SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (325980)9/24/2009 8:11:23 PM
From: D. Long1 Recommendation  Respond to of 793928
 
we citizen consumers are irrational animals and the government is the wise zookeeper

This always misses a premise. If normal citizens are irrational, then the government zoo minders, normal people all, are irrational, too. Therefore, government can do no better than normal citizens.

So, keep government out because it can do no better, and may do worse, than just leaving normal people to their own.



To: LindyBill who wrote (325980)9/25/2009 12:10:50 AM
From: KLP  Respond to of 793928
 
A Canadian ViewPoint on Obama and the G-20 (below) But first....Perhaps Geithner and Obama are artificially making the US credit to dry up, and the Unemployment rates at now double digits? Of course, this would mean that new business can't get a chance to begin, and since existing businesses can't get enough credit, can't hire back employees...

How much of the HUGE American Government spending of the last few years, and the over the top spending this year by Obama and troupe is now the reason that the American economy is in shambles?

I heard Geitner say today that Americans spend too much....So does that mean he and Obama are really causing the financial grief for this country????


Obama calls on G20 to help U.S. rebalance economy
calgaryherald.com.


By Sheldon Alberts, Washington Correspondent, Canwest News ServiceSeptember 24, 2009 8:33 PM



U.S. President Barack Obama and White House trip director Marvin Nicholson arrive at the Phipps Conservatory for an opening reception and working dinner for heads of delegation at the Pittsburgh G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, Pa., Thursday. Obama opened the G20 leaders' summit Thursday by calling for agreement on a framework to dramatically rebalance the global economy.

Photograph by: REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer,

PITTSBURGH — U.S. President Barack Obama opened the G20 leaders’ summit Thursday by calling for agreement on a framework to dramatically rebalance the global economy, hoping to shift the responsibility for prolonged economic recovery off the American consumers and the heavily indebted U.S. government.

The U.S. leader is also expected to announce Friday that the G20 will replace the G8 as the main forum for global economic co-ordination, a U.S. official told reporters on Thursday.
It was unclear what this would mean for Canada’s plans to host the next G8 summit, scheduled to take place in June 2010 in Huntsville, Ont.

A Canadian spokesman said Prime Minister Stephen Harper would hold a joint event on Friday with the president of South Korea. South Korea holds the G20 chair next year and has lobbying to hold a summit.

On Thursday, Obama hosted G20 leaders for a working dinner on the first evening of a two-day summit already highlighted by potential fissures over the White House focus on fixing economic imbalances the U.S. says contributed to the global crisis.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel appeared to balk at the U.S. agenda, and warned G20 leaders that the more urgent need is to more strictly regulate the financial industry, whose near collapse triggered the global economic meltdown a year ago.
“We have to make sure we learn the lessons of the crisis and make sure it is not repeated,” Merkel told reporters. "I have made clear we should not look for other topics and forget about financial market regulation.”

The G20 meeting began against a backdrop of intense security in downtown Pittsburgh, which was cordoned off and under virtual lockdown as leaders made their arrival.

Hundreds of police officers clad in riot gear patrolled the streets Thursday afternoon, occasionally using tear gas to disperse about 2,000 anti-globalization protesters. Coast-guard boats patrolled the Allegheny River below the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, where the leaders will meet Friday.

A local TV station reported that a motorcade carrying the Russian delegation was diverted to avoid Thursday’s demonstrations.

Obama arrived in Pittsburgh seeking a consensus among G20 leaders for “sustainable and balanced growth” in the global economy that puts more onus for increased spending and consumption on nations such as China and Germany, which have huge trade surpluses. In particular, he wants China to expand its own social spending as a way to boost consumer demand for imported products.

The U.S. president is arguing the world can no longer rely on American consumer and government spending to drive economic growth.

“It’s very important that, as we lay a foundation for recovery, we don’t sow the seeds for future crises,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters.

“In the run-up to this crisis, many of the world’s largest economies depended on the American consumer to buy their exports to drive growth, and we made it easy. For too long, Americans were buying too much and saving too little. And that’s no longer an option for us, or for the rest of the world.”

Despite Merkel’s reservations, Geithner told reporters “there’s very strong support” for Obama’s rebalancing proposal.

“Certainly, for the first time in a year, we’re seeing the first signs of optimism about prospects for global recovery,” he said. “This is encouraging, but we have a ways to go.”
The summit marks the third meeting of G20 leaders in less than a year, and follows a commitment in London last April to spur economic recovery through government stimulus.

Now, leaders are exploring “exit strategies” to transition away from stimulus measures amid signs of tentative growth in the world economy. But there is disagreement about how quickly to turn off the taps of government spending, and how dramatically to transform the broader global economy.

“You’ve got Americans in the lead saying, once we recover, we can’t go back to the imbalanced global economy of old,” said John Kirton, director of the G20 Research Centre at the University of Toronto.

“You’ve got China really not wanting to go very far at all on the imbalances, because they think they are target No. 1.”
Last week, Japan’s new government abruptly decided to suspend part of its $169-billion US stimulus program.

Merkel, facing elections in deficit-averse Germany this weekend, is also under pressure to curb government spending.
“There’s some chance that the second- and third-largest economies in the world will be seen to be defecting and rushing to the exits already,” said Kirton. “So getting the Japanese and the Germans to stay the course on stimulus is not a routine thing.”

Harper and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, meantime, have been among the leaders who contend the global economy remains too fragile to begin abandoning stimulus programs.
Earlier this week, Harper said G20 nations need to “make sure that the stimulus measures that have been put in place get fully delivered, and we do see the recovery in the economy that is less fragile, more sustained, more private-sector, investment-driving” growth.

“This has been unprecedented stimulus in its size, in its scope, in its innovative character. So nobody really knows how to exit from it to here,” said Kirton.

The question of bankers’ bonuses is also looming as a major issue at the summit, with Geithner expressing hope that a deal could be struck to rein in compensation for executives at large financial institutions.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy had threatened to walk out of the meeting unless leaders agreed to impose a specific “ceiling” on bankers’ compensation as a way to curb irresponsible risk-taking. The idea of a hard cap on bankers’ bonuses had been rejected by the United States, and leaders are working toward a joint statement that calls more generally for restraints on pay.

Canada has been among several nations advocating for bankers’ pay to be aligned with “prudent risk-taking, or making sure that compensation doesn’t become an incentive to taking too much risk,” said a senior Canadian official. “There’ll be an emphasis on things like deferring bonuses, building in clawbacks if performance deteriorates, and focusing bonuses on things like stock.”

The Canadian official said Harper would also press the case for tighter financial industry regulations, including the need for the world’s banks to be better capitalized.
“An important message the prime minister will deliver is that good progress has been made, but it is going to be very important that we don’t lose the momentum, going forward,” the official said.

Obama also comes to Pittsburgh seeking an agreement to gradually end government subsidies that promote the use of fossil fuels, part of his broader agenda to address global climate change.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service



To: LindyBill who wrote (325980)9/25/2009 2:38:31 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793928
 
Are Democrats Ignorant of Facts or Just Too Arrogant to Care?

From tax increases to gun control to environmentalism, Dems keep pushing policies that adversely affect Americans.


September 22, 2009 - by AWR Hawkins

Through various policies and legislative acts from the Progressive Era to our own day, Democrats have been inextricably linked to burdensome taxation, government expansion, limitations on individual liberties like gun ownership, and most recently environmentalism. In all these things, the Democratic Party goes against the history of free people and travels instead down the path to serfdom and despotism.

Do the Democrats do this incidentally, ignorant of the facts? Or are they so arrogant that they pursue their beloved agenda knowing the costs, yet simultaneously turn a blind eye to them?

Consider President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s response to the Great Depression. Although his fiscal policies were detrimental to prosperity, Democrats praise them.

From the moment FDR was sworn into the presidency in 1933, his solution for the Great Depression was characterized by high taxation.
And while many of these taxes were on personal income, in a clear attempt to “soak the rich,” all were not. In fact, his tax hikes were so broad and varied that he actually “tripled taxes during the Great Depression, from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940.”

Just take a look at how the top income tax rate was raised beginning in 1932. No wonder it took WWII to lift the economy out of depression.

mjperry.blogspot.com


Tax increases at such astronomic levels were largely the result of various excise taxes, which FDR “levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, and radios, [among other things].” We don’t have to be economists (or senators and congressmen) to understand that while taxes like these may have indeed soaked the rich, they did so at the expense of drenching the middle and lower classes as well.

Such tax policies dried up the coffers of many employers and forced them to forgo adding personnel to payrolls, as demonstrated by the fact that unemployment “averaged 17%” throughout the 1930s. This detrimental effect aside, President Obama and the Democrat leadership cannot wait to implement similar tax policies during the current economic downturn. Just months ago, in July 2009, Obama talked about his openness to “sin taxes,” which would include taxes on soft drinks and many of the other things FDR placed excise taxes upon.

Historically speaking, higher taxes lead to larger governments, which in turn tend toward larger deficits. So with Obama’s tax proposals in mind, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 2008’s national deficit of just over 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) will grow to 11.4% of GDP by the end of 2009. This means part of Obama’s solution to our current economic downturn includes driving us deeper and deeper into debt nationally. It’s like FDR all over again.

In addition to repeating and renewing financial woes, Democrats have been relentless in their efforts to restrict personal liberties like gun ownership during the last four decades. In 1968 they passed the Gun Control Act. During the 1970s they were able to achieve complete handgun bans in certain cities or districts. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed in 1993 and was quickly followed by the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Then, in 1996, Democrat Senator Frank Lautenberg’s amendment to broaden the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, and the push for further restrictions has only increased in the 21st century.

Yet if history teaches us anything, it’s that gun control only controls law-abiding citizens: criminals will not relent from carrying and using guns because they are by nature hostile to the very laws that make carrying and using guns illegal. This much has been demonstrated in Europe and Australia, where gun bans emboldened criminals who appreciate the fact that their victims can’t fire back.

After Britain banned handguns in 1996, the four years that followed witnessed a 40% rise in gun crimes. And in Australia, where they not only banned guns in 1996 but also made it “a crime to use a gun defensively,” “armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, … kidnappings by 43%, [and] manslaughter rose by 16%.”

Yet in 2003, Obama, while an Illinois state senator, not only opposed the right to private gun ownership but also supported an Australian-like ban on the use of guns for self-defense.

And this brings us to the Democrats’ ongoing push for environmental agreements like the Kyoto Protocols. Availing themselves of scare tactics like Bill Clinton’s 2002 prediction that “New York City is going to be underwater from global warming … in 50 years [if we don’t do something],” Democrats energetically seek to stifle technological advancement in order to save the planet — as if our wealth is the planet’s curse. Yet Vaclav Klaus, current president of the Czech Republic who lived through the Soviet Union’s domination of Czechoslovakia during the Cold War, knows firsthand “that the higher the wealth of society is, the higher [too] is the quality of the environment.” And he warns that the current environmental hysteria is but communism repackaged: “This ideology preaches Earth and nature, and under the slogans of their protection — similarly to the old Marxists — wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of … global … planning of the whole world.”

But in the face of Klaus’ warnings, Obama continues pressing for a cap-and-trade system that will charge such an exorbitant “sum for greenhouse gas” emissions that it will make coal-burning power plants too expensive to build, which will in turn make electricity more scarce and more expensive, thus forcing us to adopt green habits in order to survive.

We can only conclude that Democrats who support high taxation, larger government, gun control, and rabid environmentalism are either ignorant or arrogant. If ignorant, their liberalism is lamentable but it can be overlooked. If arrogant, their liberalism is unforgivable, for it is practiced to the peril of their own countrymen.

pajamasmedia.com