The question of whether Obama and the boys are stupid or deliberately destructive came up in Eric's post below. This article from Investor's Business Daily lists ten reasons for the poor job situation in this country: (Hat tip--Wintery Knight)
-Executive orders and regulations promoting compulsory unionism.
-Obama's forced restructuring of GM.
-Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 (ObamaCare).
-Extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks — almost two years!
-American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.
-Minimum wage laws.
-Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.
-Moratorium on offshore oil drilling.
-Expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
-Obama's runaway spending.
Any number of the above list would make moving a company overseas a good idea. Why would anyone want to start a business or expand a business with all the above hanging over their heads? In the best economy, with everything laid out to the advantage of business, start-ups or expansion is risky. But now, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars and are too nervous to make a move, with some considering China, of all places, as the place to set up shop. Does anyone seriously think that's preferred?
The thing is, the detrimental effect each and every point has had on employment and/or the economy had been foreseen. Only a lefty could be so blind as to believe any of these moves would have a positive effect. If Barry's the brilliant one we're so often told he is, then this has to be a deliberate attempt to screw things up. Rank stupidity is the only rational explanation.
But hey, the nation was warned. He had no record of wisdom upon which to gamble a vote back in November of '08. True, McCain is no Einstein. But would we have it THIS bad? Doubtful. Keep in mind also that this is only the arena of economics. Barry's shown nothing resembling brilliance in any other area of leadership either.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
2 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most of these points we've debated before, but how can you say that the bailout of the American automotive industry was a stab at the economy? How can keeping 1,000,000+ Americans employed do anything but help the economy? How can you see that GM is getting ready to return to the American economy as a publicly traded company in the biggest US IPO ever and not conclude that is a "good thing"?
ReplyDeleteBen,
ReplyDeleteSorry I didn't see this comment before. Don't know how it slipped by.
First off, I don't believe that GM needed MY money to turn themselves around. The question of how many jobs would have been lost is the same BS we hear from Obama about his idiot stim plans. I'm not going to pretend I can speak expertly on the subject, but I know that certain bankruptcy procedings allow a company time to get their act together while still doing business. A restructuring may be necessary and if that restructuring involves some layoffs, as regrettable as that might be, it indicates they had too many people to begin with. What happened was simply that GM saw a handout and like good businessmen, they saw it as an easier way out of their difficulties and took it. I don't blame them for that.
But that doesn't mean they could not have gotten their asses out of the fire without it. Would the place have totally closed up without it? I highly doubt it. But, continuing to prop up failing businesses is not the duty of the federal government. Had GM failed, it would have likely helped to expose the unions for the parasites they are and weakened their grip on industry. THAT would have been worth GM failing as the unions play such a large part in the cost of doing business.
That's about all I have time for.