A very recent article in Salon proclaimed that Obama needed to “make the government work” in order to create new jobs. The exact job-creating mechanism proposed by the author Joan Walsh is, as could be expected, is solidly liberal and includes three major paths to prosperity:
1. More government spending
2. More government spending
3. More government spending.
I am not sure if anyone following the current discussion on job creation is surprised by the breath-taking diversity of proposals by Joan. She surely gave a lot of thought to the current economic situation, and worked out a very serious plan to cut unemployment. It clearly demonstrates that liberals are ready to deal with a serious crisis of confidence of the American people towards the bankrupt American government. After all, what is more likely to convince our struggling nation that liberals take federal debt seriously – than spending another gazillion dollars on some community reinvestment project. “If only Obama spent more on stimulus“, whisper some economists – “we would have a perfect economy by now”.
Apparently, the idea is that when the government spends another trillion dollars, the economy rebounds due to an increase in the never-defined ”demand”. Of course, it’s rare that anyone of those famed economist explain where that trillion dollars is supposed to come from – apparently it just magically appears in the hands of the government (the Santa Claus school of economics). An economist of the Austrian school though would contend that the government must first withdraw that trillion dollars from the economy before it can spend it – so in the end, there is no net stimulus to the economy – there is only transfer of money from private economy through IRS and into the hands of the government clients. The other two options for the government to get a hold of a trillion dollars are equally troublesome - government borrowing from private investors (which also means fewer funds would be available to the private businesses) or money printing (which means the government robs anyone who holds cash).
In short, the argument between the Austrians and the American Santa Claus liberals reminds me of a rather similar discussion between two characters in a famous Russian cartoon.
Feodor: We are broke, we need the money.
Dog Sharik: How about we sell something we don’t need?
Feodor: In order to sell something we don’t need, we have to buy something we don’t need – and we can’t afford to buy anything because we don’t have the money.
The position of a liberal economist is virtually indistinguishable from what Sharik proposed – but then, Sharik was a very nice friendly character – which is not something you can say about professional liberals. In fact, if you disagree with a liberal journalist/economist/politician on this subject - he is likely to call you a “terrorist“, a “jihadist“, “Hezbollah“, “Taliban” – and the only thing that is stopping him from biting you is his cowardice.
What is your proposal to create jobs?
Steve
Pretty simple and straightforward – cut spending, cut regulations. For example, cutting labor laws (including the notorious minimum wages) could easily allow millions of people to find jobs. Eliminating “endangered species act” can too create millions of jobs – and this covers “spotted owl” crap and all the forest-cutting jobs and, of course, oil and gas – drill, baby, drill. Cutting spending and handouts would return a lot of money back into private economy, and too will make thigns easier.
Last but not least – let’s make all lemonade stands legal. I mean, this is a disgrace, don’t you think, that a kid needs government permit to sell lemonade. It’s like we are in Soviet Union.
This is the last 18 years of Bush-Clinton-Obama economics. It left the country broke, the most parasitic of the wealthy wealthier, and the economy hollowed out. How about fair trade, support for worker’s rights, and a trimming back of the parasitic wealthy class.
IIRC, Hyphenated-American has stated in the past that he immigrated to this country from a communist country, so I take his warnings of the dangers of an overly active government seriously.
On the other hand, there is a reason why government regulation has grown up in Western countries in the form that it has (and indeed, it’s the same reason that communist revolutions occurred in the first place).
Business has a longstanding history of acting brutally towards its employees. Quite literally, the health, safety and lives of men, women and even children have all been sacrificed in the name of profits. Nor is this behavior limited to employees; even customers may be sacrificed.
Environmental regulation, too, is not simply a matter of aesthetics. The EPA itself would not exist had industry not proven to be utterly reckless with endangering human health and lives with uncontrolled pollution.
The fact of the matter is that a society that prizes industrial production (as the Soviet Union, among others, did) and economic activity (as many on the right in the US seem to) above all other concerns simply cannot be a society that meets even the most basic human needs for its citizens: breathable air, clean water, healthy food and a safe working environment.
The fact that this is true of both laissez faire and communist economies suggests that it’s not the particular system that breeds problems. Rather, it is unchecked power generally, whether that power is concentrated in public or private hands.
All of which suggests that it’s the dynamic tension between multiple powerful organizations (private industry; federal, state and local government; and yes, even entities like independent labor unions, religious groups and professional organizations) that results in the best outcomes for society.
1 – Put more money in the hands of those IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR who hire people – this can be done by the hated ‘reduction in taxes’ and by reducing the regulations that are strangling the private sector
2 – Reduce the size of government – remember back in the spring when we were approaching a government shutdown and the government was making lists of ‘non-essential’ personnel? Pull out the list and send everyone on it home – permanently. Then close a few departments that have been nothing but a drain since their inception. e.g. – Department of Energy – created in 1973 to make us ENERGY INDEPENDENT – well THAT really worked (16,000 employees and 100,000 contractors)
1. Considering that both of these things have happened, why aren’t we getting the results we need?
2. You probably have a point here.
we aren’t getting results because of government regulations, and the uncertainty on the Bush cuts….. read the WSJ sometime instead of Slate
Uncertainty of the cuts? What is the uncertainty? Are we uncertain that there were cuts?
The uncertainty Firebird is referring to is whether or not the tax cuts will be allowed to lapse (i.e. rates return to their previous level) or not.
This is a bit of a bogus argument; tax laws change every year, with rates shifting, deductions being created or destroyed, credits coming into being or going away. Much of what the Congress does every single year is monkeying with the tax code. Somehow, all of that “uncertainty” was never that big of an issue before.
Moreover, the Bush tax cuts specifically addressed taxes on income, capital gains, retirement and estates. In other words, it’s concerned primarily with individual taxation, not corporate taxes (aside from the capital gains provisions). So the question of whether or not the Bush tax cuts are repealed really has little effect on whether or not companies will hire more workers.
Almost no one makes minimum wage. There are already several million who make less. Not very convincing. We have had full employment with the minimum wage.
“Eliminating “endangered species act” can too create millions of jobs”
The only area this affects much is lumber. With a housing inventory like we have, I dont see that doing much.
“oil and gas – drill, baby, drill.”
Domestic oil production is up 11%. Natural gas 12%.
“Cutting spending and handouts would return a lot of money back into private economy, and too will make thigns easier.”
Corporations are sitting on record cash. Why would more cash make them create more jobs? There capital purchases are up, but they are not hiring.
I generally favor deregulation for small businesses. Which ones would you get rid of?
Steve
Sorry, not enough time to response to everything…
“Almost no one makes minimum wage. ”
I am sure you are trained enough in statistics to understand that this statement is meaningless. Surely, very few people earn exactly 7 dollars and 50 cents an hour. But then – are there more people who earn 7 dollars and 50 cents an hour than number of people who earn 10 dollars and 25 cents an hour? Think about it.
“oil and gas – drill, baby, drill.”
“Domestic oil production is up 11%. Natural gas 12%.”
Here is the background info:
Here are the annual totals, in barrels produced, going back to 2003:
2003: 2,073,453,000
2004: 1,983,302,000
2005: 1,890,106,000
2006: 1,862,259,000
2007: 1,848,450,000
2008: 1,811,817,000
2009: 1,956,596,000
2010: 2,011,856,000
So, 2010 is definitely the highest since 2003. But we’ll note a couple of caveats.
First, production levels actually have been quite stable over the eight-year period. Comparing 2009 and 2010 statistics, petroleum production only rose about 3 percent. And the level for 2010 is only 11 percent higher than for the lowest year in that eight-year period. So the increase the president is referring to is not particularly dramatic.
The second caveat is that the Energy Information Administration projects that production totals are poised to fall from their current levels over the next two years.
Domestic crude oil production, the agency says, is projected to decline by 110,000 barrels a day in 2011 and by an additional 130,000 barrels per day in 2012. The agency makes that projection based on expected production declines in Alaska due to maturing oil fields. Production in the Gulf of Mexico is also projected to decline. Both are partially offset by projected increases in the Lower 48 states, but on balance, EIA sees the numbers falling.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/15/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-us-oil-production-last-year-was-/
the corporations that are sitting on tons of cash are doing so because they have no assurance that Obama won’t come up with more regulations in six months – and it’s not just BIG corporations – I personally know three business owners who have 48 employees…. and they will never hire more, because once they cross the 50-employee number, a whole new set of regs comes into play that they cannot afford
Which are those? I have 45 employees. We are hiring 8 more. I know of no regs that will change, unless you are talking about the loss of tax credits that was supplied in the ACA.
Steve
http://www.mealstomemories.com/2/post/2011/08/eric-cantor-who-voted-for-him.html
Democrats need to tell voters honestly what Republicans don’t dare admit:
Tax cuts require spending cuts, spending cuts mean less money flowing to programs one set of American citizens or another really wants, and expecting government to do more requires more tax revenue. Sooner or later, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, we are going to run out of the Bank of China’s money.
“If only Obama spent more on stimulus“, whisper some economists – “we would have a perfect economy by now”.
I checked the article to which you linked, and I don’t find this quote anywhere. I did a CTRL-F and searched for key words: “stimulus”, “perfect”, “economy”, “Obama” and couldn’t find anything that even constituted a paraphrase of this.
I then did a Google search for this quotation and only found your post on Alexandria and another site.
You’re using quotes. That implies that somebody actually said it, but it doesn’t seem like anybody said it. What am I missing here?
Paul Krugman said multiple times that had Obama spent much more than 900 billion dollars, US economy would have recovered. Multiple times….
I think my sarcastic paraphrase was good enough. If you insist, I can put a disclaimer that it was not a direct quote.
So it’s okay to use quotes when you’re not actually quoting somebody?
“So it’s okay to use quotes when you’re not actually quoting somebody?”
Even if the sarcasm is obvious? Hm. I don’t know, I would say it’s okay. I’ve seen plenty of liberals “quoting” republicans like that. Did it also upset you?
I’ve seen plenty of liberals “quoting” republicans like that.
Seriously? Is that your answer?
I’ve seen this being done in major publications, like the NYT. If these paragons of journalistic virtue can do that – well…
And again…SERIOUSLY? Is that your answer? Or is this one of those times when you’re making a joke and I’m not getting it? Because I can see how it would be funny that a (presumably) grown man would use the “they do it too!” defense.
My good Lance,
For what it is worth in its own right – and as a teacher of literature you may appreciate this – our good H-A was using a created literary quotation by a collective economist character, a Paul-Alice-Peter Krugman-Rivlin-Orzag if you like, as a collective device to express what each and other liberal economists, each of which (and many more) has already said the original stimulus should have been larger, would most dependably say if asked what the government could do to create jobs.
Again, this is a literary device employed in this post-as-mini-essay, not a journalistic one. You may feel free to continue to beat our good H-A around the head and shoulders over the fact that his creative literary usage of quotations did not conform to your journalistic expectations of quotations.
For our readers at large, a series of recent columns by the good Paul Krugman where he has this to say about that and other things:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html
As for myself, I will be satisfied enough when our good H-A learns the sensitivity of the American ear to articles, like the “the” preceding nouns, as well as when our good Hector learns to love the conjunction “than” more than her illegitimate if more seductive sister “then”.
Carry on.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
I think you’re being generous. Let’s review though, shall we?
H-A had a quote in his post.
With the quote was a link, which implied that you could find such a quote there.
That quote could not be found on that link.
Nothing that even constituted a decent paraphrase could be found on that link.
When confronted with this, H-A said that Krugman had said it.
At best, H-A’s quote was a strawman of what Krugman’s actual point was.
H-A sucks at sarcasm, and as Ironical Grandmaster of Sarcasm, I must issue him twenty demerits.
And let me explain a little something about sarcasm and how it works. You can take it from me, as I’m often accused by people of being far too sarcastic, so I’m a bit of an expert.
When you write or say something and you’re using sarcasm, you use it to indicate that you actually feel THE OPPOSITE of what you’re writing. You were exaggerating and distorting what Krugman has actually said. That’s not sarcasm. It’s being disingenuous, which is what I have come to expect from you.
“You can take it from me, as I’m often accused by people of being far too sarcastic, so I’m a bit of an expert.”
Expert? Have you got a government issued license of an expert of sarcasm? Cause an opinion of a few of your amateur friends don’t make you an expert of sarcasm. You need to get some professional opinion – and I, a real expert of sarcasm, can tell you that you are far from an expert.
“When you write or say something and you’re using sarcasm, you use it to indicate that you actually feel THE OPPOSITE of what you’re writing.”
sar·casm /ˈsɑrkæzəm/ Show Spelled
[sahr-kaz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
As I said, you are no expert of sarcasm.
Expert? Have you got a government issued license of an expert of sarcasm?
Yes, I have. I’ve been awarded the title of Ironical Grandmaster of Sarcasm by the Department of Redundancy Department.
Regarding your definition…ummm…thanks for proving my point. Do you not understand the word “irony” now, too? Let me help you out, from Dictionary.com.
i·ro·ny1 [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA
noun, plural -nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
You want to go toe-to-toe with me in a round of sarcasm? Bring it.
Paul Krugman said multiple times that had Obama spent much more than 900 billion dollars, US economy would have recovered. Multiple times
Two things about this:
1. Is that the same thing as saying that we’d have a “perfect” economy?
2. If he’s said it so many times, then don’t you think that finding an actual quote would be pretty simple.
“Krugman said that with an “adequate program” of stimulus spending he would expect the unemployment rate to drop to near 7 percent in 2011.”
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2010/07/07/paul-krugman-1-trillion-more
Now, that we are done with that – I guess you can see how my sacrasm took care of what he said. Good enough for now?
Not really. You misrepresented what was actually said. Again.
Did the dogs eat your sense of humor, or you never possessed one?
I try to get your sense of humor, but I can’t seem to get my head THAT far up my own ass.
Lance…. your response is typical left-wing blather….. when you can’t refute the facts, you try to kill the messenger….. bob and weave but one day you won’t have any more dance steps and the truth MIGHT set you free ;-)
Blather? I’m just asking for some clarification. Why is that so wrong? Sorry that I expect people to show a little bit of clarity.
Oh, and just thought of another question:
In fact, if you disagree with a liberal journalist/economist/politician on this subject – he is likely to call you a “terrorist“, a “jihadist“, “Hezbollah“, “Taliban” – and the only thing that is stopping him from biting you is his cowardice.
Do you feel that this sort of rhetoric is wrong in general or just when liberals do it to criticize conservatives?
I believe the liberals are required to use their own standards. For example, Sarah Palin was considered to be personally responsible for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords – simply because she drew circles on the map. Well, she surely did far less than those liberals who are calling me and others – terrorists, jihadits, Hezbollah and taliban.
Do you agree that it’s fair to demand liberals to follow the standards they demand from the GOP?
You didn’t answer my question, but I’ll answer yours:
Yes.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – liberals have no effing sense of humor!
What a load of shit, Firebird. Have you ever read anything that I’ve written? Do I strike you as somebody who doesn’t have a sense of humor?
This is the typical “conservative” cop-out. Write something that’s bullshit, get called out on it, and then insist that you were making a joke.
“Have you ever read anything that I’ve written? Do I strike you as somebody who doesn’t have a sense of humor?”
I don’t know anyone with a sense of humor who would have asked this kind of question – unless they were sarcastic.
Now you’re catching on, comrade. That was an ACTUAL example of sarcasm, not this distorting of quotes which you erroneously call sarcasm.
See, anybody who’s ever read any of my posts can tell that it’s PRETTY FUCKING OBVIOUS that I have a sense of humor.
And to continue our lesson on the use of the English language, it was also a rhetorical question.
“See, anybody who’s ever read any of my posts can tell that it’s PRETTY FUCKING OBVIOUS that I have a sense of humor.”
Well, I’ve read your posts, and I can tell you that it’s PRETTY FUCKING OBVIOUS that you do NOT have a sense of humor.
BTW, it’s not a rhetorical question if I answer it. It’s probably one of those “shouldn’t ask it if you don’t want to know the answer” kind of questions. Not same as “rhetorical”.
Well, I’ve read your posts, and I can tell you that it’s PRETTY FUCKING OBVIOUS that you do NOT have a sense of humor.
Yeah, I have that problem with a lot of people. There’s you, and then there’s…ummm…well…you.
BTW, it’s not a rhetorical question if I answer it.
Sure it is. It just proved that you were too dense to recognize a rhetorical question when you saw one. It’s not my fault you answered a question that didn’t require an answer.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – liberals have no effing sense of humor! (Especially when you poke their sacred cows!)
This vs. this. Just sayin’
(I fully admit to having no sense of humor myself)
Actually, Lance – I haven’t…. I can only take so much rabid left-wing insanity before I’m running to the bar or the medicine cabinet….. but I shall
Well, nice to see that you have assessed who I am and all of my opinions without ever taking the time to actually read them. (Hey, H-A! That was ALSO sarcasm!)
You’ve obviously not read much of MY stuff, because I love humor, irony and satire…….. but sadly, I’ve found little here who recognize or appreciate it – I’m actually floundering to stay afloat in Alekxandreia…. shall I I relieve you of your liberal guilt and ‘poof’ like my post poofed? ;-)
Liberal guilt? I don’t even know what you’re talking about here. Where have I displayed such a thing?
oooOOOOooooo <<<< this is me yawning
It also doubles as an excellent evasion tactic!
H-A? Are you taking notes? That was sarcasm as well. See, I don’t REALLY think that…ahh, never mind.
Dilettant…. But I like the fact that you now make a special remark to underline the fact that you made a joke. Clearly, you are going for the quantity.
Well, you’re kinda slow on the uptake, so I have to spell it out like I would to a third grader.