The Obama Recovery is Good for Wall Street but Bad for Main Street

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2014

Week in Review

The December jobs report was pretty bleak.  It showed that the unemployment rate fell to 6.7% and that the economy added 74,000 jobs.  Not great but good enough for some who say that President Obama’s policies are finally working after 5 some years of trying.  Which is ridiculous.  Because that unemployment rate doesn’t tell you how many people lost their jobs.  And how many people disappeared from the civilian labor force as they gave up trying to find work that just isn’t there.  Which hides the number of people who lost their jobs.  Because the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t count anyone as unemployed if they are no longer looking for work.  But if you dig down into the jobs report you’ll find this data.  And see that for every person that entered the labor force about seven people left it in December (see The BLS Employment Situation Summary for December 2013 posted January 13th, 2014 on PITHOCRATES).  Which is anything but an economic recovery.

All during the Obama presidency the Federal Reserve has been stimulating the economy.  Right out of the Keynesian handbook.  By keeping interest rates near zero to encourage people to borrow money to buy things they don’t need.  But few have.  No.  The only people borrowing that money are rich investors.  Who are borrowing this ‘free’ money to spend in the stock market.  Helping Wall Street to do very well during the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  While Main Street sees their median family income fall.  Still the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, thinks he did a heck of a job (see Bernanke Says QE Effective While Posing No Immediate Bubble Risk by Jeff Kearns and Joshua Zumbrun posted 1/16/2014 on Bloomberg).

Bernanke is seeking to define his legacy before stepping down on Jan. 31. During his eight-year tenure as leader of the Fed he piloted the economy through a financial crisis that led to the longest recession since the 1930s. He has tried to bolster growth by holding the target interest rate near zero and pushing forward with unprecedented bond buying known as QE.

“Those who have been saying for the last five years that we’re just on the brink of hyperinflation, I think I would just point them to this morning’s CPI number and suggest that inflation is not really a significant risk of this policy,” Bernanke said, referring to a Labor Department report showing the consumer price index rose 1.5 percent in the past year. The Fed has set an inflation target of 2 percent…

The Federal Open Market Committee (FDTR) announced plans last month to reduce monthly purchases to $75 billion from $85 billion, citing improvement in the labor market. The jobless rate last month fell to 6.7 percent, a five-year low.

The only reason why we don’t have hyperinflation is that everyone has depreciated their currency so much to boost exports and pay for bloated welfare states that all currencies are losing value.  And of all these bad currencies the American currency is the least bad of the lot.  Which is why some foreign nationals will pay to park their money in American banks.  Because the risk of it losing its value is so much greater in their home country.

But that doesn’t mean inflation hasn’t reared its ugly head in the US economy.  Just go to a grocery store and look at a bag of chips.  Or a box of cookies.  Or any packaged item that didn’t seem to get overly expensive during the Obama recession. A bag of chips may be the same $3-4 it was before the recession.  But notice the size of the bag.  It’s gotten smaller.  So, yes, consumer prices have not shown great inflation.  But packaging has gotten smaller.  So instead of paying more for the same quantity we are paying the same price for a lesser quantity.  Which means we may be buying 4 of something in a month instead of 3 of something.  It adds up.  Which is why there are so many more people on food stamps.  The Bernanke inflation is taking more of our paycheck to buy what it once did.

The economy is horrible.  Fewer people are in the labor force with each jobs report.  Our grocery packaging is shrinking.  And once the Fed stops its bond buying the stock market is going to fall.  A lot.  For every time rich investors think the economic data will show solid economic activity what do they do?  They sell their stocks.  Causing a stock market fall.  Why?  Why would investors leave the stock market when the data say the economy is getting stronger?  Which seems to go against common sense?  Because they know there’s been only one thing helping them get rich during the Obama presidency.  That ‘free’ money.  Once that source of cheap money goes away they will sell before those inflated stock prices fall back to earth.

The Obama recovery.  Good for Wall Street.  Bad for Main Street.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obama’s Millionaire Tax won’t Provide Serious Deficit Reduction

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 18th, 2011

Deficit Reduction is Important Enough to Raise Taxes but not Important Enough to Cut Spending

Hmmm, a Democrat deficit reduction package.  I wonder what that could mean. Spending cuts?  Or tax hikes?  Well liberal Democrats like to tax and spend.  And Barack Obama is a liberal Democrat.  So it must be tax hikes (see Obama to offer his own debt reduction package by Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, posted 9/18/2011 on Yahoo! News).

Administration officials see the task of attending to deficits as necessary but not necessarily urgent, compared with the need to revive the economy and increase employment.

What do you know about that?  It’s tax hikes.  What a surprise.

Translation?  It’s important enough to raise taxes to cut the deficit.  But not important enough to cut spending.  In other words, it will be government as usual.  More Keynesian ‘stimulus’ spending.  Which is code for rewarding political friends and allies.  With taxpayer money.  And more class warfare.  Blaming the Obama recession on Republican tactics.  Namely, responsible governance.

The White House signaled its approach Saturday by highlighting a proposal in the president’s plan that would set a minimum tax rate for taxpayers earning more than $1 million.

The measure — Obama is going to call it the “Buffett Rule” for billionaire investor Warren Buffett — is designed to prevent millionaires from using tax-avoidance schemes to pay lower rates than middle-income taxpayers. Buffett has complained that he and other wealthy people have been “coddled long enough” and shouldn’t be paying a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.

Coddled?  You tell me if we’re coddling these people.

Compare the numbers.  A $60,000 middle class salary pays a current top marginal tax rate of 25%.  That’s somewhere around $11,000 in federal income taxes.  One of these coddled ‘Warren Buffet‘ millionaires may earn $40 million on a half billion dollar investment portfolio.  Taxed at 15% that’s a capital gains tax of $6 million dollars.  So one ‘coddled’ millionaire pays the equivalent of 3,636 middle class taxpayers.

If you look at it this way, rationally, without your head up your keister, you can only arrive at one conclusion.  You don’t want to raise tax rates on the wealthy.  You want to breed them.  With tax policy that encourages the making of more Warren Buffet-class millionaires.

For each new ‘coddled’ millionaire that’s another 3,636 middle class people that could receive significant tax relief.  How?  Lower tax rates across the board.  The middle class pay less.  And more millionaires pay more tax dollars.  The ultimate goal of tax policy.  If you’re not a liberal Democrat, that is.  Whose ultimate goal is, of course, class warfare.  So you can advance policy that is detrimental to the economy.  But beneficial to growing government.  And rewards political friends and allies.  With taxpayer money.

Business Owners Understand their Businesses and Fiscal Policy and are Tiring of being Cash Piñatas

If you’re of the older persuasion you’ve no doubt heard these arguments before.  And after hearing them all these years they don’t fool you anymore.  If you ever were in the first place.  Still, it doesn’t stop them from trying (see Sorry, But The Republican Arguments Against A “Millionaire’s Tax” Are Just Preposterous by Henry Blodget posted 9/18/2011 on Business Insider).

The rest of the Republican counter-arguments are just silly, self-serving, or obstructionist. Let’s take them one by one, ending with the one that seems most persuasive to reasonable people.

“Taxes are a form of theft.”  This is just ridiculous. It’s like arguing that paper money is illegal.

Government is a necessary evil.  Government takes money earned by others.  To pay for public goods.  Everyone understands this.  What people don’t understand is the bastardization of the meaning of public goods.

A public good is a thing that an individual can’t buy.  An individual can’t buy an army and navy to protect himself.  Or herself.  A private individual can’t buy a fresh water and sewage system for himself.  Or herself.  These are public goods.  We pay for these things with taxes.  Everyone pays a little to enjoy the benefits of these massive and costly things.

But we can feed ourselves.  Provide for our own retirement.  Pay for our own healthcare.  We can do these things.  It may be harder for some than others.  But it can be done.  So these things are not public goods.  But government today treats them as public goods.  Taxing us far more than they should.  So they can curry favor with voting groups.

So buying votes with tax dollars may be legal in the strictest sense.  But it is closer to theft than legitimate tax policy.  And printing paper money to fund even more of this spending is generational theft.  A millionaire tax just facilitates more government spending for things government shouldn’t be paying for.

Here is a list of the arguments Blodget says are typically made against raising taxes on millionaires.  Which he goes on to repute.  But I think the arguments speak for themselves.

  • Raising taxes on millionaires will kill their ambition and discourage them from working
  • Raising taxes on millionaires will punish successful people for being successful
  • Raising taxes is always a terrible idea–the problem is spending
  • Taxes are a form of theft: The government has no right to take our money away
  • Raising taxes in a weak economy will further weaken the economy

These are all true.  People like to point to that top marginal tax rate of 1950s when the economy was booming.  But no one paid it.  People hid their earnings in tax shelters to avoid that 90% rate.  Contrary to popular belief on the Left, they didn’t whistle a happy tune and pay it.  They fought it.  And won.  It was a joke.

High taxes do influence rich people.  They will redirect their wealth from income producing.  To wealth preservation.  When tax rates are high.  Just like middle class people do with their 401(k)s.  When they approach retirement.

If a small business earns $1+ million a year, and the owner “passes through” all this income and pays taxes on it, Obama’s “millionaire’s tax” will encourage this owner to do the following:

  • Pay him or herself less
  • Hire more people or otherwise reinvest the money in the business (so it won’t be taxed)

These moves, in turn, should do two things:

  • Help create new jobs (which will help the overall economy)
  • Help grow the owner’s business, thus increasing his or her net worth

Yeah, it could work out like that.  Or it could go another way.  The small business owner can look at this tax policy as a sign that government has no intention of cutting their irresponsible spending.  Which means deficits will only continue to grow.  Which means there will be more taxes in the future.  As there will have to be if they don’t cut spending.  And baseline budgeting keeps increasing that spending every year.  Not to mention all those off-budget spending obligations.

Now business owners live in the real world.  They have to pay payroll taxes with every payroll.  And deal with other taxes and regulatory costs on a daily basis.  They don’t have the luxury of sitting back and prognosticating how tax policy should make business owners behave.  Instead, they’re acting ahead of policy.  They’re listening to this debate and preparing for the worst.  Even before tax policy changes.  Because if they don’t it may be too late when it does.

So this kind of talk is already keeping them from hiring new people.  They are deleveraging left and right.  Because they, unlike government, understand their businesses.  And fiscal policy.  They see what they are to government.  Big, fat cash piñatas.  And they’re tired of being whacked.

They Need to Tax Millionaires because They’re Making Spending Commitments no Amount of Taxation can Sustain

A millionaire tax.  That’s where it starts.  But it’s not where it will end.

People need to understand why government ‘needs’ to tax millionaires.  It’s not because they haven’t been paying their fair share.  It’s because of record deficits.  And record debt.  Caused by record spending.  Just look at the numbers.

Adjusted for inflation, Ronald Reagan‘s largest deficit was $442.614 billion.  George W. Bush‘s largest deficit was $462.56 billion.  In Obama’s first year in office his deficit was $1,416 billion.  In his second year it was $1,294 billion.  They project it to be $1,650 billion in 2011.  And one thing we know about Barack Obama is that he’s not going into the history books as a tax cutter.  So these deficits aren’t from tax cuts.  They’re from spending.

Because of baseline budgeting this spending stays on the books.  And it will only grow.  And all those off-budget spending obligations are growing right along with it.  Such as the trillions the government owes to the Medicare and Social Security trust Funds.  And on top of all of that is Obamacare just waiting to add to our fiscal woes.  This is why they ‘need’ to tax millionaires.  Because the government is making spending commitments no amount of taxation can sustain.  So they will start with millionaires.  Work their way through the middle class.  Then they’ll have no choice but to start rationing benefits.  Followed by austerity.  Then the anarchy comes.  Like in Greece.

This is why we should not add a millionaire tax.  It will not address the spending problem.  And will only facilitate more spending.  Delaying the inevitable day of reckoning.  And making it ever more painful.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obama wants a Millionaire Tax to Pay for his Political Stimulus Bill and Shrink his Deficit

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 17th, 2011

Going Green is Just Another Excuse to Raise Taxes, Grow Government and Transfer more Wealth from the Private to the Public Sector

Big government has big ideas.  And big taxes to pay for them (see Crippling energy bills are YOUR fault, says Huhne as he claims families could treat themselves to a mini-break if they shopped around by Glen Owen and Jonathan Petre posted 9/17/2011 on the Daily Mail).

Utility price rises have pushed the average household energy bill to almost £1,300 a year, partly driven – as critics pointed out yesterday – by ‘green’ taxes imposed by Mr Huhne’s [Energy Secretary] department.

The stealth levies, introduced to fund Britain’s investment in wind and solar power, are costing families an average of £200 a year…

This represents an increase of between 15 and 20 per cent on the average domestic power bill. The money is being used to help fund the building of 10,000 wind turbines and the proposed installation of £7 billion worth of smart meters in homes.

To make your tomorrow better we will make your today worse.  You’re welcome.

Green energy may be good for the planet.  To combat ‘global warming’.  But it’s not good for your wallet.  Or purse.  And the kicker is this.  What kind of science is global warming based on?  Fraudulent science.  And if this doesn’t tell you why governments are pushing for green energy nothing will.

It’s about the money.  It always is.  And always was.  It’s another excuse to raise taxes.  To grow government.  And transfer more wealth from the private to the public sector.  So politicians can play god.  Which is something narcissists are wont to do.

Higher Tax Rates Discourage Growth, Deter Investment, Kill Jobs and Prolong Recessions

That was in the UK.  Over in the USA their government is going green, too.  Because there’s big money in going green.  They recently invested a half billion dollars in Solyndra.  President Obama visited the plant.  Vice President Joe Biden made a video clip praising those 1,000 new jobs.  That were permanent jobs.  And they were.  Right up to that mass layoff.  As the company went belly up this month.

But it was good while it lasted.  Throwing around such massive amounts of money.  Having the power to pick winners and losers.  It really strokes a narcissist’s ego.  Even if their winners turn out to be losers.  I mean, it’s not like they have to repay that half billion dollars.  They’ll just turn to the taxpayers for more taxes.  And blame the rich for not paying their fair share (see Obama Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires by Jackie Calmes posted 9/17/2011 on The New York Times).

President Obama on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials…

Mr. Obama, in a bit of political salesmanship, will call his proposal the “Buffett Rule,” in a reference to Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

We should note, though, that it’s not the size of the rate that matters.  But the pile of money that it taxes.  Someone earning $60,000 a year with a top marginal tax rate of 25% may pay a puny $11,000 in taxes.  But someone with a 15% tax rate on an investment return of $40 million will pay an obscene $6 million in taxes.

Now, in case you’re not good with math.  Or you are a liberal Democrat.  Let me help.  $6 million is more than $11 thousand.  A lot more.  About 54,000% more.  The rich person may pay a lower tax rate.  But he or she pays more tax dollars.  Way more.

The rich pay more.  The less-rich pay less.  The rich pay for benefits.  The less-rich consume benefits.  We take money from the rich.  And give to the less-rich.  Sounds like redistribution of wealth, doesn’t it?  So you can see this is less about paying your fair share of taxes then it is about redistributing wealth.  To garner more votes come election time.

The Obama proposal has little chance of becoming law unless Republican lawmakers bend. But by focusing on the wealthiest Americans, the president is sharpening the contrast between Republicans and Democrats with a theme he can carry into his bid for re-election in 2012…

Mr. Obama’s proposed Buffett Rule puts a new spin on that pitch, as he tries to put Republicans in Congress and in the presidential race on the defensive for their rigid stand against higher taxes.

Using class warfare for the 2012 election.  Why?  Because he sure can’t run on his record.  For his record sucks.  His economic policies have been a disaster.  And are on track to put us back into recession.

So he will employ this ploy.  To make the Republicans look like heartless bastards.  Protecting their rich patrons.  While the rest of the nation suffers the ravishes of the Obama recession.  A recession Obama blames, of course, on George W. Bush.  That rich Texan oilman.  Despite that Recovery Summer in 2010.  When he, Barack Obama, ended the Bush recession.

Mr. Obama has been citing Mr. Buffett as he promotes his $447 billion job-creation plan. He proposes to offset the cost of that plan and reduce future budget deficits through higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations after 2013, when the economy will presumably be healthier.

Ah, yes, his political stimulus bill.  That thing he calls the American Jobs Act.  Which no Congress person has yet to introduce into the House of Representatives.  Including no Democrat.  Which is telling.  Next year is an election year.  And the way this bill reeks of politics they want nothing to do with it.

Rich people invest their wealth.  They may buy corporate bonds.  Which will allow a business to grow.  Create jobs.  And you know nothing helps that process more than higher taxes.  You know, if you’re living in insanity land.

Higher tax rates don’t make economies healthier.  They make them sicker.  They discourage growth.  They deter investment.  They kill jobs.  And prolong recessions.  The economy will not be healthier in 2013.  Not with higher tax rates on the very people that can make it healthier.

Even Mr. Buffett probably paid a higher effective rate than he claimed, Mr. Mankiw [an economics professor at Harvard] added, because much of his income came from corporate income that had been taxed before it was paid out to individuals.

That’s right.  The money Mr. Buffet earns on his investment?  Uncle Sam already taxed it.  At the corporate income tax rate.  His tax is the second tax paid on those earnings.  Which begs the question how much is enough?  How much of our money is enough for the government?  And the answer is no matter what we pay it will never be enough.

The Danger of Raising Taxes on the Rich is that it doesn’t Address the Problem of Excessive Spending

We pay enough in taxes.  In fact, we pay too much.  The government is just spending too much.

The problem is baseline budgeting.  And tax and spend liberalism.  Not only are they spending a lot today but they will be spending even more tomorrow.  More programs.  More benefits.  Guaranteed.  At least they’re guaranteed as long as we continue to use baseline budgeting.  Where this year’s budget is last year’s budget plus more.  Automatically.

And this is the danger of raising taxes on the rich.  It doesn’t address the problem.  This excessive spending.  In fact it facilitates it.  Like an addiction.  Which means they will make this argument forever.  As they have forever.  The problem is this.  There will never be enough taxes.  Not to sustain continuous increases in spending.  Which we will always have.  As long as we continue to use baseline budgeting.  And continue to elect liberal Democrats.

If the current system favors the rich then here’s a novel idea.  Tax the less-rich at the rich tax rates.  Then everyone pays their ‘fair’ share.  But what about government you may ask.  How will they get by on less?  Well, that’s easy.  They can ask any one of us.  Because we’ve been doing it for years.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Burning Down the American Economy to Rebuild it in a Silly Green Utopia

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 16th, 2011

Increasing Spending that Balloons the Deficit is not Irresponsible but Cutting Taxes Is

Math is a relative thing.  In the Democrat world (see Boehner Says No Again by Patricia Murphy posted 9/15/2011 on The Daily Beast).

“Tax increases I think are off the table and I don’t think they are a viable option for the joint committee,” Boehner said. “It’s a very simple equation. Tax increases destroy jobs…”

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, a high-profile Democratic proponent of tax reform, added on the Senate floor, “Real deficit reduction means revenues plus spending cuts. Those resisting additional revenues need to do the math.”

Funny.  These are the same people who passed Obamacare into law.  If you remember, that vote was along party lines.  The Democrats gave us Obamacare.  Not the Republicans.

The Republicans voted ‘no’.  Because they did the math on Obamacare.  The Democrats voted ‘yes’.  Because they said [deleted expletive] the math.

You see, increasing spending that balloons the deficit is not irresponsible.  But cutting taxes is.  Because they say we must consider the deficit first before even entertaining the thought of cutting taxes.  But when it comes to more spending these same people say [deleted expletive] the deficit.  A deficit I might add the Democrats took to record highs.  With their spending.  Such as the $800 billion stimulus plan.  Which the Democrats wrote.

Obama’s Leadership and Deft Economic Skills ended the Bush Recession with Investments like Solyndra

So how did all that stimulus spending work out?  Did it pull us out of recession?  Did it fix the economy?  By one measure, it may have.  But that same measure is foretelling a double-dip recession (see Up means down posted 9/17/2011 on The Economist).

The Economist’s informal R-word index tracks the number of newspaper articles that use the word “recession” in a quarter. The index has the advantage of being timely: data for the articles are available immediately, whereas first estimates of GDP are typically released four weeks after the end of the quarter. If not foolproof, it boasts a decent record: previous incarnations of the index pinpointed the start of American recessions in 1990 and 2007.

The latest iteration counts articles published in the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal. It shows the index declining steadily from a peak in early 2009, with just a brief pause during the summer of 2010. September, however, has brought a change in the weather. Measured at a quarterly rate, the index has visibly turned up since the start of this month. The chances that a slowdown will become a recession still hang in the balance. But the hacks are getting anxious.

And you know what this means?  The president can’t blame this recession on George W. Bush.  Because they celebrated their Recovery Summer back in 2010.  That’s right, the Bush recession ended in 2010.  Thanks to Obama‘s leadership and deft economic skills.  Like investing a half billion dollars in the now bankrupt Solyndra.  If there’s a double-dip recession it can mean only one thing.  The second dip is the Obama recession.  Because it happened after he cured the economy of the Bush recession.

Government subsidizes Solar Panels because America can’t build them Competitively

Apparently, Solyndra wasn’t the only green company the Obama administration backed (see Solyndra Not Sole Firm to Hit Rock Bottom Despite Stimulus Funding posted 9/15/2011 on FOXNEWS).

At least four other companies have received stimulus funding only to later file for bankruptcy, and two of those were working on alternative energy.

Evergreen Solar Inc., indirectly received $5.3 million through a state grant to open a $450 million facility in 2007 that employed roughly 800 people. The company, once a rock star in the solar industry, filed for bankruptcy protection last month, saying it couldn’t compete with Chinese rivals without reorganizing. The company intends to focus on building up its manufacturing facility in China.

…In June 2009, SpectraWatt received a $500,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as part of the stimulus package. SpectraWatt was one of 13 companies to receive the money to help develop ways to improve solar cells without changing current manufacturing processes.

The company filed for bankruptcy last month, saying it could not compete with its Chinese competitors, which receive “considerable government and financial support…”

Another winner of stimulus who ultimately lost is Mountain Plaza Inc. Despite declaring bankruptcy in 2003, the company received $424,000 from the Tennessee Department of Transportation as part of a grant aimed at installing “truck stop electrification” systems that allow idling truckers to plug-in during extended stops and turn off their exhaust-belching, environment polluting diesel engines.

Mountain Plaza had filed for bankruptcy protection again in June 2010. TDOT, which received a $2 million stimulus grant from the Environmental Protection Agency for the project, said it didn’t learn about the bankruptcy until October, but it is closely monitoring the project.

Elsewhere, Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Co. also failed despite Olsen’s Mills receiving $10 million to increase employment, add equipment and machinery, refinance existing debts and work capital for operations and acquire land. The payout — part of a $64 million package to nine rural businesses in Wisconsin for economic development loan assistance — was delivered in January 2010, after Olsen’s Mills filed for bankruptcy protection for defaulting on a $60 million bank loan.

Detecting a common theme?  America can’t build solar panels competitively.  These companies cannot exist without huge government subsidies.  As it is in China.  Even with their dirt-cheap labor.

“Winning will require substantial investments. Last year, for example, the China Development Bank offered more than $30 billion in financing to Chinese solar manufacturers, about 20 times more than U.S.-backed loans to solar manufacturers,” Poneman wrote.

So why are we even trying?

This is the industry of the future?  More like the white elephant of today.  If it can’t compete in the market place without massive government subsidies then there is no market for it.  It’s just chasing dreams of a silly green utopia.

It may be the industry of the future.  But it’s the far distant future.  And best left for future generations.  When there are no cheaper and more reliable alternatives available to make electricity.  After we’ve “taken all the coal from the ground.”

Our Government: Implementing Policies that will do They don’t Know What and Hoping for the Best

Instead of trying to invent a new future we should focus on what works today.  Before the economy is completely destroyed by this incessant government meddling (see Home Depot’s Bernie Marcus Calls Dodd-Frank Regulations The “Bonnie & Clyde Bill” by Greg Hengler  posted 9/15/2011 on Townhall).

The Dodd-Frank Act goes on for 2,319 pages. Like Nancy Pelosi’s “pass it to find out what’s in the O’care Bill” statement, Senator Dodd said, “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we’ve done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done.”

Perhaps this is why their economic policies fail.  Because they haven’t a clue about what they’re doing.  Implementing policies that will do they don’t know what.  And hoping for the best.  But the sad thing is this.  The Dodd-Frank Act is the simple one.  The complicated act is Obamacare.  So you know we’ll all be in for a load of surprises when they indoctrinate us into that government run program.  I don’t know why, but for some reason I think about this classic commercial when I think of that future world of Obamacare.

In this metaphor, the dull grey submissive world is the world of Obamacare.  The screen they’re watching that is brainwashing them to like their miserable existence is the Obama administration.  The free and heroic figure is the conservative Republican candidate for president.   And the hammer is the first act of the new conservative Republican president repealing Obamacare.

Donate $5 and you just might win the Grand Prize of Dinner with the President

But Obama is working feverishly on what’s most important.  Using the power of his office to maximum effect (see Obama Campaign: That Creepy Email From Us Wasn’t A Trick by Zeke Miller posted 9/16/2011 on Business Insider).

Donate $5 today and you’ll be automatically entered for the chance to have dinner with the President and three other supporters.

That’s right.  He’s running a lottery where the grand prize is a dinner with him.  To raise money for his reelection campaign.  So he can continue to work magic with the American economy in a second term.  God help us.

And while the American Economy burns Nero Fiddles

Is it any wonder why we’re in the mess we’re in?  Democrats spend to record deficits.  And then they lecture Republicans about the irresponsibility of tax cuts.  If that ain’t the pot calling the kettle black.  And then the Democrats pour money into an industry that the Chinese are pouring even more money into.  On top of China’s dirt-cheap labor.  I mean who looks at this and thinks this is the one?  This is where we beat the Chinese?  The same people who are giving us Obamacare.  That’s who.  Scary, isn’t it?  And these are the geniuses writing our future.

In the mean time we’re beating up coal.  And every other industry where America stood strong.  With job-killing legislation that even the legislators don’t understand.  If the damage wasn’t so bad it would be comical.

And while the American economy burns Nero fiddles.  And raffles himself off for dinner.  Because in these trying times one has to prioritize.  And nothing is more important to this president than his reelection.  Once he takes care of that then he can focus his attention on the secondary things.  Like governing.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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