When President Obama arrives in London this week he will meet with the leader of Germany, a nation where his election has brought newfound goodwill towards America; but will the goodwill be enough to force the hands of Germany to conform to Washington’s desires for additional stimulus and bailouts? If the latest media reports, which point towards an Administration attempting to dial down expectations, are any indication, then the answer is most likely a soft no.
The NYT is reporting that little ground is expected to be made in regards to additional German stimulus, with Chancellor Angela Merkel expected to cite fiscal discipline as a reason for German non-cooperation with President Obama’s Administration on the issue-
Quotes from Andrew Malcolm’s take on this video:
Here’s how silly Ron Paul is: He set a budget for his campaign and lived within it. Flew commercial.In fact, he ended with no deficit, which is how he thinks the federal government should operate. In point of fact, Paul ended his campaign with a surplus. Can you imagine anything so silly in this day and age?
Paul warned all during his campaign about a looming economic disaster if government just kept growing and growing and printing more money like Republicans and Democrats wanted.
If you're using FireFox, the embed code may not work on your browser. Please go here to watch the video.
While this interview focuses on South Carolina politics, Governor Sanford answers questions regarding Obama's "spendulous" bill. Calling the stimulus package a temporary fix, he believes it will create more long-term problems.
Taxes were very high, but no real revenue was coming in. That’s because the system of taxes at that time was an early form of income tax that centered on the government taking a large percentage of a farmer’s crops.
So Ching Ti did something bold and innovative: he cut taxes.
Overnight, taxes went from over 50% down to about 3%. Farmers, who had fled to the hills to escape draconian tax rates, now came home and began farming again. To make a long story short, Ching Ti’s greatest problem while governing was trying to keep all the grain in his barns from spoiling.
It seems that ancient Chinese history is good for more than just cutesy script on a fortune cookie.
House Minority Whips, Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy, put together a quick, fun little video about the recently passed spendulous package.
President Barack Obama has frequently complained that the United States is in an “age of austerity,” decrying modest cuts to the rate of spending increases he once supported. This, despite the fact that taxpayers have seen the national debt grow by nearly $6.8 trillion since the beginning of his presidency.
The idea that we’re living in some “age of austerity” is just mindboggling, as A. Barton Hinkle sarcastically explained in his latest column:
The end of austerity cannot come soon enough, as far as your humble correspondent is concerned. And a quick look at the historical budget tables shows why: In 2008, the federal government spent just a hair under $3 trillion. After six years of President Slash-and-Burn, spending has shrunk to almost $4 trillion. If we keep cutting like this, it will be down to $5 trillion before you know it.
These savage reductions have taken place in nearly every major federal program. Take defense spending: The year before Obama took office, it stood at $594 billion. It’s now $597 billion. Back in 2001 it was almost $300 billion. Even if you adjust for inflation, it’s clear that defense spending has shrunk at an alarming rate.
Same deal for food stamps: Under President Barack Obama, spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has gone from $40 billion to $78 billion, in constant dollars. And that’s after it went from $20 billion to $40 billion under Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. Spending cuts like that are simply barbaric.
Believe it or not, folks, it’s been five years since President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 2009 stimulus measure spent $831 billion on infrastructure, tax credits, and other policies that largely served as taxpayer-funded giveaways to core leftist constituencies
Passed in the aftermath of the Great Recession, the stimulus bill was based on the Keynesian notion that the government, through spending on “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects and other purported economic multipliers, could drive aggregate demand and create jobs.
Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, the economic advisors who developed the stimulus plan, argued that these policies would help bring the United States back from the brink of economic depression. In their January 2009 policy paper, the two economists claimed that the unemployment rate would not exceed 7.9% with the stimulus bill, while it would reach 8.8% without it. Because, you know, counterfactual.
They were wrong.
Even with the $831 billion stimulus bill, the unemployment rate rose from 7.8% in January 2009 to 10% in October of that same year, at which point Romer declared that the measure had already had its greatest impact. In fact, unemployment didn’t fall below 9% until October 2011.
The infamous Romer-Bernstein chart shows the unemployment rate falling to 5% in December 2013. In reality, the December 2013 unemployment rate was 6.7%, nearly 2 points higher.
If you’re a Democrat running in a state that went for Mitt Romney by 23 points in 2012, you have to project yourself as someone who is politically independent from President Barack Obama. That’s what Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) is trying to do in his bid for re-election, as Politico reported on Tuesday:
Obama’s presence in the White House could very well be the biggest hurdle Pryor has to clear to win a third term, replicating obstacles red state Democrats face in Senate races in Louisiana, Alaska and Kentucky and imperiling the 55-45 majority the party expects to hold next year.
The mild-mannered Arkansas Democrat is projecting himself as an independent voice and a bipartisan consensus-builder — despite voting for Obamacare, the economic stimulus package and other controversial elements of the president’s domestic agenda.
Asked if he approved or disapproved of the president’s performance in office, Pryor took a long pause and said, “I would say, ‘Is there another option there?’”
But Pryor acknowledges that Obama “doesn’t connect well” with Arkansans.
“I think that President Obama has in some ways what you would think of as a hard-left agenda in various ways, and that agenda is not popular in our state,” Pryor said, riding in the backseat of an aide’s pickup. “And a lot of that agenda I don’t support.”
The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the latest jobs numbers on Friday showing that the economy added 195,000 in June. The White House, which has been plagued by lackluster economic numbers since coming into office in 2009, praised the report, claiming that the stimulus bill “helped bring the recession to an end and put us on the path to recovery.”
That’s wishful thinking. The stimulus bill — the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 — was an $831 billion bill that the Obama Administration said would keep unemployment under 8%. Well, they were wrong. Unemployment topped out at 10% in October 2009, eight months after the stimulus bill was signed into law. According the the June 2013 reports, unemployment is still high, at 7.6%, and there are signs that the job market is being hampered.
The effects of ObamaCare on employment have been well noted. Businesses had been looking for ways to avoid the employer mandate, which requires them to offer insurance coverage to any employee working 30+ hours a week, and had begun slashing hours. It appears, based on last month’s jobs report, that there has been a surge in part-time hiring, which some attribute to ObamaCare: