« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Let’s Stop Kidding Ourselves

The 2012 political campaigns for President of the United States are both painfully vacuous. We have Mr. Obama bribing people to vote for him while his minions diss Mr. Romney. (Gee, what happened to “hope and change,” and “the first post-partisan President?” Mr. Obama plays the American voter for a chump.) Mr. Romney, for his part, talks in generalities I presume designed to mollify a sufficient number of “swing” voters to garner a majority. No one is leading.

Have you noticed that we have unsustainable entitlement programs that Mr. Obama insists we add to without any way to pay for them? Oh, sure, we can raise taxes on everyone earning over $200,000 or couples earning over $250,000 a year. That will have two impacts. First, it will mollify the resentful. Second, it will delay the day of reckoning on our $16,000,000,000,000 in Federal debt by less than 1%. Instead of spending $1,000,000,000,000 more a year than we collect in taxes, we would be spending $900,000,000,000 more than we collect. This assumes a steady state economic circumstance. The reality will be uglier because that $100,000,000,000 in higher taxes will not be spent or invested in the private economy, it will be transferred to people who have become dependent on receiving it or used to pay interest as rates increase (and they will increase). And yes, if you haven’t observed reality (that is, you only read the New York Times) the multiplier effect of that social spending is less than one. It is an economic loser. One final thought for all you people willing to work hard. That $200,000 or $250,000 base on which higher taxes would be paid is NOT indexed for inflation. Hello middle class! Guess who will be paying for most of those dependent on Federal handouts in the future if Mr. Obama and a democratic Congress are elected in November?

Have you been hearing about the financial problems across Western Europe? Can’t figure out why European bureaucrats keep talking and do little or nothing for years now? It is because few are willing to assume responsibility for the problems. The tradeoff is made to appear to be between more borrowing to “stimulate” the economy of various countries or “austerity,” that being to stop paying salaries and benefits with borrowed money of people who don’t work. (By definition, employed people who don’t add value aren’t working.) Perhaps, just perhaps, the answer is to lower tax rates and reduce regulation and reduce government interference in the private economy. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is economic freedom that creates real jobs, providing products and services people are prepared to voluntarily purchase, leading to real economic growth, that increases the tax base that can pay for government services with current real revenue.

Which brings us back to the 2012 election for President of the United States.

Our current entitlement state is on the way to bankruptcy and Europe is our reflecting pool. Raising taxes will not fix the problem but many would be willing to accept some tax increase in exchange for a real solution, one where entitlement programs are fully funded across generations without more borrowing, meaning growth in entitlement spending would need be zero or negative for several years. The truth is that your kids and mine will be paying the piper of the collective profligacy of our generation. So much for Mr. Obama’s moral case for continuing the madness. So, how about some leadership?

Candidates for public office who promote individual freedom, free markets, and economic growth offer the only real solutions to our problems. Please find them, support them, and vote for them.

Hello? Mr. Romney? Are you there?

Regards, Pete Weldon
americanstance.org

POST SCRIPT August 12, 2012 – With his pick of Paul Ryan as his running mate Mr. Romney proved he is in fact “there.” Thankfully, we will now be choosing between big government and big people when we vote for President in November.

COMMENTS

  • teaforme2012

    I suppose I shouldn’t place all the blame on Democrats for the disastrous economic events of 2007-08, if only because it allows the left some wiggle room to avoid blaming Obama for his failings as president!

    But I do find it frustrating that President Bush had these cataclysmic events happen to him during what would have normally been two terms of economic success. The attacks of 9/11, the increase in al Qaeda and Iraqi murders/terrorism against US troops that turned Americans against the war, and the collapse of the financial industry. Those are things that no rational person can blame a President or his policies for.

    On the other hand, Obama knew what he was inheriting when he came into office. Why didn’t he cut corporate taxes and tax rates the highest tax contributors right away? There were plenty of economists suggesting this, but he ignored it, and look where we are. This would have been the perfect time to eliminate restrictive regulations and aggressively ramp up domestic drilling, as many Republican leaders suggested, but he had to do it the leftist way. Instead of an economic boom, we’ve seen, at best, a slow turnaround and nagging unemployment. At best.

    He had the nation’s confidence at the beginning of his term. Instead, he tried to drastically increase the amount of people on health insurance rolls—including the riskiest of them all–with no regard for costs. That makes no sense.

    Fortunately, if Mitt Romney wins, this country can return to the sound and proven economic system of capitalism, and winners and losers, without social engineering designed to reward those who contribute nothing.

  • Pingback: Shandra Sago

  • Pingback: Wai Youngren

  • Pingback: Paul Cozzy

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: vodka martini

  • Pingback: darmowa strona randki

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: εταιρείες απολύμανσης

  • Pingback: alcohol

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: randki internetowe

  • Pingback: colonne doccia

  • Pingback: wedding planner toscana

  • Pingback: You Can Look Here

  • Pingback: weblink

  • Pingback: Go Here

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: Lamps for sale

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: jobs working from home uk

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Carey Werst

  • Pingback: Kira Sturdy

  • Pingback: Beverlee Anidi

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installers

  • Pingback: Annett Blowe

  • Pingback: aloe vera side effects

  • Pingback: cv wzór

  • Pingback: cv

  • Pingback: Sidney Chandsawangbh

  • Pingback: Franklyn Solliday

  • Pingback: Franklyn Solliday

  • Pingback: Anisha Nissen

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: Dale Gehman

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: mitsubishi PLC Programming

  • Pingback: reverse phone look up

  • Pingback: uniform

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: top payday loans online

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: bmx bikes

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • APA Guy

    …and he is up 5 points over Obama as of today’s Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll of likely voters, so his strategy of pounding Obama into dust before releasing a detailed plan to lead the country moving forward (which, historically, is best done around convention time).

    Romney is running a smart campaign…Romney isn’t the focus. Obama’s historically-inept handing of the U.S economy IS.

  • teaforme2012

    with those kinds of charts. They show Clinton’s unemployment rate to be just below George W. Bush’s, and that’s disingenuous. Clinton’s early years were a disaster, and once the economy began to turn around, thanks to Republicans in Congress and the Contract With America, unemployment dipped considerably.

    On the other hand, Bush managed to hold employment steady until nearly the end when Democrats started giving houses away to every maid and gardener in the country, and these people blew up the real estate market by getting in over their heads. You can’t blame Bush for that end of term spike.

    The second that Barack Obama took office, unemployment was through the roof and he hasn’t brought it down much since. 9.305 seems low to me. I’d probably put it at more like 12 in real world numbers and not statistically conservative government figures.

  • APA Guy

    Capital gains tax cuts…balanced budgets…these were conservative principles and policies that Clinton embraced. We have to give him credit for at least not getting in the way of progress.

    Obama, on the other hand, has dug in on his leftist policies…and the country’s economy has suffered as a result. There IS a distinction to be made….which is why Clinton and his people passive-aggressively snipe at Obama every change they get.