Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
A very special welcome to WFM from Apple Far From Tree. Thanks for helping to stir up the pot a bit. The "Why Everyone Hates Republicans but Eventually Marries One" link is a fascinating read.
As you mentioned, it was your initial "job loss" chart that inspired this blog. It seems that nothing gets the troops motivated like some good old-fashioned data that shows how Obama is steering things in the right direction, So I thought I would post this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8626041.stm
As you mentioned, it was your initial "job loss" chart that inspired this blog. It seems that nothing gets the troops motivated like some good old-fashioned data that shows how Obama is steering things in the right direction, So I thought I would post this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/8626041.stm
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Why Everyone Hates Republicans, Yet Eventually Everyone Marries One
An interesting article from a funny source:
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/
I'll get off my 3 post soapbox now.
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/2010/03/30/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/
I'll get off my 3 post soapbox now.
Statistics on statistics: "Did you know?"
I almost forgot to say something about that graph, and graphs and statistics in general.
Did you know that the average person has one testicle and one ovary? Amazing!!!
Did you know that the average person has one testicle and one ovary? Amazing!!!
Just your friendly neighborhood socialist checking in
Hey everyone,
I'm a friend of Son's from Andover. I'm also the guy who posted that jobs graph which Son pulled from Facebook that seems to have started this whole internet conflict. Good times!
I haven't read any of the prior comments yet, so I'll catch up on the family drama after I post this, but I wanted to stir up the H2O a little with this article:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/13/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm
While G.W. Bush (a P.A. alum!) DID start the bank bailout, which might be credited for the recovery that Obama pushed along, he also massively drove up the war debt and initiated the $1 trillion prescription drugs for seniors plan, and continued Clinton's decidedly "liberal" "housing for all" policy that led to the subprime crisis.
The same Clinton who, of course, repealed Glass-Steagall.
Because of these two guys, I have no idea if I'm a Democrat or a Republican!
As for my qualifications to talk turkey: they are meager, but there was an economics professor at Andover, Dr. Strudwick, who was certainly the best economics teacher I have ever had....by a long shot. He taught me about the New Deal, corporate welfare/socialism, why the lottery is really a tax on poor people, how paying people to dig ditches and fill them up again effects the economy, and so many other things that I feel I could do a credible (but very poor) job as Fed Chief or Treasury Secretary. I at least know the forest from the trees! Andover was a fantastic education, and college and grad school were such anti-climactic letdowns that I am going to make my kids justify going to either before I spend a dime on them. At least if they have the privilege of attending Andover first.
I would be rude if I didn't end this post by thanking "Father" for graciously letting us use his property in western New Jersey for an Andover graduation party which was as fun as parties get. Do I remember most of it? Not really......and that's what made it so fun.
Thanks for letting me in on this debate!
-WFM
P.S., I am back to being an official resident of The Jerz Dawg (as I call N.J. these days), so if any of you are around, we can put up fisticuffs when things get heated.
I'm a friend of Son's from Andover. I'm also the guy who posted that jobs graph which Son pulled from Facebook that seems to have started this whole internet conflict. Good times!
I haven't read any of the prior comments yet, so I'll catch up on the family drama after I post this, but I wanted to stir up the H2O a little with this article:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/13/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm
While G.W. Bush (a P.A. alum!) DID start the bank bailout, which might be credited for the recovery that Obama pushed along, he also massively drove up the war debt and initiated the $1 trillion prescription drugs for seniors plan, and continued Clinton's decidedly "liberal" "housing for all" policy that led to the subprime crisis.
The same Clinton who, of course, repealed Glass-Steagall.
Because of these two guys, I have no idea if I'm a Democrat or a Republican!
As for my qualifications to talk turkey: they are meager, but there was an economics professor at Andover, Dr. Strudwick, who was certainly the best economics teacher I have ever had....by a long shot. He taught me about the New Deal, corporate welfare/socialism, why the lottery is really a tax on poor people, how paying people to dig ditches and fill them up again effects the economy, and so many other things that I feel I could do a credible (but very poor) job as Fed Chief or Treasury Secretary. I at least know the forest from the trees! Andover was a fantastic education, and college and grad school were such anti-climactic letdowns that I am going to make my kids justify going to either before I spend a dime on them. At least if they have the privilege of attending Andover first.
I would be rude if I didn't end this post by thanking "Father" for graciously letting us use his property in western New Jersey for an Andover graduation party which was as fun as parties get. Do I remember most of it? Not really......and that's what made it so fun.
Thanks for letting me in on this debate!
-WFM
P.S., I am back to being an official resident of The Jerz Dawg (as I call N.J. these days), so if any of you are around, we can put up fisticuffs when things get heated.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Equally Guilty
Youngest Daughter,
Please don't misinterpret my statements - they were not meant to blame Obama and praise Republicans for their now nonexistent "fiscal conservatism." If you read my first post, you would know that I don't consider myself a Republican, at least as the party stands now, for I believe it has moved far from its roots of small government and personal freedoms - the principles of the Constitution.
In fact, everyone in the government is equally guilty. You'll notice that the selection of bad estimates I provided were from all different periods, both under Republican and Democratic control. My point is simple - the government tends to drastically underestimate the costs of its projects. Thus, you have actually strengthened my point, so I thank you. I will certainly add your example of the Bush administration being off by a factor of 39 to my list of evidence opposed to the health care estimates.
Regardless, it's all unsustainable, and we will pay the price eventually. While we're talking about unfunded liabilities of government programs, how about the $107 Trillion of unfunded Social Security liabilities, a number which is actually growing (grew $5 Trillion last year) or the $89 Trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities. It's all absolutely ludicrous, and it amazes me that people seem to shrug these issues off.
Our problems are not linked any particular policy, or person, or party - it is a more fundamental flaw in our philosophy regarding government and it's role in society. Each new leader and new policy simply fouls up the situation worse than it was going off of flawed principles, trying to legislate away our problems.
I hope that I'm wrong and the situation is not this dismal, but I can't make myself believe it. Only time will tell
-- John Galt
Selective Amnesia
It never ceases to amaze me how the same data, facts and other “concrete” information can be cherry-picked and selected in such a way so as to defend just about any point of view. I expect it from Washington, where people are always trying to score political points and have the far-sightedness of a mole, but it's obvious that this disease can infect us all.
For example, in his March 4th post, “Dad” rather authoritatively stated: “You have to ask yourself why unemployment went from 7.4% in December, 2008 to 10.1% in the first six months under Obama,” and then he followed it with a link to support his statement. (A quick aside on citing evidence: while it can provide back-up and give your opinions more credibility it also allows others to actually look at the evidence themselves. I usually don’t like filling the role of Fact-Checking Police, but it seems that some people just can’t help themselves.)
You see, I actually clicked on the link that you provided and found that your numbers were, well, wrong. First of all, Obama was inaugurated January 20th and didn’t pass his first bill until January 29th, so one could argue that January’s unemployment rate of 7.7% should mark the “pre-Obama" unemployment rate, not December’s rate of 7.4%, but no matter. Even if we stick with your simplified version, unemployment didn’t hit 10.1% until October, which, by all accounts, is the 10th month of the year, not the 6th. I’d hate to think that you would deliberately fudge data to make your point more convincing, so I’ll chalk it up to a simple mathematical error.
But even more interesting to me is the part of the chart that you didn’t mention, namely the 10 months prior to Obama’s inauguration (or I’ll say before January 2009 to keep it consistent). After all, if you are suggesting a direct causal relationship between the presidency of Barack Obama and the 2.7% increase in unemployment from January to October (10.1 – 7.4 = 2.7, for the mathematically-challenged), then I am curious as to what happened during a similar time period before Obama’s inauguration in order to compare it to a “control group,” if you will. Interestingly enough, in the last 10 months of 2008, the unemployment rate went from 4.8% in February to 7.4% in December, a total increase of 2.6% …isn’t that bizarrely close to 2.7%? Are you sure that relationship is causal and not correlative?
I wasn’t going to mention this post earlier because I didn’t want to get bogged down with little things like the misrepresentation of information, but I was reminded of it by John Galt’s recent post on the “Stellar track record of Congress cost predictions.” In his post, John Galt referenced a long list of woefully underestimated budgets provided by Congress, but seems to “forget” about one of history’s most recent and most egregious examples of it: the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, i.e. “the largest overhaul of Medicare in the public health program's 38-year history” according to Wikipedia and “the greatest expansion in America's welfare state in forty years,” as stated by journalist Jan Crawford Greenburg. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Domestic_policy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act, respectively)
Now, a lot can be said about this piece of legislation and its almost absolute ineffectiveness (the bill was a virtual hand-out to pharma and insurance companies and did almost nothing in the way of making prescriptions more affordable to the elderly), but for the sake of this argument I’ll stick to the numbers, because the numbers show it to be "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s" according to former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker.
The Bush administration gave an estimated net cost of $395 billion over the 10 years from 2004 – 2013 (well, actually, Medicare’s chief actuary estimated the cost to be closer to $540 billion, but Tom Scully, a Republican political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, "threatened to fire him if he dared to make that information public before the vote.” But this is more of an ethical concern, so I wont delve into it here.)
Not surprisingly, one month after the law’s passage the administration revised its cost estimate to a total of $534 billion from 2006 – 2015. Compare that estimate to what Medicare's trustees called in 2009 an "unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness." Wow! $15.5 trillion! I took the liberty of doing the math, John Galt, and the Bush Administration was off by a factor of over 39 - are you sweating yet?
The numbers here are enough to give any American a bit of sticker shock, but I’m more disturbed by another word tucked into this sentence: “unfunded.” That’s right, the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act included absolutely zero provisions for offsets, revenue-raisers or financing of any sort. That's $15.5 trillion directly added to the bottom line of the federal budget deficit. You can find all this and more in the following article by former Treasury Department economist and author, Bruce Bartlett: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
Now, I would love to believe the Congressional Budget Office’s report that the Health Care Reform bill will reduce the projected federal budget deficits by $138 billion over the next decade, but I, too, am sceptical. However, the bill does, among other things, cut back on the tremendously irresponsible handouts that Bush's Medicare bill are funding and it is nice to see Congress trying to cover the costs of the bills it passes for a change... you know, actually trying to pass bills that are deficit neutral. It just seems like, dare I say, the “fiscally responsible” thing to do. Can I use that word? You guys don’t have a Copyright on it, do you?
For example, in his March 4th post, “Dad” rather authoritatively stated: “You have to ask yourself why unemployment went from 7.4% in December, 2008 to 10.1% in the first six months under Obama,” and then he followed it with a link to support his statement. (A quick aside on citing evidence: while it can provide back-up and give your opinions more credibility it also allows others to actually look at the evidence themselves. I usually don’t like filling the role of Fact-Checking Police, but it seems that some people just can’t help themselves.)
You see, I actually clicked on the link that you provided and found that your numbers were, well, wrong. First of all, Obama was inaugurated January 20th and didn’t pass his first bill until January 29th, so one could argue that January’s unemployment rate of 7.7% should mark the “pre-Obama" unemployment rate, not December’s rate of 7.4%, but no matter. Even if we stick with your simplified version, unemployment didn’t hit 10.1% until October, which, by all accounts, is the 10th month of the year, not the 6th. I’d hate to think that you would deliberately fudge data to make your point more convincing, so I’ll chalk it up to a simple mathematical error.
But even more interesting to me is the part of the chart that you didn’t mention, namely the 10 months prior to Obama’s inauguration (or I’ll say before January 2009 to keep it consistent). After all, if you are suggesting a direct causal relationship between the presidency of Barack Obama and the 2.7% increase in unemployment from January to October (10.1 – 7.4 = 2.7, for the mathematically-challenged), then I am curious as to what happened during a similar time period before Obama’s inauguration in order to compare it to a “control group,” if you will. Interestingly enough, in the last 10 months of 2008, the unemployment rate went from 4.8% in February to 7.4% in December, a total increase of 2.6% …isn’t that bizarrely close to 2.7%? Are you sure that relationship is causal and not correlative?
I wasn’t going to mention this post earlier because I didn’t want to get bogged down with little things like the misrepresentation of information, but I was reminded of it by John Galt’s recent post on the “Stellar track record of Congress cost predictions.” In his post, John Galt referenced a long list of woefully underestimated budgets provided by Congress, but seems to “forget” about one of history’s most recent and most egregious examples of it: the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, i.e. “the largest overhaul of Medicare in the public health program's 38-year history” according to Wikipedia and “the greatest expansion in America's welfare state in forty years,” as stated by journalist Jan Crawford Greenburg. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Domestic_policy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act, respectively)
Now, a lot can be said about this piece of legislation and its almost absolute ineffectiveness (the bill was a virtual hand-out to pharma and insurance companies and did almost nothing in the way of making prescriptions more affordable to the elderly), but for the sake of this argument I’ll stick to the numbers, because the numbers show it to be "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s" according to former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker.
The Bush administration gave an estimated net cost of $395 billion over the 10 years from 2004 – 2013 (well, actually, Medicare’s chief actuary estimated the cost to be closer to $540 billion, but Tom Scully, a Republican political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, "threatened to fire him if he dared to make that information public before the vote.” But this is more of an ethical concern, so I wont delve into it here.)
Not surprisingly, one month after the law’s passage the administration revised its cost estimate to a total of $534 billion from 2006 – 2015. Compare that estimate to what Medicare's trustees called in 2009 an "unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness." Wow! $15.5 trillion! I took the liberty of doing the math, John Galt, and the Bush Administration was off by a factor of over 39 - are you sweating yet?
The numbers here are enough to give any American a bit of sticker shock, but I’m more disturbed by another word tucked into this sentence: “unfunded.” That’s right, the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act included absolutely zero provisions for offsets, revenue-raisers or financing of any sort. That's $15.5 trillion directly added to the bottom line of the federal budget deficit. You can find all this and more in the following article by former Treasury Department economist and author, Bruce Bartlett: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
Now, I would love to believe the Congressional Budget Office’s report that the Health Care Reform bill will reduce the projected federal budget deficits by $138 billion over the next decade, but I, too, am sceptical. However, the bill does, among other things, cut back on the tremendously irresponsible handouts that Bush's Medicare bill are funding and it is nice to see Congress trying to cover the costs of the bills it passes for a change... you know, actually trying to pass bills that are deficit neutral. It just seems like, dare I say, the “fiscally responsible” thing to do. Can I use that word? You guys don’t have a Copyright on it, do you?
Saturday, March 20, 2010
News to delight the right.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032003172.html
Friday, March 19, 2010
Obamacare, March Madness and American Idol
Dichotomist,
I love you, Dude, but I'm with John Galt on this one. If you think that Obamacare pays for itself, I've got a bridge I want to sell you.
Now for the important stuff--March Madness and American Idol. It's a bit confusing this year, because when they talk about March Madness, I automatically think about what's going on in Congress. But if you're talking about college basketball, I'll be honest, I don't even know who's playing. My sports season starts in September. If the Yankees are in the playoffs and the World Series, I get interested. If it's any other team, I don't get rolling until I see how the Steelers are doing. If the Steelers are out, I might watch the Super Bowl, as I did this year, because it's such an event. But I don't like to watch teams play that I hate like the Patriots and the Colts and almost won't watch as a matter of principle.
As for American Idol, Big Mike's got to be the sentimental favorite. He looks like he could bench press all four of the judges, with Ryan Seacrest thrown on top for good measure---and with that new baby and all!!! Good Lord, I choke up every time. Having said that, the glass blower girl from Barnstable can really belt them out and has a neat way about her, and the young kid from Pennsylvania--Soneston, wherever that is--is also very good. I wish that I could figure out how to text message so that I could vote. It'll be tough this year.
Dad
I love you, Dude, but I'm with John Galt on this one. If you think that Obamacare pays for itself, I've got a bridge I want to sell you.
Now for the important stuff--March Madness and American Idol. It's a bit confusing this year, because when they talk about March Madness, I automatically think about what's going on in Congress. But if you're talking about college basketball, I'll be honest, I don't even know who's playing. My sports season starts in September. If the Yankees are in the playoffs and the World Series, I get interested. If it's any other team, I don't get rolling until I see how the Steelers are doing. If the Steelers are out, I might watch the Super Bowl, as I did this year, because it's such an event. But I don't like to watch teams play that I hate like the Patriots and the Colts and almost won't watch as a matter of principle.
As for American Idol, Big Mike's got to be the sentimental favorite. He looks like he could bench press all four of the judges, with Ryan Seacrest thrown on top for good measure---and with that new baby and all!!! Good Lord, I choke up every time. Having said that, the glass blower girl from Barnstable can really belt them out and has a neat way about her, and the young kid from Pennsylvania--Soneston, wherever that is--is also very good. I wish that I could figure out how to text message so that I could vote. It'll be tough this year.
Dad
The stellar track record of Congress cost predictions
Dichotomist,
I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately, we can't forget the history of predictions that Congress has made regarding health care costs, and we all know that history repeats itself.
Medicare (hospital insurance). In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”
Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.
Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation that enabled states to draw significantly more money from the federal treasury than they would otherwise have been entitled to claim under the program’s traditional 50-50 funding scheme.
Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicare’s home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion.
Medicare catastrophic coverage benefit. In 1988, Congress added a catastrophic coverage benefit to Medicare, to take effect in 1990. In July 1989, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doubled its cost estimate for the program, for the four-year period 1990-1993, from $5.7 billion to $11.8 billion. CBO explained that it had received newer data showing it had significantly under-estimated prescription drug cost growth, and it warned Congress that even this revised estimate might be too low. This was a principal reason Congress repealed the program before it could take effect.
SCHIP. In 1997, Congress established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program as a capped grant program to states, and appropriated $40 billion to be doled out to states over 10 years at a rate of roughly $5 billion per year, once implemented. In each year, some states exceeded their allotments, requiring shifts of funds from other states that had not done so. By 2006, unspent reserves from prior years were nearly exhausted. To avert mass disenrollments, Congress decided to appropriate an additional $283 million in FY 2006 and an additional $650 million in FY 2007.
(source: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-cost-estimates-what-is-the-track-record/, taken from report by joint economic committee - full report here: http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/_files/Are_Health_Care_Reform_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__July_31_2009.pdf)
Seeing as how Congress can consistently be off by factors of 10 or 17 for the last 50 years without breaking a sweat, why should we believe they are correct now? In fact, we should only expect them to be even worse predictions, as it becomes harder to predict when dealing with larger and larger amounts of money, and 900 billion is pretty unprecedented.
900 Billion*17=15.3 Trillion
We can't afford 900 Billion, and we definitely can not spin the roulette wheel and risk landing on 15.3 trillion.
However, I do agree on one thing - Happy weekend to everyone!
- John Galt
A view from the middle re: ObamaCare
Ok, this is great news for my friends on the right and the left.
Hot news from the New York Times--
(one of the only major US newspapers written > 7th grade reading level)
"Democrats Say Health Bill Will Pay for Itself in the Long Run"
See? Now we can all rest assured that the measly $900B will not only
provide the god-given right of health care for all, but will actually
"pay for itself"over the years in the amount of money that will
be saved!
If you don't believe me... here's a link to the story
so you can see for yourselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/health/policy/19health.html?th&emc=th
So now we can move on, and discuss more important matters---
like betting on who will be in, and win, the Final 4 of March Madness
and American Idol.
Happy Weekend, righties and lefties.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
"Conservative Manifesto"
Son asks if there is a "conservative manifesto" where i get the "rubbish" values of limited government, free markets, and personal freedoms.
Yes, this manifesto is called the Constitution - I think you will find these values highly regarded in the Constitution. Hence, the term conservative comes from people who wish to conserve these values set down by our founders.
However, the meaning of words change, and that makes me hesitant to put any label on myself. In fact, some people today identifying themselves as conservative have actually worked to expand the government and restrict personal freedoms, especially with religious issues like gay marriage, abortion, etc.
So to disentangle myself from this confusion, I avoid the labels, though I guess the closest term used currently would be a libertarian - someone along the lines of Ron Paul. Interesting note on that, check out what Peter Schiff, Ron Paul's economic advisor during the 2008 campaign, had to say in 2006-2007 about the coming recession as all of the "experts" laugh at him.
Bottom line, you can label me how you like, but essentially my stance is that I would like all actions to be voluntary, and state intervention is merely force and slavery in disguise. Free people can interact with each other on their own terms and do not need the government to babysit.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Obama's Failed Foreign Policy
Dichotomist,
Hate to be the one to always break the news, but this was yet one more slap at Obama's naive, failed foreign policy, not a slap at Biden. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/10/israel-joe-biden-east-jerusalem-settlements Obama should call a Bibi-Barack Beer Summit.
I don't like to be so negative, but this guy is screwing up everything he touches, which should not be surprising to anyone because he had so little life experience before taking office. I just hope the country makes it to 2012.
Dad
Hate to be the one to always break the news, but this was yet one more slap at Obama's naive, failed foreign policy, not a slap at Biden. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/10/israel-joe-biden-east-jerusalem-settlements Obama should call a Bibi-Barack Beer Summit.
I don't like to be so negative, but this guy is screwing up everything he touches, which should not be surprising to anyone because he had so little life experience before taking office. I just hope the country makes it to 2012.
Dad
A view from the middle
Wondering if Obama is arranging a Bibi-Biden Beer Summit-- and if Hillary will be invited.
Welcome John Galt!
John (may I call you John?),
Welcome indeed. I admire the positions which you stated and wonder how anyone in the United States of America could argue with the concepts of free markets, freedom of action and freedom from the "noble" intentions of Big Government and the bureaucrats who run it. But alas, I see that my son wasted no time in assigning you a label. Now do you understand what I'm up against at family dinners?
While I've got you, John, did you see the March 4 article in USA Today that says that government employees get paid more than comparable employees in the private sector?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm Yea, that's true. If you haven't seen it, you should click on. Here's some of what the article said:
The article also has a chart which compares salaries by occupation. Do you know that if you are a member of the clergy and work for the government, you make $70,000, while in the private sector, you make only $39,000?Now I know how Obama and the bureaucrats get their divine inspiration--thay pay more for it.
The one that takes the cake, though, is public relations. If you're in PR in government, you make $132,000, but in the private sector, you only make $88,000. That gave me a great idea as to how Obama can reduce the deficit. If he just cuts the bullshit he's trying to sell us, like the Obamacare that he's trying to jam down our throats, he won't need all those high priced PR experts.
Keep the cards and letters coming, John.
Dad
Welcome indeed. I admire the positions which you stated and wonder how anyone in the United States of America could argue with the concepts of free markets, freedom of action and freedom from the "noble" intentions of Big Government and the bureaucrats who run it. But alas, I see that my son wasted no time in assigning you a label. Now do you understand what I'm up against at family dinners?
While I've got you, John, did you see the March 4 article in USA Today that says that government employees get paid more than comparable employees in the private sector?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm Yea, that's true. If you haven't seen it, you should click on. Here's some of what the article said:
Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.....Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.......These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Wow! Do you believe that? I guess when Obama says that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression, he means in the private sector, because government employees sure don't seem to be suffering--higher salaries and vastly higher benefits to boot! No wonder the government is broke.
The article also has a chart which compares salaries by occupation. Do you know that if you are a member of the clergy and work for the government, you make $70,000, while in the private sector, you make only $39,000?Now I know how Obama and the bureaucrats get their divine inspiration--thay pay more for it.
The one that takes the cake, though, is public relations. If you're in PR in government, you make $132,000, but in the private sector, you only make $88,000. That gave me a great idea as to how Obama can reduce the deficit. If he just cuts the bullshit he's trying to sell us, like the Obamacare that he's trying to jam down our throats, he won't need all those high priced PR experts.
Keep the cards and letters coming, John.
Dad
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
This is John Galt Speaking
This is my first post, so I'll try to keep it brief. First of all, if you find yourself asking "Who is John Galt?" I encourage you to take a look at Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, which has been a major source of inspiration in forming my values.
Second, to echo the points below me, I too find it harder and harder to identify with one of the 2 parties, and words like "conservative" and "liberal" have become such vague terms. In fact, the liberals of today are almost diametrically opposed to the liberals of 200 years ago, who believed in limited government and the free market. For these reasons, I tend to avoid labels for myself, and instead stick to values.
1. Very limited government - The irony of the government is that it's primary function is to protect the freedoms and liberties of its people, yet at the same time it is the single biggest threat to our liberties. The founders recognized this, and explicitly limited what the government could do in the Constitution, a document largely ignored by the majority of politicians. I hope that we can return to a time of limited government and personal freedoms.
2. The free market works - History proves that the free market has ushered in a standard of living that our ancestors never dreamed of. History also proves that attempts to intervene and control the complex beast that is the economy almost always end in disaster. Taxes, subsidies, bailouts, stimuli, price-setting, regulation are all forms of intervention in the economy. And since the government can only act though force and the threat of force, any intervention in the economy is necessarily robbing people of their freedom to free exchange with their own labor. Regardless of the "noble" social goals these measures are designed to achieve, the government simply creates a bigger hole somewhere else, and generally makes the problem worse.
3. Personal Freedoms - I think this quote sums up nicely my stance on personal freedoms:
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." P.J. O’Rourke (1993)
People have the right to pretty much do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe on others' rights. Of course this is a generalization, and there are exceptions.
Given these core values, I think that government intervention in health care can only worsen the situation, either within the healthcare system or in another area (perhaps the absolutely ludicrous national debt)
Economic "stimulus" packages and bailouts distort the market and create bad incentives, preventing the market from reaching equilibrium, all while the Fed manipulates interest rates and the money supply to send false signals and create money based on nothing. While these measures may appear to improve the situation on the surface, they are actually digging us a deeper hole. For any government action there are 2 parts - what is seen and what is not seen. The toxic Keynesian ideas that spending and debt and borrowing backed by nothing can spur growth has controlled the economic policy and while it can create short booms, it will lead to the eventual collapse of our system. The Great Depression and all recessions in history including this one will be absolutely dwarfed by the currency crisis and debt crisis that will inevitably strike us. As we saw with Greece (and soon Spain, Portugal, Italy...) the governments of today are simply unsustainable, and a massive crisis and re-equilibrium is heading our way.
It amazes me that our country has jumped on the Keynesian bandwagon and doesn't realize the long term consequences, especially given Keynes disregard for the long term, in his famous "In the long run, we're all dead" statement. Bu then again, we take up hundreds of unsustainable projects, so it should be no surprise.
Alright, I've ranted enough on my general philosophy - my future posts will address actual issues more in depth, but I'm tired of typing now.
Best,
John Galt
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Reply From A Stubborn "Conservative"
Son,
I'm not a Republican---never have been, never will. I tend to be liberal on most social issues--abortion should be up to the woman, don't care if gays marry or are in the armed forces, am not racially prejudiced---but am conservative on economics--small government is best, low taxes are the goal, and freedom of economic choice above all. I don't like to see the U.S. pushed around, so I suppose that I tend to be more of a hawk than a dove. I'll be honest, I watch Fox news whenever I can and absolutely love Dexter. But, I also like American Idol and always tear up when I watch "Sleepless in Seattle," no matter how many times I've seen it. That's your Dad. Pretty straightforward.
I meant what I said. Any stimulus money that has not been spent, should be canceled. You have to ask yourself why unemployment went from 7.4% in December, 2008 to 10.1% in the first six months under Obama. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=USD
Why did the US GDP grow by 5.6% in the 2009 Fourth Quarter, and unemployment remain unchanged? Lack of demand is not the problem, as evidenced by fast growth in the last quarter. Employer confidence is, as evidenced by the lack of hiring and the high unemployment rate.
The demand side of the equation has been taken care of by monetary policy. Literally, trillions of dollars have been pumped into the economy since September, 2008, which is why the Stanford kids concluded in January, 2009 that the recession would be over by mid-year---even if the government did absolutely nothing.
If stimulus is pulled, it will not cause a double dip recession. The reason why economists fear a double dip is because all that money sloshing around is leading to high demand---and inflation. When inflation starts to kick in, the Fed will have no choice but to tighten monetary policy, interest rates will go up, curtailing growth in the process. By the way, that's what you believe. Why else did you buy a house in October and lock in a nice low rate mortgage? You believe that both housing prices and interest rates will go up. At least that's how you explained your reasoning to me. So, you see, Obama's stimulus, especially because so much occurs in 2011, actually makes a double dip more likely.
I read Rush's article. It was very wordy, and he could have made his points better, but nothing you said means that raising taxes on those earning over $250,000 doesn't hurt small business.
Let's take a ten person company, which I'm sure you would agree is a small business. According to Rush, the payroll might average $50,00o per person, with let's say the owner taking $100,000, and the other employees averaging less than $50,000. That makes total payroll $500,000. No one makes just enough revenue to cover employee costs, though. In fact, most of the top 100 NASDAQ companies have revenues per employee of $400, 000 to $500,000, and many go up to and over $1.0 million at the high end. http://www.jbryanscott.com/2009/02/07/nasdaq-100-revenue-per-employee/
But let's use $200,000, the low end of the range. At that number, our little 10 person company has revenues of $2.0 million. If the company makes 10% pre-tax, the income is $200,000. Most likely, the owner has structured the company as an LLC to avoid double taxation, so the entire $200,000 income flows to him. Added to his $100,000 salary, his income is now at $300,000, and he is in Obama's crosshairs.
Using our little example, if the owner is worried about higher income taxes, higher health care costs for his ten employees, higher state and city taxes because his city and state are broke, is he or she going to hire #11? Probably not. If sales increase due to higher demand, the owner will either increase productivity or take the risk of losing that sale. I don't know about you, but I'm always looking at my breakeven point and trying to keep it as low as possible.
There are tens of thousands of companies with ten employees, and there are tens of thousands with between 10 and 100 employees. Obama targets this group not understanding the way the economy works. How could he, Son? He never held a job that wasn't paid for by government funding.
Dad
I'm not a Republican---never have been, never will. I tend to be liberal on most social issues--abortion should be up to the woman, don't care if gays marry or are in the armed forces, am not racially prejudiced---but am conservative on economics--small government is best, low taxes are the goal, and freedom of economic choice above all. I don't like to see the U.S. pushed around, so I suppose that I tend to be more of a hawk than a dove. I'll be honest, I watch Fox news whenever I can and absolutely love Dexter. But, I also like American Idol and always tear up when I watch "Sleepless in Seattle," no matter how many times I've seen it. That's your Dad. Pretty straightforward.
I meant what I said. Any stimulus money that has not been spent, should be canceled. You have to ask yourself why unemployment went from 7.4% in December, 2008 to 10.1% in the first six months under Obama. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=USD
Why did the US GDP grow by 5.6% in the 2009 Fourth Quarter, and unemployment remain unchanged? Lack of demand is not the problem, as evidenced by fast growth in the last quarter. Employer confidence is, as evidenced by the lack of hiring and the high unemployment rate.
The demand side of the equation has been taken care of by monetary policy. Literally, trillions of dollars have been pumped into the economy since September, 2008, which is why the Stanford kids concluded in January, 2009 that the recession would be over by mid-year---even if the government did absolutely nothing.
If stimulus is pulled, it will not cause a double dip recession. The reason why economists fear a double dip is because all that money sloshing around is leading to high demand---and inflation. When inflation starts to kick in, the Fed will have no choice but to tighten monetary policy, interest rates will go up, curtailing growth in the process. By the way, that's what you believe. Why else did you buy a house in October and lock in a nice low rate mortgage? You believe that both housing prices and interest rates will go up. At least that's how you explained your reasoning to me. So, you see, Obama's stimulus, especially because so much occurs in 2011, actually makes a double dip more likely.
I read Rush's article. It was very wordy, and he could have made his points better, but nothing you said means that raising taxes on those earning over $250,000 doesn't hurt small business.
Let's take a ten person company, which I'm sure you would agree is a small business. According to Rush, the payroll might average $50,00o per person, with let's say the owner taking $100,000, and the other employees averaging less than $50,000. That makes total payroll $500,000. No one makes just enough revenue to cover employee costs, though. In fact, most of the top 100 NASDAQ companies have revenues per employee of $400, 000 to $500,000, and many go up to and over $1.0 million at the high end. http://www.jbryanscott.com/2009/02/07/nasdaq-100-revenue-per-employee/
But let's use $200,000, the low end of the range. At that number, our little 10 person company has revenues of $2.0 million. If the company makes 10% pre-tax, the income is $200,000. Most likely, the owner has structured the company as an LLC to avoid double taxation, so the entire $200,000 income flows to him. Added to his $100,000 salary, his income is now at $300,000, and he is in Obama's crosshairs.
Using our little example, if the owner is worried about higher income taxes, higher health care costs for his ten employees, higher state and city taxes because his city and state are broke, is he or she going to hire #11? Probably not. If sales increase due to higher demand, the owner will either increase productivity or take the risk of losing that sale. I don't know about you, but I'm always looking at my breakeven point and trying to keep it as low as possible.
There are tens of thousands of companies with ten employees, and there are tens of thousands with between 10 and 100 employees. Obama targets this group not understanding the way the economy works. How could he, Son? He never held a job that wasn't paid for by government funding.
Dad
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Youngest Daughter Weighs In On Health Care
Youngest Daughter,
I always forget to check the "comments," so forgive the late response, but in doing so this morning, I saw that you had weighed in on the health care debate. Your basic point is that the Dem's bill only covers 10% of the insurance currently in place and doesn't touch employer provided health care. Here's the gist of what you said:
In fact, the health care reform bill focuses primarily on the health care options available for individual purchase, and does NOT really interfere with employer-provided health care. Therefore, only the 10% of the population that pays for their own insurance will be affected, leaving the other 90% of the population's health care (which is provided as part of a benefit package from their employer) in tact. Granted, the reform bill aims to insure the remaining 47 million Americans who are not currently insured, which will increase the percentage of the population that are self-insured, but the numbers hardly constitute a government takeover of the entire health care system.
I understand that. It's just that any time the government gets involved, the wise bureaucrats begin to seek "false economies" and distort the market in the process. What do I mean by "false economies?"In Medicare, for example, they use the weight of the government to get lower pricing from the doctors. On the surface that sounds good, but what happens is two things. First, some doctors will not accept Medicare patients, thereby limiting choice. Second, the doctors recover their costs by charging higher prices for patients covered by non government policies. (That's one of the reasons why that recent trip you made to the Emergency Room was so expensive.) The bureaucrats also then get into the act regarding what medicines and procedures a patient should receive. Another "false economy" that replaces the doctor's judgment with that of some politician or bureaucrat.
What will happen under Obama-care is that if cheaper insurance is made available by the government---and rest assured that it will be cheaper not because of government efficiency (an oxymoron if there ever was one) but because of those "false economies,"-- employers will drive their employees to the government plan. Soon, we will have a single insurance company---the government. I'd prefer that the government let insurance companies compete across state lines so that I can pick from 500 different options. After all, no one ever complains that car insurance is out of whack, because consumers are free to buy from Allstate, GEICO (I like their little mascot) and you name it.
I came across an interesting OpEd in the WSJ today. I didn't realize it but, by ruling in 1943 that employee provided insurance did not have to be counted as income by the employee, the IRS completely screwed up the health insurance pricing. Because health insurance became essentially "free," no one cared how much it cost. Here's part of the article:
the original sin was the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from taxable income—imposed carelessly by the IRS in 1943 so defense contractors could compete for workers without transgressing Roosevelt-era wage and price controls.
I always forget to check the "comments," so forgive the late response, but in doing so this morning, I saw that you had weighed in on the health care debate. Your basic point is that the Dem's bill only covers 10% of the insurance currently in place and doesn't touch employer provided health care. Here's the gist of what you said:
In fact, the health care reform bill focuses primarily on the health care options available for individual purchase, and does NOT really interfere with employer-provided health care. Therefore, only the 10% of the population that pays for their own insurance will be affected, leaving the other 90% of the population's health care (which is provided as part of a benefit package from their employer) in tact. Granted, the reform bill aims to insure the remaining 47 million Americans who are not currently insured, which will increase the percentage of the population that are self-insured, but the numbers hardly constitute a government takeover of the entire health care system.
I understand that. It's just that any time the government gets involved, the wise bureaucrats begin to seek "false economies" and distort the market in the process. What do I mean by "false economies?"In Medicare, for example, they use the weight of the government to get lower pricing from the doctors. On the surface that sounds good, but what happens is two things. First, some doctors will not accept Medicare patients, thereby limiting choice. Second, the doctors recover their costs by charging higher prices for patients covered by non government policies. (That's one of the reasons why that recent trip you made to the Emergency Room was so expensive.) The bureaucrats also then get into the act regarding what medicines and procedures a patient should receive. Another "false economy" that replaces the doctor's judgment with that of some politician or bureaucrat.
What will happen under Obama-care is that if cheaper insurance is made available by the government---and rest assured that it will be cheaper not because of government efficiency (an oxymoron if there ever was one) but because of those "false economies,"-- employers will drive their employees to the government plan. Soon, we will have a single insurance company---the government. I'd prefer that the government let insurance companies compete across state lines so that I can pick from 500 different options. After all, no one ever complains that car insurance is out of whack, because consumers are free to buy from Allstate, GEICO (I like their little mascot) and you name it.
I came across an interesting OpEd in the WSJ today. I didn't realize it but, by ruling in 1943 that employee provided insurance did not have to be counted as income by the employee, the IRS completely screwed up the health insurance pricing. Because health insurance became essentially "free," no one cared how much it cost. Here's part of the article:
the original sin was the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from taxable income—imposed carelessly by the IRS in 1943 so defense contractors could compete for workers without transgressing Roosevelt-era wage and price controls.
Everybody knows this turned "insurance" into something else. Call it prepaid health care, as Milton Friedman did. Call it a giant tax Laundromat for the nation's private health spending.
It became a massive subsidy to third-party payment, an incentive to channel every ache and pain through an "insurance" bureaucracy. It became an incentive for the most economically competent Americans—the secure, high-earning employees of corporate America—to overspend on health care, treating it as a free good.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704548604575097493017190752.html
One tax increase I would support, is making employer-provided health care taxable income to the employee.
Keep the cards and letters coming.
Dad
My Dear Son, Loosen Up!
Son,
Come on! This blog is supposed to be fun. You've got me reading friggin IMF articles before I can respond to your posts. This is like a second job! OK, OK, OK, I'll do it, just give me a day or so, and I promise, I'll come back with an enlightened response to your "Stubborn Republicans."
In the meantime, I'm a bit pissed. I sacrifice for you, pass along all of my secrets about life, business and women, send you to the best schools, and then what do you do? You make the following comment to my post about "Urine or You're Out:"
I love you Dad, but you are a dinosaur...and one in need of a giant asteroid. If you find yourself wanting to type the word "racist", just don't. Just don't.
Oh really? So, I'm a dinosaur, waiting for a giant asteroid? Why can't you just say, "You know, Dad, you're right. That self serving Obama and all of his czars, Nancy "vapid" Pelosi and Harry Reid would accuse the writer, a true American just speaking his mind, of being a right wing racist." In your heart, you know that they would do to him what they did to Joe the Plumber--try and destroy him. After all, the Anointed One and all of his Kool Aid drinking followers are the real Americans, right? Not Joe the Plumber, or the guy who is happy to piss in a bottle to keep his job but would like the takers in society to have to do the same.
I'll continue to type the word "racist," because it's the Dem's that play the race card, not me. "Oh, you can't criticize Barack and Michelle," they whisper, "because, because they're b-l- a- c -k!" Just like Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon whatever, right? I don't care whether he's black, white or green, I'll criticize him all I want This guy's President; he works for you and me; and we pay his salary. He thinks he's so smart that he doesn't know that---he thinks that we work for him. Hello! The Dem's and Obama have lost touch with America, and they will see how much in November.
Dad
Come on! This blog is supposed to be fun. You've got me reading friggin IMF articles before I can respond to your posts. This is like a second job! OK, OK, OK, I'll do it, just give me a day or so, and I promise, I'll come back with an enlightened response to your "Stubborn Republicans."
In the meantime, I'm a bit pissed. I sacrifice for you, pass along all of my secrets about life, business and women, send you to the best schools, and then what do you do? You make the following comment to my post about "Urine or You're Out:"
I love you Dad, but you are a dinosaur...and one in need of a giant asteroid. If you find yourself wanting to type the word "racist", just don't. Just don't.
Oh really? So, I'm a dinosaur, waiting for a giant asteroid? Why can't you just say, "You know, Dad, you're right. That self serving Obama and all of his czars, Nancy "vapid" Pelosi and Harry Reid would accuse the writer, a true American just speaking his mind, of being a right wing racist." In your heart, you know that they would do to him what they did to Joe the Plumber--try and destroy him. After all, the Anointed One and all of his Kool Aid drinking followers are the real Americans, right? Not Joe the Plumber, or the guy who is happy to piss in a bottle to keep his job but would like the takers in society to have to do the same.
I'll continue to type the word "racist," because it's the Dem's that play the race card, not me. "Oh, you can't criticize Barack and Michelle," they whisper, "because, because they're b-l- a- c -k!" Just like Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon whatever, right? I don't care whether he's black, white or green, I'll criticize him all I want This guy's President; he works for you and me; and we pay his salary. He thinks he's so smart that he doesn't know that---he thinks that we work for him. Hello! The Dem's and Obama have lost touch with America, and they will see how much in November.
Dad
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Stubborn Republicans
Dad,
You talk about yanking the stimulus bill, but I have to assume that’s just rhetoric. It’s easy to preach small government, but when you are running the show, and monetary policy is maxed out with 0% interest rates, the country is hurting with 10% unemployment, and everyone with a PhD in economics is telling you that you need fiscal stimulus to avoid a double-dip recession, you are really going to take this opportunity to give trickle-down-economics another shot? I don’t think so.
Take a look at the IMF report. They are cautious about budget deficits, but the greater risk is prolonging the Bush-Cheney recession. “Due to the still-fragile nature of the recovery, fiscal policies need to remain supportive of economic activity in the near term. The fiscal stimulus planned for 2010 should be fully implemented.”
You’ve always said that Obama’s income tax increase on those earning over $250k was going to hurt small businesses. This never quite made sense to me. You and I are both business owners (mine albeit smaller than yours) and we both find ways of taking money out of the company before it gets taxed by the IRS as income at the company level. What kind of small business hasn’t figured out how to avoid double taxation? Finally it all made sense when I read this:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101308/content/01125108.html.LogIn.html
I thought you weren’t going to quote this guy? Will someone please explain to Rush the difference between revenue and income? “If you're making $50,000 a year at a small business and there are five of you, that's $250,000 right there.” Um…no, Rush. That’s $250k in tax deductable salary expenses. Expenses are subtracted from revenue to get income which is then taxed with the “income tax”. You think the name “income tax” would make it clear, but apparently not. He then continues to talk about “the maximum average annual receipts” of businesses and compares it to the $250k “income tax” threshold. This guy is about as smart as my shoe.
As far as health care goes, forget about the public option. It’s dead. It’s not in the Senate bill, and it’s not in Obama’s. Move on. You also talk about allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. Are you sure you understand the type of competition you are fostering there? It’s not competition between the relative efficiency and innovation of different insurance companies; it’s competition between state regulatory environments. It’s “let the least regulation win”.
Alabama has the least regulation…how’s that been working out for them?
http://www.americashealthrankings.org/StateRanking.aspx
Not too well, eh? I wonder why that is? Maybe it’s because people have a natural tendency to under-insure themselves, and we need regulation to enforce adequate insurance levels just like with automotive insurance. Maybe it’s because what passes for insurance these days is just companies trying to pick off healthy individuals and deny those with real health problems due to “pre-existing conditions”. Let’s face it. Health insurers want guys like me, who are healthy, young, and don’t spend much on health care. They avoid people like you, Dad. You are older, and more likely to have significant health care costs. When all the guys like me leave for some insurer in Alabama that provides dirt cheap health insurance with no frills, guys like you end up paying more for health insurance and some of you can’t afford it. We know what happens in this scenario, because it’s exactly what’s been driving up the costs of health care all these years -- people who are under-insured or without any health insurance drive up costs for everyone else.
Health care is one of those issues where the invisible hand leads us to our destruction. We need to stand together with regulation and bigger-than-you-are-comfortable-with-government to have any hope of creating a system of fair, ubiquitous, and efficient health care.
The one good argument you Republicans have on health care is tort reform. I know this and Obama knows this. It’s pretty clear that the fear of being sued is driving many bad health care decisions. Why aren’t Democrats taking this issue on then you ask? Probably because trial lawyers are major contributors to the Democratic party. But the issue has been put on a silver platter and if Republicans would get off of their asses, they could incorporate this into the health care bill that is going to pass one way or the other. If the bill doesn’t have tort reform, there is no one to blame but stubborn Republicans.
--Son
You talk about yanking the stimulus bill, but I have to assume that’s just rhetoric. It’s easy to preach small government, but when you are running the show, and monetary policy is maxed out with 0% interest rates, the country is hurting with 10% unemployment, and everyone with a PhD in economics is telling you that you need fiscal stimulus to avoid a double-dip recession, you are really going to take this opportunity to give trickle-down-economics another shot? I don’t think so.
Take a look at the IMF report. They are cautious about budget deficits, but the greater risk is prolonging the Bush-Cheney recession. “Due to the still-fragile nature of the recovery, fiscal policies need to remain supportive of economic activity in the near term. The fiscal stimulus planned for 2010 should be fully implemented.”
You’ve always said that Obama’s income tax increase on those earning over $250k was going to hurt small businesses. This never quite made sense to me. You and I are both business owners (mine albeit smaller than yours) and we both find ways of taking money out of the company before it gets taxed by the IRS as income at the company level. What kind of small business hasn’t figured out how to avoid double taxation? Finally it all made sense when I read this:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_101308/content/01125108.html.LogIn.html
I thought you weren’t going to quote this guy? Will someone please explain to Rush the difference between revenue and income? “If you're making $50,000 a year at a small business and there are five of you, that's $250,000 right there.” Um…no, Rush. That’s $250k in tax deductable salary expenses. Expenses are subtracted from revenue to get income which is then taxed with the “income tax”. You think the name “income tax” would make it clear, but apparently not. He then continues to talk about “the maximum average annual receipts” of businesses and compares it to the $250k “income tax” threshold. This guy is about as smart as my shoe.
As far as health care goes, forget about the public option. It’s dead. It’s not in the Senate bill, and it’s not in Obama’s. Move on. You also talk about allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines. Are you sure you understand the type of competition you are fostering there? It’s not competition between the relative efficiency and innovation of different insurance companies; it’s competition between state regulatory environments. It’s “let the least regulation win”.
Alabama has the least regulation…how’s that been working out for them?
http://www.americashealthrankings.org/StateRanking.aspx
Not too well, eh? I wonder why that is? Maybe it’s because people have a natural tendency to under-insure themselves, and we need regulation to enforce adequate insurance levels just like with automotive insurance. Maybe it’s because what passes for insurance these days is just companies trying to pick off healthy individuals and deny those with real health problems due to “pre-existing conditions”. Let’s face it. Health insurers want guys like me, who are healthy, young, and don’t spend much on health care. They avoid people like you, Dad. You are older, and more likely to have significant health care costs. When all the guys like me leave for some insurer in Alabama that provides dirt cheap health insurance with no frills, guys like you end up paying more for health insurance and some of you can’t afford it. We know what happens in this scenario, because it’s exactly what’s been driving up the costs of health care all these years -- people who are under-insured or without any health insurance drive up costs for everyone else.
Health care is one of those issues where the invisible hand leads us to our destruction. We need to stand together with regulation and bigger-than-you-are-comfortable-with-government to have any hope of creating a system of fair, ubiquitous, and efficient health care.
The one good argument you Republicans have on health care is tort reform. I know this and Obama knows this. It’s pretty clear that the fear of being sued is driving many bad health care decisions. Why aren’t Democrats taking this issue on then you ask? Probably because trial lawyers are major contributors to the Democratic party. But the issue has been put on a silver platter and if Republicans would get off of their asses, they could incorporate this into the health care bill that is going to pass one way or the other. If the bill doesn’t have tort reform, there is no one to blame but stubborn Republicans.
--Son
Urine or You're Out!
This is not a matter of politics, just common sense. I found this in my Inbox this morning. Whoever wrote it deserves a HUGE pat on the back!
Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck i n my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my Question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass - doing drugs, while I work. . . .. Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'. Some thing has to change in this country -- and soon!!!!!!!
It's hard to disagree with the writer's logic. I wonder what Obama and the Dem's would say about it, though? Probably that it's racist.
Dad
Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck i n my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my Question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their ass - doing drugs, while I work. . . .. Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'. Some thing has to change in this country -- and soon!!!!!!!
It's hard to disagree with the writer's logic. I wonder what Obama and the Dem's would say about it, though? Probably that it's racist.
Dad
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Hey! You Out There in E12!
Son,
I'll bet you thought that I forgot about you, out there in parking lot E12, and your call for me to do away with comments about individuals, and give my suggestions for how to improve the country. Forgive me, Son, but you sound just like old Barack, Nancy and Harry these days. I have never heard so much talk about "bipartisanship," wanting suggestions form the Republicans, and having a "dialogue" as I have in recent weeks since the Dem's lost that 60th seat in the Senate. All of a sudden, since they don't have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, they want to do away with partisanship. How much bullshit do they think the American people can take? Everyone knows how phony they are. They don't want to discuss anything. They are all about appearances---form over substance, arrogance dripping from their pores.
For example, I got a kick out of the Health Care Summit---seeing the "Holier than Thou" Barack Obama scolding Eric Cantor for having the audacity to have the 1200 page health care bill that the Dem's tried to jam down everyone's throat on the table in front of him. "When you use props like these," our great president told Cantor, "you just make it certain that we will never reach agreement." Oh really! Obama may be President, but he's no better than the rest of us. If I were Cantor, I would have told him flat out that it's important that the American people see how casually the people in Washington treat matters that are important to them. It's about time that someone put him in his place.
But, you are my son, and you asked for my ideas, so I'll give them to you. Fortunately, free marketeer did all of the heavy lifting for me. It's easy, if we just follow his outline.
1. Big Government is Bad---Amen. For starters, let's cancel Obama's first stimulus bill. It isn't working; only 20% has been spent; and it's loaded with pork and wealth transfer. Canceling it would send a strong signal to the financial markets that the U.S. is serious about controlling its deficits.
As for Health Care, forget about this "public option" nonsense and any notion that the government should run anything. The government can't get VA hospitals, the Post Office, the H1N1 vaccination program and a host of other programs right. How in the world can we ever expect the government to run the entire health care system in the US? If you want to lower health care costs, which is sorely needed in the U.S., do two things. Implement real tort reform to lower insurance costs, and allow insurance companies to compete across state borders. As a resident of New Jersey, why am I forced to choose between three or four insurance programs, when I could conceivably go on line and compare the costs of 500?
2. Rely on the American People---Amen, Hallelujah! (Am I starting to sound like Barack at a Town Hall meeting?) Extend the Bush tax cuts when they expire in 2011. Do not let the capital gains tax increase to 20%. Tell American businesses categorically that all of the programs that have been discussed that have the effect of raising the cost of doing business in the U.S. ---government run health care, cap and tax etc. etc.--- are now officially off the table. Every time Obama talks about taxing Americans with incomes over $250,000, he's talking about raising taxes on small businesses. This is the part of the economy that creates jobs in any economy. Unemployment has doubled since the Anointed One came to office. The uncertainty he has created in the minds of businessmen is the reason.
3. Dependency Leads to Sloth----Americans don't want a handout. They want to be treated like adults, and they want the government to provide essential services and get out of the way. They don't need the government to tell them what to eat, wear and drive. If you follow this principle throughout, you will never go wrong.
Dad
I'll bet you thought that I forgot about you, out there in parking lot E12, and your call for me to do away with comments about individuals, and give my suggestions for how to improve the country. Forgive me, Son, but you sound just like old Barack, Nancy and Harry these days. I have never heard so much talk about "bipartisanship," wanting suggestions form the Republicans, and having a "dialogue" as I have in recent weeks since the Dem's lost that 60th seat in the Senate. All of a sudden, since they don't have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, they want to do away with partisanship. How much bullshit do they think the American people can take? Everyone knows how phony they are. They don't want to discuss anything. They are all about appearances---form over substance, arrogance dripping from their pores.
For example, I got a kick out of the Health Care Summit---seeing the "Holier than Thou" Barack Obama scolding Eric Cantor for having the audacity to have the 1200 page health care bill that the Dem's tried to jam down everyone's throat on the table in front of him. "When you use props like these," our great president told Cantor, "you just make it certain that we will never reach agreement." Oh really! Obama may be President, but he's no better than the rest of us. If I were Cantor, I would have told him flat out that it's important that the American people see how casually the people in Washington treat matters that are important to them. It's about time that someone put him in his place.
But, you are my son, and you asked for my ideas, so I'll give them to you. Fortunately, free marketeer did all of the heavy lifting for me. It's easy, if we just follow his outline.
1. Big Government is Bad---Amen. For starters, let's cancel Obama's first stimulus bill. It isn't working; only 20% has been spent; and it's loaded with pork and wealth transfer. Canceling it would send a strong signal to the financial markets that the U.S. is serious about controlling its deficits.
As for Health Care, forget about this "public option" nonsense and any notion that the government should run anything. The government can't get VA hospitals, the Post Office, the H1N1 vaccination program and a host of other programs right. How in the world can we ever expect the government to run the entire health care system in the US? If you want to lower health care costs, which is sorely needed in the U.S., do two things. Implement real tort reform to lower insurance costs, and allow insurance companies to compete across state borders. As a resident of New Jersey, why am I forced to choose between three or four insurance programs, when I could conceivably go on line and compare the costs of 500?
2. Rely on the American People---Amen, Hallelujah! (Am I starting to sound like Barack at a Town Hall meeting?) Extend the Bush tax cuts when they expire in 2011. Do not let the capital gains tax increase to 20%. Tell American businesses categorically that all of the programs that have been discussed that have the effect of raising the cost of doing business in the U.S. ---government run health care, cap and tax etc. etc.--- are now officially off the table. Every time Obama talks about taxing Americans with incomes over $250,000, he's talking about raising taxes on small businesses. This is the part of the economy that creates jobs in any economy. Unemployment has doubled since the Anointed One came to office. The uncertainty he has created in the minds of businessmen is the reason.
3. Dependency Leads to Sloth----Americans don't want a handout. They want to be treated like adults, and they want the government to provide essential services and get out of the way. They don't need the government to tell them what to eat, wear and drive. If you follow this principle throughout, you will never go wrong.
Dad
Going Easy On The Dichotomist
Dichotomist,
I was really going to rip into you for your long response to my right field homer, but then you sent me "Apple-Gored." How can I be tough on someone who would do that? So, I'll go easy this time.
First of all, I'm not particularly a McCain supporter, but he was probably the best of a largely un-inspiring lot, and he would definitely have made a better president than the clown we have in there now. But then, we can say that about at least 300 million other Americans.
Unfortunately, McCain had the misfortune of running against a very unpopular "W," and a financial system near collapse. Like it or not, Sarah Palin gave his candidacy new life and he began gaining in the polls afterwards. If he had handled the crisis differently--perhaps by voting against TARP---or the crisis had never come along, he may have pulled it out and saved us from all of this. That was not to be.
As for Sarah, I take her at her word. She's not running for anything. Why do you and everyone else react so viscerally to the mere mention of her name? Sarah never ran for POTUS. She ran for VP. Seeing McCain's 90 plus year old mother in the audience should have been proof to anyone that, if Sarah were ever going to be POTUS, she would have to earn it at the polls.
Besides, do you happen to know who is currently two heartbeats away from the Presidency? It's bad enough that we have political hack Joe Biden, who is infinitely less qualified than either McCain or Palin, only one heart beat away, but none other than Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away! I wonder how many Americans realize that if something happens to Barack and old Joe, we'll have Nancy leading our great country! God forbid. My favorite comedian/commentator is Dennis Miller. He's smart, he's funny, and he's very clear on Pelosi. "She's vapid," in his words.
Dad
I was really going to rip into you for your long response to my right field homer, but then you sent me "Apple-Gored." How can I be tough on someone who would do that? So, I'll go easy this time.
First of all, I'm not particularly a McCain supporter, but he was probably the best of a largely un-inspiring lot, and he would definitely have made a better president than the clown we have in there now. But then, we can say that about at least 300 million other Americans.
Unfortunately, McCain had the misfortune of running against a very unpopular "W," and a financial system near collapse. Like it or not, Sarah Palin gave his candidacy new life and he began gaining in the polls afterwards. If he had handled the crisis differently--perhaps by voting against TARP---or the crisis had never come along, he may have pulled it out and saved us from all of this. That was not to be.
As for Sarah, I take her at her word. She's not running for anything. Why do you and everyone else react so viscerally to the mere mention of her name? Sarah never ran for POTUS. She ran for VP. Seeing McCain's 90 plus year old mother in the audience should have been proof to anyone that, if Sarah were ever going to be POTUS, she would have to earn it at the polls.
Besides, do you happen to know who is currently two heartbeats away from the Presidency? It's bad enough that we have political hack Joe Biden, who is infinitely less qualified than either McCain or Palin, only one heart beat away, but none other than Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away! I wonder how many Americans realize that if something happens to Barack and old Joe, we'll have Nancy leading our great country! God forbid. My favorite comedian/commentator is Dennis Miller. He's smart, he's funny, and he's very clear on Pelosi. "She's vapid," in his words.
Dad
You Made My Day
Dichotomist,
You indeed did make my day. In fact, I liked the article so much that I quoted part of it below to ensure that my son and all of the Gore supporters read it. I only wish I could have been there!!
From Fortune:
Al Gore took his lumps at Apple's shareholders meeting Thursday.
Sitting in the front row with the other outside directors, he had to bite his tongue as two pro-environment proposals were voted down and a gadfly named Shelton Ehrlich took the mic to call him a "laughingstock."
"The glaciers have not melted," Ehrlich said, referring to Gore's frequent warnings about the effects of global warming. "If his advice he gives to Apple is as faulty as his views on the environment then he doesn't need to be re-elected.Dad
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Apple Gored
"Father"- i thought I would make your day with this one. http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/02/27/al-gore-gets-10387-more-apple-options/?source=yahoo_quote
Friday, February 26, 2010
Response to "Over the Right Field Fence Again!"
I tried to add this to the comment thread, but failed.. so entering as a new post.
"Father"- I'm not an Obama lover. I was on the fence until McCain picked Palin which was apparently a decision based on fear of the less-than-bright, extreme right. As for the GOP's momentum since he won the election, i think it is indicative of pushing too much too soon on Health Care and a natural inclination of Americans to favor a balance between the executive and legislative branches. The guy from VA is good, while the guy from MA is an idiot, but no matter. The Dems have their share of hacks as well. As for your view of DDZ.2, I understand... you're still in pain re: Obama's rout of McCain. It must irk you to also be reminded of his deer-in-the-headlights performance when he left the campaign trail to "fix things" during the Senate debate on if and how to handle the Bush stage of the bailout. I do however think that he would have mitigated his reckless and feckless selection of Palin by surrounding himself with some solid folks in his cabinet, so I don't see why it's ludicrous to look at policy decisions in this administration and discuss how they may have been handled differently. I did have similar discussions with Dems and Repubs following 9-11re: how a Gore administration would have handled things. (which was, Bush played the better short game but Gore would have played the better long game) Now.. re: Palin. Where do I begin? "Father"... between us... would you be comfortable with her as POTUS? I know she's cute and quirky and knows the right buzz words to intrigue the right and fatigue the left (written with a Howard Johnson's Motor Inn pen on her left palm)-- but really... does she have the intellect and gravitas to be the leader of the GOP? And do you really believe that all she wants is to raise her kids and sell her book? If so, then I am missing something because it seems that she is trying to be the ideological (illogical) leader of the Tea Party movement..aka "the Real America". That said; i will respect your revulsion of the "what if" nature of DDZ 2 by not doing an A/B comparison of the Obama and McCain administrations as they relate to policy decisions... though I may discuss it with others when you're out of the room... or away from the blog. As for DDZ 1, we'll save this letter-high-fastball for another day. scott
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Big Government vs. the Free Market
I wrote up a response to free marketeer's great comment to my Dad's last post. I didn't want our discussion buried in the comments, so I'm re-posting here:
You bring up an important point, because favoring free markets over big government is so deeply engrained in our psyche that it has become a useful tool for manipulating us. Politicians know that we don’t see both sides of this issue and that’s why they are eager to show us how to look at so many problems though this lens. Even when legislation is trying to protect our rights and freedoms from abuse by special interests and multi-national corporations, the American people will stop at nothing to destroy it if they see the bill as a government intrusion into the free market.
Take for example the estate tax. Any tax that impacts only 1% of the population should be tough to challenge politically. And while most taxes are taking resources away from the very same people that have proven to be most gifted at resource allocation, the estate tax is collected only after these people can no longer contribute to society. Warren Buffet said that repealing the estate tax would be equivalent to "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." While no tax is “good”, the estate tax is about as close as you can get. So how does the 1% fight back (with a few notable exceptions)? Frame it as a big-government intrusion into the free markets, that’s how!
My father always says “Obama thinks he’s smarter than you. He wants to tell you what to eat and what car to drive.” I don’t want the government telling me what to eat, but I am thankful that I can make an educated decision using the nutrition information required by the FDA. Until that battle was won in the 90s, it was just another intrusion of big government into the free market, and the food companies opposed it. Seems like a good intrusion to me, but I am actually amazed the bill was passed. It had a pretty boring name: “Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990” Compare that with Orrin Hatch’s response to protect Utah’s dietary supplement special interests. He called his bill the “Health Freedom Act of 1992”. Freedom – there is good old Hatch protecting our freedom from big government...or is it the dietary supplement industry's freedom to mislead us?
I too was raised with a healthy dose of big-government fear, and it’s why I oppose the death penalty. After all, how can you trust the government enough to let them kill people? And where was that fear of big government when Bush replaced habeas corpus with “enhanced interrogation techniques”? I’m not soft on terror, but I’d rather see Osama bin Laden walk on an “innocent” verdict from a fair trial than deny him the right to that trial. The founding fathers would have felt the same way.
-
It has been quiet on the blog front so I figure I would get the juices flowing!
Like most if not all of you, I sometimes find these Obama discussions frustrating because everyone sees events from the own perspective and some people change the facts to suit their POV. I am always amazed at the way two people can observe the same event and come away with two completely different interpretations!
For me, the whole Obama issue is easy because I focus on a few basic principles to guide my opinions. In the political / economic realm, I believe that there are a few indisputable ones that are based on fundamental ideas that define us as Americans and are based on historical realities.
Principle #1. The idea of big government is, by definition, fundamentally flawed because it must inevitably lead to corruption, favoritism, special interests, abuse of power, elitism, and inefficiency to sustain itself.
Our founding fathers feared this more than anything and this is clearly apparent in the Constitution and D of I which define our country and who we are. My experience and study of history has convinced me that the Founding Fathers were right to fear this threat. So I am very suspicious of any politician that argues for large government initiatives or programs. Looking at Obama objectively, there can be no question that this man believes in big government and intends to expand the power of government wherever possible based on his actions to date and his history. He is not evil, just misguided and out of sync with the country!
Principle #2. There is no greater power than the power of the individual who is motivated to achieve and who believes that his efforts will be justly rewarded.
This is another fundamental concept that is embedded in the Constitution and which has defined America and the tremendous accomplishments this country has made. To reduce the ability or motivation of individuals to realize their dreams, to achieve, or be justly rewarded through their individual efforts is to necessarily reduce happiness, fulfillment, fairness, innovation, and success. Socialistic principles that “spread the wealth,” or argue for higher taxes “for the greater good,” reduce the power of the individual and the motivation to achieve. I am therefore against any politician who threatens to reduce the power of the individual for the “greater good” because I know that this will inevitably reduce motivation, accomplishment, and individual liberty. I believe that Obama desires increase the power of the federal government and therefore, by definition, reduce the power of the individual.
Principle #3. Dependency leads to weakness, sloth, and mediocrity even though it may appear initially to be humane, compassionate, sensitive, fair, and generous.
This concept should be obvious to anyone who has lived a full life and understands human nature and motivation. Call it tough love, mean spirited, selfish, or whatever you like, but you are ultimately doing harm to someone by making him dependent on you. Don’t get me wrong, there is definitely a need for society to provide a safety net for the unfortunate few who are not capable of providing for themselves for whatever reason or for those who have temporarily fallen on tough times but the tendency is for government to expand these programs to preserve power and make as many people dependent as possible. I am therefore against any politician who strives to make people dependent or who minimizes the power of the individual to solve his own problems. It is undeniable that Obama wants to make individuals more dependent on him and the federal government.
This is why I am fundamentally opposed to this man and why I believe he is dangerous to America. He is not a bad person but I know through his actions and statements that he is (unfortunately for us) at odds with the core American values that have made this country great! - -------
- My response:
-------
You bring up an important point, because favoring free markets over big government is so deeply engrained in our psyche that it has become a useful tool for manipulating us. Politicians know that we don’t see both sides of this issue and that’s why they are eager to show us how to look at so many problems though this lens. Even when legislation is trying to protect our rights and freedoms from abuse by special interests and multi-national corporations, the American people will stop at nothing to destroy it if they see the bill as a government intrusion into the free market.
Take for example the estate tax. Any tax that impacts only 1% of the population should be tough to challenge politically. And while most taxes are taking resources away from the very same people that have proven to be most gifted at resource allocation, the estate tax is collected only after these people can no longer contribute to society. Warren Buffet said that repealing the estate tax would be equivalent to "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." While no tax is “good”, the estate tax is about as close as you can get. So how does the 1% fight back (with a few notable exceptions)? Frame it as a big-government intrusion into the free markets, that’s how!
My father always says “Obama thinks he’s smarter than you. He wants to tell you what to eat and what car to drive.” I don’t want the government telling me what to eat, but I am thankful that I can make an educated decision using the nutrition information required by the FDA. Until that battle was won in the 90s, it was just another intrusion of big government into the free market, and the food companies opposed it. Seems like a good intrusion to me, but I am actually amazed the bill was passed. It had a pretty boring name: “Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990” Compare that with Orrin Hatch’s response to protect Utah’s dietary supplement special interests. He called his bill the “Health Freedom Act of 1992”. Freedom – there is good old Hatch protecting our freedom from big government...or is it the dietary supplement industry's freedom to mislead us?
I too was raised with a healthy dose of big-government fear, and it’s why I oppose the death penalty. After all, how can you trust the government enough to let them kill people? And where was that fear of big government when Bush replaced habeas corpus with “enhanced interrogation techniques”? I’m not soft on terror, but I’d rather see Osama bin Laden walk on an “innocent” verdict from a fair trial than deny him the right to that trial. The founding fathers would have felt the same way.
Dodgeball or baseball?
Dad,
From my perspective, that wasn’t a home run. Scott's fastball was high and inside, you dodged it, and now you are charging the mound! Looks pretty similar to the game they are playing on Capitol Hill actually…and it resembles nothing of the great American pastime. There is a bench-clearing brawl going on in the field, and the players are so busy swinging at each other that no one has noticed that the stands are empty. Some fans left because they’ve given up on the game. Most are queued up outside the locker rooms waiting for the players to exit.
It’s true that the Democrats have the majority, and as such, they’ll get the bigger beating from the fans. Maybe it will be so bad that your team will outnumber us in the next brawl! But is that the best that your team can hope for? Don’t you think our current situation necessitates that we try to start playing some baseball again?
So forget about Sarah Palin and John McCain. Forget about Obama if you can. Leave the political theater out of it. I’m out in parking lot E12 and I have a nice underhand pitch for you. It’s not fast, but if you swing at it, you run the risk of missing. So it’s up to you…you want to play dodgeball or baseball?
If you want baseball, here is the pitch: what would you do differently? What’s the alternate agenda?
Son
From my perspective, that wasn’t a home run. Scott's fastball was high and inside, you dodged it, and now you are charging the mound! Looks pretty similar to the game they are playing on Capitol Hill actually…and it resembles nothing of the great American pastime. There is a bench-clearing brawl going on in the field, and the players are so busy swinging at each other that no one has noticed that the stands are empty. Some fans left because they’ve given up on the game. Most are queued up outside the locker rooms waiting for the players to exit.
It’s true that the Democrats have the majority, and as such, they’ll get the bigger beating from the fans. Maybe it will be so bad that your team will outnumber us in the next brawl! But is that the best that your team can hope for? Don’t you think our current situation necessitates that we try to start playing some baseball again?
So forget about Sarah Palin and John McCain. Forget about Obama if you can. Leave the political theater out of it. I’m out in parking lot E12 and I have a nice underhand pitch for you. It’s not fast, but if you swing at it, you run the risk of missing. So it’s up to you…you want to play dodgeball or baseball?
If you want baseball, here is the pitch: what would you do differently? What’s the alternate agenda?
Son
Over The Right Field Fence--Again!
Scott,
You are a glutton for punishment! You know that I like those high fast balls. Every time you serve them up, I whack them over the right field fence. Whack! Whack! Whack! Come on---challenge me. Give me something I can't hit. This is too much like Home Run Derby.
DDZ 2 is a joke. When are you Obama lovers going to realize that you are not running against George Bush and Dick Cheney any more? You're not running against John McCain and Sarah Palin either. They lost, remember? You're now running against your own sorry ass record---and you're losing. No one cares what John McCain and Sarah Palin would do. Hello! They are not the President and Vice President---Obama and Biden are, and that's what voters in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia have reacted to. We'll see an even bigger groundswell against the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda come November.
One more thing, what's with the Dem's unnatural infatuation with Sarah Palin? Every Dem will say that she's an idiot, she'll never be President, no one likes her etc. etc. Yet, at the mere mention of her name, every Dem goes catatonic. Whether that suspender snappin, poor excuse for an interviewer, Larry King, is interviewing Michael Jackson's father, Tiger Woods or James Carville, he always asks the same question. "What do you think of Sarah Palin?" For God's sake, leave the poor woman alone. She's no longer in politics. She's just trying to raise her kids and selling her book, which by the way is outselling Gore's by about a million to one.
And don't get me going on Gore. No one has seen his sorry ass since Copenhagen and about ten feet of snow have been dumped on Washington. (Come to think of it, there are a lot of sorry asses in the Democratic Party.) So much for global warming!
Dad
You are a glutton for punishment! You know that I like those high fast balls. Every time you serve them up, I whack them over the right field fence. Whack! Whack! Whack! Come on---challenge me. Give me something I can't hit. This is too much like Home Run Derby.
DDZ 2 is a joke. When are you Obama lovers going to realize that you are not running against George Bush and Dick Cheney any more? You're not running against John McCain and Sarah Palin either. They lost, remember? You're now running against your own sorry ass record---and you're losing. No one cares what John McCain and Sarah Palin would do. Hello! They are not the President and Vice President---Obama and Biden are, and that's what voters in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia have reacted to. We'll see an even bigger groundswell against the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda come November.
One more thing, what's with the Dem's unnatural infatuation with Sarah Palin? Every Dem will say that she's an idiot, she'll never be President, no one likes her etc. etc. Yet, at the mere mention of her name, every Dem goes catatonic. Whether that suspender snappin, poor excuse for an interviewer, Larry King, is interviewing Michael Jackson's father, Tiger Woods or James Carville, he always asks the same question. "What do you think of Sarah Palin?" For God's sake, leave the poor woman alone. She's no longer in politics. She's just trying to raise her kids and selling her book, which by the way is outselling Gore's by about a million to one.
And don't get me going on Gore. No one has seen his sorry ass since Copenhagen and about ten feet of snow have been dumped on Washington. (Come to think of it, there are a lot of sorry asses in the Democratic Party.) So much for global warming!
Dad
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Between the Wings
Thanks for the opportunity to weigh-in on your site. Great concept.
If I may, I'd like to steer the conversation towards the Dad-Discomfort Zones (DDZs) ... as the Obama bashing is too easy for him...like Albert Pujols facing a little league pitcher.
Whap, Whap, Whap--- gone, gone, gone.
DDZ One:
The religious radicalization and the anti-intellectualization of the Conservative wing of the party. (in diametric opposition to the ideals of Walter Lippman, Russell Kirk, and Barry Goldwater)
and he really hates this....
DDZ Two:
How McCain and Palin would have handled matters if they won the election?
(i can hear him screaming.... Scott, this is irrelevant. They didn't win. OBAMA did, and he's running the country into the ground)
But as a person loves the art and science of politics and policy makers-- I think it's a fair question.
Fast ball/ up high.
scott
If I may, I'd like to steer the conversation towards the Dad-Discomfort Zones (DDZs) ... as the Obama bashing is too easy for him...like Albert Pujols facing a little league pitcher.
Whap, Whap, Whap--- gone, gone, gone.
DDZ One:
The religious radicalization and the anti-intellectualization of the Conservative wing of the party. (in diametric opposition to the ideals of Walter Lippman, Russell Kirk, and Barry Goldwater)
and he really hates this....
DDZ Two:
How McCain and Palin would have handled matters if they won the election?
(i can hear him screaming.... Scott, this is irrelevant. They didn't win. OBAMA did, and he's running the country into the ground)
But as a person loves the art and science of politics and policy makers-- I think it's a fair question.
Fast ball/ up high.
scott
Where Do I Even Begin?
Son,
It's times like this when I wish I had spent more time teaching you economics rather than taking you to soccer practice. Where do I even begin?
Stanford Kids Versus The Double Dip
The Stanford Kids were right. If only Obama had done what they suggested--leave well enough alone. But no, Obama did exactly what they told him not to do (remember a similar situation in your childhood?) Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the "Unholy Trinity, "couldn't resist their leftist tendencies to get the government involved to the tune of $ 787 billion. What has this money been spent on? Wealth transfer whereby the Unholy Trinity gave "tax refunds" to people who never paid taxes, and such "necessary" infrastructure projects as the high speed train between Disneyland and Las Vegas. While Obama is connecting the Mouseketeers with the Racketeers, China is connecting cities like Shanghai and Beijing, and Wuhan and Guangzhou, with high speed trains, increasing the productivity of tens of millions of people in the process. And then Americans wonder why we have to depend upon the Chinese to buy our bonds!
Combined with the tremendous amount of monetary stimulus that has been injected into the system, the Unholy Trinity's heavy fiscal stimulus means that all bets are off as far as the double dip--the Stanford Kids are off the hook. If this leads to inflation, as many believe, and the Fed has to tighten, interest rates will go up, business expansion will be choked off, and we will re-enter the recession---hence the double dip. If this happens, Obama and the Dems's are dead and out of commission for a long time to come.
Deflation is Good? Really?
Despite your argument to the contrary, deflation is not good. In fact, most economists will say that deflation is as bad, and perhaps worse, than inflation. Everyone loses with deflation. I0% deflation, such as we had during the Depression, means that the values of all assets are falling across the board by that amount, wages are falling, prices are falling and there is no incentive for anyone to invest or do business. Most economists believe that price stability, plus modest inflation is the ideal state. This is what Obama has the luxury of working with for the moment. He's working very hard to get us into the stagflation (high inflation with no growth) scenario that Carter managed to work us into. Since deflation is bad, the Depression had a Misery Index of 33, Reagan had to deal with 23, and Obama had to deal with a recession that was already over.
Why Don't The Chinese Revalue Their Currency?
It's pretty simple. One of the key reasons is that they don't dare to because the value of the dollar under Obama's tax and spend policy has been dropping like a rock. Have you been to Europe lately? The Chinese own in excess of $1 trillion of dollar denominated assets. If they let the yuan appreciate by 10 %, they lose a cool $100 billion right off the bat, and then stand to lose even more if the dollar continues to drop. Even in Obama's world, $100 billion is a lot of money. When sound fiscal and monetary policies take hold in Washington (i.e. in November when the dem's are tossed out), the dollar will strengthen, the Chinese will feel free to de-peg their currency from the dollar, and the yuan will appreciate.
That's enough economics for now---off to soccer practice!
Dad
It's times like this when I wish I had spent more time teaching you economics rather than taking you to soccer practice. Where do I even begin?
Stanford Kids Versus The Double Dip
The Stanford Kids were right. If only Obama had done what they suggested--leave well enough alone. But no, Obama did exactly what they told him not to do (remember a similar situation in your childhood?) Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the "Unholy Trinity, "couldn't resist their leftist tendencies to get the government involved to the tune of $ 787 billion. What has this money been spent on? Wealth transfer whereby the Unholy Trinity gave "tax refunds" to people who never paid taxes, and such "necessary" infrastructure projects as the high speed train between Disneyland and Las Vegas. While Obama is connecting the Mouseketeers with the Racketeers, China is connecting cities like Shanghai and Beijing, and Wuhan and Guangzhou, with high speed trains, increasing the productivity of tens of millions of people in the process. And then Americans wonder why we have to depend upon the Chinese to buy our bonds!
Combined with the tremendous amount of monetary stimulus that has been injected into the system, the Unholy Trinity's heavy fiscal stimulus means that all bets are off as far as the double dip--the Stanford Kids are off the hook. If this leads to inflation, as many believe, and the Fed has to tighten, interest rates will go up, business expansion will be choked off, and we will re-enter the recession---hence the double dip. If this happens, Obama and the Dems's are dead and out of commission for a long time to come.
Deflation is Good? Really?
Despite your argument to the contrary, deflation is not good. In fact, most economists will say that deflation is as bad, and perhaps worse, than inflation. Everyone loses with deflation. I0% deflation, such as we had during the Depression, means that the values of all assets are falling across the board by that amount, wages are falling, prices are falling and there is no incentive for anyone to invest or do business. Most economists believe that price stability, plus modest inflation is the ideal state. This is what Obama has the luxury of working with for the moment. He's working very hard to get us into the stagflation (high inflation with no growth) scenario that Carter managed to work us into. Since deflation is bad, the Depression had a Misery Index of 33, Reagan had to deal with 23, and Obama had to deal with a recession that was already over.
Why Don't The Chinese Revalue Their Currency?
It's pretty simple. One of the key reasons is that they don't dare to because the value of the dollar under Obama's tax and spend policy has been dropping like a rock. Have you been to Europe lately? The Chinese own in excess of $1 trillion of dollar denominated assets. If they let the yuan appreciate by 10 %, they lose a cool $100 billion right off the bat, and then stand to lose even more if the dollar continues to drop. Even in Obama's world, $100 billion is a lot of money. When sound fiscal and monetary policies take hold in Washington (i.e. in November when the dem's are tossed out), the dollar will strengthen, the Chinese will feel free to de-peg their currency from the dollar, and the yuan will appreciate.
That's enough economics for now---off to soccer practice!
Dad
Pass on Soros - Welcome to new Authors
Dad,
You can have your pass on Soros, but I don't need any protection from the the great philosopher that is Rush Limbaugh. In fact, I'd venture to guess that the simple act of writing down his arguments would help you identify them as the verbal diarrhea that they are!
Also, we've added a few new authors to this blog....Welcome!
Son
You can have your pass on Soros, but I don't need any protection from the the great philosopher that is Rush Limbaugh. In fact, I'd venture to guess that the simple act of writing down his arguments would help you identify them as the verbal diarrhea that they are!
Also, we've added a few new authors to this blog....Welcome!
Son
An Uncle Weighs In
My Dear Nephew,
Good idea... I think!
Not that your dad needs the help (since he clearly won the opening rounds), please let me in as a contributor. Also, I believe my sons can add value by offering a unique perspective (free market / conservative views from the “under 25” demographic) so you might sign them up as well.
As our economy and unique American way of life deteriorates, you may need to implement an aggressive recruiting campaign to beef up your side – may I suggest the R's and H's!
Your Uncle
You've Been Busy Chewing!
Son,
You've obviously been doing a lot of chewing since we last spoke, while I'm still trying to figure out the technicalities of how to enter my own posts! Have mercy on someone who grew up with a slide rule on his belt. By the way, did I ever tell you the story about the Old Bull and the Young Bull?
I'll need to do my own chewing, but in the meantime, I think that we should agree on one ground rule: I'll agree not to quote Rush Limbaugh and other respected conservative voices to make my points, if you agree not to quote radical liberals like George Soros. Please don't make me read and respond to what he has to say--that's the least you can do for your father.
I'll be back with more--get some sleep.
Dad
You've obviously been doing a lot of chewing since we last spoke, while I'm still trying to figure out the technicalities of how to enter my own posts! Have mercy on someone who grew up with a slide rule on his belt. By the way, did I ever tell you the story about the Old Bull and the Young Bull?
I'll need to do my own chewing, but in the meantime, I think that we should agree on one ground rule: I'll agree not to quote Rush Limbaugh and other respected conservative voices to make my points, if you agree not to quote radical liberals like George Soros. Please don't make me read and respond to what he has to say--that's the least you can do for your father.
I'll be back with more--get some sleep.
Dad
Monday, February 22, 2010
What got us into this mess
Dad,
I’m afraid you are going to have to change your tactics now that we’ve taken this debate from ramblings at the dinner table to the internet. Logic that might be convincing after a few beers just doesn’t hold up when I have some free time and Google at my disposal.
With respect to the Stanford model and your “double-dip” recessions prediction, which one is it? Was the economy rebounding by Obama’s inauguration, or have we not seen the end of this recession? You can’t have it both ways. Your argument seems to be that the economy was coming out of the recession on its own, but it’s faltering over “fear” of Obama’s policies. Can’t we at least agree that fiscal stimulus has the short-term effect of boosting aggregate demand and increasing economic activity? It would be an interesting discussion to talk about whether or not the stimulus is wasteful in the long-term, but there isn’t any merit saying that fiscal stimulus is going to cause collapse in the short term because it wasn’t needed.
Another more blatant flaw in your logic is your use of the misery index to prove that Reagan’s economy was far worse than Obama’s. Using that metric, the 81 recession was almost twice as bad as the Great Depression itself! 1932 unemployment peaked at 23.6 percent, but there was 10% deflation, so the misery index was a mere 13.5%. It’s pretty clear that you don’t need inflation to be in world of economic hurt, so the misery index just isn’t as useful as it once was. If you want to see clearly how Obama’s economy was worse than Reagan’s look here:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/
Reagan’s percentage change in employment peaks at -3.1%, but the 2007 recession doubles that. Change in real GDP hits -3.7% for Obama, and -2.7% for Reagan. Obama’s recession is also significantly longer, even if the bean-counters haven’t figured out the exact ending date yet.
Your use of the misery index is about as outdated as the rest of your Reagan-era logic, and it’s that sort of thinking that got us here in the first place. According to Cheney: “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” I guess that’s how you justify a massive expansion of the federal government, a huge military buildup and tax cuts that dwarf the size of Reagan’s tax cut (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html shows that Bush’s 2001, 2002 & 2003 tax cuts when combined equal 2% of National income vs. 1.4% for Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981). And now that Obama has to simultaneously head off the worst recession since the Depression you start worrying about budget deficits? While the current budget deficits are sobering, at least we can have a discussion about the real numbers now that Obama ended special appropriations and other accounting tricks that shielded hundreds of billions from the real deficit under Bush.
We could play the blame game all day long between Bush and Obama, so let me suggest an alternative. According to George Soros, the real blame goes back to Reagan himself. Our discussion encouraged me to read through the transcripts posted here:
http://www.soros.org/resources/multimedia/sorosceu_20091112
Some of the more interesting points:
Son
I’m afraid you are going to have to change your tactics now that we’ve taken this debate from ramblings at the dinner table to the internet. Logic that might be convincing after a few beers just doesn’t hold up when I have some free time and Google at my disposal.
With respect to the Stanford model and your “double-dip” recessions prediction, which one is it? Was the economy rebounding by Obama’s inauguration, or have we not seen the end of this recession? You can’t have it both ways. Your argument seems to be that the economy was coming out of the recession on its own, but it’s faltering over “fear” of Obama’s policies. Can’t we at least agree that fiscal stimulus has the short-term effect of boosting aggregate demand and increasing economic activity? It would be an interesting discussion to talk about whether or not the stimulus is wasteful in the long-term, but there isn’t any merit saying that fiscal stimulus is going to cause collapse in the short term because it wasn’t needed.
Another more blatant flaw in your logic is your use of the misery index to prove that Reagan’s economy was far worse than Obama’s. Using that metric, the 81 recession was almost twice as bad as the Great Depression itself! 1932 unemployment peaked at 23.6 percent, but there was 10% deflation, so the misery index was a mere 13.5%. It’s pretty clear that you don’t need inflation to be in world of economic hurt, so the misery index just isn’t as useful as it once was. If you want to see clearly how Obama’s economy was worse than Reagan’s look here:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/
Reagan’s percentage change in employment peaks at -3.1%, but the 2007 recession doubles that. Change in real GDP hits -3.7% for Obama, and -2.7% for Reagan. Obama’s recession is also significantly longer, even if the bean-counters haven’t figured out the exact ending date yet.
Your use of the misery index is about as outdated as the rest of your Reagan-era logic, and it’s that sort of thinking that got us here in the first place. According to Cheney: “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” I guess that’s how you justify a massive expansion of the federal government, a huge military buildup and tax cuts that dwarf the size of Reagan’s tax cut (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html shows that Bush’s 2001, 2002 & 2003 tax cuts when combined equal 2% of National income vs. 1.4% for Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981). And now that Obama has to simultaneously head off the worst recession since the Depression you start worrying about budget deficits? While the current budget deficits are sobering, at least we can have a discussion about the real numbers now that Obama ended special appropriations and other accounting tricks that shielded hundreds of billions from the real deficit under Bush.
We could play the blame game all day long between Bush and Obama, so let me suggest an alternative. According to George Soros, the real blame goes back to Reagan himself. Our discussion encouraged me to read through the transcripts posted here:
http://www.soros.org/resources/multimedia/sorosceu_20091112
Some of the more interesting points:
- By promoting the misconception that markets are self-correcting, Reagan and Thatcher spawned a mega bubble that is now breaking and we are paying for. Time and time again, governments have stepped in to rescue the “self correcting” markets, but we don’t learn from our mistakes. This financial crisis marks a turning point when the weaknesses of the Reagan-era market fundamentalism are exposed.
- Obama risks “owning” a predicted “double-dip” recession because he used the “confidence multiplier” to create a self-reinforcing but ultimately unfounded and premature rebound of the stock market and economy. [I threw this one to encourage you to read more even though Soros is a liberal]
- China will stand out as the clear winner in this chaos, and we need to replace our market fundamental brand of capitalism lest it be eventually replaced by China’s “state capitalism”. China’s system, despite the inherent flaws in political manipulation of the markets has done a better job of preventing the bubbles so prevalent in our system. Interestingly, he also predicts that China will not let the RMB float against the dollar because it would destroy “a remarkably efficient method of unleashing the creative, acquisitive, and entrepreneurial energies of the people who are allowed to pursue their self-interest while the State can cream off a significant portion of the surplus value of their labor by maintaining an undervalued currency and accumulating a trade surplus .“ (See the final lecture “The way ahead” for the China stuff.)
Son
Reagan-era thinking
Give me a bit to chew on this. It will take some research to drag you into the 21st century and out of your Reagan-era thinking.
Best,
Son
Best,
Son
Wrong on All Counts
Son,
See my comments in red.
Love,
Dad
I'm afraid that you are wrong on all counts here, Son. To demonstrate, I went to two unbiased Stanford economics researchers who wrote a paper on this subject on January 12, 2009, eight days before Obama took office. You can read the article yourself, but what they said was that the worst was over by January, 2009 when they wrote the article, and that the economy would begin to recover by mid 2009---even if the government did absolutely nothing. As they point out, the US and the world was on the brink of financial collapse in September, 2008 when Lehman failed. The crisis of confidence was greatest then, credit dried up and businesses lost confidence. Then the Bush administration and congress passed TARP, which if anything, is what saved the country from financial collapse.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2785
You say that the crisis peaked in March, 2009. By that time, the crisis was well over. It's true that the stock market fell to its low point in March but that's not the same thing. I would argue that the market collapsed because investors were alarmed by Obama's radical liberal agenda, all of the debt that would be incurred by the health care program, cap and trade etc., the subsequent inflation that would be caused and the ultimate credit tightening that would be needed. This is what people mean when they talk about a double dip---that the country will fall back into recession in 2011 when the effect of all of these misguided programs would come home to roost. The market began to recover when it became clear that little, if any, of Obama's agenda will ever be enacted.That's more true than ever now.
You will never see the day when I change to become an Obama supporter--that's a prediction you can take to the bank.
I did not compare Obama to Reagan. What I did do is say that Reagan was a "uniter" not a "divider." Comparing Obama to Reagan does Reagan a huge disservice. Reagan was an experienced person who had run the largest state in the United States, embodied conservative principles and was able to unite the country. Obama has not done anything but run for President, is to the far left and has divided the country as never before. (Why else am I spending all this time responding to your e-mail?)Reagan believed that the American people were in the best position to make the decisions that affect their lives. Obama wants him and the government bureaucrats to tell Americans what to eat, wear and drive.
Reagan faced a far worse economy than Obama---it's not even close. If you refer to the statistics, http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp the economy that Reagan inherited had a misery index (unemployment plus inflation) of 20.7%. Inflation was 13.6 % and unemployment was 7.2% in 1980, the year before he took office. The economy that Obama took over had a misery index of less than half that---unemployment was 5.8% and inflation was 3.9% in the last year of the Bush presidency. The reason why unemployment under Obama went up so much so quickly is because of all the uncertainty he created in the minds of business people---the prospect of higher taxes, higher energy costs, higher employee medical costs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how badly he's damaged confidence and business's willingness to hire.
Reagan's job was much tougher because he had to deal with double digit inflation which was crippling businesses, as well as double digit interest rates. Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman tightened the money supply (which is the reason why unemployment went up in 1982 and 1983), while Reagan cut taxes and reduced government.
The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
Anyone that says that Obama's approach is similar to that of Reagan doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Obama should be compared to FDR, who we now know prolonged the depression by his misguided policies. As you can see, the Obama deficits are now over 10% of GDP, the highest since World II. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Federal%20Deficit%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s#copypaste . That is why many are predicting that the damage done by Obama will be with us for years to come. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/
I've given you plenty of data.
Reagan's deficits were half those of Obama based as a percentage of GDP, and they went down during his presidency.
The world thinks that the president of our great country is a joke. In the end, that's what bothers me the most. The United States is a great country that deserves much better. Unfortunately, our system works in a way that every once in a while a huge mistake is made---Carter in 1976 and Obama in 2008. I'll be here waiting for the next Reagan to make things right.
See my comments in red.
Love,
Dad
Dad,Since you asked, I sent the graph to hear how you would interpret it. To my eye, the graph seemed oddly symmetric around the Obama inauguration, with the rate of job losses increasing though the end of the Bush presidency then abruptly retreating under the Obama administration. While this could be a coincidence, it seemed worthy of some analysis. I thought you might be able to shed some light on how to interpret the data, but I didn't find anything particulary convincing in your response. From what I gathered, your points were:That is simply incorrect. Obama's inauguration was January 20th 2009. The financial crisis peaked in early March.
- The recession had already run its course and the economy was turning around when he came in.
- He should have just left things alone.
I'm not sure many people agree that the correct response to the global financial crisis would have been to do nothing. We were on the brink of financial collapse and there is broad consensus that doing nothing would have forced the global economy into a deep depression. Like it or not, swift (Obama administration) goverment response saved our economy.
I'm afraid that you are wrong on all counts here, Son. To demonstrate, I went to two unbiased Stanford economics researchers who wrote a paper on this subject on January 12, 2009, eight days before Obama took office. You can read the article yourself, but what they said was that the worst was over by January, 2009 when they wrote the article, and that the economy would begin to recover by mid 2009---even if the government did absolutely nothing. As they point out, the US and the world was on the brink of financial collapse in September, 2008 when Lehman failed. The crisis of confidence was greatest then, credit dried up and businesses lost confidence. Then the Bush administration and congress passed TARP, which if anything, is what saved the country from financial collapse.
http://www.voxeu.org/index.
You say that the crisis peaked in March, 2009. By that time, the crisis was well over. It's true that the stock market fell to its low point in March but that's not the same thing. I would argue that the market collapsed because investors were alarmed by Obama's radical liberal agenda, all of the debt that would be incurred by the health care program, cap and trade etc., the subsequent inflation that would be caused and the ultimate credit tightening that would be needed. This is what people mean when they talk about a double dip---that the country will fall back into recession in 2011 when the effect of all of these misguided programs would come home to roost. The market began to recover when it became clear that little, if any, of Obama's agenda will ever be enacted.That's more true than ever now.
You did however make a comparison between Obama and Regan. Lib brought to my attention that Regan also faced 10% unemployment in his early presidency. The similarities do not end with the fact that Obama and Regan inherited the two worst economies since the Depression. According to this article, the presidents had similar approaches to dealing with the problem.
Take Regan's quote: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work — work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it."
And compare it to Obama's: "but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account."
It's no suprise that many key Regan advisors are now Obama supporters such as Colin Powell and former Reagan Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein. Perhaps you would consider a change with this new evidence?
You will never see the day when I change to become an Obama supporter--that's a prediction you can take to the bank.
I did not compare Obama to Reagan. What I did do is say that Reagan was a "uniter" not a "divider." Comparing Obama to Reagan does Reagan a huge disservice. Reagan was an experienced person who had run the largest state in the United States, embodied conservative principles and was able to unite the country. Obama has not done anything but run for President, is to the far left and has divided the country as never before. (Why else am I spending all this time responding to your e-mail?)Reagan believed that the American people were in the best position to make the decisions that affect their lives. Obama wants him and the government bureaucrats to tell Americans what to eat, wear and drive.
Reagan faced a far worse economy than Obama---it's not even close. If you refer to the statistics, http://www.miseryindex.us/
Reagan's job was much tougher because he had to deal with double digit inflation which was crippling businesses, as well as double digit interest rates. Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman tightened the money supply (which is the reason why unemployment went up in 1982 and 1983), while Reagan cut taxes and reduced government.
The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
- Reduce government spending,
- Reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
- Reduce government regulation of the economy,
- Control the money supply to reduce inflation.
Anyone that says that Obama's approach is similar to that of Reagan doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Obama should be compared to FDR, who we now know prolonged the depression by his misguided policies. As you can see, the Obama deficits are now over 10% of GDP, the highest since World II. http://www.
The rest of your email focused on predictions for the future. Making predictions is easy. You don't need to back up your beliefs with evidence, and you certainly don't have to worry about someone challenging your hopes and dreams with data.
I've given you plenty of data.
But, if we are making predictions, I will predict that the similarities between Regan and Obama will strengthen in the future:
- Both Obama and Regan will be credited for fixing the worst economies since the Depression
Like FDR, Obama will be known for making a bad situation worse.
- Both Obama and Regan will serve for 2 terms
I suppose anything can happen, but I believe that he will follow Jimmy Carter's example and get booted after four years.
- Both Obama and Regan will be credited for building a powerful political coalition that will last for decades
He's going to have to work hard. The independents, who were responsible for him getting elected, have already jumped ship. Check the results of the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia and the Senate race in Massachusetts---all states that Obama carried.. Make no mistake about it, these were votes against Obama and his agenda. The worst thing that happened to Obama was that the Dem's had majorities in both houses. Therefore, he thought that he didn't have to talk to anyone. By being so arrogant, he's divided this country as never before.
- Both Obama and Regan will run large deficits through their presidency as a result of political, economic, and military externalities.
Reagan's deficits were half those of Obama based as a percentage of GDP, and they went down during his presidency.
- Both Obama and Regan will be credited with critical victories over the era's two most serious threats to the American way of life: Communism and Terrorism. While both challenges threatened America from the outside, the real danger was loosing what America stood for from within (with Dick Cheney filling in for McCarthy there).
The world thinks that the president of our great country is a joke. In the end, that's what bothers me the most. The United States is a great country that deserves much better. Unfortunately, our system works in a way that every once in a while a huge mistake is made---Carter in 1976 and Obama in 2008. I'll be here waiting for the next Reagan to make things right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)