Roadtrip

Yes, he must have said this 10 or 15 times. Very forcefully, too, as if it would make him sound authoritative and leaderlike. Problem is, the content of his speech was more of the same from his previous stimulus proposals. And a bigger problem is that the bill "WE MUST PASS" doesn't even exist, let alone the money to finance it.

One big one was when GWB was the first president in history to touch the "third rail of politics" and address the issue of Social Security reform. His modest proposal was to allow workers to invest a small portion of their Social Security contributions into a limited menu of privately managed mutual funds, such as passively managed index funds -- if they CHOOSE to do so. This was met with howls of protest by the Democrats, claiming that Bush's goal was to dismantle Social Security. In reality, what Bush was attempting to dismantle was Congress's ability to spend the entirety of Social Security contributions as they wish, and instead let the people who actually paid in to Social Security have at least a little bit of control over how those monies were invested. Bush tried to sell this idea in multiple speeches across the country, but the Democrats demagogued it to death, and what was a terrific idea died on the vine. Another collection of big ones that the Democrats demagogued under the previous administration was the Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the TSA, FISA, renditions, Gitmo, two wars, and "nation building." With the exception of the renditions (on a whopping three individuals, and all of which yielded results that saved lives), all of these things that Democrats demagogued are still in place under the Obama Administration. And strangely, Obama has upped the ante with another war, intervening with more rounds of nation building in Egypt and Libya, and has curiously blasted far more suspected terrorists with Predator drone attacks than the Bush Administration (curious, in that the terrorists weren't even given a fair hearing before they were blown to smithereens!). We were told that the country was united after 9/11, but when Bush implemented all these policies, he divided us -- or so the Democrats say. Yet under the Obama Administration, the same people -- Michael Moore, Cindy Sheenah, Code Pink, the entire Democratic Caucus in D.C., YOU, -- who demagogued Bush 'til they were blue in the face suddenly have little to say about what they were complaining about only a few years ago. And the current administration has actually kicked it up a notch, and no one on the left is complaining. What's up with that? Explain, if you can, why it is that these policies enacted under George W. Bush -- policies that are supposedly responsible for dividing our country -- have merit under the Obama Administration.

No, what would make me happy is someone in a position of leadership -- especially in a role so important as president -- to have experience and a track record of success in a leadership role. And someone who has common sense, as opposed to someone with no leadership experience and who is armed only with theories and previously failed ideas, such as "green jobs" and vilifying the wealthy. And at least Sarah Palin's idea of closing loopholes is only that: an idea (one idea in her plan that I said needs tweaking). And it is an idea that has not been implemented, unlike Obama's failed stimulus plan, Cash for Clunkers, the Affordable Homes Act, and the aforementioned "green jobs" initiatives, all of which have not only failed miserably, but have exacerbated our country's debt problem. In any case, Palin is correct in that loopholes are part of the broader problem, namely the federal tax code, which begs the "crony capitalism" that she mentioned several times in her speech. No one on the right is "refudiating" knowledge or intellect; what those of us on the right oppose is the implementation of destructive Keynesian fiscal "solutions." And you can bet that Obama's jobs speech this coming Thursday will prescribe more of the same, and he will probably say that it wasn't enough the first time. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Come to think of it, those of us on the right are also opposed to leaders whose policy prescriptions fit Albert Einstein's definition of insanity. By the way, I guess you ignored what I wrote, and which was also noted by another poster above, which is that corporations do not pay federal income taxes. Those taxes are either baked into the final cost to consumers or customers, they can take the form of reduced dividends to shareholders, or they can take the form of reduced labor costs (often by reducing headcount). So go ahead and hate on corporations all you want, but get another premise for your argument, because the one you're using is not based on facts. Sarah Palin's proposal of eliminating corporate income taxes would only serve to make corporations more competitive and profitable, thereby creating an environment hospitable to job growth. And it is that evil profit motive that creates jobs in the private sector, regardless of how much you wish that weren't the case. That same profit motive is what drives corporations (and sometimes entire industries) to make huge campaign contributions in return for favorable tax treatment, which Sarah Palin calls "crony capitalism." This is made possible by annual revisions to the tax code, in coordination with corporate and industry lobbyists, and both political parties are complicit. It happens at the federal and state level. Palin correctly designated such activity as "pay to play," and also said this is the "status quo" and it needs to be changed. Are you in favor of the status quo? She also said that she would prefer to replace this "crony capitalism" with real capitalism, in which businesses succeed or fail on their own merits, without special favors granted to them via taxpayer dollars. She alluded to the fact that corporations spend billions on campaign contributions and lobbying costs in order to receive favorable tax treatment -- billions that could otherwise be spent more productively on such things as R&D and other investments, a bi-product of which is new jobs. It's just basic economics, a subject of which Sarah Palin has a grasp. Get used to it. Dangerously high debt and deficits racked up as a result of failed programs under the Obama Administration are going to be a big issue among all GOP candidates in this election cycle. The S&P credit downgrade could have been avoided, had Obama adopted a pro-growth and pro-business attitude instead of demand-side policies that supposedly generate the nonsensical Keynesian "multiplier effect," which Nancy Pelosi explained as something like: "Every new dollar issued in benefits will generate three new dollars in growth." Well, that growth never occurred. What did occur was a climate of fear among business leaders, wrought by uncertainty of the threat of new regulations, a tax code that is fluid and not permanent, and the potential future costs of ObamaCare. Those are the negative big three factors that exist under this administration, and which are not exactly conducive to the positive big three factors of growth, investment, and job creation -- which ultimately would result in more taxpayers and therefore more federal revenue. Obama, with all his spending and anti-business and anti-growth policies, is chiefly responsible for the S&P downgrade. It appears that you're so limited on factual talking points that you're reduced to comparing Sarah Palin with Hitler and Mussolini. Nice. Well done. When I was a kid, my dad would jokingly say, "I've told you a million times not to exaggerate." I learned much later that exaggeration is not a useful tool in a debate. Neither is hyperbole, which is exaggeration's twin sister. Sarah Palin and the policies she advocates bear absolutely zero similarities to those of Hitler or Mussolini, and if you were a man, you would apologize for not only making the comparison, but also for mentioning her with those two tyrants in the same paragraph. You could have (possibly) made a better point by explaining in a clear, concise, and factual way, why or what it is that makes you "horrified" that a Sarah Palin candidacy would be possible. In the absence of that, yours seems to be a classic case of what is commonly known as "Palin Derangement Syndrome."

Sarah Palin gave an impressive speech at a Tea Party event in Iowa this past Saturday. It was impressive in terms of content and substance, as well as her ability to convey her patriotism and passion for the ideals that made our country great. The curious minded can watch or read the transcript of her speech here: http://www.sarahpac.com/posts/governor-palins-speech-at-the-restoring-america-tea-party-of-america-rally-in-indianola-iowa-video-and-transcript She didn't indicate explicitly that she will run, but implicitly, she did, in that (1) she differentiated herself from the rest of the Republican field, calling them out for their "crony capitalism" and the "permanent political class"; and (2) she outlined a five-point plan for a return to prosperity. I agree with her plan, but it needs a bit of tweaking: In her fifth point, she calls for an elimination of the corporate income tax (as a means of making America the most attractive place to do business). She's correct (as corporations merely pass their tax burdens on to their customers or employees or dividend recipients), but then she wants to eliminate corporate tax loopholes, too (which wouldn't be necessary if corporate income taxes were eliminated). To be fair, politicians of all stripes through the ages have floated policy proposals that needed revising, and in that context, this was a minor offense. (But for liberals, since she is Sarah Palin, this minor faux pas is the equivalent of Jim Crow, Hitler invading France, the Spanish Inquisition, or worse. . . . ) Sarah Palin wants to eliminate all government subsidies -- which is a huge break from the pay-to-play culture of Washington politics on both sides of the aisle. She knows that subsidies distort prices and cost taxpayers money -- as well as benefitting the wealthiest of recipients (i.e., wealthy campaign donors contributing to their politicians of choice). Barack Obama knows that, too, but he doesn't propose to do anything about it, as those recipients of government subsidies are precisely whom he depends on to build his $1 billion reelection war chest. Where exactly do the liberals weigh in on this issue? Are they pleased with the status quo -- in which big money decides electoral outcomes and therefore defines public policy? That's a question Sarah Palin raised in her speech, and a question worthy of consideration. (Oh, but I forgot. . . . Sarah Palin is so stupid.) One thing's for sure: Sarah Palin has the ability to excite crowds. From her speech, I would say more so than any of the other Republican candidates, she has a certain Reagan-esque, optimistic, "can-do" quality that none of the other candidates have been able to convey (at least from watching them in the first debate). Barack Obama? Not so much these days. People have grown tired of his negative, blaming, and professorial tones. Sarah Palin also makes clear that she loves our country and its history, and what made it exceptional. The current occupant of the White House seemingly couldn't care less, and would prefer to apologize for American exceptionalism. Obama, in dismissing the concept of American exceptionalism, actually said that Greece is exceptional, too, and we all know how well that turned out. Had Sarah Palin made such an absurd statement, we would have never heard the end of it. But she didn't say it. It was Barack Obama who uttered that absurdity -- among his many others. My personal favorite was during the 2008 campaign, when during the gas crisis, Obama suggested that the cure for high gas prices was for people to properly inflate their tires and get a tune up. Brilliant. I doubt Obama has even the wherewithal to change a flat tire (maybe he could hope for a change?), much less tune up a car that needs tuning up. As for Sarah Palin? Could she do it? If she can shoot and then skin, and then quarter, and then cook a carabou, is it reasonable to assume she could change a flat on her familiy's SUV? You betcha!

I don't lie awake at night worrying about it. A recent study concluded that the "flash trading" that occurs in the big investment houses has yielded negligible advantages over long-held positions (like those of typical mutual funds or retirement accounts). As for this interest charged in electronic accounts, the APY and APR must be disclosed to the consumer (by law), and the entities charging this interest are monitored by and accounted for and audited by a whole host of federal agencies. And the regulations just got a lot steeper, with implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act. Personally, I like the ability to make electronic transactions. My paycheck is deposited via the ACH (automated clearing house), which saves me time and gas. And I don't have to wait for my paycheck to arrive via the mail -- it is automatically deposited into my account the very second it is issued, which saves me the inconvenience of having to fill out a depost slip and driving to my local bank to make the deposit. I download my pay stub from my company's intranet, and I get online to my bank's Web site to confirm the veracity of the transaction, and all is good. Similarly, I pay all my bills online, which saves me the time it would take to write out checks, and I save by not having to pay postage, too. The recipients of the the bills I pay receive their money at the speed of light, which I'm sure they appreciate. The "electronic economy" you speak of is very much a good thing, in that it makes trade more efficient.

Calm down. The author merely suggested that high inflation cannot be controlled. And history supports his argument. In any case, you stated the following: You never stated how you propose to introduce inflation to the economy. You suggest "strong growth of around 7 to 8%" as a metric, and something that could be "totally controllable with sound stable fiscal policy." Please enlighten us American readers as to how to achieve growth of 7 to 8 percent, and what constitutes "sound stable fiscal policy." We will forward your answer to Congress. I can't think of any economic justification as to why inflation as a goal is a good idea. There are several causes of inflation, the two main causes being (1) demand-pull inflation, the traditional type, in which higher wages create a higher demand for a (temporarily) fixed amount of goods, thus driving prices higher; and (2) cost-push inflation, in which the cost of inputs drives prices higher. The U.S. experienced the latter in the late 1970s, in which there was slow economic growth and wage growth, coupled with high inflation, which resulted in a phenomenon called stagflation, which, if not caused by, it was exacerbated by the energy shortages of that time. Stagflation is a result of cost-push inflation: stagnant growth and inflating prices. Inflation rates during that time were over 10 percent, and no one benefited. During the Great Depression, FDR's brain trust decided that it would be a good idea to order farmers to burn their crops and kill piglets as a way to inflate the price of agricultural products -- and thus inflate the economy. It didn't work. Inflation not only degrades the purchasing power of the fruits of one's labor in the present, it also devalues their savings and future retirement benefits. And inflation degrades the value of investment capital -- a key to growth and future jobs. In the meantime, please provide a detailed explanation as to why inflation is a good idea and how to implement it. Otherwise, blow it up your ass.

Robert Samuelson, economics writer for the Washington Post, through historical data, makes a good case for the dangers of this assertion, specifically: - that inflation cannot be controlled -- it risks compounding existing uncertainty and fear - that retail prices would rise faster than wages -- a very real scenario given the high unemployment rate - that consumers might react to the increased uncertainty caused by suddenly rising prices by saving more and therefore reducing their consumption -- which is the exact opposite of the intended consequences - and that if the Fed suddenly reverses course and decides that inflation is a good idea, then investors would flee the U.S. dollar via the foreign exchange markets, thus weakening the dollar even more. Samuelson makes a convincing argument in his column, Inflation is Not the Answer.

So true. Symbolism (or style) is much more important to some people than substance. I remember listening to the leftist talk-show host Randi Rhodes commenting on the Senate confirmation hearings of John Bolton when GWB nominated him to be the ambassador to the U.N. Ms. Rhodes actually said this: "Bolton should be disqualified on his moustache alone." When if one were to listen to the substance of what he said then, as well as what he has to say now, Bolton's knowledge of global affairs is without peer. Considering John Bolton's vast reservoir of knowledge and experience in the areas of diplomacy and foreign affairs and government service, Hillary Clinton was, by comparison, a kindergartner when she was appointed secretary of state. She had no chops, no experience whatsoever in the field of U.S. foreign policy, much less when it comes to heading one of the largest bureaucracies in the U.S. government (the State Department), which is why I question Obama's judgment in appointing her to this role in the first place. I know, it was a political favor meant to heal the wounds caused during the primary campaign -- which I think is a terribly bad reason for appointing anyone to such a critical position. The State Department is just as much a mess of a bureaucracy as it ever was (ask any Latin American citizen what it takes to get a visa of any kind . . .), and the U.S. is no more popular in the eyes of the rest of the world than when George W. Bush left office. In any case, I should have included Janet "The system worked" Napolitano on my original list. She would be an even better example of a waste of space, let alone Obama's poor judgment. Let's not forget that historic moment when Nancy Pelosi led the Congressional Black Caucus up the Capitol steps to sign the Obamacare bill. They were forced to pass through a gauntlet of concerned Tea Party citizens who were there to protest the bill. There were a lot of people in attendance, and it was covered by the national media. Ms. Pelosi and some members of the Caucus claimed later that the Tea Party people shouted racial epithets and spat upon them on their way up the steps. None of the national media could support this claim (and you know they would have loved to have been able to do so). I think it was Andrew Breitbart who offered a six-figure reward for footage of such a claim. After all, in an age when smartphones are all the rage, one would think that someone out of all those people in attendance could have cashed in on Breitbart's offer, if the claim were true. And one would think that a video of some wild-eyed Tea Party protestor spitting on and cussing at a member of the Congressional Black Caucus would get about 50 million hits on YouTube, if the claim were true. It never happened, and yet the liberals have upped the ante by calling Tea Party people "Terrorists" (by no less than Vice President Joe Biden) and "Hostage Takers." Ahh, but the Tea Party people are the irrational ones. . . .

A Gallup survey released on August 17th had 71 percent of Americans disapproving of the way Obama is handling the economy, with 26 percent approving (which is a new low). In addition, the economy will need to add at least 250,000 net new jobs per month between now and November 2012, just to get the unemployment rate below 8 percent. Given the horrible economic news lately, in which the economy for the first two quarters was reported to be hovering near "stall speed" and threatening a new recession, there is little prospect for the economy to produce 3.5 million new jobs between now and election day. Obama promised to announce his new jobs plan after he returns from his vacation at Martha's Vineyard. (If I were out of work right now, I would find this to be insulting.) His first jobs plan, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- aka the Stimulous Bill, originally estimated to cost $787 billion, but in reality, approached $1 trillion -- failed miserably. Obama will not get another expensive economic stimulous bill passed through this Congress, so his new jobs plan would have to entail a radical departure from his economic, tax, and regulatory positions. That's not likely to happen. And Obamacare, which is stifling job growth, is still out there. Therefore, there is a high probability that a weak economy and high unemployment will be the top issues among voters in the months leading up to the election. And the national debt -- another top-of-mind issue -- just keeps on rising, with no sign of abating. Yes, the election is over a year away, but two-thirds into his first term, it's apparent that Obama cannot campaign on his record so far, and he has offered nothing to indicate that he is willing to reverse course. I disagree. The Republicans in Congress got spanked in the 2006 election because of their failure to live up to their mission of limited government. (They probably got spanked because many Republican voters were too turned off to bother to show up to vote in the mid-term election.) Before the 2010 mid-term, some Republican incumbants lost in primaries because of the rising influence of the Tea Party Movement. Most of those who retained their seats got the message. Even before the 2010 election, not one Republican in Congress voted for Obamacare -- they were getting and reflecting their constituents' message. The message is abundantly clear: Stop the spending madness! I am no fan of John McCain as a politician, but I appreciated it when he accurately described this spending madness as "generational theft." It has to stop, and I have heard nothing from anyone in the Democrat party on what to do about the problem except to raise taxes on the rich, when the top 10 percent of income earners already pay 70 percent of federal tax revenue. No, to mangle a phrase from James Carville: It's the spending, stupid. Most of the current Republicans get this; most of the ones who don't will be challenged in the 2012 primaries. Count on it. The S&P credit-rating downgrade was a serious wake-up call (as well as a serious blemish on Obama's record). At this juncture in our nation's history, the best scenario, in my book, is to rid our government of as many of the free-spending, free-lunch-believing Keynesian policy makers as possible. And that includes the current occupant of the Oval Office. Also, there are at least three other things worthy of consideration: 1) It will be a cold day when Obama, in his second term, signs a repeal of Obamacare. Highly unpopular and destructive to the economy, the repeal of Obamacare will be a major plank on the 2012 Republican platform. I don't know whether you like Obamacare, but if you don't, then you shouldn't want him reelected -- to the extent you want Obamacare repealed. 2) Do you really want a second-term Obama to nominate even more incompetent hacks to the Supreme Court, such as he did in his first term with Elena Kagen and Sonia Sotomayor? 3) Are you entirely satisfied with Obama's judgment regarding his selection of key cabinet appointees, such as the likes of Timothy Geithner and Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton? When our country had one-party rule during the last eleven years, the national debt and the deficit were not top-of-mind issues among voters. The Tea Party people had yet to emerge. (I credit Rick Santelli of CNBC with his on February 19, 2009 with getting the ball rolling for the Tea Party movement.) Thanks to the Tea Party movement, I would submit that in the present environment, no politician -- outside of safe districts in liberal enclaves -- is immune to voter scorn over excess government spending. And as he has demonstrated so far, President Barack Obama has no desire to cut back on spending. To the contrary, Republican congressional, senatorial, and presidential candidates have gotten and embraced the message -- the message that is resonating: It's the spending, stupid. To that end, in the current state of the economy and our national debt, I'll take a Republican majority in both houses and the executive branch every day of the week. The Democrats hate the Tea Party message, which is all the more reason to vote them out of office.

When an airline or a railroad or an ice-cream-truck driver purchases fuel made from imported oil, that fuel becomes an asset. When a business purchases anything whatsoever, it becomes an asset -- with the strict intent to help generate revenue and therefore add value. And that value is added irrespective of whether the asset is imported or not.

The S&P's credit rating downgrade has had little negative effect on the creditworthiness of the U.S. government, at least in the short term, as yields on U.S. Treasurys fell sharply on the first day of trading after the downgrade. I wouldn't have predicted that, but it's worth noting that after all, it's the actual buyers of U.S. Treasurys who determine their creditworthiness, as well as the risk, and not some credit-rating agency. No doubt investors spooked by the sea of red in global equities markets moved tons of money into the traditionally relative safety of U.S. government bonds, thus today's sharp drop in yield. This is a short-term market-driven phenomenon, however. When interest rates regress to the historical mean -- and they will -- service on the debt will exceed all-time highs as a percentage of GDP, and will compete with entitlement programs and the social safety net. And the debt itself is already around 100 percent of GDP, which, if not reduced, would warrant further credit-rating downgrades, such as that exacted on Japan. The S&P's credit-rating downgrade is all about the U.S. government's debt, and its inability to manage it, let alone reduce it. The Tea Party movement did not accrue this debt, nor is it responsible for it. On the contrary, the Tea Party movement helped to bring the dangers of this debt -- which are very real -- into focus.

Our forefathers fought a revolutionary war because of grievances far less egregious than forced birth control or forced sterilization. Forced birth control or forced sterilization? You would have no problem with that? Think about it for a second. That's precisely what they do in communist China. Maybe a better solution is to slow the growth of the welfare state, or better yet, stop the state-forced subsidization and promotion of failure altogether.

+1 and Copy That! I would only add that the economy is dynamic and changing. It always has been. It takes strength to grow and change with it.

Anyone wise enough to have zero consumer debt and have fixed-rate mortgages is not immune to this development. Interest rates will rise as a result of the S&P downgrade for everyone seeking credit. Most importantly, this affects small businesses that traditionally are the largest drivers of employment growth in an economic recovery. For them, the cost of capital is going to rise, which only serves to add on to the uncertainty of the current economic setting. Small businesses seeking to grow are most vulnerable to rising interest rates. A rising cost of capital could cause start-ups to stall before they begin. This is not conducive to job growth. Rising interest rates also hurts those corporations that rely on commercial paper for net working capital. This will drive future margins lower. The market will have its say on Monday. There are certain large bond funds whose charter is to invest only in AAA-rated U.S. Treasurys. No one knows how they will react to the S&P downgrade, since the other two rating agencies haven't yet followed suit. It might be met with a collective yawn by the market, as was the case when Bill Gross, manager of the PIMCO Total Return Fund (the world's largest bond fund) unloaded all his shares of U.S. Treasurys a couple of months ago. Then again, there is a herd mentality that pervades the market. If lots of people overreact (which would be absurd, given what amounts to a slap on the wrist by S&P), and a herd mentality prevails (which of course is not unheard of in the financial markets), then things could get real ugly, real fast. There are a couple of plus sides to this: It sends a wake-up call to the leaders in Washington. If they don't respond, the people who vote them into and out of office most certainly will. Second, maybe all those large corporations that have been hoarding cash saw this coming. In which case they will not be beholden to rising interest rates and therefore will not be forced to pass those costs on to their customers. All of a sudden, their cash is worth a lot more because of a higher cost of capital, and they can now wisely use that cash to invest in assets at depressed prices -- perhaps creating something of a cushion to the economy by creating jobs. Cash is king, as they say.

Ranger, it's no use. Even though you and I are upwardly mobile and solidly middle class -- living the American Dream, as it were -- we are but pawns of the oligarchs. One day the sky is going to fall and the oligarchs will snatch away everything we have worked for. The oligarchs are the masters of the universe, and the truth is, you and I have no self-determination whatsoever. We never did. You and I and all the other members of the soon-to-be former middle class may be industrious, frugal, and financially literate, but this doesn't hold a candle to the ultimate power of the oligarchs. The oligarchs, well, they control our destiny. Don't you understand that? When I can actually sleep at night, I have horrible nightmares involving oligarchy Armageddon. The other day, I stopped at a lemonade stand in my neighborhood. I asked the little girl what her motivation was for setting up the lemonade stand. She said she wanted to make more money than the other girl down the street. I retched with revulsion, knowing that this sweet, innocent-looking girl has all the potential to become a future oligarch. I will never buy lemonade from her again, just because she represents the worst in our society. Besides, what's wrong with becoming wards of the state? History has shown that the state (and the statists) care far more for the people than do the oligarchs. Get it through your head: The statists are caring and beneficent, and they promise a better way of life. A government that cares? What's not to like!?!? All they ask in return is that you vote for them. Is that too much to ask? It's either that, or the oligarchs will get you -- the consequences of which would be unthinkable.