At a Glance
A cursory read of the morning's news reveals that the White House wants BP to pay the salaries of laid off employees who will remain laid off thanks to a six month moratorium on drilling that the White House is itself imposing. Follow the logic on that one
Meanwhile, the NYT editorializes that what the US needs is more, not less, government spending in order to spur further job creation. This notwithstanding that the goo-gobs of money the government has blown through so far has spurred growth primarily in the public sector while the unemployment rate climbed toward double digit territory.
Oh yes, and the Wall Street Journal's survey of 53 economists reveals expectations of a sluggish economy with continued unemployment problems. This forcast made possible by the hopey changey people who remind you that they are more competent stewards of your earnings than you.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: At a Glance
Astounding, after Bernanke's warnings. Bernanke Warns US of 'Unsustainable' Debt Level Talk about a mind-blowing disconnect.
May '10
Re: At a Glance
Meanwhile, TVG shut down 4,000 wells in the Gulf to generate a "I'm getting tough" headline: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/company-says-moratorium-gulf-drilling-will-inflict-irreversible-damage-industry
The family owned Louisiana shipping company now laying off 200 workers pointed out that "....there are 4,000 deepwater wells out of the 50,000 total wells in the Gulf, and that 'MMS conducted a safety assessment of each of the deepwater rigs in the days following the blowout and found no significant problems.'"
But the greens in the "base" are happy, and the lost jobs will, of course, be "Bush's fault". (IBF does not mean "International Boxed Freight", it is the universal acronym for "It's Bush's Fault", the title of the post-mortem book on Obama's administration).
Re: At a Glance
But the debt really isn't "unsustainable." It's "unsustainable" only if income taxes remain at the current level. Raise them, add some extra charges, raise corporate tax rates, and you start to see some progress on the projected debt level.
I say "projected," because we all know that the economy will stall when (if? Dare we hope?) taxes go up enough to make a difference. But isn't this the secret Obama plan? Spend, wildly, without restraint, install an enormous new federal entitlement, and make the next guy pay for it. And if you're asked to make cuts, make them in the military budget.
We keep wondering how this guy plans to deal with the national debt. To me, it's obvious: he's going to wallop us with taxes. Notice how he's talking about the national debt these days, as if he had nothing to do with it? He's setting the table for a massive tax increase.
Re: At a Glance
Rob, sadly your argument comes down to three letters: VAT. For which I have some choice letters myself.
Re: At a Glance
Rob, you wrote in another thread:
Is that the end game in your opinion?
It's a given that current levels of revenue will not support this catastrophic debt level. But, as Arthur Laffer explained, and as history has proven, tax rates can reach a point where revenue will fall simply because government is suffocating the productive sector. Conversely, as Reagan proved, decreased marginal rates can spur economic growth, causing revenue to increase as well. The empirical data is in, which brings me again to the question; what is the President's goal here? He has to know that if he decides to "wallop us with taxes," the recession could end up with enough dips to name a roller coaster after it. Why do that?
May '10
Re: At a Glance
Bond investors have begun buying Treasury debt instruments en masse, a sign that they are worried about risk and are not at all bullish about future economic conditions.