• April 2017
    M T W T F S S
    « Dec    
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
  • Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

    Ronald Reagan

    ---

    When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right boot is of no consequence.

    Gary Lloyd

    ---

    We have a system that increasingly taxes and subsidizes nonwork.

    Milton Friedman

    ---

    The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money

    Alexis de Tocqueville

    ---

    Those of us who manage the public dollars will be held to account to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and our government.

    Barack Hussein Obama, 1/20/09

    ---

    My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.

    Barack Hussein Obama

    ---

    “And the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history”

    Nancy Pelosi, Election Night 2006

    ---

    A community organizer can't bitch when communities organize.

    Rush Limbaugh

    ---

2 kinds of people

I just saw this on an internet forum:

There are two kinds of people in the Electorate:

1. People who remember how horrible the Jimmy Carter years were.

2. People who are about to find out.

I would normally put this under Humor, but it’s anything but. It’s reality.

welcomebackcarter

It’s The Economy Stupid…

and it won’t be long before the US economy is in the hands of The Messiah and his administration. Wall Street apparently doesn’t think too highly of an Obama administration, as US markets dropped 10% over the 2 days following the election.  Of course, it also could be a result of the double-whammy we have to look forward to, with both a Democrat White House AND Congress…we shall see in the upcoming months.

My decision between the 2 major candidates in Tuesday’s election came down to the lesser of 2 evils, with the 3 main considerations being national security, control of the government, and economic considerations. I voted for John McCain mainly due to his abilities with managing national security, as well as the fact that he was of the opposite party of the Congress, and his economic policies would have (hopefully) been less liberal than BHO. However, after reading an article in Reason magazine after the election, from a strictly economic standpoint, BHO may have been a better choice in the short-term. 

This article is in the November 2008 Reason magazine, written by Veronique de Rugy, titled “Fear of a Unified Government” and subtitled “What happens to federal spending when the Democrats control both Congress and the presidency?”

I’ll let you read through the article, but it’s summarized as a Democratic White House and Republican Congress being the least damaging to spending, while the worse is one party controlling both the Executive and Legislative branches. I believe that it’s somewhat probable that there will be a change in the balance of power over the next 2-4 years.

 

As for the downsides of a Democrat-run country, The Executive and Legislative branches will be doing their best to screw up an already unstable economy, which is the LAST thing we need. For reasons not well understood to myself, Liberals (Democrat AND RINOs) generally don’t understand that raising taxes will not, in the long run, result in higher revenue. LOWERING taxes will raise revenues by spurring economic growth. It’s not a difficult concept that if you have more businesses making money, and more employees earning money, tax revenues at lower rates will be much higher than by stifling the economy with higher and punitive taxes. By punishing business owners, they will either not invest any further in their company, they may even move their business out of the country, or go OUT of business; each of these scenarios lead to higher unemployment, which further decreases the size of the tax base, while increasing the number of workers who need government assistance.

Prior to the “bailout”, I was supportive of the Republicans, despite being more of a Libertarian with my views and philosophies. I voted for Bush both times, but had a fair amount of times when I was displeased with some of his moves (No Child Left Behind and his efforts to grow, rather than restrict government, to name a few).  On the day that the bailout passed, I was so pissed off, that I decided to call the White House to voice my strong displeasure over his rape of taxpayers (while fully realizing that it was mainly Bill Clinton and Democrat CongressThiefs that caused the initial problem). I called the White House, but it was after hours, and by the time the next day came, I had calmed down enough to realize that it would do no good anyway.

As for the current possibility of taxpayers providing funds to automakers, I think that’s going to be another boondoggle as well. The problems leading up to the difficulties for US auto manufacturers are those of mismanagement, and union greed. First, the management should have accounted for the fact that energy  prices would go higher with large countries such as China using so much more. Second, the unions have been making sweetheart deals for their members, but kept wanting more and more. The contracts that were negotiated force the companies to continue to provide very expensive benefits even AFTER an employee is no longer involved in being a part of working to produce a profit. Similar to those fully capable of working, but instead leech off of taxpayers in the form of government entitlements and various other programs.

If you are old enough to remember the Jimmy Carter years, the next 2-4 years will make the late ’70s seem like economic boom times.