A post at Larry Kudlow's blog today talks about how each presidential candidate would affect the business climate and the economy, if he or she wins the election. If you're a fiscal conservative then you can't help but like McCain.
Kudlow writes:
"........ interesting story in USA Today by Dan Nowicki of the Arizona Republic says that Sen. McCain has often talked about getting top U.S. business leaders into his administration. Several times on the campaign trail, McCain has mentioned Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer, Cisco’s John Chambers, and FedEx CEO Fred Smith as possible cabinet members.
Contrast all this with Hill-Bama. Take a look at some of the latest headlines. How about the front-page Wall Street Journal weekend story, “Democrats’ Attacks on Business Heat Up”? Or Sunday’s Washington Post editorial, “Trading Down — On economics, Mr. Obama goes populist,” which talks about Obama undoing free trade deals? Or today’s New York Times story by John Broder and Jeff Zeleny highlighting Hill-Bama’s populist class-warfare approach to businesses and successful investors?"
*****
The crux of the Hill-Bama approach is to sell voters on the idea that the economy, and the middle class, are in such dire straits that only the federal government can fix it. The federal government---aka Nanny----knows best how to absorb and correct the problems we face. This approach says there should be no pain in the world and certainly no consequences.
Our Nanny government intends to penalize those who've been successful in making themselves, the economy, and other people more independent and prosperous through innovation, hard work and belief the free enterprise system and democracy (All men are created equal, but all outcomes are not equal.) Heaven forbid that anyone who seeks to be financially independent shouldn't be taken down a notch or two.
In this worldview, the Hill-Bama answer is the chimera of class warfare. By that they mean to make war on the part of the economy that creates jobs and profits and tax revenues both for the private and public sectors, while making love to the people who wish to be dependent on government handouts, often for life. By doing that we push the payments for all these entitlement forward to our children and grandchildren, making them our unwitting beasts of burdens who will foot the bill for making more people dependent on government, even as Obama is heralded a rock star, messianic figure.
That's their idea of HOPE and CHANGE. And I suppose that's what is making Michelle Obama so proud of our country for the first time in 35 years. Michelle Obama is an articulate, stand-by-your-man ill-informed financial illiterate. You heard me correctly, this kind of nonsense has never worked and never will in the history of our country. But we so quickly forget history, if indeed we ever knew it.
Government by the Hill-Bama crowd will only sink the economy into deeper and longer pain and suffering and recession. While we are certainly in a correction, asking governement---rather than free markets---to work it out for us, is only asking for exponentially greater trouble. Government needs to get out of the way. Remember, children who are over-protected only get weaker over time.
Even Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander has gotten into the Hill-Bama shtick of 'we don't want to hurt you, we only want to help you' with his dreadful proposal for a $15,000 tax credit for certain distressed home buyers. This is a nice intention, but a ridiculous, dull notion. Whatever is Lamar thinking? Tennessee conservative blogger Bill Hobbs has more.
In closing, the next time I hear the Hill-Obama crowd lamenting the sorry state of the middle class, I will drag them directly to the nearest Whole Foods Market to show them the middle class buying chocolate truffles, $17/pound Drunken Goat cheese, organic pizza and $7/pound cherry cobbler to assauge their poverty.
Our middle and even lower classes have never had it so good in the history of the world. And it's democracy and free markets coupled with risking takers, hard and focused work and determination, that have made them--US---that way. I'm not buying the Clintons or the Obamas sad, fabricated story of how bad life is in America today, such that we need hope as never before.
It's a monumental bore. Even in our soft (as in we're now the softest, most pampered people in the world) pain, we have it so good.
"By doing that we push the payments for all these entitlement forward to our children and grandchildren, making them our unwitting beasts of burdens who will foot the bill for making more people dependent on government..."
ReplyDeleteAs if that's not happening RIGHT NOW. You make it seem like electing either one of the Democrats will lead to your grandchildren footing the bill for "nanny state" entitlements. Have you been paying any attention over the past 7 years? Check out the US National Debt clock. Each citizen currently "owes" $30,538.99.
I mean, who do you think will be footing the bill for the $1.5 BILLION dollar per week wars, which despite what either of the Democratic candidates say, will go on for the next 20 years? Why do you think there is semi-serious talk of changing the military pension system so that people (unfortunately, like my husband) who are approaching 20 years of active duty service will be told that they cannot receive their pension upon retirement from the service, but must wait until they turn 62? It's got everything to do with this conservative, fiscally reponsible government spending like drunken sailors without a care in the world.
If you really think there aren't people out there living paycheck to paycheck, stretching every dollar to it's extreme, you really, really, really need to walk outside the bubble. Today.
I don't know what planet you're living on but the US economy is doing so well that US banks have been quietly borrowing massive amounts of money, tens of billions from the Federal Reserve in recent weeks. Without this help, financial institutions in the US would be bankrupt.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56728
Ann Curry interviewed GW Bush on the Today Show and suggested Americans were suffering because of the massive spending in Iraq: $330 million everyday.
Bush responded: " I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs."
He blamed developers for the economic downturn, he said, "I think this economy is down because we built too many houses..."
wow.
The human condition has always had people who live pay check to pay check, or hand to mouth. Nothing new there, nor will it ever totally go away. We never delve into why however. Often it's because of living beyond our means.
ReplyDeleteThere's a wonderful story that was in the Christian Science Monitor last week about a man who chose to go on the street with nothing and what happened....very interesting.
Think I will find and post it on my scroll soon.
Also, it's the federal entitlments that will break us much faster than the Iraq war budget, high as it seems. And Bush, as his predessors, have not helped matters, especially with his drug bill.
Of course, I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteIt's baby boomer entitlements that'll break the bank, so I say let's start means testing those over 65. If you've done well in life, have solid investments, and, most importantly, have done it all without any assistance from ol' Uncle Sam, you surely don't need those Social Security checks.
ReplyDeleteThose yelling loudest about how awful "nanny state" entitlements are should be the first in line to give theirs up.
Great idea, and for starters I'm giving my rebate check to charity.
ReplyDeleteYou see, vienna, that's why we should also have the choice of privatizing Social Security, or opting out altogether. That's so that they don't have to be force fed on the government dole. But that's for another day, another post.