I almost feel sorry for the ideologues and partisan hacks who feel obliged to defends Obama’s miserable economic performance.
Keynesian spending policies and class-warfare tax policies have produced dismal economic performance, with unemployment stuck above 8 percent – even though the White House promised the joblessness rate by this point would be about 5.5 percent if we squandered $800 billion-plus on the so-called stimulus.
Yet Keith Boykin gamely tries to put perfume on this hog in our debate on CNBC.
Notice that I began this post by saying I “almost feel sorry” for the spin-meisters who defend Obamanomics. But “almost” is the key word in that sentence. I reserve my genuine sympathy for the millions of people who can’t find jobs because of the President’s destructive policies.
Let me add a few comments.
Boykin tries to disavow the Romer-Bernstein report and pretend that the President didn’t highlight and promote its claims when pushing for the faux stimulus. That’s a remarkable bit of revisionist history and I think I was effective at tying that rotting fish around his neck.
Keith also highlights the relatively good performance of the Clinton years. As I’ve done before, I announce that we’d be much better off with the Clinton tax rates – but only if we also get rid of all the reckless spending and regulation of the Bush and Obama years. I thinks that’s an effective point to make, but I confess I don’t have any feedback one way or the other to indicate that it’s a persuasive argument.
The most revealing point of the interview is when the host incredulously remarked to Keith that “you think we should have bigger government.”
But if anybody thinks that it’s a good idea to increase the burden of government spending, then they need to explain why America will be better off if we make our country more like Greece and France.
Last week, I shared some numbers from the left-wing OECD which showed that living standards are much higher in the United States than they are in Europe’s welfare states. That is what this fight is all about.
[…] is why I have repeatedly challenged leftists by stating that I would be willing to go back to Bill Clinton’s tax rates if it meant I could also go back to the much lower levels of spending and regulation that existed […]
[…] is why I have repeatedly challenged leftists by stating that I would be willing to go back to Bill Clinton’s tax rates if it meant I could also go back to the much lower levels of spending and regulation that existed […]
[…] I feel like a pendulum this election season. Something will happen that makes me want to eviscerate Obama’s statist policies and I’ll write a foaming-at-the-mouth post warning that the President is turning America into Greece. […]
[…] Using the White House’s Own Benchmark, I Give Obamanomics an F on CNBC […]
Thank you. Finally! Something I agree with. Most media is liberal and completely tries to make Obama look good. I cannot believe how ignorant some people are about their own country. They’d probably need gps surveying equipment to figure out where the white house is. If everyone had paid attention and if there had been zero voter fraud, then Romney would have won by a landslide.
[…] is why I have repeatedly challenged leftists by stating that I would be willing to go back to Bill Clinton’s tax rates if it meant I could also go back to the much lower levels of spending and regulation that existed […]
[…] is why I have repeatedly challenged leftists by stating that I would be willing to go back to Bill Clinton’s tax rates if it meant I could also go back to the much lower levels of spending and regulation that existed […]
[…] what it’s worth, I gave Obamanomics an F in this CNBC debate. But lest anyone accuse me of partisanship, I’ve repeatedly explained that Bush’s […]
[…] I feel like a pendulum this election season. Something will happen that makes me want to eviscerate Obama’s statist policies and I’ll write a foaming-at-the-mouth post warning that the President is turning America into Greece. […]
I agree with you Dan. I’ll take the tax hike back to the Clinton years…if the spending and regulation goes back to the Clinton years. The problem is (as you know) we’d have to repeal much damage from the Bush and Obama years. Literally everything congress has done in that time frame. I’d go back even farther (great society, new deal). I don’t know if the electorate has it in them repeal the goodies. Lots of people have their ‘thing’ that should not be touched.
It’s obvious to me, and to those with an open mind, that allowing freedom of choice will result in more satisfaction because when you’re unhappy with the results, then you can go elsewhere. Whether or not the second lot do a better or worse job, it’s still true that some results are better than others.
This means any monopoly, whether run by the government or not, cannot help but result in worse overall results simply because there’s no alternative.
When the consumer pays, as opposed it being “free” because you have paid your taxes and then the government pays for it with your money, the result will also be better. This is because you can take your money and buy the service elsewhere so the failing organization loses income.
Without the consequences of failure, there’s no incentive to do a good job, and public choice tells us that government employees are no different to the rest of the population. But when you reduce the price (consequences) of a poor job, then you get more poor jobs. So never remove the sanctions for poor performance, which suggests not allowing government employees to do anything because they have no disincentive!
I think the Clinton argument is persuasive and makes sense to anybody with the tiniest desire to listen and understand. However one point that gives democrats political advantage is their repeated assertion that education and infrastructure is better when gov’t spends more money on it – and the right’s failure to deliver the message of privatization.