CBS's Smith: How Can Government 'Unleash the Economy And Not Spend Any Money'?
On Thursday's CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith saw Republican goals to limit government spending as antithetical to improving the economy: "How do you unleash the economy and not spend any money, oh, by the way, because that's the other mandate, is don't increase the deficit and don't – don't – 'I don't want one more cent of tax on me.'"
Smith put the question to Time magazine Washington deputy bureau chief Michael Crowley, who was equally skeptical: "I think it may be impossible, frankly. What Democrats would like to do is they would say you actually have to spend more money, have the government put money into the economy to get it moving again." He warned against conservative policies: "Republicans say we're spending too much, maybe cut taxes, but tax cuts aren't free, either, tax cuts increase the deficit. Maybe you could loosen regulations but you saw what happened on Wall Street when things were deregulated. It's really not as simple at this point as doing any of those things without taking a big risk that comes along with it."
Smith began the segment by asking Crowley about President Obama's post-election press conference: "...he looked beaten, unbowed, perhaps, chagrined would be another word to describe it. But, the other question that I think some people would still be asking this morning is, does he get it? Do you think he gets it?" Crowley explained:
I heard in Obama's words there yesterday a lot of 'I inherited an economic mess, people are hurting for reasons that are not my own fault, and I'm not going to go back and revisit my big policy decisions like health care' and really a suggestion that Republicans have been standing in his way and that's the bigger problem. So, if you mean by get it, is he about to turn on a dime and change his policies, I'm not sure that's what you should expect.
Smith remarked: "I love that analysis." He then turned to his other guest, Republican strategist Kevin Madden, with the same question. Madden argued: "I saw a president who for the last two years has been very good at the pageantry of bipartisanship. He's been very good at the rhetoric of centrism and bipartisanship but when it comes to actions, has failed....what he's done is spent the last two years in a very partisan manner."
At the end of the segment, Smith asked Madden about what kind of Speaker of the House John Boehner would be: "You worked for him. A lot of people are saying was this '94 all over again, is he Newt Gingrich II? Explain the difference." Madden replied: "...what you have to remember about John and what's made him a great Republican leader and what's going to make him a great speaker, is that first and foremost, he is a very good listener. He's going to listen across his Republican conference, but most importantly, he's going to listen across the whole House of Representatives and recognize what the will of that body is."
Here is a full transcript of the November 4 segment:
7:06AM ET
HARRY SMITH: Here now to talk more about what comes next is Michael Crowley, deputy Washington bureau chief for Time magazine and in Washington this morning, Republican strategist Kevin Madden, a former press secretary to Congressman John Boehner. Good morning to you both.
KEVIN MADDEN: Good morning, Harry.
MICHAEL CROWLEY: Good morning, Harry.
SMITH: Alright, my question to you, Michael, to start with. We watched this press conference yesterday with President Obama and at some points, he looked beaten, unbowed, perhaps, chagrined would be another word to describe it. But, the other question that I think some people would still be asking this morning is, does he get it? Do you think he gets it?
MICHAEL CROWLEY: I think he gets how serious this is, how upset the public is. But, I'm not sure he's prepared to really dramatically change his direction. I mean, this is the big open question. Bill Clinton, when he went through a similar shellacking in 1994 wound up moving to the center, really upsetting a lot of liberal Democrats, finding common ground with Republicans on things like welfare reform. I heard in Obama's words there yesterday a lot of 'I inherited an economic mess, people are hurting for reasons that are not my own fault, and I'm not going to go back and revisit my big policy decisions like health care' and really a suggestion that Republicans have been standing in his way and that's the bigger problem. So, if you mean by get it, is he about to turn on a dime and change his policies, I'm not sure that's what you should expect.
SMITH: That's – okay, this is – I love that analysis. Kevin Madden, as you watched yesterday, what did you see? Did you see the same thing?
KEVIN MADDEN: I did. Look, I saw a president who for the last two years has been very good at the pageantry of bipartisanship. He's been very good at the rhetoric of centrism and bipartisanship but when it comes to actions, has failed. He has not really gone out there and tried to work with Republicans or sought bipartisan compromise. Instead, what he's done is spent the last two years in a very partisan manner, taking it directly at fighting the Republicans. And I think, also, he very directly went over the will of the American public and that was his biggest mistake. And if you look at the way John Boehner has accepted these election results, he's talked about listening to the American public and bringing the House of Representatives closer to the will of the public. And I think that is going be an interesting dynamic to watch because John Boehner clearly gets it. President Obama, it's not clear yet.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Political Power Shift; Can Anything Get Done in Split Congress?]
SMITH: Here's what's interesting, because if anything happens from this election, was this notion that it's got to be about the economy, it's got to be about job creation.
CROWLEY: Right.
SMITH: How do you do that? How do you unleash the economy and not spend any money, oh, by the way, because that's the other mandate, is don't increase the deficit and don't – don't – 'I don't want one more cent of tax on me.'
CROWLEY: Well, I think it may be impossible, frankly. What Democrats would like to do is they would say you actually have to spend more money, have the government put money into the economy to get it moving again. Republicans say we're spending too much, maybe cut taxes, but tax cuts aren't free, either, tax cuts increase the deficit. Maybe you could loosen regulations but you saw what happened on Wall Street when things were deregulated. It's really not as simple at this point as doing any of those things without taking a big risk that comes along with it. One other note I would just say, the reason the stories in the papers today about how Republicans set out party of no to stop Obama's agenda, I think the non-bipartisanship was what two-way process. I respect Kevin but I think it came from the Republicans as well.
SMITH: And Kevin, last but not least, a lot of people – John Boehner is just now really coming on the national radar screen. You worked for him. A lot of people are saying was this '94 all over again, is he Newt Gingrich II? Explain the difference.
MADDEN: Well, I think, you know, what you have to remember about John and what's made him a great Republican leader and what's going to make him a great speaker, is that first and foremost, he is a very good listener. He's going to listen across his Republican conference, but most importantly, he's going to listen across the whole House of Representatives and recognize what the will of that body is. And again, when he says he wants to bring it closer to the American public, I think that that means that he recognizes that there are pockets in this country that haven't supported Republicans but do care about the big issues and that in order to get votes and provide – and push legislation that is going to have public support, that he has to listen to everybody.
SMITH: Alright. Kevin, thank you very much. Michael, do appreciate it. We shall see.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
You "unleash" the economy
Submitted by johnsonl on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:45pm.
by cutting taxes and government regulation of businesses. There is never any need by the federal government to spend money to bolster the economy. Our economy is based on free markets. FREE being the operative word. FREE, as in unsaddled by regulation. Cutting taxes FREES up money for investment in new business opportunities. Less regulation means that businesses have more options in how they grow and prosper.
Take an economics class. I did.
free enterprise
Submitted by m1xram on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 8:04pm.
Progressive don't understand free enterprise and freedom. They're more into socialism and slavery.
The opposite of Left is Freedom.
I think Smith's brain cells
Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:56pm.
I think Smith's brain cells are as abundant as his hair follicles.
“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
they don't get it
Submitted by goldbough on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:59pm.
They don't get it! The government should not own the economy, therefore, no money to stimulate it. It's such a simple understanding, but they don't get it. All money spent by the government is taken from the people, so how can it pump up the economy when people have less? There's a big push to end dependence on foreign oil, but the feds are just fine with depending on foreign money to borrow from.
Well...
Submitted by retrocon on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:01pm.
It's very understandable that anyone, well, anyone with an IQ in the low double digits, could have trouble understanding basic economic concepts, even those as simple as free-market capitalism.
So, in the name of tolerance, let's cut Harry some slack.
Wayne's World: "looks like
Submitted by Edhenry on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:31pm.
Wayne's World:
"looks like two chimps on a davenport"
(No offense to chimps)
The only way to unleash the
Submitted by robert108 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:05pm.
The only way to unleash the economy is to stop trying to control economic outcomes.
Cutting taxes is the answer
Submitted by nkviking75 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:06pm.
The first thing I learned in my college Macroeconomics class is that if governments keep raising taxes, eventually there comes a point where an increase in the rate leads to a decrease in the amount of revenue produced. Taxpayers react to high taxes in a myriad of ways, from sheltering income to moving to an area with lower taxes to cutting back employees, etc., etc., etc. That's why Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all set off economic expansion by cutting taxes.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
So simple, yet...
Submitted by jimbo297 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:14pm.
...these folks in charge are educated beyond their intelligence. In my macro 101 class, I learned that the 3 things you wouldn't want to do in a recession are: raise taxes, borrow money, and print money. Obummer must've had his nose buried in his sociology/victimology 404 textbook.
Sorry Jimbo
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:30pm.
I don't think Obama ever took an economics class.
I, however, did. Quite a few, actually. I believe I can dumb it down to the point that even BHO and Harriet can understand the point.
I need a hammers.
I give the government, and a private company, $500 in order to procure my hammers.
How many hammers do I get?
1 from the government, and 100 from the private sector.
The moral of the story, Harry & Barry, is that private citizens and companies are far more competent at getting bang for the buck than any government could possibly be. It's called the profit motive.
Now, for the cluebat, Barry & Harry. Kindly name one, and only one, government program that runs as efficiently as a private concern.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde there are some
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 4:06pm.
Blonde there are some programs that are run more efficiently considering the circumstances. the military is run as efficiently as possible and we dont want a private military. A private military would not have the loyalty and patriotism we have now.
So sometimes it is not about efficiency. Medicare does run fairly effiecent for the services it provides and teh sector of people it provides them for. Medical insurance for seniors would be prohibitive yet the feds provide it. There are other services provided that are needed to be controlled by the government.
Not Really, Dan
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 4:15pm.
Military procurement is the model of government inefficiency. Massive cost overruns, weapons systems (funded and defunded) as political payback, rather than on actual military needs, I could go on and on. We can get specific if you'd like.
Of course, my criticism has absolutely zero to do with the men and women in the Armed Forces. I agree that we wouldn't want a private military...but that wasn't my point.
Medicare is rife with fraud. The government loses billions of dollars to waste and fraud, and pooh-poohs these losses as a cost of doing business. Hogwash!
There isn't one thing the government does better than private industry does. The post office and the railroads should have been sold off years ago...but remain a government welfare program because of the unions. It's nonsensical.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
too true blonde
Submitted by wizardjr on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 5:22pm.
Medicare is inept, underfunded, and a thief. Government fiat pricing for medical services for old folks is way under market. So those of us that pay taxes and have private health insurance pay twice over for old farts - once in direct taxation and once in higher insurance costs as our prices are higher to make up for the discounted medicare payments.
Of course the entire medical services industry is a study in government interferrence causing price dislocations. First off is all the mandates. Without them we could get a menu of choices and pay accordingly. But that won't do for the ruling class. They have forced the industry to provide insurance that would have been considered top price services back forty years ago. No wonder it costs so much.
The other side of that story is the whining and snivelling class crying that someone has better coverage. Of course the better coverage cost more but morons don't care. "It's not fair." Then the kleptocrats move in and force the mandates and we all pay for the deadheads. That's getting really, really old.
Ok, my point is these are two
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 1:06am.
Ok, my point is these are two programs that would not work out well in private hands. medicare is rife with fraaud but only because teh watchers dont care. If these programs were private it would be prohibitively expensive for most. The only reason it is not is because teh government funds it. I point to life insurance and how expensive it is as one gtes older, same with medical insurance.
And some programs have consideration of more than cost.
Full disclosure I worked for the City of dallas for 29 years and it gives me my perspective of cost of a program is only the tip of the iceburg. Case study - the city privatized garbage pickup, made a poor deal. so forward three years later the citizens are not happy and the company having worn out teh equipment given them by teh city asks for 2 times more money.
LOL, Dan
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 1:22am.
Full disclosure for me too. I worked for Waste Management, I know how much a city spends vs. what we spend to do the same work. Intimately, because we took over a large city's service when they decided it was too expensive to do any longer. Their cost was twice what ours was, even factoring in brand new equipment to take it over. It was absurd. They were so management heavy it wasn't even funny, their worker costs were exorbinant (and overstaffed for the routes), and their maintenance was insane (which is why we refused to take their equipment with the contract).
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Military procurement is by committee, and usually results in a camel....i.e. the Bradley infantry vehicle. As for Medicare, it could be funded by the government with administration (for a set fee) by private industry. If "someone" had to pay for the fraud (other than the taxpayers)....you can bet the fraud would go down.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
"Military procurement" is one
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 8:27am.
"Military procurement" is one thing but how the actual people in the military overcome such ineptness by bureaucrats shows that such incompetence can be defeated by qualified and motivated people. That's just one of the many ways our military shines IMHO.
This is the problem with
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:06pm.
This is the problem with people like Smith. It's a one view circle jerk.
You see Harry, what you are talking about is an economic theory proposed by the British economist, the late John Maynard Keynes. INCREASED GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
There are, of course, lots of economists who DO NOT AGREE with Keynes. Like the late American economist Milton Friedman.
so.. to have a balanced discussion of enlightenment, you may care to have on someone who DISAGREES with your basic premise.
But now, you prefer to keep your audience in ignorance of the competing theories.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
And Women eat it up, that is liberalism.
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:44pm.
Any group that puts themselves into a victim box eat this nonsense up. That is why the liberal media, press, Holleyweed are all dangerous to our society. They preach these anti-colonial teachings that businesses & profit are bad. That the "rich" steal from the poor workers.
Women voted more conservative this time, don't recall the number, but voted way, way more liberal than men. We need to target women & minorities with the truth; they never get to hear it watching the networks & NPR.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Cut taxes without adding to the defecit. Here's how:
Submitted by jimbo297 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:08pm.
CUT SPENDING!
What is so freaking hard to understand here? Obowma could save $1 billion today--cancel his little jaunt to Mumbai. There's a billion dollars that the govt doesnt need from taxpayers, and the defecit wouldn't go up because the money wasn't needed in the first place.
So sick of the straw man defecit/tax cut argument
Just pass a law - that'll solve the problem
Submitted by JakeMo on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:10pm.
Hell Smitty, why send the money to the government first? That just wastes time.
Since Obamacare claims the government can legally force people to spend money on insurance, why stop there? Let's pass a law that everybody has to spend all their money immediately after getting it.
That should really unleash the economy.
(I can just imagine their little hamster brains working furiously to figure out if my idea is genius or sarcasm)
Oh......my....gawd.
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:11pm.
That has got to be the dumbest question I've ever seen, but coming from Harriet, I'm not surprised. Not surprising either is the response from this numbskull he was talking to. "tax cuts increase the deficit." Really! I thought it was government spending that does that!
The more government there is, the more it destroys the economy. Saying the government has to jump start the economy is like trying to revive a man who's long dead and embalmed while trying to revive him with the shock paddles.
It's just ridiculous. But so are those fools.
-Jon
It's worse than trying to revive a dead man...
Submitted by jimbo297 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:30pm.
...it's like a doctor trying to cure a sick man by injecting poison into his veins.
The truly scary part for me is the realization that the government can have an entitlement mindset-and right now the liberals most definitely feel that tax cuts "cost" the govt the money they're entitled to.
Taxation...representation...something-something...what were those guys in the wigs talking about again?
Duh...
Submitted by tampamom25 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:19pm.
Cut taxes and regulation, you big dummies! You don't stimulate the economy by taxing the people and regulating businesses any more than you balance a checkbook by spending more money. There's barely a brain cell in that group....
What is the "Economy"?
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:20pm.
Liberals love media commentators like Smith because he is a usefull idiot. He's ignorant as to what comprises the economy. The economy is comprised of the total amount of goods and services produced, Money is just a medium to measure that production. If you double the amount of money, you may have a 100% increase in the economy as measured by money, but the total output of goods and services remains constant.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
oh no, say it isn't so...!!!
Submitted by wizardjr on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 5:26pm.
OMG, ya mean QE2 is going to stimulate much the same way TARP, etc. did? Why... why... that can't be. The President's genius economic advisers guarantee it. [/sarc, for those in Rio Linda]
Shell Game
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 6:04pm.
Given a free market, the economy would stimulate itself when it hit bottom.
I'm not a defender of TARP, I wouild have preferred regulatory forebearance that would have given financial institutions time to raise capital, (or go under if that was not possible). But TARP is a mixed picture. The original TARP aproved under the Bush administration worked for most of the financial institutions and the government got their "lent" money back with interest. GM and GMAC was a fiasco that the government will never recover from, but under Obama the goal was achieved of saving the UAW. The real reason for TARP instead of regulatory forebearance was AIG. The collaps of AIG would have cost Goldman Sachs 20 Billion dollars and would have caused havoc with the guarantees behind AIG's annuity products. The bailout of AIG will in all likelyhood never be paid back.
The stimulus of Feb. 2009 was nothing but a big slush fund that the Dems realized was a once in a century possibility, so they couldn't pass that up even though it meant inevitable destruction in the 2010 election. Same thing with health care.
Quantitative Easing is a different animal altogether. The Fed has always engaged in buying Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds when the economy is tight. They also sell bonds when the economy gets over-heated. The issue with QE2 is one of scale. And getting back to TARP, the governnment plans on using the $250 billion that's still available for further stimulus.
If we would have followed the path of regulatory relief, no stimulus, and no health care bill, the economhy would be well into recovery mode, albeit suffering more in the summer of 2009.
The real bailout looms in the future, and that's the fiasco of Freddy and Fanny.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Well, Harry (and friends),
Submitted by mattm on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:21pm.
Well, Harry (and friends), since it's been proven time and time again that spending not only doesn't help the economy, it actually hurst it, the obvious alternative is to reverse that policy. Or are you to dumb to grasp that?
Here's a little light reading for you: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/uncategorized/the-failure-of-keynesian-economics/
Or if you need it in pictures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoxDyC7y7PM
Barry Soetoro, mein fuhrer,
Submitted by pwoz on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:24pm.
Barry Soetoro, mein fuhrer, disagrees, citizen. How dare you tell the facts!
That was good!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:34pm.
RE: Goldbough post #3 last sentence:
"There's a big push to end dependence on foreign oil, but the feds are just fine with depending on foreign money to borrow from."About the US spending foreign money! So true and dangerous! Watch the Glen Beck from yesterday. It was fantastic and addresses this!
Glenn Beck Part 1 - A Force To Be Reckoned With 11/3/2010Part 1 15 min (no ads): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRrnTk0QmRU
Part 2 13 min.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJFLx0z7pU&feature=related
Part 3 13 min.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbMVMYIc6Jk&feature=related
WOW anyone seen this below? An ad showing China in 2030 studying the downfall of the USA!
This was VERY, VERY good too: 1 min. WATCH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM&feature=player_embedded-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Smith, a VERY basic economic
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:31pm.
Smith, a VERY basic economic fact, government does not create jobs! All government can do is create and protect the business environment that allows and encourages company and job growth. This is something that liberals fight against because they see corporations as evil.
Easy
Submitted by jm1656 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:39pm.
"How do you unleash the economy and not spend any money vote Republicanthanks jm
Submitted by wizardjr on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 5:28pm.
ROFL, thanks
LOL...
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:39pm.
For starters government can stop the regulatory avalance now being unleashed ... LOL.
I'll speak veeeery slooowwly...
Submitted by jimbo297 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:52pm.
He asks "How do you unleash the economy and not spend any money?"
You unleash the economy by nooot spending aaannnyyyy mooore monnnney.
Less money spent means less money taken from taxpayers which means more money used in business for hiring, manufacturing and marketing as well as more money for citizens to spend at these different businesses.
The only people who don't get this are either socialist morons who can't grasp the idea of a free market or, like Harry Smith, pretend to not understand it in order to push their lies on their unwitting audience.
Repetition
Submitted by xraynova on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:01pm.
SMITH: How do you do that? How do you unleash the economy and not spend any money, oh, by the way, because that's the other mandate, is don't increase the deficit and don't – don't – 'I don't want one more cent of tax on me.'CROWLEY: Well, I think it may be impossible, frankly.
One could grow exhausted, trying to explain over and again, the basic economic principles that lead to job growth and economic stability.
These two characters seem to be beyond help, on this matter. But they actually do know better. Anyone successfully completing an unbiased high school Economics 101 class knows better.
The real problem with their "concern" is that it forms the basis for the democrat mantra leading to the 2012 election.
The democrats have learned one thing that our elementary school administrators have forgotten. That is the concept of repetition. When their anti-capitalist rhetoric is continually repeated (with virtually no rebuttal from the Right), people will believe it.
obama has had a lot of success with his false claim that he is "cleaning up GWB's mess". He repeats this at every opportunity. Seldom seen, is any response that GWB's economy was fine, until his last couple years - when the real mess caused by the liberal congress, went out of control.
If that counterpoint is not emphasized repeatedly and then more, and if the "novel concept" of reducing spending is not repeatedly emphasized, then we'll have obama for another 4 years in 2012.
Anyone looking to block obama at re-election (by demanding he show his real birth certificate) should consider the idea that the courts will "grandfather in" obama based on his "elegibility" from the first 4 years.
This was interesting!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:20pm.
This is what Harry WANTS us to have:
Check the last set of statistics!!
Will make you sick.
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 2%
Canada 6%
I don't know about you, but I don't want "Universal Healthcare"
comparable to England or Canada .
Moreover, it was Sen. Harry Reid who said, "Elderly Americans
must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."
SHIP HIM TO CANADA OR ENGLAND !
He is "elderly" himself but be sure to remember his health
insurance is different from yours as Congress has their own high-
end coverage! He will never have to learn to accept
"inconveniences"!!!
AND THE WINNER IS VERY INTERESTING!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in
the private business sector prior to their appointment to the
cabinet. You know what the private business sector is... a real
life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt........ 38%
Taft.....................40%
Wilson ...............52%
Harding..................49%
Coolidge.............. 48%
Hoover................. 42%
F. Roosevelt......... 50%
Truman..................50%
Eisenhower........... 57%
Kennedy.............. 30%
Johnson.................47%
Nixon................... 53%
Ford..................... 42%
Carter.................. 32%
Reagan...................56%
GH Bush................. 51%
Clinton ................ 39%
GW Bush................ 55%
And the winner of the Chicken Dinner is:
Obama................ 8% !!!
This alone can explain the incompetence of this administration....! ! ! !! 8 %
Yep! 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 run their 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 neither
has 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" when they should have been
in an employment line.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Max of braveheart. Robert Reich and "death panels.
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 4:44pm.
Reid said, "Elderly Americans must learn to accept the inconveniences of old age."
However, Robert Reich, Clinton's former Labor Secretary, and close counsel to the Democrats who brought us the ObamaCare Bill, made these statements:
Thank you. And by the way, we're going to have to, if you are very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life, to keep you, maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die.
I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid.. we already have a lot of bargaining leverage, ah, to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs but that means less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means that you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents.
..but that means you .. particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people - you're going to have to pay more.
(;~/ gary
Harry Smith needs to take
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:20pm.
Harry Smith needs to take some college courses in basic economics.
Harry Smith .. but would you "love" the truth analysis?
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:20pm.
Smith remarked: "I love that analysis," i.e., Obama playing the "blame game." Then, there is a good bit of chatter about spending.. and Clinton is mentioned.. but this is missed:
Clinton worked rather well with the Republican congress following the '94 sweep to power - they substantially slowed spending. Allow Smith to sit with Clinton, and Smith will heap praise on Clinton, on how that fiscal policy of cutting spending wrote great rewards in economic growth. (I'm not letting go of the fact that it all crashed in a disaster, in March, 2000 - Bush inheriting the disaster).
Smith remarked: "I love that analysis," i.e., 'I [Obama] inherited an economic mess, people are hurting for reasons that are not my own fault,
Oh come on; Obama, while not in the Senate in the late 90's, was actively involved in the on-the-ground implementation of the Clinton/Andrew Cuomo regulations that both lowered the lending standards, opening the door for the sub-prime crisis, and that pushed tens of millions of poor minorities into purchasing homes for the first time (or, moving up - out of their price range).
And in 2007, Senator Obama - while getting some of the details a bit screwy, attempted to inform the nation,via Brian Williams of NBC, of how it all came about (my comments):
Sept. 17, 2007 – about 3:18 into the interview.
Brian Williams NBC news nightly anchor (sounds almost fearful to ask the question): Who are what do you feel is to blame for this current mortgage and credit crisis? uh.. who do we see about that?
Obama: Well, I uh, think there are a lot of folks who have to take some responsibility. The original idea (in the mid-late 90's) was a good one, which was that let's see if we can distribute this more broadly and make it easier to provide loans to people who otherwise might be-- not be able to get a mortgage loan.
Over time, what ended up happening was that the appraisers (appraisers ?? No - HUD ordered the standards be lowered - 1995, 1997, 1997, 1999) started loosening their standards. The mortgage brokers (yep - they were given marching orders by HUD - enforced by ACORN) started playing around with their standards. Then, the people who were buying (hey - 1st, how about the folks who were selling them - Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie) these securities weren't really checking very carefully to see whether the underlying mortgage could support the loans that were made.
And so, over time, you had everybody I think conspiring to just do what felt good and what was making a lot of money (yes - most everyone jumped on the bandwagon). The problem was that a lot of homeowners were induced to take out loans that they could afford only if home prices continued to go up (and that is where you, and your comrades fit in, Obama).
Note: if you watch the video, you'll notice how uncomfortable Williams is with where Obama was going. After all, if this is the case - how can they simply blame it all on Bush. Any curiosity - any follow-up questions from Williams? Also, I don't know how the laugh track got in there, at 4:29, but it does sound like my voice. Weird indeed.
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Let's talk about the campaign which I understand you've been spending some of your free time doing. To-- what's the surprise? What is it, seven months into it?
That's what Williams and the MSM are most famous for - changing the subject any time that the conversation puts the Democrats in the cross-hairs.
Ref:
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - September 30, 1999 NY Times
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
Oct. 2000 - HUD ANNOUNCES NEW REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE $2.4 TRILLION IN MORTGAGES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 28.1 MILLION FAMILIES -- Now there is some housing "stimulus." Enough to fuel a dangerous bubble, I'd bet.
From the left (from the right, is just too easy - this is more fun):
Dissent Magazine. Aug 2008. The Legacy of the Clinton Bubble. Just have to love the straight talk in here: "Chickens Come Home to Roost - HISTORY SHOULD deal harshly with Bill Clinton" Yes, but the MSM is re-writing history.
Oh yea - Loved by the radical left economist Dean Baker is well on record as well - but the MSM really doesn't want to call him either: The high priests of the bubble economy The Guardian, UK, 10 November 2008:
Rather than handing George Bush a booming economy, Clinton handed over an economy that was propelled by an unsustainable stock bubble and distorted by a hugely over-valued dollar.
Note: Somehow, Baker forgets that the bubble crashed 9 months prior to turning over the resultant recession to Bush.
NY leftist rag tag magazine - The Village Voice, Aug. 2008: Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis:
In 2000, Cuomo required a quantum leap in the number of affordable, low-to-moderate-income loans that the two mortgage banks—known collectively as Government Sponsored Enterprises—would have to buy. The GSEs don't actually sell mortgages to borrowers. They buy them from banks and mortgage companies, allowing lenders to replenish their capital and make more loans. They also purchase mortgage-backed securities, which are pools of mortgages regularly acquired by the GSEs from investment firms. The government chartered these banks to pump money into the mortgage market and, while they did it, to make a strong enough profit to attract shareholders. That created a tug-of-war between their efforts to maximize shareholder value, which drove them toward high-end mortgages, and their congressionally mandated obligation to finance loans for those who needed help.
Calling Harry Smith. What do you read in the morning?
The first goal of the Republican leadership should be to reach out and educate the American people as to who the architects - the regulators - who created the crisis that Obama inherited.
(;~/ gary
Harry Smith
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:36pm.
Harry if we can just spend our way to prosperity why haven't you contacted my wife? My goodness man, she would have us walking on streets paved with gold by dinner time and in the meantime I've got to rush to my second job. Call her Harry, she'd love to spend America out of its hole.
And if you know nothing else...
Submitted by retrocon on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 4:05pm.
And, if you know nothing about economics, it should be common sense intuitive to EVERYONE that the government has no money of it's own. So, every dollar that the government spends, has to be taken from the economy. Either before, or after the government decides to spend it.
So, unless the government is investing in INVENTION (read defense technology or NASA), that creates stuff, the economy is not growing, so the money the government takes to spend is just money that would have been spent anyway, so no net value.
Never really thought about it....
Submitted by notinstl on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 4:10pm.
....but Harry proved he is even dumber than he looks with that question.
Clearly, Harry
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 5:00pm.
and his brick-stupid buddies believe that there is a fixed amount of money in America, and it all belongs to the government. This is the only way they could possibly not imagine how to decrease taxes and the deficit at the same time.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Deficits for Dummies
Submitted by forREALZplayer on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:59pm.
This kind of deficit analysis implies government entitlement to all earnings. For example, If the current rate for a given income is 25%, and the democrats think 30% is appropriate, why is 30% an acceptable "deficit neutral" number? In other words, isn't 30% a tax cut from a 35%? And in this way also increasing the deficit? At what rate do taxes become deficit neutral? 15%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 75%, 100%? I think we know the Statist's Answer.