with the taxpayer money and a government bent on control.
As I read the transcript of the Presidents address I was optimistic that maybe finally the light bulb went on over someone's head. I also remain skeptical because once again, they offer no specifics on how to make it happen.
Being both optimistic and skeptical creates a new word, "Optikal". I relate it to the saying "I will believe it when I see it". But for a brief moment I will at least have hope that this is a job creation gesture and not a move for more control.
|
|
| |
|
|
With all of the talk of economic "recovery" there is one underlying factor that keeps getting pushed under the rug by our leaders and ignored by us. The article below is the best one I have read so far outlining the impending issues our economy faces despite the talk of "recovery":
Ignorance Is Bliss
By Peter Schiff
Published 10/17/09
While all the talk at present is about economic corners turned and markets charging ahead, no one is paying much notice to an American economy deteriorating before our eyes. These myopic commentators seem to be simply moving past the now almost-universally held conclusion that before the crash of 2008, our economy was on an unsustainable course. If these imbalances had been corrected, then perhaps I too would be joining in the euphoria. But evidence abounds that we have not veered at all from that dangerous path.
Last week, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that consumer spending as a percentage of U.S. GDP has risen to 71%, a post-World War II record. This level is notably higher than other wealthy industrialized countries, and vastly higher than the levels sustained by China and other emerging economies. At the same time, our industrial output is contracting, our trade deficit is expanding once again (after contracting earlier in the year), and our savings rate is plummeting (after an early year surge).
The data confirms that government stimuli are worsening the structural imbalances underlying our economy. The recent ‘rebound’ in GDP is not resulting from increased economic output, but merely from the fact that we are borrowing more than ever. That is precisely how we got ourselves into this mess. An economy cannot grow indefinitely by borrowing more than it produces. Not only is such a course untenable, but the added debt ensures a deeper recession when the bills come due.
This soon-to-be-called depression will not end until the pendulum of consumer spending habits swings violently in the other direction. This will be a jarring change, but it is the splash of cold water that we need to return our economy to viability. I believe that consumer spending as a share of GDP will need to temporarily contract to roughly 50% of GDP, before eventually moving toward its historic mean of 65%. Such a move would indicate a restoration of our personal savings, a decline in borrowing and trade deficits, and an increased industrial output. That would be a real recovery.
In the meantime, the higher the spending percentage climbs, the more painful the ultimate decline becomes.
Consumers and governments must spend less so their savings can be made available to businesses for capital investments. Businesses, in turn, will produce more products and employ more people — increasing domestic prosperity. However, rather than allowing a painful cure to return our economy to health, the government prefers to numb the voting public with a toxic saline-drip of deficit spending and cheap money.
The primary factor that enables our government to peddle economic snake oil is the dollar’s unique role as the world’s reserve currency, and our creditors’ willingness to preserve its status. By buying up dollars and loaning them back to us through Treasury debt, productive countries give American politicians carte blanche to play Santa Claus.
Ironically, as foreign governments finance our spending spree, they are simultaneously scolding us for our low savings rate. At the recent G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, all agreed — including President Obama — that resolving the global economic imbalances was a top priority. By definition, this would require Americans to spend less and save more. However, with foreign central banks continuing to buy our debt, the President has shown no political will to encourage this change.
Normally, if politicians run up the government deficit, voters soon suffer the unpleasant consequences of higher inflation and rising interest rates. Yet, if foreign central banks keep supplying the funds, these consequences are indefinitely postponed. As a result, there is no need for American politicians to ever make the tough choices required to solve our problems.
Instead, the burden may fall squarely on the citizens of those governments doing all the lending. The conflict is that within the creditor states, a vocal minority actually benefits from this subsidy (owners of Chinese exporters, for example) while the overwhelming majority fails to make the connection. Thus, foreign politicians have the same incentives as ours to keep playing the game.
The bottom line is that foreign governments can lecture us all they want about the need for prudence but if they keep lending, we’ll keep spending. Any parent knows that if you give your child a curfew yet never impose any penalties when it’s violated, it will not be respected. My gut feeling is that foreign governments are tiring of our conduct and on the verge of finally imposing some discipline. That means the dollar’s days as the world’s reserve currency are numbered, and the days of American austerity are about to begin.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
<< Home