Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ActionBastage

Finally they are getting the word out

Rate this topic

12 posts in this topic

Now will everyone listen or keep drinking the kool-aid.

 

Posted By: Larry Kudlow

 

Let me be very clear on the economics of President Obama's State of the Union speech and his budget.

He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all - either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy's long-run potential to grow.

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama's left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.

 

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama's cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama's rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That's one of the messages of the falling stock market.

Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.

Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters - especially hedge-fund types who voted for "change" - are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.

There is a growing sense of buyer's remorse.

Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buyer's remorse is evident in the lib camp as well. They justify the Obama policies by talking about the cost of the Reagan tax cuts. Anything but talk about the trillion dollars of debt that is being printed as we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostBuyer's remorse is evident in the lib camp as well. They justify the Obama policies by talking about the cost of the Reagan tax cuts. Anything but talk about the trillion dollars of debt that is being printed as we speak.

 

You mean the tax cuts that made $ smile.gif Like every one of them did.

 

I also see the bankers are getting riled up finally and speaking out. Obama's plan is to make all banks look bad, period. This is either an extremely stupid man or extremely devious. I bet on the later. I see nothing or no indications that he actually wants the economy to improve.

 

"In his unofficial State of the Union address Tuesday night, Barack Obama said that it's "unpopular ... to be seen as helping banks right now, especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions."

 

In a letter to the White House, ABA CEO Edward Yingling says bankers across the country were "disappointed and concerned" with rhetoric like that. "Mr. President, of the over 8,000 banks in this country, very few ever made a single subprime loan, and they did not engage in the highly leveraged activities that brought down Wall Street firms," Yingling said.

 

Yingling referred the president to statements made by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the powerful chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, in which he said that the toxic mortgage lending that sparked the current crisis was done by mortgage brokers and others not subject to the strict rules that govern commercial banks.

 

"Mr. President, the failure to distinguish between Wall Street and the thousands of FDIC-insured banks across the country undermines the confidence in our banking industry, the industry which is the foundation on which our economic recovery must be built," Yingling said. "

 

Everything he does and says seems aimed at destroying confidence in Capitalism and instilling in people that government is the solution. I see dependency on the government as his goal. This is IMHO, traitorous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostLarry Kudlow? LMAO

 

He embraced Revenue Canada the other night on TV. He looked like a buffoon.

 

Whats funny Gami is that you add nothing so often.

A name gets mentioned, you spout off they are stupid or whatever.

 

How about addressing what he says, whether he's right or wrong, what points he makes, how Obama is not enacting policies of growth. I don't know about the other night, but often is Kudlow correct.

 

Have you ever looked like a buffoon? When ever your name is seen, should we all chime in with our one line about you when you said so and so?

 

I know, it's easier to jump in, make fun, jump out.

 

He's made more of himself than most of us I'm sure, with more education and success. But go ahead and ignore what he says and name call.

 

Jeesh, its like 3rd grade here sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostFrom Kudlow: Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.

 

This is a great thought. Republicans have a great deal of ownership in the addiction cycle of deficit spending. To use the analogy of sobriety is entirely appropriate; we see many posts here, particularly those of Punk, pointing out the hypocrisy of Republican criticism of the Obama plan. Sadly, these observations are spot on. Kudlow points out, correctly i think, that republicans must return to sanity. I am certain that many fiscally conservative democrats will be ready to join them.

 

Good column, no matter what Gami thinks! wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostThis is a great thought. Republicans have a great deal of ownership in the addiction cycle of deficit spending. To use the analogy of sobriety is entirely appropriate; we see many posts here, particularly those of Punk, pointing out the hypocrisy of Republican criticism of the Obama plan. Sadly, these observations are spot on. Kudlow points out, correctly i think, that republicans must return to sanity. I am certain that many fiscally conservative democrats will be ready to join them.

 

Good column, no matter what Gami thinks! wink.gif

 

And the thing that worries me as a Conservative is that I heard/read that in the new bill, 40% pork is Republican???

If that is correct, I'm at the point that no one is watching our backs. Was hoping that the Reps would wake up, but if they are porking in this climate, I'm gonna root for the Indy/Liberatarian, even if they don't have the numbers to achieve. Maybe enough of these columns and outcries there will be a groundswell to come. Maybe. Hoping. Wishing.

 

I'd be happy for a revolution and oust all of them. Maybe the bad guys, if they have to take out a US city, can first choose DC in full session. Known criminals better than innocent civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostAnd the thing that worries me as a Conservative is that I heard/read that in the new bill, 40% pork is Republican???

If that is correct, I'm at the point that no one is watching our backs. Was hoping that the Reps would wake up, but if they are porking in this climate, I'm gonna root for the Indy/Liberatarian, even if they don't have the numbers to achieve. Maybe enough of these columns and outcries there will be a groundswell to come. Maybe. Hoping. Wishing.

 

I'd be happy for a revolution and oust all of them. Maybe the bad guys, if they have to take out a US city, can first choose DC in full session. Known criminals better than innocent civilians.

 

We are seeing the two party system implode. I am beginning to think that there is a two party system, just not the ones we thought; We The People and the powers that be in Washington. Anything else is an illusion to keep the peasants entertained. Time to grab a torch and storm the castle when the food riots begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Post

 

That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all - either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy's long-run potential to grow. The alternative has proven itself a failure.

 

Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama's left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Yeah, it really sucked during the 1990's.

 

Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years. Federal spending has been a third of our GDP for quite some time.

 

This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach. We're going into a very deep recession. During the late 1990's we were expanding. An apples to oranges comparison.

 

Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts. Mexico at 19% tax burden?? Where is he referring to? Let's talking about real countries, not city countries. He was in love with the Canadian taxation system when he had their PM on the other night, despite their high tax burden.

 

 

And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama's cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. How?

 

Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. Industrial production is plunging due to changing global economic dynamics. Does he want Detroit to have air like Beijing?

 

While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less. Less fossil fuel power. That's how we get off Mid-East oil.

 

The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Like when Clinton raised taxes in the 1990's.

 

Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama's rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That's one of the messages of the falling stock market. There's tremendous conflicting opinion on this.

 

 

Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. This mess has its beginnings in the "Reagan/Clinton period". How conventient to forget the recession of the early 1990's, which was part of the same period.

 

Kudlow made a buffoon out of himself when he had Stephen Harper (PM of Canada) on the show. He had a bad case of foot in mouth when, after praising their balanced budget, he was told their tax burden is higher than ours. Must be one of those countires he was talking about which spend less. Sad to see Kudlow turn into a hack. He used to come acroos as a pretty bright guy.

 

Kudlow only wants the stock market go up for short term gain. Consequences be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View PostKudlow made a buffoon out of himself when he had Stephen Harper (PM of Canada) on the show. He had a bad case of foot in mouth when, after praising their balanced budget, he was told their tax burden is higher than ours. Must be one of those countires he was talking about which spend less. Sad to see Kudlow turn into a hack. He used to come acroos as a pretty bright guy.

 

Kudlow only wants the stock market go up for short term gain. Consequences be damned.

 

Thanks Gami

Now that is much more civil.

 

I'm not a Kudlow follower so will have to see what he has said. I've seen him on McClockllin? and think he has pretty sound judgement. Regardless of where he strays, his article was IMO, on point and ballsey, as everyone seems timid to call, excuse my french, a spade a spade.

It's about time some step out is my main point. To much fear of denouncing the Pres for the colective good IMHO.

 

I just thought this one article I saw was good and to the point. I'll have to see what he said earlier. There has been some rumblings in the Conservative talking heads without mentioning names of rough "conservatives". Are they meaning him or others will have to see, was wondering about that and why the bantter.

Outta time, will readdress and respond sat or sun, depending on weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AB -

 

Actually, I don't much agree with Kudlow, and kind of think of him as the O'Reilly of the financial shows. That is, somewhat boorish and frequently all over the map.

 

But, I do thank you for the link, as it led me to a very spirited (if one-sided) conversation between Arthur Laffer and Steve Liesman.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29414700

 

icon14.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.