Here's a short, faux news report documenting the most recent medical diagnosis of our fearless leader that will hopefully bring a smile to your face, no matter which side of the aisle you are on :)
White House Reveals Obama Is Bipolar, Has Entered Depressive Phase
And because I didn't know what "Asperger's Syndrome" was as it relates to Joe Biden, I had to look it up. According to Wikipedia, "people with it show significant difficulties in social interaction . . . Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported." Now it makes perfect sense, maybe the Onion is on to something . . . :)
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
(Our) Cash for Clunkers
Our government has come to the rescue yet again, paying (with our tax dollars) $3,500 - $4,500 per clunker for pre-approved new cars with better mileage. When 'Cash for Clunkers' (C4C) was passed, the $1 billion in funding was supposed to last until October, but only lasted one week. NO WAY - a 'free' government handout program going bankrupt? That never happens! So, true to form, the spin doctors in the liberal media and the liberal Congress equated popularity with success, and voted for an additional $2 billion to extend the program. You already know how I feel about this program, but I'll tell you anyway . . . :)
First - this reminds me of the billions spent to bailout homeowners on the brink of foreclosure. In this case, the auto companies - either bankrupt, owned by the government, or on the brink of collapse - needed a government bailout to boost slumping sales. Remember when Rick Santelli famously ranted: "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors' mortgage? President Obama, are you listening?!" C4C is the same principle, but we're paying for other people's new ride instead of their house. I'm glad the government has spent a fraction of what it spent on the foreclosure rescue program, but it is the same nonsensical principle. Making auto companies dependent on taxpayer subsidies to sell cars only temporarily and artificially grows their bottom line (with our money), and merely postpones the pains of the recession.
Second - this intervention, like every other, will cause distortions in the market. For example, as the picture shows, the clunkers get crushed, removing them from the used car market. This will cause used car prices to rise (lower supply). And instead of crushing the car, could we not at least salvage the good, usable parts? What a waste! Oh I forgot, this is a government program. Also, in order to be a true stimulus, new demand must be created. C4C merely shifts current demand for cheap political points, detracting from next year's sales.
Third - Six of the top ten new cars are made by foreign companies: Honda, Toyota, or Hyundai. That's ok with me, they must be doing something right if consumers choose their products over the alternatives. But of the remaining four, three are made by GM (the other is the Ford Focus), which is now owned by the government. So yes, the government is actually 'stimulating' itself through C4C. How convenient!!
Fourth - If lawmakers wanted to pass C4C to help the poor (not hard to imagine given the popularity of tax hikes on the rich for handouts for the poor and middle class), it isn't really working. The average annual income of those participating in C4C is $57K/yr - only 4K less than the average annual income of new car purchasers.
Last - I can't believe I'm saying this, but John McCain actually had a pretty good point . . . he asked, "why not 'cash for refrigerators?' Or 'cash for lawnmowers?' Or anything else that catches the government's fancy?" C4C is a perfect illustration of what I said in my comment on the last post: "a Governmnet may at pleasure elevate one class and depress another; it may one day legislate exclusively for the farmer, the next for the mechanic, and the thid for the [auto] manufacturer, who all thus becomes the mere puppets of legislative cobbling and tinkering, instead of independent citizens, relying on their own resources for their prosperity." Today is the day of the auto manufacturers, who have certainly become puppets of this legislative tinkering. The benefits of this program are highly concentrated on the few, at the expense of the many. I'd prefer the federal government stop looting us to subsidize the auto companies, amounting to little more than corporate welfare, on our dime. What do you think? Is C4C a good idea, or a very bad use of taxpayer funds?
First - this reminds me of the billions spent to bailout homeowners on the brink of foreclosure. In this case, the auto companies - either bankrupt, owned by the government, or on the brink of collapse - needed a government bailout to boost slumping sales. Remember when Rick Santelli famously ranted: "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors' mortgage? President Obama, are you listening?!" C4C is the same principle, but we're paying for other people's new ride instead of their house. I'm glad the government has spent a fraction of what it spent on the foreclosure rescue program, but it is the same nonsensical principle. Making auto companies dependent on taxpayer subsidies to sell cars only temporarily and artificially grows their bottom line (with our money), and merely postpones the pains of the recession.Second - this intervention, like every other, will cause distortions in the market. For example, as the picture shows, the clunkers get crushed, removing them from the used car market. This will cause used car prices to rise (lower supply). And instead of crushing the car, could we not at least salvage the good, usable parts? What a waste! Oh I forgot, this is a government program. Also, in order to be a true stimulus, new demand must be created. C4C merely shifts current demand for cheap political points, detracting from next year's sales.
Third - Six of the top ten new cars are made by foreign companies: Honda, Toyota, or Hyundai. That's ok with me, they must be doing something right if consumers choose their products over the alternatives. But of the remaining four, three are made by GM (the other is the Ford Focus), which is now owned by the government. So yes, the government is actually 'stimulating' itself through C4C. How convenient!!
Fourth - If lawmakers wanted to pass C4C to help the poor (not hard to imagine given the popularity of tax hikes on the rich for handouts for the poor and middle class), it isn't really working. The average annual income of those participating in C4C is $57K/yr - only 4K less than the average annual income of new car purchasers.
Last - I can't believe I'm saying this, but John McCain actually had a pretty good point . . . he asked, "why not 'cash for refrigerators?' Or 'cash for lawnmowers?' Or anything else that catches the government's fancy?" C4C is a perfect illustration of what I said in my comment on the last post: "a Governmnet may at pleasure elevate one class and depress another; it may one day legislate exclusively for the farmer, the next for the mechanic, and the thid for the [auto] manufacturer, who all thus becomes the mere puppets of legislative cobbling and tinkering, instead of independent citizens, relying on their own resources for their prosperity." Today is the day of the auto manufacturers, who have certainly become puppets of this legislative tinkering. The benefits of this program are highly concentrated on the few, at the expense of the many. I'd prefer the federal government stop looting us to subsidize the auto companies, amounting to little more than corporate welfare, on our dime. What do you think? Is C4C a good idea, or a very bad use of taxpayer funds?
Monday, August 3, 2009
Broken Promises and Big Talk
Here's a little clip from a news story about Pres. Obama not ruling out raising taxes. In a recession.
During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care — promised without increasing the federal deficit — must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
At what point is China going to say "Okay U.S., we've lent you trillions of dollars, and now we want to be paid back." Our current economic model is just not sustainable and it worries me greatly. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir right now, but this spending has gotten out of hand. Raising taxes in a recession just screams bad idea all over it for me anyway. I believe in some government action and help but what we're seeing now is way more than I'd like to see.
During his presidential campaign, Obama repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." But the simple reality remains that his ambitious overhaul of how Americans receive health care — promised without increasing the federal deficit — must be paid for.
"If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, people have to understand we have to bring those deficits down. And it's going to be difficult, hard for us to do. And the path to that is through health care reform," Geithner said. "We're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
At what point is China going to say "Okay U.S., we've lent you trillions of dollars, and now we want to be paid back." Our current economic model is just not sustainable and it worries me greatly. I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir right now, but this spending has gotten out of hand. Raising taxes in a recession just screams bad idea all over it for me anyway. I believe in some government action and help but what we're seeing now is way more than I'd like to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
