Tag Archives: economic policy

Obama Administration Is Sending Us Into An Economic Dark Age

Bookmark and Share    On Tuesday, in a televised interview, President Obama’s top political economic advisor, Larry Summers, unintentionally explained why the current liberal regime in Washington, D.C. is setting the United States up for a prolonged economic dark age.

Summers told Fox Business News that the administration’s economic agenda and their planned rate hikes on Americans earning $250,000 a year, will strengthen the economy and he did so by claiming that

“Almost all economists who studied these things have that kind of view,”.

Not only was Larry Summer’s claim an exaggeration, it was a downright lie.

The American Economic Association has 22,000 registered, professional members. More than 90% of them oppose tax increases and approve tax cuts. But liberal spinmiesters like Summers claim that “almost all economists” have the view that increasing taxes on those who are investing in the sustainable free market and fueling it and our economy , should be penalized and have the government take more of their money and do the investing instead of them.

Summers is not an economic advisor, he is an economic terrorist who is blatantly trying to plunder the source of America’s real economic survival……, the overburdened American consumer. What Summers fails to point out is that by taking more money from those who earn $250,000 a year we are insuring that these people, the ones who invest in business and industry, the ones who start up small business and create jobs, will have less to invest and less to start those business or keep them going with.

The economic strategy of Larry Summers and the Obama regime, is not an economic strategy at all. It is a political strategy. Democrats know that there is mileage to be gained by continuing to wage class warfare. They know that middle and lower class Americans who are hurting will always have a bit of resentment for those who are wealthy or relatively wealthy. Last year, the New York Times reported that 74% of all Americans favor taxes on people who make more than $250.000 a year. They also reported that in the same poll 51% of all Americans would support those same higher taxes even if it “hurts the economy”. Even if it hurts the economy!

Well that is exactly what the Obama regime is doing……hurting, not helping the economy. And they are willingly doing so because they know that they can get, even some quiet support, from those who want to ‘stick it’ to those who are better off than them. The economic policies of President Obama are not based on the future prosperity of this nation. It is based on trying to maintain a 50 plus 1 percent electoral strategy that allows them to be competitive in elections. This is not leadership, it’s cowardice. This is not policy, it’s politics.

It works like this.

Back in 2003, when liberals were trying to oppose the Bush tax cuts, they obtained signatures from 400 economists who opposed the tax cuts and then ran with headlines like

“”Economists Blast Bush Tax-Cut Proposal” and “Bush Tax-Cuts Come Under Fire from Economists.”

With 22,000 members in the American Economic Association, 400 of them amounts to 1.8% of American economist. So while 1.8% opposed the cuts, Democrats tried to convince you that since four hundred professionals supposedly in the know oppose it, it must be bad.

What liberals did not tell you is that 98.2% of those ‘in the know’, support tax cuts.

Flash forward to today when Larry Summers, the President’s chief economic political strategist is telling us that “most economists” agree with the Administration’s punishing tax increases.

The President’s lack of willingness to provide true leadership on the issue is plunging us into an economic ‘Dark Age’.

While he is proposing more and more historic levels of government spending, his tax increases on those he calls “the rich”, will absorb the flow of money and the growth of any sustainable American economy.

Look at nothing but the facts. Despite trillions of dollars in new spending designed to create jobs and grow the economy, few if any private sector jobs have been created. These are sustainable jobs, work that finances itself through the free market and private sector. Work that does not require government funded taxpayer dollars to keep them viable. The only jobs that may have currently been created by all the new government spending are government jobs that provide the type of employment which requires taxpayers to pay for. They are not sustainable jobs.

Add to that a well over trillion dollar deficit, the lack of a growing economy or sustainable job growth, the lethal combination of shortfalls in long term federal entitlement programs, a near tripling of the national debt, and tax increases on those who pump money into the economy and what you have is a bus that is headed toward the end of the cliff that we are precariously traveling on.

Between increased government spending on unsustainable government jobs and government programs, and tax increases on sources that create sustainable jobs and economic growth, and what we are seeing is the epitome of liberal hypocrisy.

During tough economic times, the left insists that the government must spend our way out of it and into prosperity. Yet when the economy is running strong, liberals insist that it is our government’s moral obligation to still spend more money. This have your cake and eat too economic policy that legitimizes government spending under all circumstances, does not suffice. Not anymore.

But to this, the Obama regime and his comrades on the left fire back with the charge that Republicans are not offering any alternatives. According to Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and even the President, they claim that the G.O.P. is “just the party of ‘no’.”

What they don’t tell you is this.

Last year House Republicans proposed a budget that did provide an alternative to the Obama political economic strategy. It did the following.

It Kept federal spending at just above 20 percent of the gross domestic product, called for a temporary moratorium on earmarks and a cleaning up of the process that promotes earmarks, borrowed $3.6 trillion less than the President Obama’s budget, simplified the existing arcane tax code and had ‘NO’ tax increases, attempted to reform the unsustainable costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and created $23,000 less debt per household than President Obama did.

These were alternatives that Republicans in the House put forward. But they were not the only ones House Republicans proposed. They also sponsored efforts to takes back the stimulus money that will be spent in 2010 and the years to follow once the recession is expected to be over. And one other notable proposal was a freeze on non-defense, non-veterans spending at the existing level for five years.

Sound familiar? It should.

One year later, in his State of the Union address, Supreme Czar Obama proposed a similar spending freeze for this year. It is an idea that, had President Obama been willing to work in the bipartisan manner that he is now calling for, he could have considered and enacted with Republican support.

A real “economic advisor” would have told the President to take that offer and run with it. He would have told him that it is a way to get Republican votes for the budget, show a sign of bipartisanship and perhaps begin to allow the government to get a handle on its out of control spending. But Larry Summers is not an economic advisor, he is a political strategist who is not working for the Commander-In-Chief, he is working for the Candidate-In-Chief.

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

THE LAST DEBATE: Senator Government vs. Joe The Plumber’s Advocate

McCain & Obama In Hempstead, Long IslandNY For Their Last Debate

McCain and Obama In Hempstead, Long Island, NY For Their Last Debate

By far, this final debate, was the most productive of all in this season. It did not change an Obama voter into a McCain supporter or a McCain supporter into an Obama voter but it may have helped that small minority of undecided people in the electorate to inch closer to a decision and it is my opinion that many of them were swayed in McCain’s direction. Not because John McCain is a Republican but because he is not a liberal.

In this final forum two America’s were laid out. One was articulated by Senator Mcain where “Joe the plumber” lived a life of choice and opportunity that was unrestricted by government intrusion and limitation. The other was Barck Obama’s America, where Joe the plumber’s life was limited and directed by government.

.Although Barack Obama was more eloquent in his description of his version of America, John McCain was more correct in his description.

McCain was able to articulate a direction in domestic policies that was rooted in the principles of a free society. A society that allows individuals to go in the direction that is best for them. Not in the direction that is dictated by government under the control of government bureaucrats.

This philosophical difference was perhaps best portrayed in a statement that was a slip up. A slip up that was probably the most accurate name that either side has yet called the other. It came from John McCain who accidentally referred to Barack Obama as “Senator Government”.

McCain quickly corrected himself but the Freudian slip was out and the jury, in this case, cannot be asked to disregard the statement.

Senator Obama is Senator Government. He comes to us from a philosophy that believes government should do all that people should do for themselves. Barack Obama stems from the school of thought that believes government is the answer to all things. This type of thinking is more than wrong, it is dangerous. It leads to an expansion of government that grows into an endless bureaucracy that costs more money to operate than the problem it was created to solve. It is the type of thinking which requires two government agencies, and a third for oversight, to hire three people to change one light bulb.

This thinking was consistently displayed in Senator Obama’s government solutions to such things as education and health care.

On health care Barack Obama proposed a government run bureaucracy that financially penalizes some so that government can demand to all, the type and amount of health care they can get.

John McCain offered a plan that allows government to make health care more affordable and gives you the freedom to choose the care you want. Senator McCain also addressed the need to focus on awareness and early physical education that helps people to avoid severe health conditions. Conditions such as obesity.

On education, Senator Obama rejected expanding school vouchers and increasing the chance for the natural raising of standards that comes with competition. He stated that vouchers were not a worthy effort because there weren’t enough of them. Instead he proposed a litany of government run policies that would eliminate choice and limit opportunity.

Senator McCain made it clear that that which has worked should be expanded, including school choice and vouchers. He pointed out that such a program should not be eliminated because, as Obama put it, there were not enough them. But it should be implemented by creating more of them.

Through it all, “Joe the plumber” became the quintessential embodiment of both Senators vision and the victim or benefactor of their policies..

In Barack Obama’s America, Joe the plumber must pay the government more money so that he can be forced to educate his children the way the government wants, be forced to get the health care that the government limits him to and be forced to layoff people from his company and make less money because the government is taking more money.

In John McCain’s America, Joe the plumber is allowed to keep more of the money he earns which gives him the ability to hire even more people. In John McCain’s America, Joe spreads the wealth through freedom and his ability to increase his own wealth without the intrusion of government and it’s fees. In McCain’s America Joe the plumber can choose the kind of care he wants and the quality of the education that his children can receive.

So John McCain was right, Barack Obama is “Senator Government”.

Barack Obama is a Senator who wants government to intrude into every aspect of every American’s life. From their pockets to their education, Senator Government wants to govern it all and he wants to do it with a government that increases in size and spends more of your money.

Under “Senator Government”, Joe the plumber is not safer, not richer or more free. He is just a tool of government. A tool that is used to fund it’s bureaucracy and be restricted by it’s regulations. Under Senator Government, Joe the plumber is not better he is just more controlled.

The only other point of real note in this final face-off was John McCain’s reminder to “Senator Government” that if he “wanted to run against George Bush,” he “should have done so four years ago.” But beyond that clarification, this debate did make things a bit clearer and all the Joe the plumbers from Toledo to Texas and Seattle to Sarasota should surely know which America is the best America for them and everyone in between.

 Photobucket

THE HOT TEMPERED SENATOR

 A member of the Senate, known for his hot temper and acid tongue, explodes one day in mid-session and begins to shout, “Half of this Senate is made up of cowards and corrupt politicians!” 

  All the other Senators plead to the angry member that he withdraw his statement, or be removed from the remainder of the session. After a long pause, the angry member accepted. 
 “Ok,” he said, “I withdraw what I said. Half of this Senate is NOT made up of cowards and corrupt politicians!”

Photobucket

Photobucket

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

BE REAL ABOUT THE ECONOMY, STUPID!

The Economy Is Sound Enough To Endure Bursting Bubbles
The Economy Is Sound Enough To Endure Bursting Bubbles

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the race for President heats up, issues are sometimes being discussed. At late, the topic of discussion seems to be the economy. As the economy has hit a bump due to the bursting of the bubble in the housing market, several financial institutions have gone or are on the verge of going bankrupt. As result the government is stepping in, in an attempt to head off the ripple effect that these collapses may cause.

It should be noted that the house flipping craze which caused many wide eyed risk takers to enter into over the past 5 years, have found out that they bit off more than could chew. The mortgages taken out on houses that they never intended to live in have come due and they could no longer afford the gambles that they made. The problem is that the housing market turned and after these house flippers invested tons of money into these homes in order to increase there values and sell them for a whopping profit, they find themselves without enough money to pay the mortgages that they used to buy the property in the first place.

Were it not for these risk takers willingness to overextend themselves the lending markets would not have overextended themselves. But because they have the chickens are coming home to roost and as result many innocent people who did not make such gambles are at risk. The lack of return to lenders from bankrupt gamblers have forced lenders to tighten up and the market has shrunk.

Now I do not presume to have the answers, I am not Alan Greenspan and I offer to you that Alan Greenspan did not have the answers either but I will say this, the American people did not enter into the risks that the house flipping, get rich quick, entrepreneurs did and although we are all suffering because of them, we should not be forced to bail them out.

If Joe Blow goes to the Kentucky Derby and places life savings on BushWonFloriduh to win and subsequently loses because Clinton-Lied came in first, should the federal reserve be forced to come in and subsidize Joe Blow?

Now of course the intricacies of the economy go beyond that analogy and there is a need for the government to step in and enact necessary measures that prevent the nation from entering into an economic unraveling due to a collapse that could lead to higher unemployment and a further shrinking of the economy and they are doing so. But this leads us back to this campaign for President.

Barack “America” and John McCain are now tussling over the economy. Obama blames Republicans, the current administration and John McCain for the closing of Lehman Bros., the takeover of FannieMae and Mac and the pending circumstances surrounding A.I.G… He wants more regulation. Given the circumstances I can say that I agree. And so does John McCain who unlike Barack Obama, called for regulations that would leave the national economy at less risk than it has been. The difference is the extent to which that the regulation goes.

I believe Obama’s liberal drive for control will lead to overregulation, which without his realizing or understanding, would lead to an eventual shrinking of the economy, just as it has done in the past when liberal overregulation killed certain market sectors and destroyed economic growth.

On top of this Barack Obama leads his charge by going on a political rant that accuses John McCain of being out of touch. He makes this accusation based on the fact that McCain believes our economy is sound.

Well I have news for Barack, McCain is right. Despite the collapse of a financial institution that overextended itself and a sector of the housing market that saw it’s over inflated market bubble burst , in September, the economy posted a strong gain of 3.3 percent at an annual rate in the second quarter. This was led by growth in consumer spending, exports, and the recent stimulus package. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the level of growth demonstrated the “resilience of the economy in the face of high energy prices, a weak housing market, and difficulties in the financial markets“.

On top of that, orders for durable goods have been rising in recent months and productivity growth over the past four quarters has been strong at 3.4 percent – above the averages for each of the past three decades over the course of the Administration.

What this amounts to is the fact that despite recent troubles in certain sectors, the American economy is sound. Sound enough to not fall apart due to crisis in anyone sector.

Unlike the house flippers who helped to bring on the problems that we are seeing unfold, the American economy and it’s people do not put all our eggs in one basket.

According to James Sherk, an analyst and expert in labor economics, macroeconomics, fiscal policy, and economic growth, politicians like Obama, in the case of the economy, “should not get away with spinning gold into straw to score political points. While the economy is not doing as well as it did at the height of the tech bubble, it is still growing strongly”.

In other words the economy is “sound” and over exaggerated claims that the sky is falling should not be made by a politician who has yet to demonstrate that he has the judgment to do what is right.

John McCain warned of the need to regulate against the type of activity that led to the headlines we are reading today, Barack Obama did not. Yet Obama comes before us to say that he can solve the problem and he does so by overreaching and offering the type of regulation that would take the word “free” out of “free markets”. What John McCain has offered are measures that would prevent the type of overextension that is causing the federal government to now step in and share in the burden of.

What John McCain is doing is telling the truth. He is not trying to create a national downturn in the economy so that he can come off as the messianic savior that Barack “America” makes himself out to be. John McCain is not trying to make things seem worse so that he can get elected. He is the telling the truth when he says “the American economy is sound”. Were it not, we would not be able to endure the headlines that we read today.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics