From The Hill:
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) expressed doubt on Sunday that President Obama can provide any viable economic policies to create jobs and gain bipartisan support.
“Frankly I am so tired of his speeches, it's going to be hard for me to watch,” said DeMint on CNN’s State of the...
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/179485-demint-obama-speech-going-to-be-hard-for-me-to-watch
Monday, September 5, 2011
Krugman's Delusion: The Past Year Proves Cutting Spending Doesn't Create Jobs
Krugman's Delusion: The Past Year Proves Cutting Spending Doesn't Create Jobs
Krugman's Delusion: The Past Year Proves Cutting Spending Doesn't Create Jobs
By Noel Sheppard | September 05, 2011 | 10:31
Exactly what country does New York Times columnist Paul Krugman actually reside in?
Before you answer, consider the following sentence from his article Monday:
Although you'd never know it listening to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty good test of the theory that slashing government spending actually creates jobs.
For the past year to be a good test of this theory, there would have needed to be a slash to government spending, right?
Was this the case?
Hardly.
In fiscal 2010, total federal outlays were $3.72 trillion. In fiscal 2011 which ends September 30, we're projected to spend $3.83 trillion. That's a $111 billion increase.
Yet this Nobel laureate in economics thinks government spending was slashed.
In reality, since the last time such outlays declined year over year was 1965, we should really be testing Krugman, Obama, and the Democrats' theory that dramatic increases in government spending creates jobs.
Democrats have been radically increasing outlays since they took over Congress in 2007. During this time, as spending rose by 41 percent, the economy lost roughly seven million jobs sending unemployment skyrocketing from 4.4 percent to 9.1 percent.
If Krugman wasn't delusional, the above referenced sentence from his Monday column would read, "Although you'd never know it listening to the ranters like Barack Obama, the Democrats, Robert Reich, and me, the past four years have actually been a fabulous test of the theory that exploding government spending actually creates jobs.
Isn't that really the only conclusion that one could draw given what's happened since this recent Keynesian experiment began in 2007?
Of course, it's unfair to expect this Nobel laureate in economics to make such an obvious determination.
He thinks a $111 billion increase in spending is a slash.
Krugman's Delusion: The Past Year Proves Cutting Spending Doesn't Create Jobs
By Noel Sheppard | September 05, 2011 | 10:31
Exactly what country does New York Times columnist Paul Krugman actually reside in?
Before you answer, consider the following sentence from his article Monday:
Although you'd never know it listening to the ranters, the past year has actually been a pretty good test of the theory that slashing government spending actually creates jobs.
For the past year to be a good test of this theory, there would have needed to be a slash to government spending, right?
Was this the case?
Hardly.
In fiscal 2010, total federal outlays were $3.72 trillion. In fiscal 2011 which ends September 30, we're projected to spend $3.83 trillion. That's a $111 billion increase.
Yet this Nobel laureate in economics thinks government spending was slashed.
In reality, since the last time such outlays declined year over year was 1965, we should really be testing Krugman, Obama, and the Democrats' theory that dramatic increases in government spending creates jobs.
Democrats have been radically increasing outlays since they took over Congress in 2007. During this time, as spending rose by 41 percent, the economy lost roughly seven million jobs sending unemployment skyrocketing from 4.4 percent to 9.1 percent.
If Krugman wasn't delusional, the above referenced sentence from his Monday column would read, "Although you'd never know it listening to the ranters like Barack Obama, the Democrats, Robert Reich, and me, the past four years have actually been a fabulous test of the theory that exploding government spending actually creates jobs.
Isn't that really the only conclusion that one could draw given what's happened since this recent Keynesian experiment began in 2007?
Of course, it's unfair to expect this Nobel laureate in economics to make such an obvious determination.
He thinks a $111 billion increase in spending is a slash.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
So What's So Great About Universal Healthcare?
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist
who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U..S. 12%
England 02%
Canada 06%
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist
who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U..S. 12%
England 02%
Canada 06%
Interesting Statistic About Our Incompetent President!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.
Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt................... 38%
Taft............................... 40%
Wilson .......................... 52%
Harding......................... 49%
Coolidge....................... 48%
Hoover ......................... 42%
F. Roosevelt...................50%
Truman......................... 50%
Johnson........................ 47%
Nixon............................ 53%
Ford............................. 42%
Carter........................... 32%
Reagan..........................86%
GH Bush....................... 51%
Clinton .......................... 39%
GW Bush...................... 55%
And the winner is:
Obama................... 08%
This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in a job not supported by tax money!
That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to runtheir business? They know what's best for GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, and you and me?
How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.
Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt................... 38%
Taft............................... 40%
Wilson .......................... 52%
Harding......................... 49%
Coolidge....................... 48%
Hoover ......................... 42%
F. Roosevelt...................50%
Truman......................... 50%
Johnson........................ 47%
Nixon............................ 53%
Ford............................. 42%
Carter........................... 32%
Reagan..........................86%
GH Bush....................... 51%
Clinton .......................... 39%
GW Bush...................... 55%
And the winner is:
Obama................... 08%
This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in a job not supported by tax money!
That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to runtheir business? They know what's best for GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, and you and me?
How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Today's Conservative Quote
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents 'interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Barry Goldwater
Barry Goldwater
Let Everyone "Pay Their Fair Share"!
Of 140 million tax returns filed in for 2009, 82 million filers paid 100% of income taxes while 58 million paid $0. If we want 'everyone to pay their fair share' perhaps we should adjust our gaze!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)