80 days til election
We're now 80 days from the presidential election so it's probably time to start deciding who to vote for. (Yes, I know about the missing objective case, thanks.)
As I see it there are essentially three questions that need to be asked:
1. Is the nation in a good position now? If not, what's the reason?
2. If we're not in a good position, how much of the problem is due to the president's (aided by Democrats in congress) policies?
3. Finally, does it look like choice offered to replace Obama will be any better for the country?
On the first question: I think virtually everyone agrees that unemployment is too high; that *real* unemployment--the number you get if you count the people who have given up looking for work--is roughly twice the official figure, and even higher for minorities; that the federal government is spending SO much money that it has to borrow something like 40 percent of the huge spending; and that the U.S. is still exporting jobs to other countries.
I hope most Americans realize that three-quarters of the jobs in this country are created by private businesses. And equally crucial, that these private-sector jobs are the ONLY jobs that result in a net income to the government. That is, while federal employees do pay federal income tax, they draw six or eight times more salary than they pay in tax, so are a net outflow to the government.
This means if you want to create more net-positive jobs here, the only place to look is to the private sector.
What most Americans *don't* know is that a) only a small percentage of all people have the right mix of skills and imagination to start and successfully run a business; b) small-business owners work a staggering number of hours every week, especially during the early years; c) if government--on any level--makes things too hard on 'em, they'll quit and draw welfare just like regular folks; and d) Obama has made things harder on small businesses.
Obama has also spearheaded the massive ($800 Billion) so-called "stimulus bill." He and his advisors, like Tax-cheat Timmy Geithner, said spending that much on "shovel-ready projects" would stimulate the economy enough to get us out of the recession and bring unemployment down to 5 percent. As you all know, that didn't happen--not even close. And after the money vanished, some high munchkin in the Obozo regime went on the record admitting that they didn't actually have a bunch of "shovel-ready" projects ready to go, so most of the $787 Billion was simply used to pay the salaries of federal, state and local employees in Democrat-run cities.
Wow, that's some real world-class economic thinking there!
Although the president obviously doesn't literally control the economy, there are lots of things he can do, or refrain from doing. As far as I can tell, Obozo has made bad decisions every time. While the blame for these bad decisions may properly rest with underlings and advisors instead of Duh Won, a certain amount of blame properly attaches to the guy who *selected* his advisors and cabinet members.
Now for the last question: Is the alternative likely to be better? I have to say I'm not particularly impressed with Romney's positions on many things, but his pick of Ryan showed he knows where to look for advice and talent. There's a saying that "Nines pick Tens for advisors, while Fives pick Threes." From what I've seen in life that's pretty accurate.
On the merits, looking to the long-term benefits to the nation, the choice should be R&R. Problem is, so many people are now wards of the state, living off the dole and paying no income tax. So they have an overwhelming interest in keeping the Dems in power, since the Dems are far more likely to keep giving massive "freebies" to the non-working folks.
Unfortunately I don't think R&R will have significantly better results in that department, since congress would have to approve any cutbacks--and congresscritters are notoriously unwilling to risk being called "mean." But at least if R&R are elected, businesses may start investing more.
But Obama is holding three aces: First, he's got the media totally on his side, and against R&R. As one media exec said, that's worth 15 percent of the vote right there.
Second, Obama has shown that he's willing to lie outrageously about his opponents, and the media won't expose his lies. That's got to be worth another five percent.
Finally, Obama's union goons have undoubtedly registered half a million illegal aliens who can be counted on to vote for Obie. So R&R have to work some real magic to pull out a win.
Interesting times.
As I see it there are essentially three questions that need to be asked:
1. Is the nation in a good position now? If not, what's the reason?
2. If we're not in a good position, how much of the problem is due to the president's (aided by Democrats in congress) policies?
3. Finally, does it look like choice offered to replace Obama will be any better for the country?
On the first question: I think virtually everyone agrees that unemployment is too high; that *real* unemployment--the number you get if you count the people who have given up looking for work--is roughly twice the official figure, and even higher for minorities; that the federal government is spending SO much money that it has to borrow something like 40 percent of the huge spending; and that the U.S. is still exporting jobs to other countries.
I hope most Americans realize that three-quarters of the jobs in this country are created by private businesses. And equally crucial, that these private-sector jobs are the ONLY jobs that result in a net income to the government. That is, while federal employees do pay federal income tax, they draw six or eight times more salary than they pay in tax, so are a net outflow to the government.
This means if you want to create more net-positive jobs here, the only place to look is to the private sector.
What most Americans *don't* know is that a) only a small percentage of all people have the right mix of skills and imagination to start and successfully run a business; b) small-business owners work a staggering number of hours every week, especially during the early years; c) if government--on any level--makes things too hard on 'em, they'll quit and draw welfare just like regular folks; and d) Obama has made things harder on small businesses.
Obama has also spearheaded the massive ($800 Billion) so-called "stimulus bill." He and his advisors, like Tax-cheat Timmy Geithner, said spending that much on "shovel-ready projects" would stimulate the economy enough to get us out of the recession and bring unemployment down to 5 percent. As you all know, that didn't happen--not even close. And after the money vanished, some high munchkin in the Obozo regime went on the record admitting that they didn't actually have a bunch of "shovel-ready" projects ready to go, so most of the $787 Billion was simply used to pay the salaries of federal, state and local employees in Democrat-run cities.
Wow, that's some real world-class economic thinking there!
Although the president obviously doesn't literally control the economy, there are lots of things he can do, or refrain from doing. As far as I can tell, Obozo has made bad decisions every time. While the blame for these bad decisions may properly rest with underlings and advisors instead of Duh Won, a certain amount of blame properly attaches to the guy who *selected* his advisors and cabinet members.
Now for the last question: Is the alternative likely to be better? I have to say I'm not particularly impressed with Romney's positions on many things, but his pick of Ryan showed he knows where to look for advice and talent. There's a saying that "Nines pick Tens for advisors, while Fives pick Threes." From what I've seen in life that's pretty accurate.
On the merits, looking to the long-term benefits to the nation, the choice should be R&R. Problem is, so many people are now wards of the state, living off the dole and paying no income tax. So they have an overwhelming interest in keeping the Dems in power, since the Dems are far more likely to keep giving massive "freebies" to the non-working folks.
Unfortunately I don't think R&R will have significantly better results in that department, since congress would have to approve any cutbacks--and congresscritters are notoriously unwilling to risk being called "mean." But at least if R&R are elected, businesses may start investing more.
But Obama is holding three aces: First, he's got the media totally on his side, and against R&R. As one media exec said, that's worth 15 percent of the vote right there.
Second, Obama has shown that he's willing to lie outrageously about his opponents, and the media won't expose his lies. That's got to be worth another five percent.
Finally, Obama's union goons have undoubtedly registered half a million illegal aliens who can be counted on to vote for Obie. So R&R have to work some real magic to pull out a win.
Interesting times.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home