Here is the link to satisfy all you intellectually curious minds. NOT! LOL!

http://goo.gl/GV0PW

Obama Looking Like Job Killer In Chief

Great article by Peter Schiff.

The absurdity of the current environment reached a peak when the DOJ, and agents from, get this, the U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service, raided the Nashville factory of the legendary Gibson Guitar company. The raid resulted in agents carting off more than a half million dollars of supplies and essentially shutting the company down. The take down of one of America’s commercial icons apparently resulted from Gibson’s purchase of partially finished ebony and rosewood guitar fingerboards (these endangered trees are carefully managed) from an Indian supplier.

Now here’s the interesting part. The Indian government had issued no complaint about the transactions and there was no evidence that the company had violated U.S. law. The DOJ acted simply on suspicion that Gibson had violated Indian law. Since when do U.S. companies have to make sure that they comply with laws of every country in the world before they produce a product?

After speaking to him, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the stunning economic incompetence of our government officials, who in the cause of arbitrary regulatory nitpicking, seem willing to sacrifice the reputation and prospects of one of the few remaining American manufacturers. God help us all.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/09/02/obama-looking-like-job-killer-in-chief/

now... TC has me muted, so if you all would like to run an experiment with me....

If you like, we could just not respond at all, and see how in depth TC's argument with himself goes. At some point, he'll contradict himself, and thus, by his own logic, be forced to call himself a stupid kowtowing liberal fool.

But Yellowjacket, he doesn't have you muted, he's just pretending to. What kind of troll would mute his victims? He's just not responding to you to gain increased comic return.

I thought he had me muted for a while, but he slipped up and responded to me on another topic the next week.

Absolutely right Tettie! We need to scrap government entirely, and switch to rule entirely by big corp. They're the only ones that know how to properly run anything!

I mean, what has government EVER done for us, all they are are vile leeches on society, and THEY MUST BE STOPPED!

You nad me together TETTIE, btothers in arms!

That's the scary thing, TC isn't a troll, he actually believes the garbage he spews out.

Anarchist much?

Anyways, what good is economic freedom if Obama raises taxes so high that we run out of money...

Tettie doesn't spew out garbage! YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

He only speaks TRUTH. HE'S FIGHTING THE POWER.

bah, TC just wants to bring us all back to 1955... Vote McCarthy all!

No, he's taking us into the future... to 2055!

Tettie is the man to lead us forward!

lol DonQuigleone must have lost a bet :P

I see 12 replies in this thread and I can't see one of the them. Oh how the helpless can't get off that road.

Maybe this will help.

Great article from the Wall Street Journal by Stephen Moore
Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics
One program for recovery worked, and the other hasn't.

If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat, compare Barack Obama's economic performance after 30 months in office with that of Ronald Reagan. It's not at all flattering for Mr. Obama.

The two presidents have a lot in common. Both inherited an American economy in collapse. And both applied daring, expensive remedies. Mr. Reagan passed the biggest tax cut ever, combined with an agenda of deregulation, monetary restraint and spending controls. Mr. Obama, of course, has given us a $1 trillion spending stimulus.

By the end of the summer of Reagan's third year in office, the economy was soaring. The GDP growth rate was 5% and racing toward 7%, even 8% growth. In 1983 and '84 output was growing so fast the biggest worry was that the economy would "overheat." In the summer of 2011 we have an economy limping along at barely 1% growth and by some indications headed toward a "double-dip" recession. By the end of Reagan's first term, it was Morning in America. Today there is gloomy talk of America in its twilight.

http://goo.gl/xNdpY

I love his opening line, "If you really want to light the fuse of a liberal Democrat...." LOL!
Is there anything funner to watch than a liberal Democrat running around like a chicken with their head cut off insisting that electing Rick Perry will ruin the country while completely ignoring the Democrats destruction of the housing market with Fannie, Freddie, and the Community Reinvestment Act, and Obama's abject failure.

Ok, TC said he muted everyone in this thread, bar himself. Check if he's lying, send him a PM.

Another great article on government run amok and producing economic calamity.

California's dominant ruling class—consisting of public-employee unions, green jihadis, and Democratic machine politicians—has no real use for science as Gilman saw it: as a way to create prosperity for its citizens. Instead, the prevailing credo of the state has been how to do everything possible to return to its pre-settlement condition, with little regard for what that means to the average Californian.

California agriculture is being systematically cut down by regulation. In an attempt to protect a small fish called the Delta smelt, upward of 200,000 acres of prime farmland have been idled, according to the state's Department of Conservation. Even in the current "wet" cycle, California's agricultural industry, which exports roughly $14 billion annually, is slowly being decimated. Unemployment in some Central Valley towns tops 30 percent, and in cases even 40 percent.

And now, notes my friend, Salinas Mayor Dennis Donohue, green regulators are imposing new groundwater regulations that may force the shutdown of production even in areas like his that have their own ample water supplies.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/002415-the-golden-state-is-crumbling\

You can show the ignorant fools on this board the facts, but you can't pull their heads out of their asses.
I won't be guilty of not posting the facts in the hopes that one ignorant fool will pull his head out of his ass and learn the truth.

CEOs to Obama: 'Get Out of the Way' for Job Growth
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44409176

John Schiller, chairman and CEO of Energy XXI, said "if the government would get out of the way, from a regulation standpoint, and let us [XXI] do what we do good you'll see us continue to hire and grow this economy." "I think that's a message from across the board," said Schiller.

I

The United States Government has a well intentioned program, the National School Lunch Program.
The problem is, as your grandmother told you "the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

It turns out the government programs for healthy eating are associated with increased childhood obesity.
So basically we are wasting tens of millions in tax dollars employing hundreds of federal bureaucrats and the sum of all of this government spending is achieving nothing. Kids who don't participate in the program don't have higher rates of obesity than kids that do.

So why not get rid of the program because parents seem to be producing results on their own that government can't improve on, and if we end the program we won't waste the tens of millions accomplishing NOTHING! ]

Here are the abstracts of the two studies

Benjamin Campbell et al.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, July 2011, Pages 1099-1130

Abstract: The National School Lunch Program’s effect on children’s diets has been
extensively studied. Results have tended to be inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of the program. Utilizing more specific treatment groups, we find that participants in the National School Lunch Program do not consume a higher-quality diet at lunch than children choosing not to participate, even though the program is offered — but rather consume a higher quantity of foods while consuming similar amounts at other meals. Furthermore, children attending schools not participating in the National School Lunch Program have dietary outcomes that are not significantly different from program participants.

Abstract: In this paper, we study the impact of child care subsidy receipt on low- income children’s weight outcomes in the fall and spring of kindergarten using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort. Our results suggest that subsidy receipt is associated with increases in BMI and a greater likelihood of being overweight and obese. Using quantile regression methods, we find substantial variation in subsidy effects across the BMI distribution. Specifically, child care subsidies have no effect on BMI at the lower end of the distribution, inconsistent effects in the middle of the distribution, and large effects at the top of the distribution. Our results point to the use of non-parental child care, particularly center-based services, as the key mechanism through which subsidies influence children’s weight outcomes.

This reminds me of that "Tettleton's corner" topic. Where TC basically talked to himself extensively.

Greg Mankiw has an article in of all places the NY Times that explains how lack of business investment is what is killing the economy.

The most volatile component of G.D.P. over the business cycle is spending on investment goods. This spending category includes equipment, software, inventory accumulation, and residential and nonresidential construction. And the recent economic downturn offers this case in point about the problem: From the economy’s peak in the fourth quarter of 2007 to the recession’s official end, G.D.P. fell by only 5.1 percent, while investment spending fell by a whopping 34 percent.

One obvious step would be a cut in the taxation of income from corporate capital. According to a 2008 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Corporate taxes are found to be most harmful for growth.” Tax reform that reduced the burden on capital income and shifted it toward consumption would improve prospects for long-run growth and, in so doing, encourage greater investment today.

For example, passing the free trade agreement with South Korea, which has languished in Congress more than four years after first being negotiated, would be a step in the right direction. So would reining in the National Labor Relations Board; its decision to block Boeing from opening a nonunion plant in South Carolina may have been hailed by organized labor, but it surely did not hearten investors.

So cut the corporate tax rate, get the NLRB out of the way, and increase free trade and jobs growth will result.

Of course Obama is doing none of the three.
We will simply vote him out of office in 2012 and then get jobs growth going.

Heard a great NPR piece today on California's problems with accidents among young drivers.
The state has instituted such onerous regulations for 16 year-olds to drive that accidents have fallen dramatically for the 16-17 year old age group. Mainly because the number of 16-17 year olds learning to drive has plummeted from 33% to 14%.

So what is the result,. Accidents among 18 year olds have increased dramatically because kids are not waiting until 18 to drive because they don't have to comply with onerous regulations that 16-17 year olds do.

So of course the colossal idiots in Sacramento are talking about onerous regulations for 18 year olds. What total idiots.

I think some of the California legislators are member of web diplomacy because there are a lot of total idiots on these threads just like them.

It is sad how little big government advocates understand about economics.

Take health care for example. Big government advocates focus almost completely on delivering health care at little or no cost to the individual consumer like Medicare does for seniors.

They completely ignore the fact that Medicare and Medicaid are going bankrupt at an ever accelerating rate because there is no efficiency in these systems and grotesque amounts of waste and corruption. .

Businessmen on the other hand realize that reducing costs is the key to any economic transaction.

To reduce costs in medicine each individual consumer needs to get a plan with a high deductible and the ability to deposit money in a health savings account that rolls over from year to year.

With this policy mix individual consumers will know the exact price of the medical services they use and they will use them efficiently because of this knowledge, and corruption will become much more difficult as individual consumers are protecting their own money.

Under the current policy mix there is no degree of control to promote efficient use or prevent over consumption.



Once you hit a $2500 dollar threshold each year then a level I co-pay kicks in that is substantial up to $5,000 total dollars.

The co-pays reinforce the efficiency gained during the expenditure of the first $2,500.

Once the $5,000 threshold is reached a catastrophic benefit can kick in with substantially lower co-pays and payment caps.



Since a family of three already shells out $1,500 a month for private insurance this type of play represents substantial savings for the family since the monthly premiums fall to $500 a month for the catastrophic coverage with high deductible.

The family pays substantially less under the high deductible plan than the massive $18,000 outlay they have under an insurance plan.



Of course being ignorant of basic microeconomics is a prerequisite for being an advocate of big government because anyone with an understanding of microeconomic situations like single family insurance is far beyond the Keynesian macroeconomics that is the limit of big government advocates understanding.



Those big government advocates propose policies like Obamacares mandate that certain procedures be supplied “free.”

What kind of adult other than a total idiot (synonymous with big government advocate) believes that anything is “free.”

When I hear or read the President of the United States making these statements it just makes your jaw drop at how ignorant Obama is about basic economics.

Great Quote from UCLA Economic Department Chairman Roger E. A. Farmer
Keynesian economists in the Obama administration and their supporters in academia and in the media have not provided an internally consistent theory that explains why the free market fails to deliver full employment.

Keynes’s book, The General Theory, did not provide such a theory. The book is difficult to read, internally incoherent, and inconsistent with a body of economic theory that has been widely accepted for at least 200 years. More important, it is inconsistent with the existence of the stagflation that we observed in the 1970s.

"I thought he had me muted for a while, but he slipped up and responded to me on another topic the next week."
link?

What one of the muted Sheep is crying for attention Fasces? I have so many marxists mute and morons like Santa Claus I can even begin to figure out.

He is claiming that you haven't muted him. So I want him to provide evidence of this.

Well whoever it is I have.

Ok Tettleton, i've been skimming over the forum lately and frequently see threads made by you, mostly politics. I have no problem with that, a topic that you are generally interested in and that effects a lot of people's lives. Unfortunatly I don't take the time to read of them, because quite frankly there is a lot of them. I have also noticed that not very many OTHER people respond with anything related to what you post, unfortunately. But you keep posting new articles that you find with a short summary. I was wondering why you do this? If other people don't even participate in the conversation, why are you talking to yourself?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not offended by what you post, just not seeing the point.

http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/10060286.jpg

The Market relies on firms.
The Government relies on Czars (unelected government officials with enormous powers that are not even confirmed by the Senate.)

Richard Holbrooke AfghanistanCzar
Ed Montgomery Auto recovery Czar
Jeffrey Crowley AIDS Czar
Alan Bersin Border Czar
David J. Hayes California Water Czar
Ron Bloom Car Czar
Dennis Ross Central Region Czar (Central Region as in Mid East)
Lynn Rosenthal Domestic Violence Czar

I'd list more right now, but why depress you so much in one post.

Really! So CEOs, chairmen, directors and so on are elected? By everyone who their business affects, not just shareholders who are rich enough to have an important stake in the company? My God, it is as if a new world has been opened to me.