President Obama made a mistake in claiming “the private sector is doing fine.”
As Rush Limbaugh has stated it is always a mistake when a Democrat tells the truth, not that the statement is correct, but that is how President Obama feels about the private sector economy. The more important thing is to learn what this statement and the reasons behind the statement reveal about the president. I see two major points, he is clueless about economic issues, and that he wants to delay states from dealing responsibly with the debt and excessive pension obligations they face.
It amazes me that in polls that Obama holds a slight lead over Romney, or anyone for that matter, on how they would handle the economy. It is hard to imagine anyone doing worse on the economy. This statement that he thinks the private sector is doing fine reveals he has no understanding of the economy. Like most Keynesian’s he clings to the theory of spending your way out of a recession, despite this having no track record of success. The real purpose of the first stimulus program was to spend on items the Democrats wanted to spend on, and give money to supporters to buy votes. Then since recessions average 18 months declare by 2010 how it “fixed” the economy. But with Obamacare and his anti-business administration he successfully suppressed a real recovery.
Last year when proposed a new stimulus using the same failed ideas from his earlier stimulus attempts, I assumed he proposed a plan so stupid that it had to be rejected. Then he could claim he would have fixed the economy if the House would have approved his so called “jobs bill”. But what is scary about his recent statements, is that they show he is so incompetent on economic issues, that he actually thinks we can fix the economy by stimulating government.
Clearly government is a taker of wealth not a maker of wealth. Only with a vibrant private sector can we truly improve the employment situation, without just removing people from the labor force to pretend it is fixed. For that matter improving the private sector is only path that can lessen the pressure to cut the size of the public sector. Rush Limbaugh has said Obama is running against capitalism. Rush is right we can see that not only with his attacks on Bain capital but with his policies and attitude towards the private sector.
The money President Obama is pushing wants to spend to grow government jobs would have the same effect as the stimulus spending in his first two years. All that was done with that money is state’s plugged holes in their budgets and delayed dealing with serious issues. When that money dried up we have seen many states that cut education spending and aid to localities. This in many states did result in mass layoffs of public workers. In Wisconsin Walker showed true leader ship and lead the way on how the cuts could be made without requiring layoffs of public workers, if local leaders use the tools given. President Obama does not want other states to protect jobs the Walker way, after all, the money is intended to bail out the unions, and prevent states from dealing with the excessive benefit promises they made. If we were trying to help bail out the states to help the people rather than bail out the unions, the bill would insist on long term reforms like ACT 10 and requiring the end of defined benefit pensions to qualify for the money. The point of the bill is to delay the reforms that will have to happen sooner or later, to keep the money flowing from taxpayers to unions to Democrat campaigns. While doing this he must know that the delays will make the problems worse.
There are two schools of thought about Obama’s economic policies, some think he is trying to slow growth as many in his base want (2), the other is that he is clueless on economic matters. You can pick for yourself, but I would go with the second thought that he is clueless. Beyond that he wants to waste taxpayer money to discourage states from fixing the root cause of their issues. He knows reforms to curb public union benefits and power will happen, it is just a question of how much pain voters need to experience before they wake up to the corruption and say enough is enough like we did here in Wisconsin. It is understandable he wants to delay that, to empower himself, but it is downright scary he thinks that stimulating government will fix our economy. The only way we can sustainably improve local government revenues is a more robust private sector that increases the labor participation rates and economic output. But I guess under Obamanomics this is as good as it gets for the private sector.
2) http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/14/obama-fights-the-cancer-of-economic-growth/#ixzz1xmytRvTH
Since Obama doesn't have the usual presidential vices (real or rumoured womanizing, drunkenness, etc.) "conservatives" must manufacture crises. GOP, send these radicals back to the far right fringe where they belong. Stop allowing them to speak for the true conservatives and moderates in your party! Please, for all of our sakes.
Why are these not examples of government creating wealth?
Can you put a monetary value on collective firefighting or collective defense? To help you understand, wealth is what makes the left hate Mit Romney.
Good question; the latter is easy though: if there were no collective defense there would be no United States and all US dollar-denominated currency would be worthless. Which isn't to say that the military should get a blank check, just that at the very least we need it to have sufficient resources to defend the nation's borders; that it should exist. "To help you understand, wealth is what makes the left hate Mit Romney." I always thought that had to do with his two faces each taking a different side of practically every issue?
The Mit Romney reference was to clarify the definition of wealth for Geo, it's a fair bet he's a Romney hater. You have to admit, the left does seem to have an obsession with his wealth. When I use the term "left", it is not all inclusive, and there may be certain exceptions. If I was referring to you Lyle, I would say "the uber left". :)
con·text [ kón tèkst ] 1.text surrounding word or passage: the words, phrases, or passages that come before and after a particular word or passage in a speech or piece of writing and help to explain its full meaning.
Then I infer from this that you are poor, having squandered any wealth you had by taking bad risks, since while I think Romney is a sorry excuse for a Presidential candidate, that is a world apart from hating him. Back to the original point, defining wealth in terms you yourself say are indeterminate ("When I use the term "left", it is not all inclusive, and there may be certain exceptions") is not especially useful.
Coming out of the Protestant Reformation came the notion of living in a state of "Grace" or being part of the G-d's elect. Material success was an indication of being a member of the elect. This was infused and assimilated into our national values by the early colonists and has remained to this day. So the question I pose to you is this: if you accumulate wealth are you closer to G-d than someone who doesn't? Although I'm not a Christian and I could be wrong, but in my reading of the gospels, Jesus and his disciples were not makers of wealth but consumers of wealth depending on the handouts and charity of others for their survival. In fact, Jesus regularly condemned the rich and elevated the poor.
My idea of wealth is determined by the health of your family, friendships, and helping others on a regular basis. At this time, the family is good ( paying tax payers, no criminals [lol], good friends, and relative good health. I like the bible for teaching the way to be a better human essentially. I like to remind people that the more things you have, the more you have to clean, repair, and insure. I have bought dumb, useless things with regret. So, I learned to stop that. If something is bought to show off your purchase power to impress others, that show's how shallow a person is. Oops, judging again. I have been subjected to Missouri Synod Lutheranisms, Methodists, Catholicism, and last, but not least, the Baptists. The Baptists did the most preaching about individual prosperity alluding to wealth! Very sickening to listen to and then they move right in to tell you who to vote for. Yikes! The above is only my personal experiences. I like the 'Good Book' as a guide for decency, and I am lost when it speaks to spirituality. However, I get my eternal hope from somewhere and 'that hope' is worth more than money.
Geo called the authors concept facile thinking. I think that he, and now you, have missed the boat, in an attempt to be profound. Take it for what it is worth, government and it's services cost us money. There are quality of life issues, but that was not the context of the statement. This is another "depends on what the definition of is, is" moment. It's not that complicated.
"Then I infer from this that you are poor, having squandered any wealth you had by taking bad risks" Tolley, What are you on? How do you connect these things? I infer from this entire conversation that you have earned little in your life and you blame others for your failure.
You still haven't gotten back to me on why the WWII comparison is "foolish" when it utterly rebuts the "[Keynesianism] has no track record of success" claim of the author.
As to the second issue, you are technically correct, but I think you again missed the point, in your quest to be argumentative. The "despite this having no track record of success" would best be applied to current economic conditions. And Obama claimed he would repair the economy or be a one term President. The track record has shown that spending us out of a recession has not worked (currently). The WWII reference was foolish for the reasons stated above and because economic and world conditions are so different, that the comparison can not really apply.
As far as spending goes, Europe is Europe we are not Europe. We have been spending on 2 wars, every social program possible and we even bought a car company for the unions. How's it working so far?
"As to the second issue, you are technically correct, but I think you again missed the point, in your quest to be argumentative. The "despite this having no track record of success" would best be applied to current economic conditions. " - the claim in the article was wrong, period. At least you have stopped trying to defend the indefensible even if you are still trying to couch it as something else. Now, if you wish to make the claim that instead of Keynesian stimulus having no track record of success, it has no track record of success in a modern economy, then you need to at least address the obvious counterexamples, such as why the apparent success of e.g. the Chinese Keynesian stimulus of 2008-2009 shouldn't be counted. Ideally provide some examples of comparable modern economies with and without Keynesian stimulus in the face of a recession. As for "How's it working so far?", check out http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001 - the United States been growing private sector jobs at Bush-boom rates for the last two years. You can claim that to be a coincidence if you like, but then you need to at least offer some alternative explanation.