Boehner Move on Marriage Act Sparks Sharp Reactions - Washington Wire - WSJ
The Republicans under Bush put there emphasis on packing the Supreme Court and thus spent money to try and stay in office (e.g. the Medicare prescription benefit). They gave up tackling economic and regulatory issues because they were pandering to the Christian mullahs of the religious right.
Those moderates who may have voted for Obama and then Republicans in the fall have to hope that the mullah agenda of the religious right won't dominate again; but, with no budget and the economy what should be the front and center focus, it sure looks like the Republicans will once again take their eyes off the economic ball so they can bow and scrape to the hate of the mullahs.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Letters to the Editor: Cutting Spending Will Cut Jobs - WSJ.com
CHURCH GOING, HELL, DEMOCRATIC POLICIES AND JOBLESSNESS: Letters to the Editor: Cutting Spending Will Cut Jobs - WSJ.com
Lots of questions come to the fore here, amongst which are:
1) Is this spending 'consumption' or 'investment'? (Clearly the society needs to move toward more investment and less consumption by those who aren't producing, etc.)
2) While some believe interest rates can be manipulated to support endless deficits without consequences (i.e. the jobs lost argument above), the Greek situation would seem to argue the opposite - i.e. that there are consequences.
And, since those who run businesses (vs. government) tend to have a greater interest in understanding things like economics and consequences, those with businesses rightly perceive that current spending is unsustainable and is likely, among other things, to lead to substantially higher interest rates and either high inflation or severe austerity.
Thus, the social spending by government crowds out (with a multiple) job creation by business.
3) The government needs to recognize that there are many policies that need to change to make it at least roughly equal for many jobs to be done in the US vs. overseas.
More government, more entitlements, greater borrowings, more regulations, etc. are exactly the wrong way to go.
---
But, it is like those who believe you'll go to hell if you don't go to church. Democrats believe without more government, taxes, unions and spending, the economy won't recover.
Frankly, the evidence would appear to be in. Democrat policies have failed, are failing and will continue to fail.
Lots of questions come to the fore here, amongst which are:
1) Is this spending 'consumption' or 'investment'? (Clearly the society needs to move toward more investment and less consumption by those who aren't producing, etc.)
2) While some believe interest rates can be manipulated to support endless deficits without consequences (i.e. the jobs lost argument above), the Greek situation would seem to argue the opposite - i.e. that there are consequences.
And, since those who run businesses (vs. government) tend to have a greater interest in understanding things like economics and consequences, those with businesses rightly perceive that current spending is unsustainable and is likely, among other things, to lead to substantially higher interest rates and either high inflation or severe austerity.
Thus, the social spending by government crowds out (with a multiple) job creation by business.
3) The government needs to recognize that there are many policies that need to change to make it at least roughly equal for many jobs to be done in the US vs. overseas.
More government, more entitlements, greater borrowings, more regulations, etc. are exactly the wrong way to go.
---
But, it is like those who believe you'll go to hell if you don't go to church. Democrats believe without more government, taxes, unions and spending, the economy won't recover.
Frankly, the evidence would appear to be in. Democrat policies have failed, are failing and will continue to fail.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Holman Jenkins: Winds of Change in Unionland - WSJ.com
OBAMANDREU: Holman Jenkins: Winds of Change in Unionland - WSJ.com
And why aren't we asking why Obama's policies haven't delivered the kind of rebound in jobs and the economy that should follow a recession?
Instead we are being told that $60 billion in less government is going to decrease GDP growth by 2%. Do they think we are idiots? Obamandreu is following the Greek economic model and when it crashes, the GDP goes along with it; and, $60 billion will be chump change compared to the amount the US will have to soon pay in higher interest costs on the Federal debt.
Sadly the media doesn't want to alarm people that they have a Greek-type socialist setting economic priorities.
And why aren't we asking why Obama's policies haven't delivered the kind of rebound in jobs and the economy that should follow a recession?
Instead we are being told that $60 billion in less government is going to decrease GDP growth by 2%. Do they think we are idiots? Obamandreu is following the Greek economic model and when it crashes, the GDP goes along with it; and, $60 billion will be chump change compared to the amount the US will have to soon pay in higher interest costs on the Federal debt.
Sadly the media doesn't want to alarm people that they have a Greek-type socialist setting economic priorities.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Two-Week Budget Bill Clears House - WSJ.com
BALANCE, IM-PBALANCE:Two-Week Budget Bill Clears House - WSJ.com
From what I read in the comments to articles in the WSJ, a number of people have no faith in the fiscal management of government by now either party.
Clearly many (likely small business owners who could hire and expand there businesses) think only unspeakable (oh well, speak if you will) things about Obama, et al.
But now, the Tea Party has clearly been bought off.
This has to be a negative to the confidence necessary on the part of small and other business people that the government will cut back the entitlement (and implicitly higher tax and interest rate) juggernaut.
It's a sad day - unless one assumes this idiocy will lead to a major break that will suddenly open people's eyes to the need to start to balance work and reward, savings and investment with a free lunch.
Will all of this balancing happen within a few years or is it decades or a century or more away?
From what I read in the comments to articles in the WSJ, a number of people have no faith in the fiscal management of government by now either party.
Clearly many (likely small business owners who could hire and expand there businesses) think only unspeakable (oh well, speak if you will) things about Obama, et al.
But now, the Tea Party has clearly been bought off.
This has to be a negative to the confidence necessary on the part of small and other business people that the government will cut back the entitlement (and implicitly higher tax and interest rate) juggernaut.
It's a sad day - unless one assumes this idiocy will lead to a major break that will suddenly open people's eyes to the need to start to balance work and reward, savings and investment with a free lunch.
Will all of this balancing happen within a few years or is it decades or a century or more away?
Federal Reserve's William Dudley Sees U.S. Weathering Oil Shock - WSJ.com
ON WAGES AND JOBS: Federal Reserve's William Dudley Sees U.S. Weathering Oil Shock - WSJ.com
How do you think wages go up or jobs get created?
What the government is now doing is to refuse to make any changes or adjustments to the laws, regulations and taxes that make the US a less-desirable place in which to do business (think also immigration policies which keep educated people out who can contribute to the jobs of the future).
Also, there is a huge dichotomy between the unemployment rates of those with (under 5%) and those without a college education.
The well-meaning minimum wage laws (and high ancillary employment costs) basically mean that if the economic utility of a job is less than the combined costs, the job either doesn't get created in the US or it is outsourced to another country.
Thus, the US has an education deficit (you can hear Obama exhorting people to try and keep kids in high school on Bloomberg radio, but you don't see him attacking a major source of the problem which include liberal education policies and the teachers unions). Thus, the upgrading of the education of our youngest workers is another failed Obama policy - because he can't confront his liberal and unions supporters.
Etc., etc. - the US should have policies that bring down labor costs for the less educated and the less educated need to be told they will have to work for less! Printing money with abandon is only delaying the inevitable and is making things worse. (Of course, those who don't understand this are likely to be the most hurt by these policies.)
How do you think wages go up or jobs get created?
What the government is now doing is to refuse to make any changes or adjustments to the laws, regulations and taxes that make the US a less-desirable place in which to do business (think also immigration policies which keep educated people out who can contribute to the jobs of the future).
Also, there is a huge dichotomy between the unemployment rates of those with (under 5%) and those without a college education.
The well-meaning minimum wage laws (and high ancillary employment costs) basically mean that if the economic utility of a job is less than the combined costs, the job either doesn't get created in the US or it is outsourced to another country.
Thus, the US has an education deficit (you can hear Obama exhorting people to try and keep kids in high school on Bloomberg radio, but you don't see him attacking a major source of the problem which include liberal education policies and the teachers unions). Thus, the upgrading of the education of our youngest workers is another failed Obama policy - because he can't confront his liberal and unions supporters.
Etc., etc. - the US should have policies that bring down labor costs for the less educated and the less educated need to be told they will have to work for less! Printing money with abandon is only delaying the inevitable and is making things worse. (Of course, those who don't understand this are likely to be the most hurt by these policies.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
