From Daily Kos, here are a couple of charts showing the demographic breakdown of the election. It’s pretty eye-opening, especially if this is new info to you, and then I have some conclusions.
Nov 06 2008
Economic reality, government programs, food and energy
John Stossel has some good thoughts on what is, and is not, in the power of governments. He begins by quoting African-American economist Walter Williams:
“Politicians have immense power to do harm to the economy. But they have very little power to do good,” Williams says.
The failure to understand this is at the root of many of our problems.
“Most of life is outside the government sector,” says David Boaz of the Cato Institute. “Most change in America doesn’t come from politicians. It comes from people inventing things and creating. The telephone, the telegraph, the computer, all those things didn’t come from government. Our world is going to get better and better, as long as we keep the politicians from screwing it up.”
Continue reading “Economic reality, government programs, food and energy”
Nov 03 2008
The only way the government will get my 401k is to pry it out of my cold, dead fingers
Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans? – Capital Commerce (usnews.com)
I hate to use the “S” word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers’ retirement accounts (Efharisto, Fausta’s Blog). Now, even Uncle Sam isn’t that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.
Continue reading “The only way the government will get my 401k is to pry it out of my cold, dead fingers”
Nov 02 2008
On Redistribution
We can tolerate some redistribution. Government always does some of it. But it is toxic for economies, because it distorts markets, which means it distorts production that sells to those markets. Nevertheless, some toxicity is tolerable (medicine is toxic, too, after all, in a good cause), and governments seem unable to resist the temptation to pick winners and losers.
But as with most toxic things (medicines as well as simple poisons), there are 4 dosage ranges.
Oct 30 2008
If Steve Forbes had been elected in 2000
What if Steve Forbes Had Won the Election? – TCS Daily
What if Steve Forbes Had Won the Election?
Sigh. I never did like that “compassionate conservative” language.
Oct 19 2008
Global warming reduction: at what cost?
Bjorn Lomborg asks, why cut one 3,000th of a degree? That’s about how much difference Britain’s proposed policies will make, while costing ENORMOUS sums of money. Key graphs:
Oct 13 2008
Last chance for McCain
Dick Morris thinks there is still time for the public to become aware of the terrible alliances (not mere associations) Obama has had in the past, and still has, if the market settles down and stabilizes just a bit.
A man whose spiritual adviser is Wright, whose financial backer is Tony Rezko, and whose first major employer was William Ayers might not be a good choice for president. But for these associations to loom large enough in our consciousness to impact our vote, the market has to settle down so we can hear the campaign over its din.
Oct 12 2008
Obama and Fannie/Freddie CEOs: some clarity
As reported at SNOPES, a normally reliable fact-checking website, an email has been making the rounds linking Obama to Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines and Tim Howard. Johnson and Raines are former Fannie Mae CEOs whose tenures were marked by fraudulent accounting practices and the reporting of false profits to pump up earnings reports and get executive bonuses. Howard was CFO (Chief Financial Officer) during Raines tenure, and was right in the middle of the false accounting and false profits scandals.
Snopes declares that the email is FALSE. That’s odd, because significant parts of the email are TRUE, but it does have a few incorrect assertions. Snopes’ practice in such situations is usually to say something is partly true and partly false, and to be very clear on the distinctions regarding which is which. One can only wonder why that practice was not followed in this report, which was simply declared FALSE at the top, and only a careful reader would discover that much of it was TRUE.
The email first gives the history of the involvement with Fannie Mae of former CEO Jim Johnson, former CEO Franklin Raines, and former CFO Tim Howard. Even Snopes does not deny the accuracy of this summary.
Continue reading “Obama and Fannie/Freddie CEOs: some clarity”
Oct 10 2008
Obama’s tax cut: what he doesn’t mention
So: in ALL of Obama’s discussion of his plans to raise taxes on only the top 5% in income, and “cut” taxes for the other 95%, how much have you heard about his plans to allow the expiration of the Bush tax cuts?
Does he mention those tax cuts were across the board, so that EVERYONE who paid taxes got a tax cut?
From where I sit, letting a tax cut expire is about the same thing as raising taxes.
By the way, does Obama ever mention that, historically, when taxes are CUT, including on the investors, entrepreneurs and employers (i.e., that top 5%), revenues to the US Treasury actually go UP (allowing more entitlement spending, if you’re so inclined… sigh)? Does he ever explain why he wants to RAISE taxes on the highest tax payers, when that behavior is virtually certain to LOWER revenues to the Treasury, thus limiting the ability of the government to provide the services socialists demand? Does he admit that raising taxes on the economically active top 5% will affect their economic activity, causing them to take fewer risks, invest in less business activity (all of which creates jobs), move more of their economic activity to other countries, etc.? Can Obama point to any instance in human history where a tax raise CAUSED people to be more economically active, and therefore created economic growth? (Don’t confuse correlation with causation when you start looking for examples of this, if you’re so inclined.)
Has he explained why it’s better for the “working class” to get a tax cut (or just an outright check for $1000 or so from the government for the 40% who pay no income tax) than it is for the same people to have a secure job in a growing economy? And the great probability that his tax raise on the top 5% will SLOW or STOP growth altogether, especially in the current economic situation? That his tax raise on the employer class is going to cause fewer jobs, because the money that would have supported more workers will go to the government, or employers will simply manage their situation to reduce activity in the USA, and thus reduce tax liability?
Has Obama ever explained why HIS socialist leaning plans will work in the USA, when they’ve essentially failed in other nations, and are being replaced by more privatization?
Has he ever mentioned that the tax on US business is among the very highest in the world, already? Has he ever mentioned the fact that when taxes are raised on business, they either cut jobs, or raise prices, or both?
Well…. probably not.
« Previous Page — Next Page »
