Obama's old new tax and spend plan

Obama and the Progressives are bereft of ideas. The Hill reports Obama will announce today an old proposal that he dusted off -- an infrastructure bank to fund stimulus spending. They call the stimulus spending investment, but it's the same old tax and spend the Left has embraced for a long, long time.

Obama and the entire country need to realize that government doesn't need to do anything to help the economy except get out of the way -- stop regulating, taxing and spending the economy further into ground. Obama doesn't know how to spur economic growth. Even if he did, why would he wait until his fifth year in office to get the economy going? The central planners in DC don't know how to create economic growth. What they have done is suppress the US economy. Stop.

Morning Joe 7/9/2012 -- No way out

Even though media outlets like MSNBC work ovetime everyday supporting the political party in power and the current President, they are competing with a new media that isn't allied with the political class. The Morning Joe crew this morning, as all mornings, was made up of DC pundits. It's becoming more obvious that the political class is out of touch with the nation as a whole.

A strong statist influence in DC creates mindsets which can't think beyond taxes, spending and government plans. The questions to politicians all have to do with "plans" -- what "plan" do you have to get this economy going? What's your "plan" to lower unemployment? American government has become a lot like European governments in which the political class controls the economic realm. We can see how well it has worked for Europe.

The Left is stuck on tax and spend and control from central command, and the Right is just stuck. We are at a critical turning point in American governance, with the coming election determining which direction we take, the same old  statist direction or something radically different. So far, Romney hasn't articulated that something radically different, and Obama is stuck in his Progressive agenda and political masquerade hoping to get re-elected as a moderate so he can finish what he started.

The Right in America is truly divided, with a faction wanting to roll back government advancements and the establishment wanting to protect the status quo of statist compromise with the Left. I don't see the left divided. The few blue dog Democrats aren't a force, and they vote mostly the party line. The Left should be divided, if there are any real liberals remaining. 

More on two American visions

Actually, it's not just visions related to America, but visions related to the global economy and all nations involved, many of them struggling with debt and economic stagnation or decline. I wrote earlier this morning about a couple of the Sunday talk shows which discussed austerity and government stimulus and debt and other current issues presently debated by the Right and Left. The debate is different in Europe because there really is no rightwing like there is in America -- in Europe it seems to go from socialists to social democrats to centrist-types to, now, nazis in Greece. Liberal biased media will surely associate the nazis in Greece with America's rightwing, but you know how dramatic the Left-wing media has become -- drama queens, all of them, especially when it comes to America's Rightwing.

I'm confused about Left and Right in America, because when the Left is confronted with failed or failing Letist policies, they claim to be centrists, and the Right in America is made up of either redneck/racist/extremists, or conservatives who want to limit government, or centrists who want to compromise and gradually bring about fiscal sanity, or neo-conservatives who want to kick international ass, or whatever the pundits say at the moment. What's becoming clear is that there are two directions  proposed, and whether or not each side is serious about their proposal, they are proposing the directions, and we'll go in one, willfully and cheerfully or not. 

Democrats, for the most part, are calling for government spending and higher taxes with plans to deal with the debt at a later date when the economy recovers. Republicans, for the most part, are calling for tax reform, lower tax rates and reduction in spending so that we move toward a balanced budget.

Democrats claim their approach promotes growth, while the GOP claims the same thing. Dems claim that growth will happen when government takes money from the welathy and invests that money in infrastructure and state services to hire more teachers, firemen, police, etc (it's the etc I'm worried about).

The GOP says that if we stop government interventions in the economy and lower tax rates for businesses, this will create confidence in the business community and investors will invest, thus creating more sustainable jobs that are productive.

Dems say that regulation is vital to ameliorate the unfair results from businesses acting selfishly without government oversight and control, and that government will not be limited in this regard, so another answer is called for in this stagnant economic environment -- they say government has to step in where the private sector has failed. Dems also say that lowering taxes will only benefit the wealthy and that they, the Dems, will fight for higher taxes on the rich.

Dems might win a majority in 2012, and they might go forward with their tax and spend policies, but at some point they'll realize that American companies need incentives and certainty in order to invest, unless Dems work out arrangements with the largest corporations for protection if they hire and invest in growth that is generated from government-approved industries like alternative energy and transportation. What will happen then is what always happens --capital misdirected and bubbles created, backed by nothing but government wishes, shaky cronyistic arrangements and schemes.

This time, though, we'll be in deeper debt, and the world will become doubly concerned about our ability to develope strong economic fundamentals, and the dollar will become threatened. If interest rates are forced higher and the debt, coupled with the higher interest rates, becomes a greater burden, and, if unemployment remains structurally high, and, if the rest of the world begins to distrust America's economic direction, we'll face collapse. At this point the painfully obvious will be that we have to allow American enterprise to operate freely without huge tax and regulatory burdens. We'll be forced to make drastic changes, and this huge shift will disrupt the market. Scepticism from foreign onlookers will increase. America will be forced to fully implement State Capitalism with centralized government management or allow a free market. Those concerned with economic reality will propose a free market, while those concerned with political power, base support and statist control will propose full centralized, economic management. 

2012 is the year we set the foundation for which direction we choose. Full State management and control can take two forms -- the totalitarian-type form or the authoritarian/fascist-type form, but it will take this type of domination to force whatever plans government officials develope. The free market approach would be an environment in which producers and consumers interact to allow an organic process to develope -- peaceful, free trade. There's no guarantee that a free market will produce sunshine, lollipops and a hitch-free get-along, but, I, for one, will promise that Americans will appreciate a free market much more than they will the State managed alternatives. Statism or anti-Statism -- two visions, and one must be chosen. Choose carefully, because if you choose Statism, it might one of the last significant free choices you make.

Suggested reading -- Ralph Raico, Thomas E. Woods, Tibor Machan (for starters). For serious reading, accomplish something important and read Ludwig von Mises. Even if you don't agree, you'll never just accept the modern liberal narrative without serious questions bugging the hell out of you.

Up with Chris Hayes 5/20/2012 -- Austerity or growth?

I love the way partisan hacks on the Left, like what you find on Up with Chris Hayes, such as Ezra Klein and Bill Black and the host, Chris Hayes, present America's options as between painful austerity or job-creating growth policies. Let's see, do I want to support spending cuts which take away benefits and cause financial pain among the poor and middle class while benfitting the rich, or do I want government to take money from the filthy rich and spend on job creation and growth, so that no one has to suffer? Even the rich don't suffer because as Warren Buffett and Barack Obama have told us, they don't need that extra money. Well, when you put it like that...

Seriously, this is the way media sources are presenting our dilemma, as are global media sources presenting these options for Europe. Bill Black said that those who worry about debt in America are crazy because we have a sovereign currency and we can borrow money with very low interest rates. Black said there can be no debt crisis in America. This is good news, because government can just spend money on whatever and "growth" will happen. I've noticed that they don't call it "economic growth" just "growth" policies. They want government to expand the money supply, but the Fed has expanded the money supply and there has been no significant economic growth. Aha, this is the problem -- businesses don't trust the government interventions, so they are sitting on the money. The Fed always benefits the rich when money is expanded, but usually because the rich get the first infusion to invest before inflation causes prices to rise, but, now, there is very little investment -- businesses are investing overseas and holding on to a lot of their profit.

So, this is what government must do -- take the money from the rich and invest it themselves. What kind of investments will the government make? They will invest in government services and infrastructure, roads, trains and such. In theory, this will create jobs and thus jumpstart economic growth. A professor on the Up panel asked why this is being fought if it works. Hayes and Klein and Black said the GOP now believes its own rhetoric about a debt crisis. Actually Hayes said that he doubts they believe their own rhetoric and if elected Romney will push expansionary policies. Does, this mean Hayes will vote for Obama? Because it will be easier for the GOP to push expansion of government spending than Obama in a second term, if Republicans do well in congress. Surely Hayes will do the right thing and vote for Romney -- the professor on the panel said he would, if Romney would really push for expansion.

It's all very confusing. I'll write another, longer post later to discuss this topic. The good news is that any country that has sovereign currency will never suffer, ever again. This is an incredible revelation, and we should be celebrating in the streets.

Meet the Press 5/20/2012 -- Two visions of America

On Meet the Press today David Gregory started the program interviewing Dick Durbin and Paul Ryan. It was a predictable discussion with Durbin characterizing Paul Ryan's budget plan as severe austerity which will target the middle class and cause unnecessary financial pain, and with Ryan defending his plan by saying it's hardly austerity and certainly not severe when all it does is curb government spending by a small amount.

This is where we've come to, defending small curbs in spending against charges of ruinous austerity, so Tax and Spend policies appear to be winning, although the Left is screaming that Republicans are going to enforce drastic measures on a sick economy at any moment now. Republicans are trying to compromise on taxes by promoting tax reform and elimination of subsidies and tax loopholes rather than tax hikes. Democrats give lip servive to tax reform because they fear that reform will not bring in the revenue they desire like straight-up confiscation of wealth will. It remains to be seen what will happen after 2012, but if the future is like the past, spending will increase along with taxes.

Gregory made the point that if both sides are telling the truth, no matter who wins in 2012 there will still be gridlock because there are two very different versions of America and government's role in the economy. I will write a longer post later today discussing these two visions of America.

The Meet the Press panel focused on the faux-controversy surrounding the proposed ad to use Rev Wright as a weapon against Obama. If Gregory or Meet the Press had any integrity, they would have dismissed this faux-controversy as a media ploy to attack Romney, but since neither have integrity, they rode it out hoping to smear Romney just because his name is in the story. Romney rejected the ad quickly and that's the end of the story. Regardless what you think about Romney, the way media sources are dealing with him is indicative of the liberal bias that gives most major media outlets like NBC and the NYT no credibility at all.