The New York Times article carried by MSNBC today regarding whether Perry is nothing more than a benefactor of something (booming Texas economy) that he didn't make happen is funny. Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44154553/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
It's funny because, to the extent it's true, the exact(!) same can be said of President Clinton. The economy Clinton presided over was the result of record revenues resulting from the high tech boom, not Clinton's economic policies. The fiscal record of anyone who had been president then would have looked at least as good. In fact, the high tech boom which Clinton didn't have any hand whatsoever in creating brought in revenue that was absolutely key in allowing congress to balance the budget. And that is the main reason Clinton left office with a balanced budget (unless you're one of those 'insane' people who subtract the social security receipts from that balancing act because they have SS recipient IOU's claiming them in which case his budget was in the red).
The New York Times doesn't think that it's fair for Perry to run on a fiscal record not of his doing but they've had no problem praising Clinton for the past 20 years for also only being in the right place at the right time to benefit from an economic boom not of his doing at all. How many times have we heard about Clinton leaving office with a surplus in his budget? But you won't hear that the high tech boom created it, not Clinton. You also won't hear that Clinton left office with the economy headed into a recession that began in March 2000 while he was still in office and was definitely the result of his fiscal policies (interest rate increases). He handed Bush a recession that, to this day, the New York Times irrationally gives Bush credit for.
I can't make up my mind whether this story is very funny or very sad.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
The Truth About Entitlement Reform And Lies About Real Reform
Check this out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274363/obamas-entitlement-promises-andrew-stiles
Two things worthy of noting. First, President Obama's own statement that no amount of tax increases will fix the problem. So, why aren't reforms and spending reductions getting more attention by Democrats?
Second, Democrats only talk about entitlement reform that actually reduces cost. And they only do that most reluctantly. Republicans have been presenting real reform in such legislation as the Ryan budget proposed earlier this year. Of course Democrats always vote against it.
By the way, one entitlement reform that is never mentioned is the sub-prime mortgage mess. The 'wall street' aspect of this was 'fixed' by the Dodd-Frank bill but serious economists have torn it apart as not only ineffective but counter-productive. 2,400 pages of nonsense basically. But the 'mortgage mess' resulting from Democrats' sub-prime mortgage gluttony is still out there helping to drag our economy down. (Yes, a government-backed mortgage given to people who can't afford and who think they 'deserve' it is the very definition of 'entitlement'.)
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274363/obamas-entitlement-promises-andrew-stiles
Two things worthy of noting. First, President Obama's own statement that no amount of tax increases will fix the problem. So, why aren't reforms and spending reductions getting more attention by Democrats?
Second, Democrats only talk about entitlement reform that actually reduces cost. And they only do that most reluctantly. Republicans have been presenting real reform in such legislation as the Ryan budget proposed earlier this year. Of course Democrats always vote against it.
By the way, one entitlement reform that is never mentioned is the sub-prime mortgage mess. The 'wall street' aspect of this was 'fixed' by the Dodd-Frank bill but serious economists have torn it apart as not only ineffective but counter-productive. 2,400 pages of nonsense basically. But the 'mortgage mess' resulting from Democrats' sub-prime mortgage gluttony is still out there helping to drag our economy down. (Yes, a government-backed mortgage given to people who can't afford and who think they 'deserve' it is the very definition of 'entitlement'.)
Sunday, August 14, 2011
As Goes Not-So-Great Britain, So Go We!!! :-(
Mark Steyn described the point in my previous blog really, really well:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274492/new-britannia-mark-steyn
Before you yawn over what's happening in Britain regarding the riots, please understand it matters to us! Consider for a rational moment whether we're headed down the same socialist path and whether you really are okay with going where they are now.
There's no substitute in a civil society for personal responsibility. Responsibility for one's life and livelihood. Toward one's family. Toward one's community. Toward one's country. Together citizens can do what needs to be done better, faster, cheaper than what government is proving more and more they're incapable of doing without causing more problems than they fix.
I get SO TIRED of our so-called representatives' claims about "unintended consequences" resulting from their increasingly over-reaching socialistic endeavors. They say they're doing it all for The People when in fact they're only trying to buy votes in the next election rather than doing what will keep our country economically healthy. They implement programs that do half as much as they promised and cost twice as much. Then, after the costs spiral out of control, they tell us, "We know it costs way more than we said but you don't understand, you have to pay for it now"! Do you really think all those entitlement programs that are bankrupting our country are good for us? What our government is doing (and how so many Americans eat it up!) is simply SICK! And seriously damaging to our culture just as is playing out in Britain.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/274492/new-britannia-mark-steyn
Before you yawn over what's happening in Britain regarding the riots, please understand it matters to us! Consider for a rational moment whether we're headed down the same socialist path and whether you really are okay with going where they are now.
There's no substitute in a civil society for personal responsibility. Responsibility for one's life and livelihood. Toward one's family. Toward one's community. Toward one's country. Together citizens can do what needs to be done better, faster, cheaper than what government is proving more and more they're incapable of doing without causing more problems than they fix.
I get SO TIRED of our so-called representatives' claims about "unintended consequences" resulting from their increasingly over-reaching socialistic endeavors. They say they're doing it all for The People when in fact they're only trying to buy votes in the next election rather than doing what will keep our country economically healthy. They implement programs that do half as much as they promised and cost twice as much. Then, after the costs spiral out of control, they tell us, "We know it costs way more than we said but you don't understand, you have to pay for it now"! Do you really think all those entitlement programs that are bankrupting our country are good for us? What our government is doing (and how so many Americans eat it up!) is simply SICK! And seriously damaging to our culture just as is playing out in Britain.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
C'Mon Folks! The Rioters' Own Actions In England Prove It Has Nothing To Do With 'The Rich' OR Cuts In Welfare
All you have to do to understand where the England rioters are coming from is watch their actions. What matters in things like this is what people DO, not what they SAY.
If they're upset, as most of them say, at 'the rich' then why are they going after middle class small businesses rather than the truly rich? Few of those small business owners whose lives the rioters are ruining are among the rich against whom the rioters rail. Those small business owners and their ancestors built their businesses the honest way. Hard work and personal sacrifice. Young people ought to have as a goal, letting their skills and hard work make a better life for themselves rather than living off the largess of taxpayers.
The rioters completely don't understand or, more likely, don't care(!) who created the debt and welfare problems. It was those in government who created unsustainable programs and who spent themselves senselessly into national debt. Members of Parliament did this, not ANY small business owner whose livelihood they are destroying.
Above all, one only has to watch videos of what they're doing to understand it's anarchy at work among the rioters, not protesting or making a point. Protesting and fighting the police is one thing (a more accurately delivered message) but what does breaking into small businesses and stealing the owners' inventory have to do with telling the government or the truly rich that they're mad at them?
The rioters are clearly using Britain's economic problems as an excuse to behave badly and fulfill their desire to have big screen TV's without having to work for them like responsible adults do. If they actually worked for all that 'stuff' and, by that, contribute to Britain's economy in a positive way like mature, responsible adults, the country would be better off. Trying to destroy the middle class's ability to contribute to the national economy is counterproductive to making things better because it's ONLY a successful middle class that can produce the welfare they desire more of.
Stupid, senseless, immature, irresponsible, and completely ignorant behavior. Anarchy doesn't work to make things better. Never has. Never will. Anarchy does the opposite of what the rioters claim they want to achieve. Their actions are in direct opposition to correcting what they claim is wrong with the country. They're not attacking the people who created the problem. They're attacking the ONLY people who make things better, without whom Parliament can't fix anything wrong with their economy.
If they're upset, as most of them say, at 'the rich' then why are they going after middle class small businesses rather than the truly rich? Few of those small business owners whose lives the rioters are ruining are among the rich against whom the rioters rail. Those small business owners and their ancestors built their businesses the honest way. Hard work and personal sacrifice. Young people ought to have as a goal, letting their skills and hard work make a better life for themselves rather than living off the largess of taxpayers.
The rioters completely don't understand or, more likely, don't care(!) who created the debt and welfare problems. It was those in government who created unsustainable programs and who spent themselves senselessly into national debt. Members of Parliament did this, not ANY small business owner whose livelihood they are destroying.
Above all, one only has to watch videos of what they're doing to understand it's anarchy at work among the rioters, not protesting or making a point. Protesting and fighting the police is one thing (a more accurately delivered message) but what does breaking into small businesses and stealing the owners' inventory have to do with telling the government or the truly rich that they're mad at them?
The rioters are clearly using Britain's economic problems as an excuse to behave badly and fulfill their desire to have big screen TV's without having to work for them like responsible adults do. If they actually worked for all that 'stuff' and, by that, contribute to Britain's economy in a positive way like mature, responsible adults, the country would be better off. Trying to destroy the middle class's ability to contribute to the national economy is counterproductive to making things better because it's ONLY a successful middle class that can produce the welfare they desire more of.
Stupid, senseless, immature, irresponsible, and completely ignorant behavior. Anarchy doesn't work to make things better. Never has. Never will. Anarchy does the opposite of what the rioters claim they want to achieve. Their actions are in direct opposition to correcting what they claim is wrong with the country. They're not attacking the people who created the problem. They're attacking the ONLY people who make things better, without whom Parliament can't fix anything wrong with their economy.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The REAL ROOT CAUSE Of Our Recession And Why Dems' Fix Doesn't Do Anything Good About It
Democrats are still in denial what caused this recession (sub-prime mortgage push by Democrats). Worse, their 'fix' for it doesn't address the root cause and mostly adds to our problems by way of excessive regulation and mindless growth of our federal government. Here is one of the most intelligent analyses I've seen to date in case you're interested in facts and truth for a change:
The challenge for Americans: will congress and our president come to their senses and do what MUST be done instead of what their special interests tell them to do?
The challenge for Americans: will congress and our president come to their senses and do what MUST be done instead of what their special interests tell them to do?
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Why Doesn't 'The Media' Understand The DOW Has Nothing To Do With Average Americans' Economic Reality?
The DOW has been on a general upward course since this recession hit. It is now about 50% higher than just before the recession began. The Media in general seems to think the current fairly high DOW number represents a healthy economy. They clearly don't get it.
The stock market represents what investors are doing. Those people are making money off rises and dips in the market all the time. In general they've done very, VERY well for the past 3 years while most average Americans' finances and job situations are not good at all. Unemployment remains above 9%. Retired Amercians have lost huge amounts of retirement funds and net worth (much of which is tied up in their home which is now worth approximately 40% less than it was three years ago).
The stock market is NOT reality for us peons!!! What does or does not happen to the stock market as a consequence of our country's rating being lowered from AAA to AA+ doesn't matter to me much. What DOES matter is that our wonderful(?) leaders have decided to keep interest rates at historical lows for the NEXT 2 YEARS! That means that my investments will continue returning less than I need to live on.
Retired people tend to keep investments in secure things. Most of such secure investments depend heavily on the prime rate which we now hear will be stuck at historical lows. We did little to cause the recession but we're paying a big price in loss of income and loss of net worth. Our savings are significantly responsible for keeping this economy from going totally under and are now responsible for keeping it afloat. The thanks we get? Basically the proverbial middle finger.
Our leaders want people to borrow more (to spur the economy based on the insane reasoning that more(!) debt is the solution to our problem) so they're keeping the prime lending rate extra low. They're doing the exact wrong thing for everyone, especially for retirees.
To those in congress and the White House we say thanks for nothing!
The stock market represents what investors are doing. Those people are making money off rises and dips in the market all the time. In general they've done very, VERY well for the past 3 years while most average Americans' finances and job situations are not good at all. Unemployment remains above 9%. Retired Amercians have lost huge amounts of retirement funds and net worth (much of which is tied up in their home which is now worth approximately 40% less than it was three years ago).
The stock market is NOT reality for us peons!!! What does or does not happen to the stock market as a consequence of our country's rating being lowered from AAA to AA+ doesn't matter to me much. What DOES matter is that our wonderful(?) leaders have decided to keep interest rates at historical lows for the NEXT 2 YEARS! That means that my investments will continue returning less than I need to live on.
Retired people tend to keep investments in secure things. Most of such secure investments depend heavily on the prime rate which we now hear will be stuck at historical lows. We did little to cause the recession but we're paying a big price in loss of income and loss of net worth. Our savings are significantly responsible for keeping this economy from going totally under and are now responsible for keeping it afloat. The thanks we get? Basically the proverbial middle finger.
Our leaders want people to borrow more (to spur the economy based on the insane reasoning that more(!) debt is the solution to our problem) so they're keeping the prime lending rate extra low. They're doing the exact wrong thing for everyone, especially for retirees.
To those in congress and the White House we say thanks for nothing!
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Building On Previous Blog ... What Do Obama's Move And Nods Toward The Center Tell Us About Progressivism?
Did anyone notice that Obama dropped his appeal for more spending to fix our economic woes? Don't you remember that the budget he sent to congress about three months ago failed to get a single democratic vote because, in it he wanted to double down on spending that he'd been doing for 2+ years?
Did you notice he's now talking actual spending cuts as if he knew and had been promoting that all along when in fact (and until barely more than a month ago) he had been pushing hard not for a little more spending but a lot more spending?
So, he got elected running as a far-left progressive and he's moving to the center on government spending as time for his second term approaches. Why is he doing that? He has been, if nothing else, a very partisan progressive to the core all his life. He's no doubt doing it to save his presidency, not because he believes it'll help the economy. And it's what progressive presidents do. Check this out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273429/obama-out-options-jonah-goldberg
Why do strongly progressive presidents run toward the center just before their second term? Because they've just spent the better part of their first term proving once again(!) that progressive economic policies don't make for a healthy economy and they most certainly don't fix one that's ailing. How many times do we need to see the same results before we understand it doesn't work no matter how charismatic and 'smart' the president is?
"We are the ones we have been waiting for!"? Are you kidding me? How's that working out?
Did you notice he's now talking actual spending cuts as if he knew and had been promoting that all along when in fact (and until barely more than a month ago) he had been pushing hard not for a little more spending but a lot more spending?
So, he got elected running as a far-left progressive and he's moving to the center on government spending as time for his second term approaches. Why is he doing that? He has been, if nothing else, a very partisan progressive to the core all his life. He's no doubt doing it to save his presidency, not because he believes it'll help the economy. And it's what progressive presidents do. Check this out:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273429/obama-out-options-jonah-goldberg
Why do strongly progressive presidents run toward the center just before their second term? Because they've just spent the better part of their first term proving once again(!) that progressive economic policies don't make for a healthy economy and they most certainly don't fix one that's ailing. How many times do we need to see the same results before we understand it doesn't work no matter how charismatic and 'smart' the president is?
"We are the ones we have been waiting for!"? Are you kidding me? How's that working out?
Even An Obama Advisor Understands FDR's New Deal Approach Wasn't Working Very Well
Progressives have been trying to convince us for 2 1/2 years under Obama's presidency that government-created job programs fix an ailing economy. A job is a job is a job to them. Not so fast.
How has it worked out so far for Obama? Stimulus after stimulus, spending on top of record spending has gotten us where exactly in the 2 1/2 years his policies have been pursued? 9.2% unemployment 2 years after full implementation of his economic policies and an economy that's no better off than it was 2 1/2 years ago.
By this time after full implementation of the Bush approach on May 28, 2003, unemployment was back down to 4.4% and federal revenue was a record(!) $2.5 Trillion. How can a rational person say these differences don't matter and that Bush's economic policies failed? To do so defies logic and denies factual truth.
Obama's approach is completely in line with FDR's. Remember the New Deal and government 'works' programs? Before you regurgitate the progressive history-twisting line that FDR's progressive programs worked, check out a quote from one of Obama's own advisors, Larry Summers: "Never forget that if Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15% and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed."
Of course, conservatives, especially Tea Party types have been saying that for years but when a key advisor to Obama, the most progressive president in America's history, says FDR's highly-touted New Deal government-created jobs progressivism didn't work, it deserves some consideration by Americans, including supporters of Obama's approach doesn't it? After all, Obama has been hard at work proving all over again that it doesn't work.
At what point do we seriously consider that incentives to spur on private sector employment instead of government jobs work best, not by a little bit but by far? Bush and FDR ... and now Obama(!) ... have proved that's true. Or do you irrationally think that historical fact is irrelevant?
How has it worked out so far for Obama? Stimulus after stimulus, spending on top of record spending has gotten us where exactly in the 2 1/2 years his policies have been pursued? 9.2% unemployment 2 years after full implementation of his economic policies and an economy that's no better off than it was 2 1/2 years ago.
By this time after full implementation of the Bush approach on May 28, 2003, unemployment was back down to 4.4% and federal revenue was a record(!) $2.5 Trillion. How can a rational person say these differences don't matter and that Bush's economic policies failed? To do so defies logic and denies factual truth.
Obama's approach is completely in line with FDR's. Remember the New Deal and government 'works' programs? Before you regurgitate the progressive history-twisting line that FDR's progressive programs worked, check out a quote from one of Obama's own advisors, Larry Summers: "Never forget that if Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15% and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed."
Of course, conservatives, especially Tea Party types have been saying that for years but when a key advisor to Obama, the most progressive president in America's history, says FDR's highly-touted New Deal government-created jobs progressivism didn't work, it deserves some consideration by Americans, including supporters of Obama's approach doesn't it? After all, Obama has been hard at work proving all over again that it doesn't work.
At what point do we seriously consider that incentives to spur on private sector employment instead of government jobs work best, not by a little bit but by far? Bush and FDR ... and now Obama(!) ... have proved that's true. Or do you irrationally think that historical fact is irrelevant?
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Environmentalism and Police State Lunacy
Check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43986826/ns/us_news-weird_news/
The 'authorities' who inflicted this nonsense on those people are wrong. It wasn't just a 'mistake'. It was a STUPID error in judgement and a total failure to apply common sense. This is what happens when government takes it upon itself to control things too much. Common sense goes right out the window and they blindly 'regulate' what people do. It's just the tip of the iceberg in big brother government and environmentalism running amok.
As government continues getting bigger and regulation (especially environmental regulation) continues getting more encompassing and complicated we'll see far worse lunacy than this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43986826/ns/us_news-weird_news/
The 'authorities' who inflicted this nonsense on those people are wrong. It wasn't just a 'mistake'. It was a STUPID error in judgement and a total failure to apply common sense. This is what happens when government takes it upon itself to control things too much. Common sense goes right out the window and they blindly 'regulate' what people do. It's just the tip of the iceberg in big brother government and environmentalism running amok.
As government continues getting bigger and regulation (especially environmental regulation) continues getting more encompassing and complicated we'll see far worse lunacy than this.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Maybe Ms. Pelosi's Statement Is Not So Unusual After All
Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's statement (ref. immediately preceding blog) isn't all that unusual for today's progressives. I just recalled that President-Elect Obama told Europeans on his tour there prior to his election, "We are the ones we've been waiting for!" which is, indeed, messianic too. So, I guess Ms. Pelosi is just being consistent, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)