Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Privatization Report!

Source:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11299/1184947-454.stm

Finally, a report on the privatization of the sales of alcohol in PA.  This is one of the best things possible for the state to do at this point.  The profits of the PLCB have been in decline recently, and their overhead and government-style control have been having nothing but negative effects on the process.
We've needed this for a long time, and it's finally being taken seriously.
One thing I have to laugh about are the unions, touting their usual ignorance and anti-freedom propaganda.  For instance:
Mr. Young also argued that the report all but ignores the negative impact that privatization, which could eliminate up to 5,000 state jobs, would have on the state's economy.
Mr Young clearly either is biased and WANTS government control, or he is a clueless buffoon who doesn't grasp simple math. 
The report suggests selling off 1,500 licenses, which in Philadelphia would quadruple the number of retail outlets from the current 55 stores to 219.
So, to quadruple (or in the case of the Pittsburgh area, only double) the number of licenses, means that many more stores.  If we quadruple around the state, and the stores all higher a 1-1, that's 20,000, if we only double, that's 10,000 jobs.  So, splitting the difference, we're looking at  possibly 15,000 jobs.  Now that's not a scientific calculation, it's just simple logic. 

Mr. Young, if you are sincere in your concern about jobs for the people, why don't you support an idea which will provide jobs for 3 times as many jobs as there currently are?  I challenge you to stand for jobs and economic growth, and do the right thing, rather than selfishly fighting to keep only a few jobs for just your closest friends!

Monday, October 24, 2011

Learn from History

Source:

Clearly, either our president doesn't learn from history, or he does and he hates America and wants us to fail.  I'll let you decide that on your own.  Take a look at the article.  Here are some of the winning parts of it:

The revamped Home Affordable Refinance Program, which aims to avert foreclosures, is expected "to encourage new, lower-cost loans" to more homeowners who are paying more than the value of their properties, a senior administration official said ahead of Obama's Monday announcement. 
So we learned from history that you can't force banks to give loans to people who can't pay them, it will backfire.  Today, he wants to force banks to give out loans to people who are having trouble paying for them...

The three-year-old Home Affordable Refinance Program was supposed to allow refinancing for up to 125 percent of a home's value on mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but has been stuck on tight eligibility rules, including excluding people with high credit scores or other attractive risk offers. 
Here we go again. Same plan, different names, different wording, different packaging, but same failed ideas that sunk us already.

The changes to the loan programs are specifically intended to bypass Congress, which is stalled on agreeing to new plans to increase jobs and jump-start the economy. But it won early support from Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia. 
So, dodging congress.  That is the act of a dictator.  He might as well say, "What I want is what matters, forget checks and balances."  Also, Republicans, take note of the name of a traitor to the cause.  Sen. Johnny Isakson, from Georgia, way to go failing the people who voted you into office.

If people aren't outraged by the ego, the arrogance, the Marxist ways of this man, then we have fallen very far indeed from the America which once was so great.



Monday, September 19, 2011

Debt Reduction or Holding People Hostage?

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/politics/obama-plan-to-cut-deficit-will-trim-spending.html

After reading this, it's pretty obvious that the administration's plan is a combination of two things.
1 - Raising taxes by $1.5 TRILLION when the economy is already suffering tremendously (because that's always such a great idea).
2 - Holdng our troops hostage.  These men and women deserve so much, and O-nutjob would use them for political leverage? 

That doesn't even mention that the plan would cut medicare and medicade, the very thing he accused Republicans of wanting to do.  While I would be fine with eliminating social programs (HOW to eliminate, I'm willing to discuss, as we probably can't easily go cold-turkey), to make even hinting at touching these programs out to be an evil, then to proceed and actually do it yourself is as hypocritical as it gets. 
As a wise man once said, "If you want to know what the left is doing, look at what they are accusing the right of doing."

Friday, September 16, 2011

You Don't Deserve to Keep Your Money

Source:
http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2285496

The important quote is as follows:
“I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it and it’s not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together."
Just let that marinate in your brain for a while. 
You (the free US citizen) do not deserve (are not entitled to, have no right to, and have no obligation in your favor of having) to keep (possess, to do with what you will) all of it (the money you have earned by your hard work and effort)....
What else do we need to hear from the left before we understand that they HATE freedom, they HATE capitalism, and they HATE liberty?

Friday, September 9, 2011

Jobs - Now in Brighter Packaging

Source:

I didn't bother listening to the speech last night.  I don't think I was anywhere that I could have even if I wanted to watch my blood pressure climb, and feel my pulse race.  That said, it seems to be the buzz today, getting the most attention from outmoded news media (newspaper, tv, radio, etc), as well as current, relevant news publications (such as blogs, online reporting, etc).  
While I am not an expert in things of economics, I do have a fair amount of common sense.  So I'm going to comment on some of the things I've read.
Under Mr. Obama's plan, the unemployed would see several additional programs to help get them back to work.
 When I  hear/read that, I can't help but think 'More spending, more government agencies, more cost to the people who do have jobs, more cost to the people who can create jobs.'  Government programs have a tendency of backfiring, or resulting in the opposite of their intent.

Meanwhile, employers would get a tax credit of up to $4,000 to hire people who have been out of work for more than six months, a move that would help level the playing field for the long-term jobless, said Rutgers economist Bill Rodgers.
The level playing field should not be forced based on an outside force.  It should be level to the people in the playing field.  Each person should succeed or fail by their own efforts.  If this goes into effect, it will have the result of people who see companies hiring those who are unemployed for a longer period of time choosing to spend  that time living off the government teet, and not being a productive member of society, opting rather to wait until they are part of the 'group' which gets special treatment.
As with the 2009 stimulus package, much of the proposed policy is directed toward the construction industry and the more than 1 million unemployed construction workers in America.
Again, special treatment for one group of people.  Rather than focusing on the root problems, and how they impact the entire economy and nation, this package seems to be carefully directed at specific people.  That sounds a LOT more like a campaign strategy, or a vote-winning strategy, than a 'fix the problem' strategy to me.
The plan would put $30 billion into renovations at schools and community colleges, $50 billion into the modernization of roads, airports, waterways and railroads, $15 billion into "Project Rebuild," a program that refurbishes vacant and foreclosed homes and $10 billion into financing for a national infrastructure bank that would use both public and private investment to finance infrastructure projects. Mr. Obama said these initiatives would create "hundreds of thousands" of jobs.
So, rather than taking steps to increase the availability of jobs overall, this will focus on specific, short-term jobs which may or may not last once the indicated projects are done.  
Mr. Obama's plan would cut payroll taxes in half for up to the first $5 million in wages businesses pay and offer a $4,000 tax credit to companies that hire long-term unemployed. It would also extend the so-called "100% expensing," which allows firms to take an immediate 100% tax deduction on capital investments, an incentive that would otherwise expire at the end of the year.
Two out of three ain't bad, right?  Anytime taxes are cut, especially taxes which can be seen directly relating to the number of employees, will always benefit job growth.  So he's got that part right.  But why stop at $5 million?  Why not make it across the board?  Additionally, the ability to write-off capital investments is extremely beneficial to the economy, as it removes some of the burden of that type of expenditure.  The removal of that burden gives more willingness to  the companies to spend the money, which provides work for other companies, and more jobs overall.  But, again, see above regarding the tax credit for hiring long-term unemployed.  
Still, because the proposed tax breaks are temporary, their effectiveness in creating hiring will be blunted, said Bill Rys, tax counsel at the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business association.
So make those tax incentives permanent.  

As of right now, I see nothing in what I've been able to find which gives me any confidence that this plan will have a positive, lasting impact.  There are steps here which will help, but only if taken to their logical conclusion.  The rest is just another stimulus package, and more 'spreading of the wealth.'  
If the purpose of the money being given for these projects is job creation, how about a tax refund to everyone equally based on what they paid?  Match that with permanent tax cuts, and you'll see job growth.  Anything less than that is merely lip service for the purpose of garnering votes.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Privatize the PA LCB?

I'd love to see the LCB privatized for more reasons than I can count.  The biggest are as follows:

1 - Why does our government think it's a good idea to sell it's citizens something?
2 - Broader selection and variety.
3 - Lower prices.
4 - The ability to order wines from around the world, and have them shipped to your home.  (Other drinks as well, not just wines.)
5 - Opens the door to transporting across state lines and not violating any laws in the process.

The list can go on, but these are the most important aspects of this effort.  So please, if you live in PA, and care about freedom, contact the president of the state senate here, and ask that he move the liquor privatization bill forward:
http://www.senatorscarnati.com/connect.htm

Update:
Turns out Sebastian talks about it as well.

Monday, August 22, 2011

Carry Restricted in a Mall of Fear

I've been meaning to post this for quite some time.  Today, I have finally finished writing the incident in a way which I think is fitting for here.  This is purely a personal experience, so there is no source material today.  I hope this anecdote is useful to you, and you are able to benefit from my experience.

As you know, I possess a CCW in my state, and carry constantly.  One evening, I was doing so in a local mall.  Being in one of the more upper-class neighborhoods in the area, I rarely visited it.  As such, (and as is my habit) I checked the doors as I entered.  No signage.  In PA, if there's a sign indicating firearms are not allowed, you leave. If you don't, they are required to ask you to leave. If you don't leave at that point, they can charge you with civil trespassing.  So, no huge risk even if there is a sign posted. 
My fiance (then girlfriend) and I were in one of the kitchen stores when I reached to a high shelf to retrieve an item for her.  My shirt lifted, and one of the employees saw my weapon in my belt.  She just happened to be looking at just the right place she'd need to look to see it. 
As we continued perusing their goods, we were in a corner, to the side and fairly far back in the store.  I was in the midst of a conversation with my girlfriend regarding some item in her hands, when I noticed out of the corner of my eye mall security (unarmed, older gentleman, who I'm pretty sure couldn't fight his way out of a burlap sack, no offense intended toward him, but not the kind of guy who could be effective in stopping any sort of determined criminal), but didn't realize they knew I was armed.  I had in no way been acting suspiciously, so I just assumed he was making his rounds, or coming to socialize.  Next thing I know, he's standing immediately behind me, tense as one could be.  He was polite enough to wait until my girlfriend and I ended the current conversation thread in which we were engaged prior to interrupting. 
Now, I'm not a small person, by any stretch of the imagination.  When he said 'Excuse me, sir,' and I turned to face him, he lost most of the color in his cheeks.  It was all I could do to keep from laughing.  He then said 'I would like to talk with you, would you care to come with me?' 
Not knowing what was going on, and not about to comply with someone who had as yet not identified himself, I opted to go the public route, and said 'We can chat here as well as anywhere.' 
Long story short, he proceeded to tell me that the employee saw my weapon, and he asked why I felt I needed to carry in a peaceful mall.  I responded that it was to keep my girlfriend safe and in one piece, not that it was any of his business thankyouverymuch.  He then said weapons are prohibited, and I asked where the signage is, he said it is in the office, on the top floor, behind the counter.  So, in short, there wasn't a visible public sign, but he attempted to enforce it.  He suggested a compromise that I return my weapon to my car, and continue my shopping.  My answer was that I was not about to do business with any organization which has a complete disregard for the rights and safety of their clients.  I also was not foolish to leave a weapon unattended anywhere, as that is an enormous liability to me.  I looked at my girlfriend, and told her to come out to the car whenever she was ready to leave, and that I'd be waiting for her there. 
The looks she got from all the women in that store were priceless.  The snobish folks who frequent that particular establishment were expecting to see her pull some heat out of her purse, especially as she tends to carry a large purse. 
I eventually wrote them a letter, indicating that I'd be informing all my friends about how poorly I was treated, and how unsafe I would feel shopping in a place like that, and how their policies restrict the freedoms and rights of theirs customers, and that I'd not be doing business with them until they changed their policies.  I also sent a copy of that same letter to the stores in the mall, and the corporate offices of those stores. 
It may not be much, but it's a little chip in their customer base.  Out of curiosity I stopped by while I was in the neighborhood several months later.  The proper signage was added to both sets of doors past which I drove.  Rather than understanding a customer's perspective, they stuck to their ideology of fear.  Now, rather than having an armed, concerned, engaged, aware and alert citizen in their building, willing to step up if the need arises, they are more likely to have the people who ignore such things enter, and act without any others willing to protect the innocent lives and property there. 
Complete and utter disregard for common sense, simple logic, and most importantly, the rights of the American Citizen.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Debating on the Internet

Debate:

Yes, I know debating on the internet is silly.  It's more effective to use a wall as a stopping device for one's head repeatedly.  However, that said, it is still very fun to debate people in such a forum occasionally.  I have been engaged (briefly) with a few people who don't understand basic political or economical science.  It's rather amusing, feel free to check out the debate and join in if you like.  Or, post here your thoughts on the debate.

The basic context of said discussion is the president's refusal to understand that the S&P changed the rating of the US because of his poor leadership.  Instead he's choosing to blame others, use scape goats, and even deny that the rating deserved to change.  Can't have it all, either it should change, or it shouldn't, not a combination of 'it shouldn't and it's someone else's fault that it did.'  It doesn't work that way.

Anyway, please weigh in!