U.S. Tax Dollars being Invested to Create Jobs in China

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 1st, 2012

Week in Review

The U.S. government bailed out GM.  Instead of letting them go through a normal bankruptcy proceeding that would make GM competitive again so they could sell cars in the U.S. again.  Instead, the government gave GM taxpayer money to fund their pension and retiree health care costs.  Which will do nothing to improve their competitiveness.  Or create new jobs in the U.S.  So what will that massive government investment do for GM?  Allow them to expand and create jobs…in China (see GM Chinese venture to build $1 billion plant in Chongqing by Ben Klayman posted 11/28/2012 on Reuters).

General Motors Co (GM.N) and its Chinese joint-venture partners said on Wednesday they plan to build a $1 billion auto assembly plant in the city of Chongqing as the GM group bids to remain the leader in the world’s largest auto market…

Earlier this month, GM and its Chinese partners opened a plant in the southern city of Liuzhou for its low-cost Baojun brand. That plant will also eventually have an annual production capacity of 400,000 vehicles…

In September, GM opened a large vehicle test track west of Shanghai. GM and its partners invested $252 million to build what officials called the country’s largest proving ground.

In addition to Liuzhou, the joint venture currently operates a plant in Qingdao. GM and SAIC, through a different joint venture, also have a plant in Shanghai, and several more in northeast China.

This is not helping the U.S. economy.  Building plants and creating jobs in China.  All this is doing is allowing GM to make money like Wall Street makes money.  By investing money.  And getting a return on their Chinese investments.  Government Motors, I mean, General Motors is doing the very thing the Democrats hammered Mitt Romney for doing during the 2012 election.  Creating jobs in China.  The only difference, of course, is that Romney didn’t use U.S. tax money to create any of his jobs.

So the government bailout of General Motors didn’t help anyone but the UAW whose high costs were making them uncompetitive (the source of all of GM’s problems).  And the Chinese.  It didn’t create any new jobs in America.  And it didn’t help GM become more competitive.  Forcing them to rely on their Chinese job growth because their cost structure just won’t let them sell more cars or add more jobs in the United States.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

FT130: “Tax dollars pay the bills. Not tax rates.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 10th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Even though we have a Progressive Tax System we don’t have a Progressive Movie Ticket Price System

The average price for a movie ticket is about $8.  A flat price.  In dollars.  Whatever you earn.  If you earn $50 in gross daily earnings you pay $8.  If you earn $100 in gross daily earnings you pay $8.  If you earn $200 in gross daily earnings you pay $8.  Is that fair?  Based on the amount people could pay, no.  Because $8 is a different percentage of each earner’s daily gross pay.  It’s only 4% for those who earn $200 daily.  It’s 8% for those who earn $100 daily.  And a whopping 16% for those who only earn $50 daily.  Is that fair?  Well, if we measure fairness by the way we pay income taxes, no.  This is not fair.

Look, we live in a fair country.  We have a progressive tax system.  So we should have a progressive movie ticket price system.  And someone who only earns $50 a day shouldn’t be paying 16% of their earnings for a movie ticket.  Not when someone who can more easily afford to pay more only pays 4% for a ticket.  These numbers are upside down.  The lower income people should only pay 4%.  The middle income people should pay 8% because they can more easily afford it.  And the high income earner should pay 16% because if they don’t they’re not paying their fair share.  So let’s say the government makes it so.

Once we make going to the movies fair this is what we can expect at the box office.  Those with daily earnings of $50 pay only $2 for a ticket.  Those with daily gross earnings of $100 pay $8.  And those with gross daily earnings of $200 pay $32 for their movie ticket.  The low-income earners will be very happy with this new fairness.  Those middle-income earners will have mixed feelings but won’t complain because they don’t have to pay any more.  The high-income earners, though, will not be happy with the new ticket pricing policy.  Because sitting in a theater is not worth $32 a ticket.  Especially if they’re taking their spouse and 3 kids.  Making a night at the movies cost $160.  Or 80% of their daily gross earnings.  And that doesn’t include any concession snacks.

The Problem with Fairness is that you can have the Best Intentions and end up with the Worst Results

You know who would love this?  Theater owners.  (As well as movie studios and the actors who share in box office sales.)  They would all be for fairness.  Because they would see greater earnings.  The typical theater seats about 225.  At $8 a ticket that comes to $1,800 in revenue per show.  When they implement the fairness policy, though, they could do better.  Say 40% of theater goers are low-income, 40% are middle-income and 20% are high-income.  Based on the fair ticket price policy the theater owner will increase earnings to $2,340.  That’s a revenue increase of $540.  Or an increase of 30%.  So, sure, the theater owners would all be for fairness when it comes to ticket prices.  (As well as the movie studies and actors.)

Until, that is, when the high-income people stop going to the theater.  If their seats remain empty the theater will not collect their $1, 440 in revenue per show.  Their seats will remain empty.  And half the people watching the movie will be paying only $2 for their ticket.  This will reduce revenue by $900.  Or a decrease of 50%.  Which will change the way theater owners think about fairness.  As they struggle to stay in business.  And if they can’t change the government fair pricing system their costs will exceed their revenue.  They will have to make cuts everywhere they can to get their costs under their revenue.  Lowering the quality of the movie going experience.  To the point people just stay home and watch something they download online while eating microwave popcorn.  Eventually shuttering the theater.  And putting more people out of a job.  (Not to mention making it impossible for a movie studio to make a profit on all but the biggest blockbusters and the cheapest to films to make.  And the big movie stars would all see a hug pay cut.  Which would ripple through the movie industry putting an even greater number of people out of a job.)

This is the problem with fairness.  You can have the best intentions.  And end up with the worst results.  That’s because the ‘fairness people’ think everything in the economy is static.  That a change ‘here’ won’t effect change ‘there’.  But the economy isn’t static.  It’s dynamic.  And a change ‘here’ does effect change ‘there’.  Because people are thinking, rational beings.  While state planners think they know what’s fair the people living their policies often think otherwise.  And change their behavior.  To minimize their costs under their fairness policies.  Because that is human nature.  Just like it is for people every day who shop around to find the lowest price and best value before spending their hard-earned money.

The Rich are more Generous in their Tax Dollar Contributions than the Poor and the Middle Class

The Left wants to raise the tax rates on the high-income earners.  To make them pay their ‘fair’ share.  Foolishly thinking that doing this will bring in more tax revenue.  It won’t.  Because people are thinking, rational beings.  These ‘rich’ people can either invest their money into businesses and create jobs.  Or they can put their money into treasury bonds and create no jobs.  One is high risk (creating jobs).  One is low risk (not creating jobs).  And when you increase the taxes on the high-risk investment you reduce the return on that investment.  And reduce the incentive to create jobs.  So instead of investing in jobs they park their money safely in bonds.  Reducing the income (business owner and employees) the government can tax.  As well as reducing a host of other taxes (sales tax, property tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, etc.).  All in the name of fairness.

So why do they do it?  Why are they always imposing fairness on us?  Because when it comes to class warfare tax rates are much more useful in defining fairness.  For they misdirect the people into thinking rich people don’t pay enough in taxes.  Let’s look at a married couple filing jointly who earn a combined income of $125,000.  Based on the 2012 federal income tax rates they will pay approximately $19,470 in federal taxes with a top marginal tax rate of 25%.  Now compare that to a rich person not paying their ‘fair share’ in taxes.  Someone who earns a million dollars in capital gains on investments.  One of those the ‘fairness people’ really dislike.  At a capital gains tax rate of 15% he or she pays $150,000 in taxes.  Now 15% is less than 25%.  And those on the Left will scream, “Unfair!”  Even though that capital gains tax rate will generate $130,530 more in tax dollars.  Or 670% more than the married couple paying a top marginal tax rate of 25%.

So is the ‘rich’ investor paying his or her fair share in taxes?  Well, he or she is sure paying a whole lot more in taxes than that married couple filing jointly.  Even if it’s at a lower tax rate.  Is that fair?  Is that enough?  It depends on how you measure fair.  If you measure by tax rates the rich are tax cheapskates.  If you measure by tax dollars then the rich are very generous in their tax contributions.  More generous than the poor and the middle class.  And that’s what really counts.  Tax dollars.  Because tax dollars pay the bills.  Not tax rates.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #52: “The political right is usually right.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 10th, 2011

The Right Knows Business.  The Left Doesn’t.

Creating jobs is important.  Without jobs no one has any money.  No one can buy anything.  And the government can’t tax what we don’t have.  So jobs are important.  To those on the right.  As well as on the left.

Now critics of the Right claim that those on the right only care about profits.  Not people.  Whereas those on the left claim they care about people.  Not profits.  In some sense this is true.  Those on the right tend to understand business.  They know a business can only survive by making a profit.  And only a business that stays in business can create jobs.  The Right understands this.

Those on the left, on the other hand, don’t really understand business.  They don’t understand incentive.  Only duty.  And sacrifice.  For others, that is.  Not them.  They don’t think a business should make a profit.  That they should give any excess revenue to their workers.  Or to the government.  In other words, business owners, they feel, should serve others.  They should work and sacrifice so others may live better.  Workers shouldn’t have to work hard or sacrifice.  But owners should.

Protecting an Industry only Delays the Inevitable

Some great entrepreneurs created some great businesses.  Made life better for all of us.  Provided good, inexpensive clothing.  Made high quality steel cheaper and more plentiful than any other nation.  Built cars than the average working man could afford.  These titans of industry built this nation.  Because of them we surpassed all other nations and became the most powerful economic engine of the world.  Life was good.  There were lots of jobs.  Lots of stuff.  And lots of homes filled with the most modern stuff available.  America was the place to be.  People waited in line to immigrate to our shores.

Unfortunately, big piles of money attract a lot of people.  And not just workers begging to get a job in these new industries.  No.  It was people looking out for the workers.  Labor unions organized workers.  To get a ‘decent’ wage.  And better working conditions.  Cost of labor went up.  Which made the price of what they sold go up.  Imports started to look more attractive.  So government stepped in and slapped tariffs on those.  To force Americans to pay the higher price for our domestic goods.  Then they legislated ways to further ‘protect’ these American industries.  And how did that all work?

Well, take a look at the American textile, steel and automobile industries.  The Left overreached.  And killed these industries.  They’re no longer the dominate industries they once were.  We have no textile industry to speak of anymore.  The once big steel towns look more like ghost towns.  And the government had to bail out 2 of the Big Three auto makers.  Those generous union contracts added thousands to the price of a car.  Allowing Toyota to take over the top auto manufacturer spot from GM.  By providing the same or better quality for less.

Bad Jobs Today may have been Good Jobs Yesterday

That’s what happens when you protect an industry.  That industry has no incentive to innovate.  To be better.  To be more efficient.  To be more productive.  To give the consumer what they want.  Because when the consumer doesn’t have a choice, where else is the consumer going to go?  So protected industries rest on their laurels.  While others innovate.  And became better.

Combine that with union wages and benefits that keep getting higher and higher and what do you get?  Inferior products that cost more than the higher quality imports.  The Big Three sold crap during the Seventies.  Opened the door to the Japanese.  And a few decades later they took over the top spot from GM.  No matter how much we tried to protect our domestic automotive industry.

Say what you want about life before labor unions but the fact remains that we had more jobs.  And as dangerous or as dirty as those jobs were, people still came to this country by the thousands to get those jobs.  People were falling off the Golden Gate Bridge during construction.  Did that dissuade people from wanting to work on that bridge?  No.  There was a shanty town with people waiting for others to fall and die so they could get their job.  Sure, by today’s standards, these were some pretty nasty jobs.  But not then.  In fact, they were pretty damn good jobs.  Compared to what else was out there.  How can we say this?  Because they chose those jobs over the other jobs out there.

The Greed of the Left Killed the Golden Goose. 

Henry Ford had a bold idea.  He was going to mass produce a car so he could sell it at a price that the working man could afford.  To get the best people in his plants he offered $5 per day.  Twice what other manufacturing jobs were offering.  No union made him do this.  The market did.  He got the best mechanics and the lowest turnover rates.  Other businesses had to follow suit to retain their best people.  And working conditions improved.  Because of the greed of these business owners.

Contrast that to today where union contracts force high wage and benefit packages onto a manufacturer.  And contractual obligations that make it near impossible to get rid of excess workers during times of weak demand.  Using the Ford model, Detroit became the Motor City.  An economic dynamo.  Under the union model, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt.  And Detroit is considering bulldozing sparsely populated neighborhoods into farmland.

When profit wasn’t a dirty word businesses prospered and provided jobs.  When the left came in to protect the little guy from those greedy business owners they made it difficult to make a profit.  Business struggled to compete with their competition.  And when they couldn’t, they shuttered operations.  Jobs disappeared.  The greed of the left to protect against the greed of the right killed the golden goose.  And all those good manufacturing jobs grew legs and left the country.  Where they’re now providing a better life for other workers.  Like they once did here.

Greed is a Hell of an Incentive

The Right understands business.  The Left doesn’t.  But it has never stopped them from trying to tell businesses how they should conduct business.  And the more they get involved, the more business suffers.  The more jobs we lose.  And the less competitive we get as a nation.

FDR tried for a decade to end the Great Depression.  Nothing he did worked.  When World War II came along, something had to change.  There was a crisis.  We needed to provide war material to our allies.  So the FDR administration told American industry to do what they do best.  They let them make profits.  Restored incentive.  And the government said they would interfere no more.  Well, that unleashed the floodgates.  Workers were hired and factories worked round the clock.  Businesses made profits that let them innovate.  Improve productivity.  Trucks, planes, boats, weapons, etc., poured out of American factories.  The Allies armies were mechanized.  Jeeps and trucks moved our armies.  While the Nazis used horses to pull their artillery and supplies.  The Arsenal of Democracy, the Detroit dynamo of industry, won World War II.  And men like Henry Ford made it all possible.  Because they were greedy.

The post-war era was one of the most prosperous times in our nation.  There were jobs for everyone.  And a better life was there for the taking.  Times would stay good until the Left ushered in their Big Government programs beginning in the Sixties.  To protect the little guy.  And it’s been downhill ever since (with a brief respite during the Reagan Eighties).

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Liberal Opines on things Economic, Confirms why they Suck at Creating Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 16th, 2011

Liberals don’t know Business or Jobs but they have their Big Keynesian Words

If you want to know why liberals are so bad at stimulating economic activity just read Paul Krugman’s Wages and Employment, Again (Wonkish) posted 1/16/2011 on The New York Times.  He pontificates with an erudite air of all-knowing condescension.  He’s smart.  And he wants to make sure you get this.  So he writes with big words and references big demand-side macroeconomic theories that he and his kind accept as undisputed fact.  Despite what the lessons of history say. 

Krugman is a Keynesian.  So, as a Keynesian, he knows nothing about business.  But, like a Keynesian, that doesn’t stop him from opining on the subject of business.

Here’s a fundamental truth (FT) about business.  FT 1:  If you make the cost of doing business high, you will reduce the amount of business a business does.  Here’s another.  FT 2:  If the people are NOT buying whatever they’re selling, this will also reduce the amount of business a business does.  A couple of key things a business needs here.  To have the cost of doing business kept low enough so they can sell at a price that makes them competitive in the market place.  And they need people to have jobs so they can buy their competitively priced goods or services they place into the market place.

Liberals never seem to get either of these points.

High Wages have never Stimulated Economic Activity

Keynesians believe if you give money to people that fixes everything.  When Krugman says:

…I’ve also argued a number of times that cutting wages now would probably make the slump worse, not better.

That’s Keynesian.  You cut wages and the people have less money spend.  So that’s why Keynesians are all about high wages.  Of course, they miss the other side of high wages.  High wages mean fewer jobs.  Because high wages limit the number of employees a business can hire and still sell at prices that are competitive in the market place.

High wages have never stimulated economic activity.  They just raise costs.  This let the Japanese take huge chunks of market share away from the Big Three.  And it’s bankrupting our big blue cities and states that are drowning in debt because of their public sector union contracts.  If Krugman was right, these cities would be booming in economic activity because of those fat public sector pay and benefits.  But they’re not.  The only thing those high wages are doing is bankrupting these cities and states.

Liberals never seem to get this point.  So they trade off economic activity for votes, blissfully unaware of the extent of economic damage they’re doing.  Or they’re aware and they just don’t care.

Easy Money begets Irrational Exuberance which begets Asset Bubbles which begets Recessions

Another favorite of the Keynesians is manipulating interest rates.

…a rise in the real money supply reduces interest rates, leading to a rise in demand.

Read ‘a rise in real money supply‘ as printing money.  The idea here is to make money cheap and plentiful so people will borrow it to buy things.  Like houses.  Like they did during Bill Clinton’s and George W Bush’s presidencies.  And, boy, did they.  Times were good.  Real good.  Only one problem.  Irrational exuberance.

Clinton and Bush thought they found the magical economic elixir.  Home ownership.  So they did everything in their power to extend homeownership.  Even to the people who couldn’t afford it.

Easy money.  Monetary policy that keeps money cheap and plentiful.  To entice people to borrow.  And they were.  Borrowing.  And buying houses.  So much so that they bid up the prices into a huge asset bubble.  Meanwhile, people who couldn’t afford to buy a house were buying houses, too.  The federal government pushed lenders to lend. Or face the consequences.  Be investigated for discriminatory lending.  Or, worse, suffer the public spectacle of having Jesse Jackson or an Al Sharpton publically calling them racist (a lot of the inner city poor were black).  So they came up with some creative ways to qualify unqualified people for mortgages.  We call them subprime mortgages.  And we know how those came back to bite us in the ass.

The problem with bubbles is that they burst.  And when they do, the life blows out of the economy like the air out of a popped balloon.  Deflationary spirals often follow.  And nasty, horrible and painfully long recessions.

Liberals never seem to get this point, either.  You’d think that they would as it has happened so often.

For Narcissists, it’s not the economy.  It’s their Egos, Stupid.

Krugman’s column really shows the problems with liberals.  They’re a bunch of narcissists.  Who love their superior minds.  They love to hear themselves talk.  And love to read what they write.  They write to impress.  And to stimulate themselves.  If you know what I mean.  Only those in his elite circle can understand what the hell he is writing about.  Not us.  The sloped-brow, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthals who didn’t go to the Ivy League schools.  We just work and live in the real world.  Raise our families.  And pay our taxes.

Liberals like to complicate things.  And to try to control the complex.  The economy will work fine on its own.  And when it does we experience some of the greatest economic expansions.   But when they tinker with their Ivy League knowledge, bad things typically happen.  Such as the subprime mortgage crisis.  The Great Recession.  Even the Great Depression.  All of which resulted from liberal tinkering.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #44: “Liberal Democrats have to lie because there are more taxpayers than tax consumers.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 16th, 2010

Lying to Make Future Liberal Democrat Voters

Ask anyone some questions about the Great Depression and they’ll probably get them wrong.  Why?  Because their history teachers revised history to make government look better.  Government wore the white hats.  And business wore the black hats.  Because their teachers were public school teachers.  And the teacher unions are one of the strongest unions in the country.  The government takes care of them.  And, in return, the public school teachers takes care of government.  By turning out as many future liberal Democrat voters as they can.

So what did our teachers teach us about the Great Depression?  Evil rich people caused it.  By speculating in the stock market.  And it was their speculation that caused the Great Crash which caused the Great Depression.  Rich business people bad.

Then Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) rode into Washington and saved the day.  FDR expanded federal power and went to work to fix things.  He punished the rich (raised taxes).  Created a huge federal bureaucracy to manage the economy.  And spent money like there was no tomorrow.  Public works programs.  Even gave us Social Security.  He made everything better.  Big hearted government people good.

That’s the history in our history books.  The only problem is that it’s wrong.

Tax Cuts and the Roaring Twenties

This is the story told because it favors those who favor expanding government.  Big Government wants to tell us what’s best for us.  And our public schools want to shield our children from their parents.  Because they (and Big Government) are smarter than parents.  So they revise history.  And lie to our kids.

Really?  Come on, they’re not really lying to our kids.  I mean, what reason could they possibly have to lie to our kids?  Just look at the demographics.  The far Left, those in government who like to spend money and tell us how to live our lives, are about 20% of the population.  The other 80% have real jobs and pay taxes.  And this is a problem.  How do you convince 80% of the people (who pay taxes) to pay more taxes so the government can spend it against their wishes?  All the while having the government telling these taxpayers how they should live their lives?  Easy.  You lie.  And you lie to their kids.

There was an economic boom before the Great Depression.  The economy was roaring so strong that they called it the Roaring Twenties.  And it had nothing to do with speculation.  We were building automobiles.  Electrifying the country.  Selling electrical appliances.  And building radios.  This was no speculative bubble.  It was real and strong economic growth.  And guess what kicked it off?  Tax cuts.

Higher Tax Rates Shelter Wealth instead of Creating Jobs

They don’t talk about this in the history books.  Because no public school teacher or government bureaucrat likes tax cuts.  Because economic growth created by tax cuts sends a very simple yet powerful message.  We don’t need Big Government.

Following World War I, government was a bureaucratic behemoth.  With a huge federal debt.  Fighting world wars can do that.  The Progressives, who gave us Prohibition and other nanny-state-like things, liked that big bureaucracy.  They liked activist government.  But even they knew that a high debt was not good.  And being the zero-sum economists they were, they knew only one way to reduce that debt.  Higher taxes.  And their candidate for the 1920 election, James M. Cox, promised to do just that.  And he lost the election.  Proving that Progressives don’t understand economics.  Or the American people.  Those Americans who have jobs, at least.

Warren G. Harding won that election.  And his secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon, understood economics.  To find a better secretary of the treasury you have to go all the way back to our first one.  Alexander Hamilton.  Mellon understood business.  And understood rich people.  High tax rates did not bring in more tax money.  Why?  Because rich people know how to shelter their wealth.  But give them a lower tax rate where they can make and keep what they earn, they’ll invest that money and create jobs.  They’ll pay more in taxes (even at a lower tax rate) because they’re not sheltering their wealth.  Their employees will pay more in taxes because they’ll have jobs.  And this is what happened during the Roaring Twenties.  People were working.  Making durable goods (cars, electrical appliances, radios, etc.).  Times were good.  Very good indeed.

Government Activism Gives us the Great Depression

The United States became an economic juggernaut during the 1920s.  The Americans were eclipsing the Europeans.  We were not a superpower yet.  But the Europeans saw the writing on the wall.  They wanted to form their own union of European states to compete against the economic powerhouse that was the United States.  We were kicking ass and taking names.  And no one could hold a candle to us.  We were unstoppable.

Then Herbert Hoover became president.  He was a progressive republican.  He liked activist government.  Hoover was a Big Government Keynesian and wanted to use the powers of government to end the business cycle.  He believed high wages meant high prosperity.  And in parity between farm and nonfarm prices.  He was everything FDR would become.  In fact, the Hoover administration started a lot of the FDR New Deal programs.

Farmers had mechanized their farms.  They plowed more fields than ever.  And grew more than ever.  With bumper crops prices fell.  Normally not a problem.  You just sold more.  But the war was over.  European farmers were farming again.  Not only did they not need our crops, they slapped tariffs on our exports to protect their farm prices.  So farmers couldn’t sell enough to make a profit at the lower prices.  Farmers went bankrupt.  Farm loans went unpaid.  Farm banks failed.  The Federal Reserve failed to provide liquidity to help other farm banks in trouble.  More failed.  This rippled into the nonfarm banks.  Which contracted the money supply.  Business started to hoard their cash because of the tight credit market.  They cut back on production.  Laid people off.  Then the Smoot-Hawley Tariff went to committee in Congress.  Business responded, knowing that that higher tariffs on imported goods they used would increase their cost of production.   They hoarded more cash.  Cut back on production.  Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.  Other nations respond by imposing their own tariffs.  This resulted in a trade war.  Business sales fell.  Production fell.  More banks failed.  Hello Great Depression.

Tax Cuts Stimulate Economic Activity

This is the part they don’t teach you in history class.  It was government involvement that killed one of the strongest bull markets in history.  And would prolong the Great Depression.  The growth of government and the anti-business climate created great uncertainty.  And that didn’t go away until World War II.  When James Byrnes (head of the Office of War Mobilization) allowed business to make fat profits if they could deliver the vast quantity of war material needed to defeat Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo.  And they did.  The Arsenal of Democracy won World War II.  Private business doing what they do best.  Business.

But liberals like to spend money.  Our money.  And tell us what’s best for us.  To do that, though, they need us to vote for them.  And telling us that they want to take more of our money while telling us what’s best for us won’t make us vote for them.  It didn’t help Cox to tell the truth in 1920.  And no other presidential candidate since.  Because the 20% of the population that agrees with them isn’t enough to win an election.  You need some of the 80% who have jobs and pay taxes.

History has shown tax cuts stimulate economic activity.  They did when Warren Harding cut taxes.  When JFK cut taxes.  And when Ronald Reagan cut taxes.  This truth doesn’t make a good argument for raising taxes, though.  So our public schools and Big Government revise that part of history.  And lie to our kids.  Until they bleat “Business bad.  Government good.”  Like good future liberal Democrat voters.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Republicans and Obama Compromise to Extend the Bush Tax Cuts

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2010

It’s not that the American People Disagree with Obama.  They’re just not Smart enough to know what’s Best for Them.

Well, problem solved.  Sort of.  For a year or so.  Then they’ll have to do it all over again.

Obama will extend the Bush tax cuts.  And it will only cost another year of unemployment benefits.  That’s good because we have all grown weary of this recession (see Obama defends tax deal, says he’s kept promises by Ben Feller, AP White House Correspondent, posted 12/7/2010 on Yahoo! News).

With fellow Democrats balking, President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that a compromise with Republicans on tax cuts was necessary to help the economy and protect recession-weary Americans. He passionately defended his record against Democrats who complain he’s breaking campaign promises.

What’s this?  Some of that bipartisanship he was talking about when Obama ran as a moderate during the 2008 presidential campaign?  Can you feel the love?  You better pinch me because I must be dreaming.

Obama cast his decision to accede to the GOP position on extending the tax cuts in stark terms.

“It’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers — unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people, and I was not willing to see them get harmed.”

He said the American people agree with his position, but “I haven’t persuaded the Republican Party.” Reflecting the newly increased Republican clout in Congress, he said: “I haven’t persuaded (Senate Republican leader) Mitch McConnell and I haven’t persuaded (House GOP leader) John Boehner.”

Now there’s the Obama we all know and…., well, know.  Who else could suffer such a categorical rejection of his polices and still think the American people agree with him?  Talk about illusions of grandeur. 

It reminds me of that line in the movie Tootsie where some aging soap opera star was lamenting about being an old has-been.  Dorothy (Dustin Hoffman) soothed his feelings by saying he wasn’t an old has-been.  He couldn’t be.  Because you had to be famous first to be a has-been.

Or that scene in that classic movie This is Spinal Tap, the fake documentary about a fake, aging rock band.  The interviewer noted they were playing smaller venues instead of arenas like in their heyday and asked if that was a reflection on their popularity.  They said ‘no’.  Their audiences weren’t getting smaller.  They were just becoming more selective.

And you can forget about pinching me.

Americans Lose Faith in the Unmanly Obama

Unhappy with this compromise, the Left is questioning Obama’s manliness (see Left sees tax surrender, says Obama reelection bid now crippled by Sam Youngman posted 12/7/2010 on The Hill).

“President Obama has shown a complete refusal to fight Republicans throughout his presidency even when the public is on his side — and millions of his former supporters are now growing disappointed and infuriated by this refusal to fight,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

The public is with Obama?  Talk about a struggle with reality.  Or a very, very short memory.  If the midterm elections weren’t a rejection of Obama’s liberal agenda I don’t know what rejection is.  So, no, the public is not with Obama on this.  Only the far Left is with Obama.  That 20% of the population that the other 80% can’t stand.

“This is only a tough fight [now] because Americans have lost faith that President Obama is fighting for their economic futures,” said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist and former official with the Clinton administration.

Do you think?  Things have gotten worse under Obama.  Even after he spent billions of dollars to make things better.  So, yeah, most Americans have lost faith in Obama.  If they even had any in him in the first place.

Compromise is a Four-Letter Word on the Left

Bipartisanship is all well and good.  As long as you can make the other guy be bipartisan, that is.  The Democrats aren’t happy.  Especially the leadership, who usually march in lockstep with Obama (see Obama defends tax deal while Reid seeks changes by Charles Babington, Associated Press, posted 12/7/2010 on Yahoo! News).

“It’s something that’s not done yet,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “We’re going to have to do some more work,” Reid said after a closed-door meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and members of the Democratic rank-and-file.

Reid isn’t happy.  Neither is Pelosi.

Across the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, normally one of Obama’s staunchest allies, made plain her unhappiness, issuing a statement that contained no commitment to help pass the plan. “We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead.”

Yes, Reid and Pelosi are all for compromise.  As long it’s not them doing the compromising.  Typical liberals.  Never happy.  Even with the most liberal president ever to inhabit the White House.  He just isn’t liberal enough for them.

The Really Sad thing is that Pelosi got Reelected with 80% of the Vote

Furious, Pelosi vented on Twitter (see Pelosi attacks Obama-GOP tax plan as House Democrats signal fight by Russell Berman posted 12/7/2010 on The Hill).

In a post on Twitter, Pelosi said the GOP provisions in the tax proposal would add to the deficit and help the rich without creating jobs. The GOP provisions “help only wealthiest 3%, don’t create jobs & add tens of billions to deficit,” the Pelosi tweet said.

Then issued a statement.

“We will continue discussions with the president and our caucus in the days ahead,” Pelosi said. “Democratic priorities remain clear: to provide a tax cut for working families, to promote policies that produce jobs and economic growth, and to assist millions of our fellow Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.”

Nevadans barely reelected Reid.  Pelosi, on the other hand, got something like 80% of the vote.  Scary.  So that means about 80% of the people in her district agree with the political philosophy of about 20% of the country.  That screwball far Left.  The same people that supported Joseph Stalin.  And Fidel Castro.  Is it any wonder that Pelosi doesn’t have the foggiest idea about creating jobs?

Pelosi and the Democrats have been in power since 2006, 2 years before Obama’s election.  That’s 4 years of legislative control.  And things have declined during those 4 years.  So why in the world would anyone believe that she and her Democrats know anything about jobs and economic growth?  I’m sure she believes they do.  They just need more time.  Because that fifth year is always the charm.  Stalin, Mao, Castro – they all had 5 year plans.  And all the magic happens in that fifth year.  Apparently. 

Elections Have Consequences

The 2010 midterm elections were a mandate to shrink the power and scope of government.  Yet you wouldn’t know that listening to Obama, Pelosi and Reid.  Even some Republicans seem a little too eager to reach across the aisle. 

The Republicans need to acknowledge that Obama was right.  Elections have consequences.  And they won this time.  Not the Democrats.  And they need to legislate like they got a pair. 

Many feel the extension of the Bush tax cuts came at a high price.  No doubt they’re wondering what they will pay to repeal Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Liberals are more Concerned with Poop, Pee and Booze than Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 15th, 2010

Liberals Legislating How We Go to the Potty

President Obama talked about using a laser-like focus on creating jobs.  A year or so later, the economy is worse.  No surprise here.  It’s just not their forte.  Creating jobs.  The Left likes telling us how to live our lives.  Not getting out of the way and allowing business to do what they do best.  Create jobs.  No.  They’re more interested in other things.  In particular, what we do in the toilet.

When you talk about liberal cities, you can’t get more liberal than New York.  And they have spoken.  They have passed a new law that will police you in the toilet.  Apparently, giving us low-flow toilets wasn’t enough.  (And how did that work?  A single flush of a low-flow toilet just didn’t take care of business, if you know what I mean.)  We’re still wasting too much water when we tinkle.  With the new law, new toilets shall be dual-flush (see ‘Dual flush’ toilets among conservation proposals OK’d by Council by Peter N. Spencer on www.silive.com).  And god help you if you choose #2 to flush #1.  But it doesn’t end there.

The package of water conservation bills also requires water fountains have separate spouts for drinking and for filling water containers; commercial buildings install alarms and sub-meters to detect water leaks; and limits the use of “once-through” cooling systems, such as those used to cool ice-making machines, walk-in coolers and older medical x-ray and laser equipment.

Taxes and regulations are out of control in New York.  It’s exploding the cost of living in the city.  And the cost of business.  The city is on the brink of bankruptcy.  There is an exodus of rich people.  And other rich people take one look and say, “no thanks.”  Don’t believe me?  Ask LeBron James (who chose Miami over New York when he left the Cleveland Cavaliers).

Nancy Pelosi Gets her Marie Antoinette On

Meanwhile, liberals in high positions continue to tell us to do as they say and not as they do.  During the worst recession since the Great Depression, scores of people are out of a job.  Cutting back costs to the bare essentials.  While still paying their taxes.  Because if they don’t, they will go to jail.  And Nancy Pelosi couldn’t have that.  Because she wants your money.

In the height of hypocrisy, Pelosi is living like royalty.  Private military jets at her beckon call.  For her and her family.  And some of her friends.  And a kick-ass open bar.  Mark Tapscott (Editorial Page Editor) writes on www.washingtonexaminer.com (see New documents uncovered by Judicial Watch show Pelosi took 85 trips on military aircraft):

“For example, purchases for one Pelosi-led congressional delegation traveling from Washington, DC, through Tel Aviv, Israel to Baghdad, Iraq May 15-20, 2008 included: Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey’s Irish Crème, Maker’s Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewar’s scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey, Corona beer and several bottles of wine.”

You could almost hear her say referring to the unemployed and hungry, “Let them eat cake.”  (Shortly before her execution during the French Revolution, Queen Marie Antoinette allegedly said that the hungry could eat the scrapings & crumbs (i.e., cake) from the ovens.)

Jobs?  Don’t hold your breath.  But if you gotta pee, you best be sure which flush you chose.  Because if you flush a #1 with a #2 flush, they may just be coming after you.  For they care about the environment.  Not enough to cut down on their carbon footprint while they fly their private military jets across the globe.  But enough to take time in their busy day to take a closer look at what you do when you unzip your pants or lift up your skirt.  And the next time you do, remember, Big Government is watching you.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,