As I read comments on my blogs it makes me more confident in my positions with the poor arguments made by the opposition. But I was a little surprised at demanding proof that many on the left, oppose economic growth. I really thought that was understood by all.
The environmental wing of the left clearly opposes economic growth. For example Global warming alarmist’s push for ideas that would crush economic growth, like Cap & Trade. But the Democratic party pushes many ideas that kill economic growth beyond what the extreme environmentalists demand, some in the name of “Fairness” others to support special interest groups like unions.
As far as any one politician such as President Obama we cannot know for sure why they support anti-growth policies only that they do support them. President Obama likes to blame Bush for the economy, forget for moment that many Democrats like him played a large role in creating the mess they complain about, but the reality is financial crash set him up for what should have been an economy that was easy to improve. Instead President Obama pushed the perfect agenda, to prevent a real recovery that would have a growth rate above 4%, as we would expect after the panic cleared.
If I were to design a policy to prevent a recovery here is what I would do. First in world facing economic crisis because of worries over government debt, I would keep spending at the extreme elevated level it was in fiscal 2009 due to the TARP bailout, like Obama has done.
Next I would pass as much regulation as I could like the Healthcare law and Dodd-Frank financial reform. Also in the healthcare law I would include as many incentives to not hire more than a certain number of employees.
Also the laws would leave so much uncertainty that no one would be sure just how fast and how bad the impact would be. While doing this I would use federal agencies like the EPA to shut down domestic energy like coal.
I would minimize oil production where I could control it. I would try to empower Unions by harassing companies like Boeing for expanding jobs in states with right to work laws. I would try to implement Card Check to increase harassment of those that do not want a union. I would structure the bailout of the Auto companies to bail out the unions rather than the company. I would have a tax policy that is voted on every other year to keep it uncertain. I would threaten tax increases on job creators and capital. I would demonize profits. I would refuse to deal with the coming bankruptcy of Medicare or Social Security. In short if someone wanted an anti-growth fiscal policy they would do exactly what president Obama has done.
The left may argue the reason for all these things as being more “fair”, or on other merits, but all were job killing policies. Any way you slice it, we have followed an extreme anti-growth policy. Democrats can say it is just incompetence and not a plan, but either way Obama and Democrats have us on the wrong path.
If we had done the right thing in 2010 it would have been easy to make things better and would have helped lessen the European crisis. Now it is much more difficult to fix. Obama and the Democratic Party leaves us with no hope of fixing anything unless, we get rid of him and end the 6 year run of Democratic control of the U.S. Senate. I guess just be thankful that in 2010 the GOP took control of the house to prevent some of the insanity.
This is the recovery Obama wants. Voting for him assumes you accept these new norms as the correct direction of the country. He wants a strong centralized government that makes the decisions on who can or cannot be wealthy, that makes the decisions which business can or cannot be successful and who in the end makes the decisions who can and cannot be healthy. Obama wants Europe.
The government not only created the situation that allowed business to act foolishly, as the entire housing market was pointing in the direction of collapse, the government told us institutions such as Franny and Freddy were doing great. The government told us the SEC was motoring the business operations of these companies. We were told that getting more people that could not afford houses, into houses was the correct course for our economy. All of the things the government told us were wrong. Did businesses have a hand in the collapse? Yes. However, they were guided by the hand of an over powerful government. Both Parties were to blame as neither did enough to stop what was happening. As Bryant points out, the democratic solutions were additional government regulation. The problem was the bad business practices that created the recession already had laws on the books. Hence we did nothing to solve the real problem and instead added more government onto an already bloated federal government. This is why we have seen no real improvement and some economists concerned about a second recession. This was a government created and exacerbated problem. Business must live within the limits as established by the government. So instead of loosening restriction you would rather take the money from the business and have the government spend it, which has never worked to bolster an economy in the long term.
The Tea/Koch/GOP's historical knowledge is so limited that apparently they do not even realize that they have taken a completely opposing position to traditional GOP values. Republican President Abraham Lincoln was the first president to set aside national parkland. Theodore Roosevelt set aside vast tracts of parkland and heritage sites to protect them from looters and developers. Bryant, you do the Republican Party no favors with inaccuracies such as these. It is shortsighted to dismiss great achievements of the GOP (like preserving our national heritage), try to spin them into negatives, then blame Democrats. I also find it rather facile to accuse Democrats of opposing pro-growth policies when it the Tea/GOP that has been abusing the filibuster in Congress to stop legislation that would our economy forward. The Tea/GOP's stated goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Since that is the focus instead of getting off backsides and getting the economy moving again, it is therefore an obvious falsehood for the Tea/GOP to try to spin this as something it clearly is not.
Will ►get the economy moving again◄
1. Deregulation 2. Free trade agreements 3. Minimal regulatory supervision From the time that supply side was introduced under Reagan, 1981 the government has been primarily under Republican control. President: Republicans - 20 years, Democrats - 10 years Senate: Republicans - 18 years, Democrats - 12 years, Shared - 2 years House: Republicans - 16 years, Democrats - 16 years Since the Republicans have controlled the government for a greater period, then it is logical to assume that the Republicans should take the majority of responsibility for the economic mess of the "Great Recession". Under Republicans the greatest degree of deregulation has occurred and a relaxation of regulatory enforcement. Remember, Obama didn't make the recession but inherited it from Bush. In conclusion, you can't continue down the same path that put us into this mess and that is exactly what the right wants to do.
**************************** Not to be outdone, the Fubar/DNC's stated goal is to make Barack Obama a two-term president. Shocking, in both instances.
C. Sanders, I'd say Wisconsin lost. Sore winner? ; ) Steve, thanks for demonstrating some of the skills that make you a "job creator." Your cut-n-paste abilities, wit, and precision use of pointers/markers are to be congratulated. ; ) Bob, winning the election is the normal goal for every party from Green to GOP. However, when it becomes the only goal, to the detriment of progress and people's wellbeing, then we have a problem.
1) Are you trying to tell me that we had less government regulation in 2009 then we did in 1980? (Pause as I wipe the tears from my laughing) 2)Free trade fails when liberals attempt to artificially inject equality into the business market via taxation. Free trade does not cause jobs to leave the country, taxation and regulation do. Free trade (when not impeded by liberals) allows our country to make the things it does best and trade with countries that make others products better. 3) Would Barney Frank defending Freddy and Franny as they failed be your example of minimal supervision? Or maybe the Democrats controlling the congress the 2 years prior to the recession and doing nothing be an example of minimal supervision? Your list of numbers is meaningless because the R or D behind your name has nothing to do with the policy you support, plenty of Republicans have voted for bad liberal legislation. But, yes; republicans would more likely favor capitalism and free market as you have stated. In my post I said both parties share this downfall and I have never blamed Obama for the recession. However, he owns its recovery or lack there of. The same path? You mean overspending like we had under Bush? Or do you mean the addition of entitlements like we saw at the end of the Bush years? Funny isn't that Obama's pattern.
I certainly hope that the Dems learned that lesson after all the re-do elections they pushed for...
Walker's identified errors as Milwaukee County Executive nears $6 million ($4.1 million in back pay for illegally furloughed workers in 2010, $750,000 in back pay for illegally fired County Courthouse security in 2010, $1 million+ for Wackenhut security privatization contract, cancelling the Blue Shirt contract in 2002/2003, precise amount of cancellation penalties unknown but likely up to six figures). Walker also left for Madison with a $55 million deficit. With a larger billfold to play with and no County Board of Supervisors to play "dad" it was/is logical to expect this folly to continue and on a larger scale. If so, it will all come out, eventually.
The beginning of wealth shift of the middle and lower classes didn't begin until Reagan and only accelerated under W. The loss of jobs offshore began in earnest under Reagan and grew almost unabated during W. You certainly have a short memory and a selective grasp of history. I also agree that the Democrats are up to their necks in complicity of the mess, but it's been the Republicans setting the agenda for 30 years.
I don't consider patriotism an obsession, I consider it a responsibility. As a member of a family that has lived in this land for 382 years I take this responsibility very seriously indeed.
Disturbing to read in today's MJS that New Berlin may lose up to a third of its teaching force because of reactions to Act 10. Not the financial aspect, but because of the loss of that sense of personal and professional value that promotes employee retention. Another failure.
"She argues it's not about Act 10 -- the controversial law signed by Gov. Scott Walker that removed most collective bargaining for most public employees -- now that every district now has Act 10 in place. "I think it's a misconception that it's all about money," said Werner. "It's about if you can ask us for input. All of these other districts around us talk about staff input."
You just get too excited about silly little things!
Please provide proof that federal regulations have decreased between 1980 and 2009. While yes some areas of government were deregulated your blanket statement is completely bogus and contradicted by your following statement regarding the growth of government under Reagan. I don't see an instance where government grows without the addition of regulation. As for the loss of jobs overseas, can you prove that was a net negative on the economy. Since even into the Bush administration we had 5% unemployment (basically full employment), wouldn't the negative effects of a job sift to other countries result in less jobs? Couple that with the fact that our median income increased between 1980 and 2010, wouldn't that mean we got rid the jobs America didn't need and made our overall economy more efficient. As for taxation, do you honestly want to say that companies don't locate based on their tax burden. If our tax burden weren't the highest in the world, but maybe near middle, those free trade agreements would work more to our favor. Instead, the dream of socialism as your altruistic escape from the boogie man of inequality would rather punish the companies at the expense of the country.
More budget cuts?! Good bring them on. Obama is spending more money then we will ever be able to create.
I love selective understanding.