The Democrats win Elections because they are Good at Lying and Manipulating People

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 5th, 2013

Politics 101

The Southern Democrats fought to Maintain Slavery, Formed the KKK and Implemented Jim Crowe Laws

Children love candy.  And sweet treats.  They will gorge themselves on them.  And ruin their dinner.  Or sicken themselves so much from these sweet treats that they will vomit.  If parents let them.  But parents don’t.  Sometimes making for some unhappy children.  But parents don’t do this because they are mean.  They do this because it’s best for the children.

Politicians are a lot like parents.  Bad parents.  Because their ‘children’ can vote.  And because they can they will feed them all the sweet treats they so desired.  No matter how bad they are for them.  No matter how bad they are for the country.  Why?  Parents will do what’s best for their children.  While politicians do what’s best for them.

The Southern Democrats fought to maintain slavery.  They formed the KKK following the Civil War and the emancipation of their slaves.  They then implemented Jim Crowe laws to segregate the South.  That were in effect until 1965.  Then the Southern Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act (1964).  One of the longest serving and most revered Southern Democrats, Robert Byrd, was an Exalted Cyclops in the KKK.  And he filibustered the Civil Rights Act.  Yet at his death the Democrats eulogized him with great awe and reverence.  Despite all of this Democrats say Republicans are the racists.  And blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat.  Why?

The Democrats destroyed the Black Family with AFDC and Public Housing

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.  The Republicans won the Civil War.  They maintained martial law in the South following the war to protect the emancipated slaves.  They did not form the KKK.  Nor did any of them serve as the Exalted Cyclops.  They opposed Jim Crowe laws.  And fought for the Civil Rights Act.  So why is it that the general perception is that Republicans are racists while those with a racist past, Democrats, are not?  Because the Democrats are real good at lying and manipulating people.  That’s why.  And they’re bad parents.

One of the greatest political feats in the history of the United States was the turning of blacks against their emancipators and defenders.  And changing their allegiance to the people who once enslaved and oppressed them.  And how did they do this?  With the Great Society.  Full of tasty treats.  Especially for blacks in the poor inner cities.  The candy?  Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  And public housing.  Which just destroyed the black family.  As the nanny state replaced the black father.  And gathered these single mothers and their fatherless children in crime ridden public housing of the inner cities.

Without a strong male role model in a child’s life they tend to get in trouble.  Because a single mother cannot discipline children as much as two parents can.  So a fatherless child strays.  They run with others who pull them further into trouble.  And when the state gathered large groups of fatherless children in public housing they ran in gangs.  Creating the crime that made public housing crime ridden.  And because all these kids went to the same schools they took their trouble into the schools.  Leading to lower graduation rates.  Fewer college enrollments.  Higher unemployment.  And lower median incomes.  This is what the Democrats gave blacks with their nanny state.  And they got them dependent on the nanny state.  So they continued to vote Democrat.  Even though voting Democrat was the worst thing blacks could have done.  Based on what Democrats have done to the black family.

If You raise the Price of the McDonald’s Burger there is no Cost Savings by eating the McDonald’s Burger

Today minimum wage workers across the country were demanding that the government raise the minimum wage to about twice what it is.  To $15/hour.  For these entry level jobs.  The Democrats support this.  For it’s more candy for their children.  Even though it’s not good for them.  For these are not careers.  Nor should they be.  These are entry-level jobs for people with no skills.  So they can gain some rudimentary skills to help them with their next step up their career ladder.  People don’t go to medical school and then work at McDonald’s.  No, they go to medical school explicitly so they don’t have to work a minimum wage job.  And those who don’t have to work a minimum wage job all of their life have a better life.  Both monetarily.  And personally.  With the satisfaction of doing something that gives their life greater meaning.

Of course if they raise the minimum wage to $15/hour minimum wage workers will lose their jobs.  For if you raise the labor rate prices will rise.  And sales will fall.  And with fewer sales businesses will lay off some of their minimum wage workers.  And the Democrats know this.  They’ve worked hard to get tariff protection to protect their union brethren in the automotive industry.  Because those higher wages raised the price of cars.  And reduced sales.  Hence the tariff protect6ion.  To force people to pay more for their cars.  By forcing the price of the competition higher.  So they can continue to sell cars built with their more costly union labor.  So Democrats know higher labor costs raise prices and reduce sales.  So why do they want a higher minimum wage?

People buy fast food because of the value.  They get a decent bang for the buck.  But if you reduce that bang people will buy less.  For if McDonald’s costs as much as a delicious burger at, say, Red Robin, which burger do you think the people will buy?  They’re going to buy the Red Robin burger.  For if you raise the price of the McDonald’s burger there is no cost savings by eating the McDonald’s burger.  So they won’t.  The Democrats know this, too.  But they also know by giving their children this candy they can get their vote.  It will make their children’s lives worse in the long run but that’s okay.  As long as they can get their vote now.  For that’s all that is important.  Not the lives they destroy by being bad parents.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Politics of Liberal Economic Policies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 18th, 2013

Economics 101

What doesn’t Kill You Makes you Stronger

They say what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.  And you can see that in military basic training.  There have been some good movies showing what military basic training is like.  Perhaps one of the best is Full Metal Jacket.  Where Gunnery Sergeant Hartman played by R. Lee Ermey wasn’t acting as much as reliving his days as a Marine Corps drill instructor.  Watching it you may come to hate Sergeant Hartman for he was pretty sadistic.  But they didn’t design basic training to be a pleasant experience.  They designed it to prepare recruits for the worst thing in the world.  War.

In the miniseries Band of Brothers we follow Easy Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, from basic training through D-Day and to the end of the war.  Airborne training followed basic training.  And was harder.  Fewer people make it through airborne training than they do basic training.  Ranger training is even harder.  And fewer people make it through Ranger training.  But airborne units and Rangers get the more difficult missions in combat.  Because they can do more.  For their training is more difficult.  But it didn’t kill them.  So it made them stronger.

Perhaps the most difficult military training is the Navy’s SEAL program.  Where if they get a good class of recruits they may have 1 in 10 complete training.  For it is that hard.  In fact, some have died in training because they refused to give up.  That’s why you will find few tougher than a Navy SEAL.  They are tough.  And they never quit.  Which is why we give them the most difficult missions to complete.  Missions that others would find impossible.  Proving that the more brutal and difficult training is the stronger and more able we get.

During the 20th Century the American Left has tried to replace Rugged Individualism with the Nanny State

Those who founded this nation were tough people who worked hard and never gave up.  They provided their own housing, food, clothing, etc.  If they needed something they figured out how to provide it for themselves.  They worked long hours.  Survived brutal winters and hostile environments.  But they never gave up.  In fact, they raised families while doing all of this.  With no help from government.  As there were no government benefits.  Yet they survived.  Even prospered.  For what didn’t kill them only made them stronger.  These rugged individuals could do anything.  And did.  Which is why the United States is the leader of the free world.  And the world’s number one economy.  Because of that rugged individualism.

This is the way America was before the progressives came and softened us.  And made rugged individualism somehow a bad thing.  Beginning with Woodrow Wilson.  Then FDR.  LBJ.  And then President Obama.  A long line of American presidents who eschewed individualism.  And thought in collective terms.  When the Americans rejected socialism they gave us progressivism.  When we rejected communism they gave us liberalism.  The 20th century has been a tireless attempt for those on the left to replace rugged individualism with the nanny state.  With their brilliant selves in power.  Managing the economy.  And making life fair.  To undo the unfairness of laissez-faire capitalism.  To make the United States better.  And more according to their vision.  Just like the socialists did.  And the communists did.  Yet no socialist or communist state became the leader of the free world.  Or the world’s number one economy.

Those who lived in those socialist and communist utopias learned one thing.  It was better to live someplace else.  And their ultimate destination?  The United States.  Yet those on the left refused to believe that life was worse in those states where they put people first instead of profits.  Like that unfeeling and cruel laissez-faire capitalism did.  Which is why Wilson, FDR, LBJ and Obama worked tirelessly to move the United States in the direction of socialism and communism.  Because they cared for the people.  Or the power they got by making so many people dependent on government.

Someone receiving a Comfortable Level of Benefits will not be pushed to Leave their Comfort Zone

So is it about the power or that thing about helping people?  What is it exactly that progressives/liberals really want?  Well, we can look at the historical record to determine that.  By looking at a point in time when America really changed.  With the assassination of JFK.  JFK’s chances of reelection weren’t great.  Which is why he went to Texas.  As he needed LBJ to deliver Texas to the Democrats.  Instead of electoral victory, though, he fell to an assassin’s bullet.  The great outpouring of grief and love for their fallen president exceeded the love he got before the assassination.  The heightened emotions allowed LBJ to pass the many programs of the Great Society into law.  In the memory of JFK.  The greatest expansion of the federal government since FDR’s New Deal.  Making the welfare state the largest yet.  In an attempt to put people first.  Not profits.  In fact, LBJ declared a war on poverty.  By providing government assistance to lift everyone out of poverty.  And he championed civil rights.  LBJ was going to make the United States that utopia socialists and communists always dreamt about.  For everyone.  Blacks.  And whites.  Especially blacks.  Who were suffering great discrimination then.  But things would be different for them.  Starting in the Sixties everything was going to get better.  And how are blacks doing today?  Well, if you use employment as a measure, not good (see Table A-2. Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age by the Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Unemplyment Rates by Race Age Sex Rev 2

The federal government has done a lot for blacks.  More than any other minority group.  Affirmative Action was to correct all past wrongs.  By making it easier to get into college.  And to get a job.  Yet we don’t see that when looking at the unemployment numbers.  In fact, the group the government does the least for—white men—is doing the best.  They don’t need any help because they won life’s lottery.  By being born white.  According to liberals.  So there’s no Affirmative Action for them.  Yet they have half the unemployment rate black men have.  While white women have half the unemployment rate black women have.  And white 16-19 year olds have half the unemployment rate black 16-19 year olds have.  Brilliant progressives/liberals have been trying to make life better for blacks for 50 some years now and have failed.  Despite this blacks have never been more loyal to them.  Which answers the question what the Democrats care more for.  The people?  Or the power the people give them.  By getting them dependent on government.  Who they tell over and over again that they would have nothing if it weren’t for them.  The Democrats.  For blacks just can’t make it on their own without help.  Even though after receiving all of that help blacks are suffering the greatest levels of unemployment.  Clearly something isn’t right here.  And it goes back to that thing that made America great.  Rugged individualism.

You know what the difference is between a white SEAL and a black SEAL?  Nothing.  Blacks have equality of opportunity in SEAL training.  And that’s all they need.  They don’t need special treatment.  And the Navy doesn’t tell them that they do.  All they need is the strength.  And the will.  Which will be there if you don’t keep telling people that they can’t succeed without the government’s help.  Because if you keep doing that they will come to believe that.  And they will keep voting Democrat.  Looking for help.  Whereas those who face adversity and overcome it grow stronger.  Because what doesn’t kill them makes them stronger.

Handing out government benefits will make people like you.  But it won’t get them a job.  For someone receiving a comfortable level of benefits will not be pushed to leave their comfort zone.  And while they languish in their comfort zone they will not gain work experience.  Allowing others to gain experience and move up in their careers.  Making them more employable.  While those with less experience and less education are less employable.  And that’s what Democrats do when they buy votes with government benefits.  Make people less employable.  And blacks have been especially useful to them.  As they can stoke the fires of racism to drive blacks even further to the Democrat Party.  By calling Republicans racists.  Because they want to take away their benefits.  Just because they hate black people.  Or so goes the Democrat line.  So they keep voting Democrat.  While losing their rugged individualism.  And suffering higher levels of unemployment than everyone else.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The French People have reached their Limit on Taxes and Protest their Government

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 10th, 2013

Week in Review

The American left wants what Europe has a lot of.  Social democracies.  They want a great nanny state in the United States that provides cradle-to-the-grave welfare.  All funded with lots and lots of taxes.  Look to Europe, they say.  No one there complains about their high taxes.  And they enjoy wonderful cradle-to-the-grave welfare.  This is what the American people want, too.  So they can be as happy and content as Europeans (see French riot police use tear gas on anti-tax protesters by AFP posted 11/9/2013 on France24).

French riot police fired tear gas at hundreds of anti-tax demonstrators in northwest France on Saturday after protesters pelted them and tried to drive a tractor through a barricade, an AFP photographer said…

Demonstrators chanted slogans against France’s Socialist government, which earlier this month suspended the application of the so-called ecotax…

There were more anti-tax protesters elsewhere in Brittany and also around the country, including near the major cities of Lyon and Marseille, and in the capital Paris.

The ecotax, aimed at encouraging environmentally friendly commercial transport, imposes new levies on French and foreign vehicles transporting commercial goods weighing over 3.5 tonnes.

Well, apparently the French have reached their limit on taxes.  And this after they elected a socialist to office.

This is why there is such a sense of urgency on the left.  When Barack Obama became president what did the left do?  Address the horrible economy?  No.  They passed one of the largest welfare programs in history.  Obamacare.  While they held the House and Senate.  So instead of trying to make life better for all Americans by cutting taxes and regulations to stimulate economic activity they rammed Obamacare into law.  While they could.  For it isn’t often when the Democrats control the presidency and both houses of Congress.

And now there is even greater urgency.  For Europe’s social democracies are imploding.  And these nations are even turning away from their socialist pasts.  Turning back towards capitalism.  Which explains the urgency.  They want to hurry up and get a European-style social democracy in America before all of Europe abandons them.  Severely weakening the ‘look to Europe’ argument.  Especially if Europe embraces capitalism following the collapse of their social democracies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT167: “When we lived more austerely there was no need for painful austerity to cure a bloated government.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 26th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Wise Men in Governments can Do Anything but Pay for their Nanny States

Economics changed in the early Twentieth Century.  America once again had a central bank.  Progressives were expanding the role of government.  And a new economist entered the scene that the progressives just loved.  For he was a macroeconomist who said government should have an active role in the economy.  A role where government tweaked the economy to make it better.  Stronger.  While avoiding the painful corrections on the downside of a business cycle.  Something laissez-faire capitalism caused.  And could not prevent.  But if wise men in government had the power to tweak the private sector economy they could.  At least this is what the progressives and Keynesian economists thought.

That economist was, of course, John Maynard Keynes.  Who rewrote the book on economics.  And what really excited the progressives was the chapter on spending an economy out of a recession.  Now there were two ways to increase spending in an economy.  You can cut tax rates so consumers have bigger paychecks.  Or the government can spend money that they borrow or print.  The former doesn’t need any government intervention into the private sector economy.  While the latter requires those wise men in government to reach deep into that economy.  Guess which way governments choose to increase spending.  Here’s a hint.  It ain’t the one where they just sit on the sidelines.

Governments changed in the Twentieth Century.  Socialism swept through Europe.  And left social democracies in its wake.  Not quite socialism.  But pretty close.  It was the rise of the nanny state.  Cradle to grave government benefits.  A lot of free stuff.  Including pensions.  Health care.  College educations.  And a lot of government jobs in ever expanding government bureaucracies.  Where wise men in government made everything better for the people living in these nanny states.  And armed with their new Keynesian economic policies there was nothing they couldn’t do.  Except pay for their nanny states.

According to John Maynard Keynes raising Tax Rates reduces New Economic Activity

The problem with a nanny state is things change.  People have fewer babies.  Health care and medicines improve.  Increasing lifespans.  You put this together and you get an aging population.  The death knell of a nanny state.  For when those wise men in government set up all of those generous government benefits they assumed things would continue the way they were.  People would continue to have the same amount of babies.  And we would continue to die just about the time we retired.  Giving us an expanding population of new workers entering the workforce.  While fewer people left the workforce and quickly died.  So the tax base would grow.  And always be larger than those consuming those taxes.  In other words, a Ponzi scheme.

But then change came.  With the Sixties came birth control and abortion.  And we all of a sudden started having fewer babies.  While at the same time advances in medicine was increasing our lifespans.  Which flipped the pyramid upside down.  Fewer people were entering the workforce than were leaving it.  And those leaving it were living a lot longer into retirement.  Consuming record amounts of tax money.  More than the tax base could provide.  Leading to deficit spending.  And growing national debt.

Now remember those two ways to increase spending in the economy?  You either cut tax rates.  Or the government borrows and spends.  So if cutting tax rates will generate new economic activity (i.e., new spending in the economy) what will a tax increase do?  It will decrease spending in the economy.  And reduce new economic activity.  Which caused a problem for these nanny states with aging populations.  As the price tag on their nanny state benefits eventually grew greater than their tax revenue’s ability to pay for it.  So they increased tax rates.  Which reduced economic activity.  And with less economic activity to tax their increase in tax rates actually decreased tax revenue.  Forcing them to run greater deficits.  Which added to their national debts.  Increasing the interest they paid on their debt.  Which left less money to pay for those generous benefits.

President Obama’s Non-Defense Spending caused a Huge Spike in the National Debt not seen since World War II

It’s a vicious cycle.  And eventually you reach a tipping point.  As debts grow larger some start to question the ability of a government to ever repay their debt.  Making it risky to loan them any more money.  Which forces these countries with huge debts to pay higher interest rates on their government bonds.  Which leaves less money to pay for those generous benefits.  While their populations continue to age.  Taking you to that tipping point.  Like many countries in the Eurozone who could no longer borrow money to pay for their nanny states.  Who had to turn to the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund for emergency loans.  Which did provide those emergency loans.  Under the condition that they cut spending.  Money in exchange for austerity.  Something that just galls those Keynesian economists.  For despite all of their financial woes coming from having too much debt they still believe these governments should spend their way out of their recessions.  And never mind about the deficits.  Or their burgeoning debts.

But these Keynesians are missing a very important and obvious point.  The problem these nations have is due to their inability to borrow money.  Which means they would NOT have a problem if they didn’t need to borrow money.  So austerity will work.  Because it will decrease the amount of money they need to borrow.  Allowing their tax revenue to pay for their spending needs.  Without excessive tax rates that reduce economic activity.  Making the nanny state the source of all their problems.  For had these nations never became social democracies in the first place they never would have had crushing debt levels that cause sovereign debt crises.  But they did.  And their populations aged.  Making it a matter of time before their Ponzi schemes failed.  Something no nation with a growing nanny state and an aging population can avoid.  Even the United States.  Who kept true to their limited government roots for about 100 years.   Then came the progressives.  The central bank.  And Keynesian economics.  Putting the Americans on the same path as the Europeans (see US Federal Debt As Percent Of GDP).

Debt as Percent of GDP and Wars R2

With the end of the Revolutionary War they diligently paid down their war debt.  Which was pretty much the entire federal debt then.  As the federal government was as limited as it could get.  Then came the War of 1812 and the debt grew.  After the war it fell to virtually nothing.  Then it soared to pay for the Civil War.  Which changed the country.  The country was bigger.  Connected by a transcontinental railroad.  And other internal improvements.  Which prevented the debt from falling back down to pre-war levels.  Then it shot up to pay for World War I.  After WWI the Roaring Twenties replaced progressivism and quickly brought the debt down again.  Then Herbert Hoover brought back progressivism and killed the Roaring Twenties.  FDR turned a bad recession into the Great Depression.  By following all of that Keynesian advice to spend the nation out of recession.  From the man himself.  Keynes.  The massive deficit spending of the New Deal raised the debt higher than it was during World War I.  Changing the country again.  Introducing a state pension.  Social Security.  A Ponzi scheme that would struggle once the population started aging.

Then came World War II and the federal debt soared to its highest levels.  After the war a long decline in the debt followed.  At the end of that decline was the Vietnam War.  And LBJ’s Great Society.  Which arrested the fall in the debt.  Its lowest point since the Great Depression.  Which was about as large as the debt during the Civil War and World War I.  Showing the growth in non-defense spending.  Then came Reagan’s surge in defense spending to win the Cold War.  Once the Americans won the Cold War the debt began to fall again.  Until the Islamist terrorist attacks on 9/11.  Halting the fall in the debt as the War on Terror replaced the Cold War.  Then came the Great Recession.  And President Obama.  Whose non-defense spending caused a huge spike in the national debt.  Taking it to a level not seen since World War II.  When an entire world was at war.  But this debt is not from defense spending.  It’s from an expanded nanny state.  As President Obama takes America into the direction of European socialism.  And unsustainable spending.  Which can end in only but one way.  Austerity.  Painful austerity.  Not like the discomfort of the sequester cuts that only were cuts in the rate of future growth.  But real cuts.  Like in Greece.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

High Prices in Canada sends Canadians South of the Border to do their Shopping

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 18th, 2012

Week in Review

The Canadians are running south of the border for a better deal.  Much to the chagrin of local businesses stuck on the wrong side of the border with their higher costs (see Canadians outraged at attack on cross-border shoppers posted 8/15/2012 on 24 HOURS).

Annoyed at parking problems and long lineups at the stateside Costco, some residents there have set up a Facebook page calling for American-only hours when they can shop Canadian-free…

A Vancouver man who runs a website offering comparison prices, said lower prices and parity in the dollar still sends many bargain hunters south of the border. Cross-border shopping has also likely been spurred by Ottawa’s June increase on the amount Canadians can spend without paying duty (although day-trips are excluded…)

“We shop regularly in the states, especially for groceries. I can advise that organic goods are pretty much the same cost as regular goods,” said crossbordershopping webmaster Henry Tenby. “On average, you’re looking at saving about 50 per cent in terms of groceries…”

Shafiq Jamal of the Retail Council of Canada said local businesses are suffering and urged Canadians to keep their dollars at home.

A 50% savings on groceries when the exchange rate between Canadian and U.S dollars is almost 1 for 1?  That doesn’t leave much for the price difference between Canada and the U.S.  Other than taxes.  If the same food is 50% cheaper south of the border there is a reason for that.  Higher property taxes?  Higher business taxes?   A value added tax (VAT)?  Import tariffs?  A national health care tax?  A combination of all of the above?  It’s something.  And whatever it is the Canadian people don’t like it.  As they express their dislike by going south of the border to buy things they feel are more fairly priced.

There is nothing more irritating than having a Canadian friend that constantly badmouths the U.S. while he and most Canadians living near the border high-tail it south to do their shopping.  For they love their country.  But not enough to shop in it.

Canada is a great country.  Sired like the U.S. by a great country.  Britain.  But Britain is close to Europe.  And their social democracies.  And that contagion has infected her.  And it has drifted across the Atlantic to infect Canada.  Even the U.S.  Big government nanny state spending.  That requires a lot of taxation to support.  And forces people south of the border.  But that may not last.  For as the Americans catch up to the Canadians and the British nanny states their taxes will rise bringing parity to prices of their consumer goods.  Which is the only way to fix the problems in a social democracy.  By bringing other countries down to their level of economic misery.  For to have socialism succeed you can’t let anyone escape its oppressive utopia.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

FT108: “The political elite has exploited women ever since they gave them the franchise to vote.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 9th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Civil War feminized Men and gave us the Nanny State and the Progressive Movement

In all some 2-3 million men left their homes to fight in the Civil War.  Leaving mothers to raise their children on their own.  With Christian love and nurturing.  Especially the boys.  Whose fathers their mothers dearly missed.  And lived in fear that they would fall in battle.  So they smothered these boys with love and affection.  Made them feel special.  The center of the world.  The Civil War would claim some 630,000 lives.  A lot of them young fathers.  Who left their sons no father.  Only a loving and doting mother to raise them.  A mother who hated war.  And despised manly displays of aggression that led to that god-awful war.  Something they would protect their boys from.  Instead filling them with kindness and sensitivity.  Teaching them not to meet aggression with aggression.  But with understanding.  Empathy.  Kindness.  And if someone strikes them to simply turn the other cheek.  Like the good Christians they were.  Because manly displays of behavior led to nothing but trouble.  And war.

The Republicans won the Civil War.  And freed the slaves from their Democrat masters.  Giving them the franchise to vote.  And they, of course, voted for their liberators.  The Republican Party.  Anxious to keep this vast new Republican voting bloc voting for them the Republicans quickly passed the Fifteenth Amendment (1869), giving the freed slaves the Constitutional right to vote.  Forever.  And they did.  While the Union Army was still in the South after the Civil War to enforce the peace.  And protect the newly freed black population.  But after Custer’s Last Stand where the Sioux and Cheyenne decimated Custer’s army, that army was needed out West.  And when it left the South so did the security of black Republican voters.  So they stopped voting.  And the Democrats restored things the way they were before the war.  Only without the institution of slavery.

So the Civil War provided a couple of powerful lessons.  First of all, if a war kills enough men their sons will grow up feminized.  Taking on some characteristics of the fairer sex.  And shunning their more masculine traits.  Also, enfranchising a large group of the population can help you win elections.  These two lessons came together in the Progressive movement the late 19th and early 20th century.  When these fatherless sons grew up and entered politics.  And changed the nature of government.  No longer the limited government of our Founding Fathers.  But a larger and more active government to mother us.  A lesson Woodward Wilson was slow to learn.  As he opposed women’s suffrage until protesters made him change his mind.  Which may have played a part in the Progressives losing the 1920 election.  The Nineteenth Amendment being ratified just months before the elections.  Lucky for us he was slow in changing his mind.  For had he embraced women’s suffrage his party may have been rewarded at the polls by a lot of happy women.  Instead they voted for a Return to Normalcy with Warren G. Harding.  Who followed the advice of Andrew Mellon and cut taxes.  Igniting economic activity.  Giving us one of the greatest decades in U.S. history.  The Roaring Twenties.  Where limited government and free market capitalism modernized the world.  But it wouldn’t last.  For the heavy hand of government interfered with those free markets by the end of the decade.  Giving us the Great Depression.

As Women Empowered themselves with the Birth Control Pill they made Men Very, Very Happy

FDR exploded the size of government with his New Deal.  It was not JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  Instead it was what can our new big-ass government do for you?  How can we now mother you?  And how can we get you to vote for us?  So we can continue our orgy of spending.  And the women’s vote no doubt helped.  Many of who were mothers.  With mothering instincts.  Who wanted to help and take care of people.  Who endorsed FDR’s policies.  The product of those feminized Progressive men.  Who worked diligently to change limited government into the nanny state.  To fill government with understanding.  Empathy.  And kindness.  Creating a new aristocratic class in the process.  Allowing these feminized men to achieve great levels of power and wealth.  Doing whatever they want.  Because they felt special.  The center of the world.  And superior.

The New Deal programs failed to pull the country out of the Great Depression.  World War II came around to do that.  Causing another generation to suffer through another horrible war.  This time putting some 13 million Americans into uniform.  Leaving a lot of mothers to raise their children.  Alone.  Raising them with a nurturing Christian love.  Especially their sons.  Whose fathers their mothers dearly missed.  And lived in fear that they would fall in battle.  So they smothered their sons with love and affection.  Made them feel special.  The center of the world.  To ease the fear and dread of the war.  Which killed some 400,000.  And wounded a million more.  A lot of them young fathers.  Leaving more sons with no father in their lives.  Only a mother who hated war.  And would raise their sons to hate war, too.  To love, instead, peace.  To be filled with feelings of kindness and sensitivity.  And to resist their manly urges.  Feminizing another generation of men.

These men came of age in the Sixties.  Who said “Make love, not war.”  And did.  Like their mothers taught them.  Well, sort of.  It was the age of free love.  The sexual revolution.  Where men had a lot of sex with lots of different women.  And when they weren’t having sex they were attacking the establishment.  Protesting the Vietnam War.  Capitalism.  Old white men.  Rich people.  Religion.  Pretty much anyone.  And anything.  Filled with rage because they grew up without a daddy.  Blaming the world for that.  (Don’t think so?  Listen to Pink Floyd’s The Wall for a real life example as Roger Waters wrote about growing up without a daddy).  Filled with hate.  Unable to love.  So they just had sex.  Lots and lots of sex.  With a lot of ready and willing sex partners.  Because women in those days weren’t getting married anymore to raise a family.  They were empowering themselves.  Using the new birth control pill to plan when they were going to have a family.  Making these men they were having sex with very, very happy.

Liberals encourage Women to Empower themselves and Explore their Sexuality as long as these Women are not their Daughters

The radicals of the Sixties went on to become university professors in the Seventies.  Continuing their antiestablishment and anti-capitalism ways.  Putting up pictures of Che Guevara up in their classrooms.  Preaching socialism.  And communism.  Teaching political science and journalism and prelaw students how horrible America was.  Itemizing every sin.  But glossing over every achievement.  Attacking religion and morality.  Saying, “Who’s to say what’s right or wrong?”  Encouraging more government spending.  And more government control of the private sector.  To make America the socialist paradise they sang about in the Sixties.  While high.  And to legalize the drugs they used to get high in the Sixties.  Attacking men for marrying women.  Making them nothing more than cooks and housekeepers.  And whores in the bedroom.  Encouraging women to burn their bras and have more consequence-free sex.  Which these university professors enjoyed during the Seventies.  Getting high and having sex with their students.  Doing whatever they want.  Because they felt special.  The center of the world.  And superior.

Life was a party in the Seventies.  And we paid dearly for it.  All our major cites became crime ridden.  Drug use soared.  Violent crime increased.  Including assaults on women.  For we were honoring and cherishing women far less in the Seventies than we used to.  Casual sex was in.  Making women just sex partners.  Again, something the men were really enjoying.  Especially those feminized men that went on into politics.  Who became liberal Democrats.  And feminists.  Protectors of women.  A handy title.  For it made the women look the other way every time these men cheated on their wives.  Or were caught in some sex scandal.  They were really enjoying life.  These men.  Running the government in the Seventies.  And controlling the news networks.  The old-boys club was never better.  But then the economy had to go into the toilet.  And the people finally said enough.  They voted for Ronald Reagan.  A conservative.  Who represented about 40% of the population.   And declared the nanny-state of liberalism a failure.  An ideology held by only 20% (approximately) of the population002E

Of course, the liberals weren’t just going to give up their privileged life.  Controlling all of that tax money.  And having whatever they wanted.  Including all that fun with young women.  They had to come up with some way to get a lot of people who did not agree with their ideology to vote for them.  Or who simply didn’t understand their ideology.  So they courted the youth vote.  Whose interests rarely went beyond the satisfying of their selfish desires.  Those they could so enamor in college.  By being cool.  What with these liberals being so unlike these kids’ parents.  Who said that there is nothing wrong with using drugs.  Or having casual sex with someone’s daughter.  The two things college students can really enjoy.  Especially the sex.  Which the liberals provided for them.  By exploiting these young women.  Showering them with birth control.  Even access to abortion.  Making a woman’s self-worth based on her attractiveness to men.  Or on her ability to sexually satisfy men.  They encourage women to think the sexier they were the better and more popular they would be.  And the happier they would be.  Encouraging them to have fun on spring break.  So what if they end up on some DVD having sexually explicit fun?  As long as they had fun.  And vote Democrat.  Because it’s the Democrats who make sure these young women can have fun.  And feel good about themselves.  By encouraging them to be sex objects for men to enjoy.  Especially those old men in politics.  The feminists.  Who say things like they admire the women’s movement.  Especially from behind.  They encourage these women to ’empower’ themselves and explore their sexuality.  With them.  For fun.  Their self-worth.  And their vote.  And these men don’t care what happens to them once they do.  As long as, of course, they’re not their own daughters. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Third Party

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 1st, 2011

Politics 101

Representative Government changed Government to Serve the People instead of the Other Way Around

Politics can be confusing.  And dirty.  Which tends to put most people off.  Many only get involved during big elections.  And even then voter turnout can be low.  In addition to the confusion and dirt there’s a feeling of apathy.  Nothing ever changes.  And they feel that it really doesn’t matter if they vote or not.  So many don’t.

They feel that it doesn’t matter who you send to Washington.  Because once there even the honest become corrupt.  Republican.  Or Democrat.  They’re both the same.  Rich and powerful.  Joining other rich and powerful.  In their little games.  So this feeling of apathy is understandable.

But politics matter.  Because it is and always has been a power struggle.  And understanding the essence of this power struggle is important.  For throughout time this struggle has been between competing oppressors who wanted to establish minority rule over the masses.  So the few could live comfortably at their expense of the many.  And it was like this for a long, long time.  Until representative government.  When government began to serve people.  Instead of the other way around.

Third Party Candidates often Rise up from Voter Apathy and Anger

Of the two major political parties, one is for the growth of government.  And one is for limiting the growth of government.  One is for higher taxes.  One is for lower taxes.  One is for higher regulation of the free market.  And one is for rolling back excessive regulation.  One is for transferring wealth from the private sector to the public sector.  And one is for leaving wealth where the wealth creators created it.  In the private sector.  One party serves those within the party (by growing government).  And one party serves the people (by limiting government).  Disagree?  If so I’m guessing you still know which party we’re talking about.  Even if you do disagree.

So there is a difference between the two major parties.  Sometimes it’s hard to see because of the game of politics.  Winning elections.  And many believe the way to win elections is by buying votes.  And both political parties do this.  Spend a lot of taxpayer money on projects for their home district to make their constituents happy.  Grateful.  And, hopefully, in a ‘return the favor’ frame of mind at election time.  But to get pork for your district you often have to let others get pork for their districts.  A little you vote for my pork and I’ll vote for your pork.  Which puts a lot of people off when it comes to voting.  Gives them the feeling that all politicians are the same.  And leads to all that apathy.  Setting the field for third party candidates.

So what is a third party candidate?  They are many things.  But one thing they are not is this.  Winners.  Because they don’t win elections.  Third party candidates often rise up from that voter apathy.  And anger.  Fed up with their party, they split and form a third party.  Thinking they know how best to beat the opposition candidate.  Because they know what single issue will carry the election.  Or so they think.  But all they do is help the opposition candidate they so loathe to victory.  By splitting the vote against the opposition candidate.  Because they don’t think.  They feel.  And let their passion for a singular issue overcome rational thought.

The Majority of Voters Vote to either Expand or Limit the Role of Government in our Lives

And then you have the fringe ideologies so far out of mainstream thought that they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a national election.  Such as the Green Party.  The Reform Party.  The Libertarian Party.  The Socialist Party USA.  The International Socialist Organization.  The Socialist Labor Party of America.  The Socialist Workers Party.  The Communist Party USA.  The People’s Front of Judea.  The Judean People’s Front.  The Judean Popular People’s Front.  And, of course, the Popular Front of Judea.  Splitter!

Okay, the Judean stuff is from a scene in the classic movie Monty Python’s Life of Brian.  But it illustrates as well as belabors the point.  Third party candidates are destined for failure.  Because there’re too many of them.  And they don’t differentiate themselves enough to make significant numbers of people leave either of the main two parties.  At least they haven’t yet.  And probably never will.  Though, surprisingly, Ross Perot came closer than most to winning a presidential election.  But he and his Reform Party soon faded to political oblivion.  Which was far less surprising.

You see, the majority of voters don’t base their vote on these fringe, single issues.  Or extreme ideologies.  Instead they vote to either expand the role of government in our lives.  Or vote to limit the role of government in our lives.  For more of a nanny state.  Or less of a nanny state.  For a Democrat.  Or a Republican.  It’s that easy.  And with the large amount of voter apathy and anger that’s enough politics in their lives.  Either the Democrat bum if you want more free stuff.  Or the Republican bum if you are optimistic but expect to be disappointed later.  When you see your limited government candidate expand government, albeit smaller than what the Democrat candidate would have done.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

UK Budget Cuts Ignite Riots, Gives Glimpse of USA Future

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 26th, 2011

Unruly Mobs Attack the Police…in London

The riots in the Middle East were ignited by high unemployment, high food prices and little government relief for either.  Some countries have all but degenerated into civil war.  But violent unrest is not limited to the Middle East.  Even some of the most advanced Western economies are having their problems (see TUC protest march: anarchists on the rampage in London by Patrick Sawer and David Barrett posted 3/26/2011 The Telegraph).

Police fought mobs of masked thugs who pelted officers with ammonia and fireworks loaded with coins.

The anti-capitalists started fires, smashed their way into banks, hotels and shops, bringing chaos to Britain’s busiest shopping street.

The violence began as Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, addressed a TUC rally of at least 250,000 peaceful protesters in Hyde Park who had marched from Westminster to demonstrate against government spending cuts.

Yeah, you read that right.  London, England.  Unbelievable, isn’t it?  The violence against the police?  And property?  Wow.  And look who’s doing it.  Bloody anti-capitalist anarchist thugs. 

After five hours of running battles, there were 75 arrests. At least 30 people, including five police officers, were injured. Police said the anti-capitalists threw lightbulbs filled with ammonia at them…

They ordered limited use of “kettling” to contain the rioters but admitted that such was the scale of the violence, they could not protect property.

The UK has big time budget problems.  High taxes are hurting the economy.  Ever increasing public benefits require more and more tax revenue.  And increases the debt.  They cannot sustain this spending without crashing the economy.  Or bankrupting the nation.  But the anarchists don’t care.  Because they’re anti-capitalists.  And simply don’t understand rudimentary economics.  Or numbers with a ‘£’ in front of them.

From Rich Empire to Bankrupt Nanny State

So just how bad are things in the UK?  Bad.  The country is at a crossroads.  It may forever change if it doesn’t change course.  During World War II it was the Nazis threatening their survival.  Today it’s their own spending (see Britain’s leaders should come clean on the true depth of the fiscal crisis by Liam Halligan posted 3/26/2011 on The Telegraph).

The UK’s fiscal crisis is of monumental historic importance. The future of the free world may not be at stake as it was in Churchill’s day. What is in the balance, though, is the prosperity of the British people for at least the next few decades and our status as a top-ranking nation.

This is a common theme among great nations that fall from greatness.  Out of control government spending.  It brought down the Roman Empire.  And the British Empire.  But the great nation that built it remains.  For now, at least.  But the government spending is burdening Britain more than her empire ever did.

Over the last 12 months, then, this country’s “on-balance-sheet” liabilities have risen by £147bn. That’s roughly what we spent on the NHS and defence combined in 2010 – and that was merely, during this last year of “austerity”, the incremental increase in what Britain has put “on tick”.

That’s my point – and I will keep making it until it fully enters the public discourse. It is the total debt numbers that Osborne, the Tories and our politicians in general should focus on, not the size of the annual deficit.

This is another common theme with great nations.  They have big military forces.  To protect what is theirs.  And to maintain the peace.  The Royal Navy built the British Empire.  And maintained world peace.  As did the Roman Legions.  That’s why there was a Pax Romana.  And a Pax Britannica.  These empires ushered in great periods of peace.  And their rule of law and free markets provided great prosperity.  But the prosperity led to entitlement.  And state benefits.  Such as the NHS (National Health Service).  State spending increases to meet the desires of voters.  And that spending is now unsustainable.  They have to cut something.  Because they just can’t borrow anymore.

In 2009, the UK spent £31bn – around 6pc of total tax receipts – on debt interest payments. That’s money down the drain. By 2015, we won’t have reached, in Churchill’s words, some “broad sunlit upland”. After four more years of deficits, debt services costs, according to last week’s Budget, will by then be £67bn a year – or almost 10pc of total tax receipts. These shocking numbers are also likely to be under-estimates, given the UK’s massive “off-balance-sheet” liabilities and the Treasury’s benign assumption of future gilt rates.

These interest costs are staggering.  Any meaningful cuts will have to be greater than the annual debt cost if they have any hope of bringing down deficits.  Or the debt.  And they were trying to make some meaningful cuts.  Almost £100bn.  And we saw what happened.  People took to the streets in violent protest.

All of us – politicians, commentators and voters – should compare the quality of our current national debate, its utter detachment from reality, with the statesmanship and candour of Churchill’s “blood, toil, tears and sweat“. For such hard truths inspired a nation, while winning Churchill untold respect.

Of course, during Churchill’s time, there wasn’t a nanny state.  After enduring World War I and the Great Depression, austerity was an all too familiar way of life.  It isn’t like that today.  Today students protest if they don’t get a free college education.  It is questionable even if Winston Churchill himself could inspire today’s entitlement culture.  They’re just too spoiled, lazy and greedy.

A Look into America’s Future

All right, so that’s what’s happening in the UK.  How about the USA?  We have our problems.  But we’re not as bad off.  Obamacare is not quite the NHS.  Yet.  But we have the same entitlement culture.  Out of control state spending is plunging us into record deficits and debt.  High taxes and regulatory compliance has drawn out the Great Recession.  And when some governors start cutting their budgets to balance their budgets, the people protested.  Our day of reckoning is coming.  And N. Gregory Mankiw wrote how a future president might inspire the American people ala Churchill in 2026.  It’s an interesting look at what could very well be our future (see It’s 2026, and the Debt Is Due by N. Gregory Mankiw posted 3/26/2011 on The New York Times).

The seeds of this crisis were planted long ago, by previous generations. Our parents and grandparents had noble aims. They saw poverty among the elderly and created Social Security. They saw sickness and created Medicare and Medicaid. They saw Americans struggle to afford health insurance and embraced health care reform with subsidies for middle-class families.

But this expansion in government did not come cheap. Government spending has taken up an increasing share of our national income.

Today, most of the large baby-boom generation is retired. They are no longer working and paying taxes, but they are eligible for the many government benefits we offer the elderly.

Our efforts to control health care costs have failed. We must now acknowledge that rising costs are driven largely by technological advances in saving lives. These advances are welcome, but they are expensive nonetheless.

If we had chosen to tax ourselves to pay for this spending, our current problems could have been avoided. But no one likes paying taxes. Taxes not only take money out of our pockets, but they also distort incentives and reduce economic growth. So, instead, we borrowed increasing amounts to pay for these programs.

This part of the story we know.  It’s how we got here.  Or there, as it were, in this tale from the future.  Now comes the debt spiral.  Which will force us to act.  And make decisions no one wants to, or is willing to, now.  Which will be even more painful hence.

For years, the United States government borrowed on good terms. Investors both at home and abroad were confident that we would honor our debts. They were sure that when the time came, we would do the right thing and bring spending and taxes into line.

But over the last several years, as the ratio of our debt to gross domestic product reached ever-higher levels, investors started getting nervous. They demanded higher interest rates to compensate for the perceived risk. Higher interest rates increased the cost of servicing our debt, adding to the upward pressure on spending. We found ourselves in a vicious circle of rising budget deficits and falling investor confidence.

When the treasury tried to auction off some bonds in this tale there were few takers.  So this future president secured a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) with some draconian strings.  The IMF required big cuts in spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare and subsidies – farming, ethanol production, public broadcasting, energy conservation and trade promotion).  And big tax increases. 

We will raise taxes on all but the poorest Americans. We will do this primarily by broadening the tax base, eliminating deductions for mortgage interest and state and local taxes. Employer-provided health insurance will hereafter be taxable compensation.

We will increase the gasoline tax by $2 a gallon. This will not only increase revenue, but will also address various social ills, from global climate change to local traffic congestion.

AS I have said, these changes are repellant to me. When you elected me, I promised to preserve the social safety net. I assured you that the budget deficit could be fixed by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse, and by increasing taxes on only the richest Americans. But now we have little choice in the matter.

If only we had faced up to this problem a generation ago. The choices then would not have been easy, but they would have been less draconian than the sudden, nonnegotiable demands we now face. Americans would have come to rely less on government and more on themselves, and so would be better prepared today.

Even in the future presidents will be making the same promises that they cannot keep.  And make the same lament.  If only we continued the policies of Ronald Reagan.  Kept government small.  And relied on ourselves.  Had we, we’d never be in this financial mess now.  Or hence.

Dead People haven’t a Care in the World

Our own greed will do us in.  Insatiable want of government benefits kills great nations.  Even the UK and the USA are not immune from this.  But the easy political road is to pander to the people.  Give them what they want.  To get their votes.  They do this knowing full well they are destroying the future.  So why do they do it?  Because most of those in government are old.  And when it comes time to pay the piper, it will be a moot point.  Because they will be dead.  And dead people haven’t a care in the world.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Crushing Debt is Crushing Europe and the United States

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 15th, 2011

The Republicans are Irresponsible for not Allowing the Democrats to Spend Irresponsibly

Washington has maxed out their credit card.  They do like to spend.  But now they need to increase their credit line.  And the Republicans aren’t playing nice (see US debt passes $14 trillion, Congress weighs caps by Tom Raum, Associated Press, posted 1/15/2011 on Yahoo! News).

Remarkably, nearly half of today’s national debt was run up in just the past six years. It soared from $7.6 trillion in January 2005 as President George W. Bush began his second term to $10.6 trillion the day Obama was inaugurated and to $14.02 trillion now. The period has seen two major wars and the deepest economic downturn since the 1930s.

With a $1.7 trillion deficit in budget year 2010 alone, and the government on track to spend $1.3 trillion more this year than it takes in, annual budget deficits are adding roughly $4 billion a day to the national debt. Put another way, the government is borrowing 41 cents for every dollar it spends.

In a letter to Congress, Geithner said the current statutory debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion, set just last year, may be reached by the end of March — and hit no later than May 16. He warned that holding it hostage to skirmishes over spending could lead the country to default on its obligations, “an event that has no precedent in American history.”

Such righteous indignation.  According to Mr. Geithner, holding the debt ceiling hostage is just irresponsible.  The Republicans are using the financial wellbeing of the nation for political gain.  But I see it differently.  I don’t see the refusal to raise the debt ceiling as being irresponsible.  I see the runaway spending that makes the debt ceiling an issue as irresponsible.  And, yes, you can blame Bush for adding $3 trillion in 4 years.  If you blame Obama for adding $3.42 trillion in two years.  And then for passing Obamacare which will make us pine for the gold old days when the deficit increased only $3.42 trillion in two years.

Debt-level brinkmanship doesn’t wear a party label.

Here’s what then-Sen. Barack Obama said on the Senate floor in 2006: “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance the government’s reckless fiscal policies.”

It was a blast by the freshman lawmaker against a Bush request to raise the debt limit to $8.96 trillion.

Bush won on a 52-48 party-line vote. Not a single Senate Democrat voted to raise the limit, opposition that’s now complicating White House efforts to rally bipartisan support for a higher ceiling.

Apparently, reckless fiscal policies that explode the debt are only a problem when a Republican is president.  Obama, a tax and spend liberal Democrat, opposed raising the debt ceiling to $8.96 trillion.  Then he outspends George W. Bush and approves a debt ceiling somewhere north of $14.3 trillion.  And to add insult to injury, they bitch with righteous indignation when the Republicans object to their reckless and irresponsible spending.  As if there is no hypocrisy in their actions.

The Debt Dominoes ready to Fall in Europe?

But there is hypocrisy.  Worse, Obama is putting the nation in financial peril.  The debt ceiling is dangerously high.  It’s nearing 100 percent of GDP.  What does that mean?  Well, let’s take a look at Europe.

Greece is drowning in debt.  Even after their bailout, they project her debt to reach 165% of GDP in 2014.  Italy is close behind.  France, Ireland, Belgium and Portugal have debt between 80-99% of GDP.  Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Hungary have debt between 60-79%.

Some of these nations are on the brink of bankruptcy.  Greece had to make ‘austerity’ cuts.  And the people rioted.  France increased the retirement age a couple of years.  And the people rioted.  Britain made students pay more of their own university tuition.  And the people rioted.  They just bailed out Ireland.  Portugal and Belgium have crushing interest costs on their debt.  Spain is of concern.  And Germany, the fiscally responsible nation in the Eurozone, is picking up the tab for a lot of these bailouts.  Not out of altruism.  But a Euro problem anywhere is a Euro problem for Germany.  She doesn’t have much choice.  But how long can she continue to afford this generosity?

Will the Debt Crises be the end of the ‘Cradle-to-the-Grave’ Nanny State?

Not long, it would appear (see Time for Plan B posted 1/13/2011 in The Economist).

This newspaper does not advocate the first rich-country sovereign defaults in half a century lightly. But the logic for taking action sooner rather than later is powerful. First, the only plausible long-term alternative to debt restructuring—permanent fiscal transfer from Europe’s richer core (read Germany)—seems to be a political non-starter. Some of Europe’s politicians favour closer fiscal union, including issuing euro bonds, but they are unlikely to accept budget transfers big enough to underwrite the peripheral economies’ entire debt stock.

Things are so bad with some of these Social Democracies in Europe that the Economist is recommending they just ‘file bankruptcy’ and start anew.  Their financial holes are just too deep.  Of course, this means they’ll probably screw the debt holders.  But there will be fair-shared sacrifice.  They’ll eliminate some of that debt.  But they will also eliminate a lot of that spending that caused their debt crisis in the first place.  Some of their ‘cradle-to-the-grave’ nanny state will go bye-bye.  Considering how ugly it was when France tried to raise their retirement age and when Britain cut back on tuition subsidies, these austerity moves will take ugly to a new level.

But like any problem, the longer you wait to address it the worse it’ll get.

And the longer a restructuring is put off, the more painful it will eventually be, both for any remaining bondholders and for taxpayers in the euro zone’s core. The rescues of Greece and Ireland have increased their overall debts while their private debts fall, so that a growing share will be owed to European governments. That means that the write-downs in any future restructuring will be bigger. By 2015, for instance, Greece could not reduce its debt to a sustainable level even if it wiped out the remaining private bondholders.

And this is our future.  Especially with Obamacare waiting in the wings.

The Road to Serfdom – from Medicare to Obamacare

We shouldn’t be talking about raising our debt ceiling.  We need to be talking about spending cuts.  Geithner, Obama, et al are playing a dangerous game.  They want to grow government at any cost.  To get it so deeply entrenched no matter the cost so that people will riot when faced with austerity cuts.  And they’re coming.  Austerity cuts. 

It’ll start with Medicare doctor reimbursements.  Then when Medicare collapses, Obamacare will add a public option.  This will be the end of private insurance.  Obamacare will then evolve into a national health service.  Which will ration health care services.  Then they’ll raise the Social Security retirement age.  Just like in France.  By then we’ll be well along the Road to Serfdom.

And then the rioting will start.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Unemployment, High Taxes, Obamacare, Uncertainty, Public Sectors and a Snow Crisis

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 3rd, 2011

Obama Saves our Economy with 10% Unemployment and Job Killing Obamacare

The departing White House economist, Larry Summers, says that if it wasn’t for President Obama, the economy would be in a mess.  Unlike the near 10% unemployment stagnant cesspool it currently is.  Others say he may have stabilized the economy, but he is smothering the recovery because of the patent anti-business policies of the Obama Administration (see Judging Obama’s economics by Robert J. Samuelson posted 1/3/2011 on The Washington Post).

The trouble is that Obama, having stabilized the economy, weakened the recovery. What’s missing from Summers’s valedictory is any sense of contradiction between the administration’s ambitious social and regulatory agenda and the business confidence necessary for hiring and investing. Of course, the connections existed. The health-care law raises hiring costs by requiring in 2014 that all firms with more than 50 employees provide health insurance or be fined. The law brims with complexities and uncertainties that make it hard to estimate the ultimate costs. Will firms with, say, 47 workers eagerly expand beyond 50 if that imposes all the extra costs? It seems doubtful.

Woe to the business owner after 2 years of President Obama.  Obamacare.  It’s going to cost business big.  But how big no one knows.  Even the people who wrote that monstrosity.  As Dave Barry so eloquently wrote (see Dave Barry’s 2010 Year in Review posted 1/3/2011 in the Miami Herald).

The centerpiece of this effort is a historic bill that will either (a) guarantee everybody excellent free health care, or (b) permit federal bureaucrats to club old people to death. Nobody knows which, because nobody has read the bill, which in printed form has the same mass as a UPS truck.

In a word, uncertainty.  It’s anyone’s guess.  And that’s a pretty big variable to put into a business plan.  Better to circle the wagons and wait and see.  And by wait and see I mean don’t expand.  Don’t build.  Don’t hire.

But just think how worse things would be if it wasn’t for Obama.

High Unemployment and High Taxes – They Usually go Together

And this on top of some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (see Pat Toomey says U.S. has highest corporate tax rates in the world posted 1/3/2011 on The St. Petersburg Times’ Politifact).

On the Jan. 2, 2011, edition of NBC’s Meet the Press, Sen.-elect Pat Toomey, R-Pa., cited a striking statistic in urging the United States to lower its corporate tax rates.

That striking statistic?

“We should be lowering corporate tax rates because we have the highest in the world right now.”

They fact checked.  There are different taxes to look at (statutory, effective, excise, payroll, etc.).  Their conclusion?

Still, if you rate Toomey on his specific wording by looking at “corporate tax rates,” he’s right that the U.S. does now have the highest corporate tax rates on the books, at least among the biggest industrialized democracies, which is most economists’ typical yardstick. So we rate his statement Mostly True.

Uncertainty.  High taxes.  And they wonder why unemployment hovers at 10%.

Tax and Spend Creates Business Uncertainty

And taxes won’t be coming down any time soon with the Obama administration.  The national debt has never been higher (see National Debt Tops $14 Trillion by Mark Knoller posted 1/3/2011 on CBS News).  And the Obama administration wants to raise the debt ceiling.  Because they want to keep on spending. 

You need to pay for spending.  With debt, printing or taxes.  All of which will add cost to business.  More debt increases interest rates.  Printing money causes price inflation.  Taxes just plain add costs.  And they pass all those costs on to you.  The consumer.

But it’s the uncertainty that plagues business. Yes, it’s bad.  But will it get worse?  Probably.  So business hunkers down.  They don’t expand.  They don’t build.  And they don’t hire.    Not for the indefinite future.  Until they have some sense of what’s to come. 

To Save Obamacare Obama Tries to Hide the Facts

Even the Obama administration know they’re not helping the economy.  And they know that Obamacare is a train wreck.  So they’re doing everything they can to lie to the people.  To get their propaganda front and center.  How?  They’re paying Google with our tax dollars to alter ‘Obamacare’ search results (see HHS is Paying Google with Taxpayer Money to Alter ‘Obamacare’ Search Results by Jeffrey H. Anderson posted 1/3/2011 on the Weekly Standard).

Obamacare is bad.  Even they know it.  So they’re trying to control Internet content.  Scary, isn’t it?  Censorship can’t be far behind.

A Snow Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste

FDR exploded the size of Big Government.  He gave birth to the nanny state.  But one thing he didn’t do was to neuter private business.  And empower the public sector employees.  He knew if you were going to partner with Big Labor you needed big taxes.  You get big taxes from businesses.  And from their employees.  In other words, it all trickles down from business.  If you shut down business, you shut down everything.

Today, though, it’s all different.  They don’t just take from business. They eviscerate business.  To feed the public sector.  Who produce nothing.  They just consume tax dollars.  And live a far better life than you or I.  Case in point, the NYC blizzard (see Sanitation Department’s slow snow cleanup was a budget protest by Sally Goldenberg, Larry Celona and Josh Margolin posted 12/30/2010 on the New York Post).

Selfish Sanitation Department bosses from the snow-slammed outer boroughs ordered their drivers to snarl the blizzard cleanup to protest budget cuts — a disastrous move that turned streets into a minefield for emergency-services vehicles, The Post has learned.

That’s your public sector.  When the mayor forces them to live like the rest of us they protest vehemently.  Taking advantage of a crisis, they paralyze a city.  Prevent emergency services from using the streets.  Because they’re not happy with wage and benefit packages similar to the private sector.  So they protest.  And ask for our support in their struggle against unfair labor practices the mayor is using against them.

Solidarity, Brother?  Or are you Giving me the Finger?

Even their union brethren have had enough.  And that says a lot (see Labor’s Coming Class War by William McGurn posted 1/4/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

In theory, of course, organized labor is all about fraternal solidarity. For many years, it is true, private-sector unions supported collective-bargaining rights and better benefits for government workers, while public-employee unions supported the private-sector unions in their opposition to legislation such as the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s.

Suddenly, it’s a different world. In this recession, for example, construction workers are suffering from unemployment levels roughly double the national rate, according to a recent analysis of federal jobs data by the Associated General Contractors of America. They are relearning, the hard way, that without a growing economy, all the labor-friendly laws and regulations in the world won’t keep them working.

The union trades are among the biggest group of laid off workers.  And while they sit unemployed waiting to pick up a call, the public sector goes on.  Living extremely well.  And the high taxes to pay those fat wage and benefit packages are killing business.  The very business they need to build stuff.

What’s more, “blue-collar union workers are beginning to appreciate that the generous pensions and health benefits going to their counterparts in state and local government are coming out of their pockets,” says Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. “Not only that, they are beginning to understand the dysfunctional relationship between collective bargaining for government employees and their own job prospects.”

And while the public sector bitches about pay cuts in their jobs, unemployment soars among the union trades.  I once complained about my wage and benefits until I met the man who had none.  So don’t go looking for the solidarity on the picket lines.

Over in New York, meanwhile, newly inaugurated Gov. Andrew Cuomo faces a similar battle. Mr. Cuomo campaigned on a cap on property taxes and a freeze on state salaries, both anathema to the powerful state-employee unions. As the New York Times reported last month, however, in this showdown Mr. Cuomo may have found a surprising ally in the 100,000- member Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York. Maybe not so surprising: The Times says unemployment for these workers is running at 20%.

These union employees at least provide value.  They build things.  And build them very well.  Sure, you can say some are overpaid.  And maybe some are.  But one thing you can’t say is that they haven’t been sharing any of the sacrifice during these down times.  Unlike their public sector brethren. 

In some ways, this new appreciation for the private sector is simply back to the future. FDR, for example, warned in 1937 that collective bargaining “cannot be transplanted into the public service.” In the old days, unions understood economic growth. Mr. Malanga points to AFL-CIO President George Meany’s strong support for the JFK tax cuts as an example.

These days the two types of worker inhabit two very different worlds. In the private sector, union workers increasingly pay for more of their own health care, and they have defined contribution pension plans such as 401(k)s. In this they have something fundamental in common even with the fat cats on Wall Street: Both need their companies to succeed.

By contrast, government unions use their political clout to elect those who set their pay: the politicians. In exchange, these unions are rewarded with contracts whose pension and health-care provisions now threaten many municipalities and states with bankruptcy. In response to the crisis, government unions demand more and higher taxes. Which of course makes people who have money less inclined to look to those states to make the investments that create jobs for, say, iron workers, electricians and construction workers.

Big Government and the Public Sector can’t Exist without Business

To tax and spend you need big piles of tax money.  Which anti-business policies won’t give you.  And raising tax rates will hurt business and consumers alike.  Which also won’t give you big piles of tax money.  Ditto for excessive government debt and printing money.  They all kill economic activity.  And we’re killing our economy.  Which is shrinking that pile of tax money.  And this is causing cities and states budget problems.  Requiring a reckoning with their public sector employees.  Which is going so badly that the public sector unions are now finding themselves an island unto themselves.  No one is feeling pity for these pampered prima donnas.  Even their fellow union workers in the building trades are abandoning them.

Things are bad.  But they can get worse.  If we try to bail out the public sector.  We do that and we’ll end up like Greece.  The only difference being that there won’t be anyone to bail us out.  So that’s not an option.  We have to cut spending.  Before we end up like Greece. 

We need to repeal Obamacare.  Cut taxes.  And stop attacking business.  If we want jobs.  And prosperity.  For one fundamental truth in life is that business can exist without the public sector.  But the public sector can’t exist without business.  Someone has to pay all those taxes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries