Obama '08?

P.S. If you think Obama has not been a bad president, I think you are the one out of touch.

Quote:

P.S. If you think Obama has not been a bad president, I think you are the one out of touch.

The voters don't agree with you.

Out of Reagan, Clinton, and Obama, who do you think had the lowest approval at this point of their term? Who had the highest?

Cycloptichorn

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19990&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Net Neutrality: Job-Killing Zombie

Politician swear they are laser-focused on creating job, but it is seemingly impossible to kill wrong-headed policies that undercut growth and jobs, say Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, and Sam Batkins, the coordinator of regulatory issues at American Action Forum.

For two examples, consider health care reform and net neutrality.
• The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act had more funerals than Tom Sawyer -- but the legislation nonetheless became law, despite the dire policy implications for jobs, federal spending and health care.
• Costly new regulatory burdens on business, higher insurance costs for employers and $500 billion in new taxes are an immediate threat to jobs in the United States.

Many now predict that "net neutrality" -- a Washington power grab that seeks to dictate how private telecoms prioritize use of limited bandwidth -- is walking the Green Mile. As Congress scurried to finish its legislative business before returning to the campaign trail, the compromise net neutrality legislation died in committee, say Holtz-Eakin and Batkins.
• But its death gives the Federal Communications Commission another chance to regulate the bandwidth decisions of private companies.
• This could spell death to the thousands of jobs created each year by the billions of dollars private telecoms spend on infrastructure.
• Imposing net neutrality could reduce broadband expansion and cost the U.S. economy upwards of 300,000 jobs, according to a new Phoenix Center study.
• Just a 10 percent decline in IT infrastructure investment, Brett Swanson of Entropy Economics found, could eliminate 502,000 jobs and $62 billion in gross domestic product growth.

The next Congress should put net neutrality and other job-killers in their rightful place: the ashbin of discredited policy ideas.

Source: Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Sam Batkins, "Net Neutrality: Job-Killing Zombie," October 27, 2010.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19992&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Two Percent Just Won't Do

The economy grew at a 2 percent rate in the third quarter, but with unemployment at 9.6 percent, gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 2 percent just doesn't cut it, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).

Many new reports have detected "improvement" in the economy in the July-September period. Indeed, the GDP number was a little better than the 1.7 percent posted for the second quarter. A closer look, however, provides little comfort.
• While real GDP grew by an annual rate of $66 billion, nearly two-thirds of that -- $47 billion -- came from businesses restocking depleted inventories.
• And while it's true that consumer spending increased at the fastest rate since late 2006, all that demand was satisfied entirely with imports, adding little to U.S. output.
• Worse, business investment, though improved, remains weak -- thanks to fear over the impact of ObamaCare, a disastrous finance overhaul law, a growing $1.75 trillion regulatory burden and the prospect of massive tax hikes on entrepreneurs and small businesses early next year.

The fact is, for us to climb out of our economic hole, the United States must grow 3 percent or more for a number of years. Three percent represents the nation's long-term growth potential -- defined as work force growth (about 1 percent) plus productivity growth (a bit over 2 percent).

There's a way to end this stagnation, says IBD.
• Germany is booming, with its jobless rate falling to the lowest level in decades, and Britain just announced a "surprise" jump of 3.2 percent in GDP at an annual rate.
• Why? Both have slashed government spending and are reaping the benefits in private-sector growth.
• The United States is taking a different tack, jacking up government spending by 21 percent in just two years.

If we don't change course soon, we may trade places with once-stagnant Europe -- and our economy will underperform for years.

Source: "Two Percent Just Won't Do," Investor's Business Daily, October 29, 2010.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19991&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget

Federal spending is on an unsustainable path that risks disaster for America, says Brian Riedl, the Grover M. Hermann Research Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.
• Runaway spending has increased annual federal budget deficits to unprecedented levels, adding $2.7 trillion to the national debt in the past two years alone, including a record $1.4 trillion deficit for fiscal year (FY) 2009 and a $1.3 trillion deficit for FY 2010.
• If Congress does nothing and simply continues existing taxing and spending policies, federal deficits will grow, reaching a projected $2 trillion deficit in just 10 years -- and even that assumes a return to peace and prosperity.
Soaring spending drives these dangerous deficits.
• By 2020, federal spending is set to soar to 26 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), after having averaged 20 percent after World War II.
• Revenues will likely return to their post-World War II average of 18 percent of GDP by 2020, even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent.

Available spending cuts for the new Congress total up to $343 billion. Many of the cuts fall into six areas:
• Empowering state and local governments.
• Consolidating duplicative programs.
• Privatization -- many current government functions could be performed more efficiently by the private sector.
• Targeting programs more precisely.
• Eliminating outdated and ineffective programs.
• Eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.

Implementing the $343 billion in recommended cuts would reduce the deficit by somewhat less than $343 billion because some recommendations would also reduce tax revenues, says Riedl.

Governing involves difficult choices, and Congress simply cannot continue to court long-term disaster for all merely to avoid short-term difficulties for some.

Source: Brian Riedl, "How to Cut $343 Billion from the Federal Budget," Heritage Foundation, October 28, 2010.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19994&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Tax Breaks for the Wealthy Do Boost Economy

A political fight has erupted over the fate of the top income tax bracket rate and the tax rate on dividends and capital gains, say Alex Brill, a research fellow, and Chad Hill, a Jacobs Associate, at the American Enterprise Institute.

One particularly troubling idea that has emerged is summed up by a recent statement by President Obama, who argued, "These [high-income taxpayers] are folks who are less likely to spend the money, which is why economists don't think tax breaks for the wealthy would do much to boost the economy."

However, saving is not the practice of the wealthy stashing money under plump mattresses.
• Rather, when we save, we defer consumption to the future, allowing our savings to be invested in productive ways that lead to long-term economic growth.
• In short, my savings account is your investment fund.
• Our collective savings are the funds available for investing in stocks, bonds and other securities that allow businesses access to the capital they need to grow.
• Firms use these funds to start or expand businesses and to buy machinery and other physical capital.
The logic espoused by this spending-cult mentality denies the role of saving, or, at the very least, relegates it to the backseat.
• Because much of the savings that can drive investment and economic growth over time comes from the relatively small fraction of individuals in the top income tax bracket, permitting a tax increase on high-income earners would be a significant disincentive for savings.
• Alan Viard of the American Enterprise Institute recently cited Internal Revenue Service data for 2007 revealing that households with incomes above $200,000 received 47 percent of the taxable interest income, 60 percent of the dividends and a staggering 84 percent of the net capital gains reported on tax returns.

Consumer spending has its place, but it is not the answer to every economic question. By disparaging investment and in particular the taxpayers who account for most of that investment, Congress is biting the hand that feeds long-run economic growth, say Brill and Hill.

Source: Alex Brill and Chad Hill, "Tax Breaks for the Wealthy Do Boost Economy," Forbes, October 27, 2010.

Quote:

P.S. If you think Obama has not been a bad president, I think you are the one out of touch.

The voters don't agree with you.
Out of Reagan, Clinton, and Obama, who do you think had the lowest approval at this point of their term? Who had the highest?
Cycloptichorn

How come you did not include Bush? Again, you distort the truth when you claim the voters do not agree with me.

Advocate, FYI, the GOP is talking about cutting Pell Grants.

People are not satisfied with the way the country is going.