About This Blog
"I'm running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House" - Barack Obama, June 2007.
Isn't it grand ? No more influence from K street in an Obama administration. No sirree. Change is on the way. No more lobbyists peddling their special interests. Barack told us almost daily on the campaign trail for nearly two years that the days of lobbying influence were O-V-E-R.To read more or comment...
In my previous understanding of free market capitalism, business had the opportunity to succeed or fail on it's own merits. If a company was well-run and consumers desired it's products, the company was successful. If not, the company wasn't successful, and it failed. It was survival of the fittest. That Darwinian concept led to the existence of the best and strongest companies, who provided the best and strongest products. The notion is part and parcel of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" free-market economic theory. While free market capitalism is not perfection (some businesses will fail and there is an inherent inequity of wealth), from a historical viewpoint, free market capitalism seems to be far superior to any other economic alternative that has yet been devised. The United States Of America, the world's lone superpower (for now) stands as profound evidence of that fact. We didn't win the Cold War because we were lucky. We won because we had a superior economic model.
But, as I said, that was my previous understanding. It was pure, perhaps a little naive. My current understanding is this - we don't have a free market capitalist economy at all. Not at the higher levels, and by osmosis, not at the bottom either. Contrary to Barack Obama's statement that he will grow the economy from "the bottom up", all prevailing evidence suggests our economy is grown from the top down. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't matter if the financial and credit markets froze up or not. We wouldn't be facing a second Great Depression over it, because we could still grow the economy from the bottom, as Obama says. We all know that can't be done, because when the top fails, there is no access to capital from the top to start new businesses at the bottom, and there is reduced access to jobs from the top to accumulate individual wealth at the bottom. When the top can no longer perform it's economic functions, it's the bottom that feels the heat the most. As much as I detest the term "trickle down" economics, that is exactly the way it works. Trickle down isn't just some Republican shibboleth, it's the nature of capitalism. If a little guy needs $30,000 to start a small business, and the big guy doesn't have the $30,000 to lend, it's game over. No new business for the little guy. As is often said, nobody ever got a job from a poor person. In the vast majority of cases, jobs and businesses are created from existing wealth, not out of nothing. Obama even disproves his "from the bottom up" economic theories with his own policies, which require intervention from the federal government, the ultimate top, to be implemented.To read more or comment...
Sorry I've been away for a few days, but I've been preoccupied with some personal family issues.
To read more or comment...
Mitt Romney was the candidate I supported for president above all others this year. John McCain was a poor GOP substitute, but I still voted for McCain, because I thought McCain's economic policies were better, especially during this economic downturn. Obama's anti-business policies were simply the wrong prescription for what ails us. I don't see how Obama's business policies do anything other than exacerbate the existing problems. McCain's business tax cuts and proposals to hold down federal spending were a partial solution, but alas, it was not to be. As I read the following Q&A with Mitt Romney, I found myself agreeing with just about everything he said. I'd love to see Obama make Romney one of his economic advisors (Is there a snowball's chance ? Probably not). Romney "gets" it.
Barack Obama - 52%
John McCain - 46%
The anti-Bush backlash is complete. Barack Obama (D-IL) will become the 44th president of the United States of America, and take with him solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (as of now, 54-44-2 in the Senate, and 248-187-1 in the House Of Representatives). This gives Democrats a level of governmental power not seen since the days of Jimmy Carter. For the sake of our country, I sincerely hope this Democratic rule works out better than the disaster of the Carter years. It may seem to many that there is nowhere to go but up following 8 years of George W. Bush. That is not the case. In the past, things have been much worse than they are right now. Which direction this country takes under an Obama presidency remains to be seen, but I pray that God grants our new president the wisdom to make positive change. Though it seems Barack Obama and myself could hardly be further apart in political ideology, I don't want him to fail so I can prove some ideological point. I want him to succeed, for the good of our country and citizens.To read more or comment...
This has been the longest presidential election cycle ever. It's been going on for, what, about 17 years now ? It seems like it. I have Obama's rap down so well that I know what he's going to say before he says it. I amuse my girlfriend by pausing the television and then telling her exactly what Obama is about to say, and then playing back Obama's answer to see how close I was. I'm usually right on the money. It's almost eerie, really. If you listen to Obama enough, you start to realize how robotic he is, how programmed his responses are. The media refers to this as Obama being "focused" and "on message." He certainly is that. Maybe familiarity does breed contempt, because I have Obama fatigue, and he hasn't even been elected yet. Not that I mean to bring anyone down from their "hope" and "change" Obama high. I'm just making an observation.
This has also been the most expensive election cycle ever, by far. According to the Wall Street Journal, the presidential campaign has cost $1.6 billion in 2008, more than double what it cost four years ago. In total, WSJ estimates the cost of all the political campaigns across the country at $5.3 billion. Barack Obama has raised more than $620 million, smashing all previous records. Ironically, both presidential candidates talk about keeping the money and special interests out of Washington D.C. At least John McCain stuck to his public campaign financing pledge, even though it put him at a huge disadvantage. Obama did not stick to his word, choosing instead what was politically convenient. If past is prologue for an Obama presidency, that does not bode well.To read more or comment...
Time for a little economic straight talk. This week's headlines informed us that Exxon/Mobil made a record profit of $14.3 billion for the 3rd quarter of 2008. Barack Obama immediately added this tidbit to his campaign stump speech to illustrate the unfairness gap between the haves and the have-nots, and also to bash John McCain's tax plan. The Barack Obama's of the world get very upset when private companies make such large profits. They see it as E-V-I-L and G-R-E-E-D-Y. In ObamaWorld, the more money you rake in, the more evil and greedy you are (federal government excepted). What Obama and friends leave out of the equation is this - Exxon/Mobil also paid $11.3 billion in taxes for the 3rd quarter. Isn't that enough ? Isn't that too much ? That money funds those endless government programs Obama loves so much (Obama has proposed increasing spending on no less than 175 government initiatives. I wonder when he finds time to sleep). You see, in order for Obama to redistribute wealth, there must be wealth to begin with, and it's our private sector that creates it. With so many American businesses struggling and/or failing right now, why is Obama holding up for derision the one company that is doing the best ? The reason is, Democrats play class warfare games to get elected, but Obama should realize that killing the golden goose doesn't make for very smart economic policy. It's not like we'd be better off if all our companies were losing tons of money, as the automakers, banks, airlines, and many others are doing. Count me as one who wishes all our businesses were as successful as Exxon/Mobil. That would take care of 98% of America's problems right there. In order to help our businesses be successful, which in turn enables our citizens to become employed, successful, and prosperous themselves, it just might be a good idea to HELP the business sector rather than add ever more hurdles for it to overcome. That's why John McCain's tax/economic policy, which lowers the business tax rate, keeps the capital gains tax rate low to encourage investment, and enables American businesses to be more competitive, is a REAL GOOD idea, while Obama's tax/economic policy, which penalizes business success and adds new business burdens, is a REAL BAD idea, unless we as a nation have some sort of perverse death wish.
While I'm on the subject, let's explode another Obama falsehood, one that he's repeated about 100,000 times by now. McCain's tax/economic policy is NOT the same as George W. Bush's, not at all. Bush cut the individual income tax rates for 100% of us, like Obama is proposing for 95% of us. McCain is NOT proposing individual income tax rate cuts. What McCain is proposing is to cut the business tax rate from 35% (second highest in the entire world) to 25%. I only wish McCain was cutting that tax rate even lower to attract more new businesses and more new jobs to this country. The object of taxation isn't to centralize wealth in the hands of the federal government, it's to help the people. Nothing helps people more than jobs. No government entitlement even runs a close second to employment for promoting the general welfare.To read more or comment...
Liberals have an affinity for the big government nanny-statism of socialist Europe. Don't ask me why. It doesn't make much sense to me, but that's the way it is. However, if a Conservative actually uses the word "socialist" to describe liberal socialist policies, liberals become apoplectic. Don't ask me to explain that one either. That makes even less sense. I mean, it's not like The Communists of the old USSR bridled at being called Communists. Of course they didn't. They WERE Communists. They were proud of it. They thought their way was the best (wrong, comrade, but nice try). Yet liberals, who propose one collectivist, socialist, big government policy after another, take umbrage at being called Socialists. I don't get it. It's as if liberals are afraid to air their true beliefs in public, for fear they will be exposed. Why ? Let's stop all the game playing, and call a spade a spade. Let's measure European socialist policy against American free-market capitalist policy. Maybe we can discover which policy works the best (the question was actually settled long ago, but apparently, liberals keep forgetting).
Back in 2004, a pair of Swedish economists, Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag, did a study called "The EU vs. USA", for the Swedish think tank Timbro. You may recall that Sweden is one of those European socialist countries that liberals like to point to as a model of success, a country we should pattern ourselves after.To read more or comment...
- 2013 (55)
- 2012 (125)
- 2011 (167)
- 2010 (185)
- 2009 (228)
- 2008 (195)
- 2007 (72)