In reading the daily commentary of the American Institute for Economic Research for April 29, 2009, my speculative little crystal ball began to light up. AIER is the only serious business cycle analyst group that points out reality, and reality is that contraction is everywhere in the stats, in spite of the recent “good news” in the stock market. (Desperate exuberance, anyone?)
So let’s think it over.
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.
Dr. Paul discusses the spending bill and the credibility of the Republican Pary with Bill Maher, and argues that regulation and spending has created this crisis, not the free market.
Apparently, there’s not much difference between the way in which a democratic republic (the United States) and an oligarchy (Russia) handle “economic crisis”. According to an article in The Moscow Times:
Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev accused the government on Friday of bailing out billionaires at taxpayers’ expense in a letter co-signed by four businessmen and economists.
Gorbachev has until now been supportive of the Kremlin, and by speaking out he has joined a small but growing chorus of influential Russians who say the government’s tight control of the economy and politics is making the slowdown worse.
“The Russian authorities have turned their back on structural reform and instead satisfied themselves with inventing a mythical model of an ‘energy superpower,’” said an open letter whose signatories included Gorbachev.
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is likely facing a tough bid for re-election next year in a state that Mitt Romney carried by 18 points over President Barack Obama. Landrieu has eeked out wins over the past couple of cycles, but her voting record is increasingly out-of-touch with the conservative views of Louisiana. She voted for the wasteful stimulus bill in 2009 and ObamaCare in 2010, as well as the subsequent legislation that would repeal it.
More recently, Landrieu voted against less than 1% across the board spending cut and increasing the debt limit and voted for gun control measures, online sales taxes, and a $1 trillion tax hike on top of the “fiscal cliff” tax hike she supported earlier this year.
To this point, Landrieu has dared Republicans to challenge her and her big argument for re-election is rather arrogant in that she claims that she’s “indispensible”:
Preparing to run for a 4th term next year in a state significantly more conservative and Republican then when she won her first Senate campaign in 1996, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., is laying out the major argument she’ll make to voters: That she has the seniority and relationships on Capitol Hill to get things done for her state.
Paul Krugman is known for saying some very odd things. The neo-Keynesian economist has firmly planted himself as a hack for President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, even if it means going back on policies he once supported.
For example, Krugman once spoke strongly against the idea of monetizing debt. But when the Federal Reserve decided roll out “quantitative easing” — a nice name for debt monetization, shifted gears and defended the program. Krugman, who often cherry-picks data to come to predetermined conclusions, has written fondly of death and destruction because he believes it will drive economic output. He’s also a big fan of death panels to deal with the unfunded liabilities of entitlement programs.
Krugman was also one of the loudest voices calling for economic stimulus in 2009. After President Obama’s stimulus failed to boost the economy, Krugman, who had advocated for a stimulus bill that exceeded the $833 billion price tag that the Obama Administration requested, complained that it wasn’t large enough.
Krugman chastized those who were pushing for spending cuts and later claimed victory. “Intellectually it was, I think I can say without false modesty, a huge win,” he wrote last year. “I (and those of like mind) have been right about everything.”
Back in February, a lobbyist told the Washington Post that the “worst-case scenario” would be that the sequester — $44 billion in spending reductions in the current fiscal year — hits and “nothing bad really happens.”
The Obama Administration did its best to scare Americans into fearing the sequester, telling tales of “draconian” cuts to government programs. They even claimed that there would be longer waits at airport security checkpoints and flight delays. But as Politico notes, those inconveniences haven’t come to pass:
More than a month after Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood warned of “calamity” in the skies, travelers are still flying. Airlines aren’t yet canceling flights. And there’s no sign of the long lines the Obama administration warned everyone to expect when automatic spending cuts hit March 1.
What happened? The much-feared budget ax is turning out to be a slow-rolling series of snips, with effects that have been much more gradual or modest than projected.
Airlines have yet to suspend or cancel flights in response to the cuts, even though LaHood predicted during a White House appearance Feb. 22 that they would do so “within the next 30 days.”
The White House cried wolf on the sequester, but it’s not the first time they made wild predictions that have been far off the mark.
It’s not easy being a Democrat elected to statewide office in a red state, especially when you’re known for helping an unpopular agenda. Just ask Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR). According to a new poll released this morning by the Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund, Pryor’s favorability rating has plummeted and he trails his potential conservative opponent, Rep. Tom Cotton (R-AR) by 8 points.
Club for Growth Action, the free market group’s political action committee, began running an ad in Arkansas hitting Pryor for his support of President Barack Obama’s agenda, specifically mentioning ObamaCare, the stimulus, and Wall Street bailout. The ad says tells Arkansans that “when you vote for Pryor, you vote for Obama.”