“Jobs and the economy”. True enough, but how? The whole _point_ of conservative thinking on this is that regulation kills jobs, and that they hopefully grow organically when the free market is left alone. No guarantees. Are Republicans going to “focus like a laser” on new government actions to create jobs?
If I were king, I would follow Pournelle’s prescription: every regulation that has lower limit on the number of employees, that number is now doubled. So every regulation that applied for businesses with 10 employees or more, it’s now for 20 employees. 50 employees, it’s now 100, etc. A law that doesn’t cost a dime (more or less), and (if conservatives are right) will help businesses grow without the penalties regulation imposed. If conservatives are wrong, we’d know that soon enough too.
But I’m not king, and such a bill would get vetoed. What can they actually do that would work?
Government can’t be a net creator of private sector jobs. It simply isn’t possible. The best thing government can do is to create a legal, regulatory, and tax environment that’s favorable for the growth of businesses (who actually create jobs despite what that moron Hillary says).
What can Republicans do?
1. They can take actions to limit the growth of government regulations if by no other means they by employing the power of the purse. They can write laws to streamline the Environmental Impact Assessment process so that it doesn’t take so long to do anything and reduce the excessive influence of so-called “Green” groups.
2. They can begin working to tax simplification so that Americans don’t have to spend billions of labor-hours per year complying with a bloated and corrupt tax code. Years ago, the government determined that Americans spent over 5 billion hours a year on tax compliance. That’s the equivalent of the full-time labor of more than 2.4 million people. Insane.
3. They can work to reduce the corporate tax rate, currently among the highest on Earth.
Government can’t be a net creator of private sector jobs. It simply isn’t possible.
Counter-examples: the Erie Canal, ARPAnet.
Try reading this. Hint: before the government could create those things, it had to destroy other things. It’s all about what is seen and what is unseen.
Right, but the things it destroyed weren’t worth nearly as much as what it created. Private investment can create wealth and jobs, and so can public investment.
“Right, but the things it destroyed weren’t worth nearly as much as what it created.”
Again you state something you cannot POSSIBLY know. Why do you do that…constantly?
What was it that it destroyed? Since you seem to know it’s value you must know what it was.
Or are you beginning to get a glimpse of what teh word “unseen” means?
Kenesian economics talks about a multiplier effect with government spending. However, when you factor in the lost opportunities caused by the money first taken from the economy, the amount blown on government overhead, graft, and corruption, the multiplier is usually less than one. The Internet started as a distributed military network that could survive even a nuclear attack. It didn’t become what it is today until the government let the private sector take over.
The success of the internet is due to how little the government has regulated it. So, it isn’t any surprise that Democrats want to regulate what people say, who can speak, how businesses operate, and what kind of businesses are allowed on the internet. Its like they see a golden goose and the first thought is how best to cook it.
Counter-example: allowing the Keystone Pipeline.
Counter-example: setting up a regulatory and fee framework for oil production on Federal lands.
Okay, now what can they do that won’t get vetoed?
It’s worthwhile to pass bills that do good things and make the president veto them, for political gain purposes. But it won’t actually create jobs.
Maybe nothing, but vetoes of popular measures (e.g., Keystone) will just damage the Dems even more in 2016.
“Okay, now what can they do that won’t get vetoed?”
Let Obama use his veto and make him defend his choices in the media. Obama will become the party of no. Obama will be the obstructionist. As long as the Republicans put up good legislation, Obama will look like a petty little child.
I suspect that because a lot of the jobs bills out of the House were bipartisan, that there will also be bipartisan support in the Senate and Obama will have a hard time vetoing things his party voted in support of. The reason Reid refused to allow anything to the Senate floor wasn’t ideological opposition from the Democrats but because it was a conscious strategy to prevent Republicans from being able to claim any legislative accomplishments that helped the country and to portray the Republicans as the obstructionist party of no.
I’m getting the impression that most people think that what the Republicans can actually do about jobs that won’t get vetoed is nothing.
But if they can get some Democrats on board it would be a lot harder to veto.
They may be able to slip Keystone through. Maybe some minor tweaks of ObamaCare, like the medical device tax. Maybe some kind of corporate tax reform, but that may have too many moving parts.
After last Tuesday night’s results, it’s quite possible that some Democrat senators and many of those in the House up for reelection in 2016 won’t be so eager to support Obama. If they see an advantage in going against him, they will. Obama likely has very few friends or allies in Congress. He has burned too many bridges and stabbed too many backs. I’m not saying that over ruling a veto will be easy but it’s likely far short of impossible.
Many of the TV talking heads have been asking about what the Republicans have to do to work with Obama. I’ve yet to hear a single one of them ask what Obama must do to work with the Republicans. Obama’s idea of leadership and compromise is “Give me everything I want or else.” Now, the Republicans can as, “Or else what?”
“asking about what the Republicans have to do to work with Obama. I’ve yet to hear a single one of them ask what Obama must do to work with the Republicans.”
Ask not what the Republicans can do for . . . are you channeling Ted Sorensen?
The ironic thing is that pushing through the jobs bills stalled on Reid’s desk and creating a better climate for business in general will boost Obama despite Obama’s best efforts to prevent it from happening. Obama will then take credit for the work of congress. Much like fracking, the GOP taking the senate could be the best thing that ever happened to Obama.
Perhaps so, but only if Obama is smart enough to allow it to happen. Evidence of his alleged intelligence is quite lacking.
One of the biggest mistakes I think is often made in a discussion of what the GOP can do in this situation (or others like it in the past) is to worry about whether or not BarryO will veto their initiatives. I suspect that the political cost of all those vetoes would be minimal (the MSM is going to cover for him, and the bulk of the population simply won’t notice or care), but on the other hand, making him play defense for 26 months will limit the damage he can cause, force him to surrender to the initiative to the GOP, and annoy him immensely. Don’t underestimate how important that last factor could be, especially when dealing with a thin-skinned narcissist.
Lets also keep in mind that some of the initiatives that the GOP can champion (Keystone is an obvious example) have enough supporters to override a veto. This would have several positive effects in and of itself, aside from the sheer pleasure of pissing off BarryO and humiliating him in front of his base.
There are also options available that can combine good policy with a chance for revenge. Yucca Mountain clearly comes to mind here. Good policy, combined with the option of sticking it to Harry Reid…what’s not to like? Let the Democrats go on record opposing nuclear power, and forcing the nuclear waste to be stored unsafely all over the country just to protect Dirty Harry and avoid pissing off the tree-hugging luddites. The campaign ads write themselves.
Finally, but probably most importantly, passing good legislation, whatever its fate, is its own reward. Get in the habit of doing the right thing because it is the right thing…people might even notice…
it’s possible that the more Obama vetoes things, the more the populace will get angry and then, possibly, the more democrats willbe willing to break from Obama and vote to override.
One question is whether Obama will have to veto very much. If McConnell keeps the filibuster, the Democrats have enough votes to stop things like Obamacare repeal from every making it to Obama.
Personally, I think the filibuster is a terrible rule regardless of which party holds the majority, and that McConnell should do away with it. He’s said that he won’t, but hopefully he’ll change his mind.
“One question is whether Obama will have to veto very much.”
The talk from Democrats is that they want to obstruct anything and everything done by the Republicans. They are the party of no.
“If McConnell keeps the filibuster, the Democrats have enough votes to stop things like Obamacare repeal from every making it to Obama.”
See? You guys just want to filibuster everything rather than work in the country’s best interests.
Private investment can create wealth and jobs, and so can public investment.
Public investment can never create net wealth. It can only reduce overall wealth. This is trivial to see. It’s a simple question of efficiency. X dollars will be spent more efficiently privately by a wide margin. Therefore every dollar spent publically is a net loss including anything you could point to as a contrary example. Pointing to multiplier effects is completely disingenuous since a dollar spent multiplies at a rate independent of the source. Repeat that lie and you prove yourself incapable of holding to truth.
Government does one essential thing with everything else being a mistake. We overlook the inefficiency in this case because this essential thing is the purpose of government… to protect us from other governments. Only a blind ideologue, liar or idiot ignores the countless examples where government fails. Failure by the private sector is how it beats government. Call it a thousand points of light (just to twist the knife a bit.)
It’s a simple question of efficiency. X dollars will be spent more efficiently privately by a wide margin.
No, it isn’t that simple. First of all, public spending can be more efficient than private spending, thanks to economies of scale and the lack of competition. Social Security is as efficient as any private pension. But even if private firms were somehow always more efficient, you’re assuming that they would invest money in the same things. DARPA and NSF’s investment in creating the Internet was not only phenomenally efficient — millions in, trillions out — it was an investment that no private company was able to make. Private companies invested much more than the government in a variety of failed attempts at large scale data networking, but because they each looked at it as a way to boost their individual bottom lines, they missed the thing that made the Internet successful: the fact that it was open to equipment and software and services from any inventor or company.
I for one don’t take the side that public investment cannot do great things. I am told that fracking was aided by government research funding, at least in its early stages.
But this Administration and its base do not want fracking. This Administration and its ideological base would oppose the TVA.
If any insurance company operated the same way as Social Security, the officers would go to jail. If people had been allowed to invest the same money as was taken from them in SS taxex, they’d get a better return for their money plus the remainder would go to their estate.
As for goverment being more efficient, perhaps in theory but very rarely in practice. Most of the time, government wastes money hand over fist.
“thanks to economies of scale and the lack of competition”
Lack of competition does not lead to increased efficiency. Economies of scale can lead to increased efficiency but just because an organization is big, doesn’t mean there are economies of scale there. Economies of scale don’t just happen on their own.
“But even if private firms were somehow always more efficient, you’re assuming that they would invest money in the same things. DARPA and NSF’s investment in creating the Internet was not only phenomenally efficient ”
A private retirement plan would never invest in DARPA and it would be very irresponsible for the government to invest ss taxes in DARPA or other high risk low payout schemes. You seem to be saying, “Don’t worry about ss, we are investing all of the taxes in cold fusion and will make big profits.” And you are worried about privatizing ss so people can control their own retirement lol.
“Jobs and the economy”. True enough, but how? The whole _point_ of conservative thinking on this is that regulation kills jobs, and that they hopefully grow organically when the free market is left alone. No guarantees. Are Republicans going to “focus like a laser” on new government actions to create jobs?
If I were king, I would follow Pournelle’s prescription: every regulation that has lower limit on the number of employees, that number is now doubled. So every regulation that applied for businesses with 10 employees or more, it’s now for 20 employees. 50 employees, it’s now 100, etc. A law that doesn’t cost a dime (more or less), and (if conservatives are right) will help businesses grow without the penalties regulation imposed. If conservatives are wrong, we’d know that soon enough too.
But I’m not king, and such a bill would get vetoed. What can they actually do that would work?
Government can’t be a net creator of private sector jobs. It simply isn’t possible. The best thing government can do is to create a legal, regulatory, and tax environment that’s favorable for the growth of businesses (who actually create jobs despite what that moron Hillary says).
What can Republicans do?
1. They can take actions to limit the growth of government regulations if by no other means they by employing the power of the purse. They can write laws to streamline the Environmental Impact Assessment process so that it doesn’t take so long to do anything and reduce the excessive influence of so-called “Green” groups.
2. They can begin working to tax simplification so that Americans don’t have to spend billions of labor-hours per year complying with a bloated and corrupt tax code. Years ago, the government determined that Americans spent over 5 billion hours a year on tax compliance. That’s the equivalent of the full-time labor of more than 2.4 million people. Insane.
3. They can work to reduce the corporate tax rate, currently among the highest on Earth.
Government can’t be a net creator of private sector jobs. It simply isn’t possible.
Counter-examples: the Erie Canal, ARPAnet.
Try reading this. Hint: before the government could create those things, it had to destroy other things. It’s all about what is seen and what is unseen.
Right, but the things it destroyed weren’t worth nearly as much as what it created. Private investment can create wealth and jobs, and so can public investment.
“Right, but the things it destroyed weren’t worth nearly as much as what it created.”
Again you state something you cannot POSSIBLY know. Why do you do that…constantly?
What was it that it destroyed? Since you seem to know it’s value you must know what it was.
Or are you beginning to get a glimpse of what teh word “unseen” means?
Kenesian economics talks about a multiplier effect with government spending. However, when you factor in the lost opportunities caused by the money first taken from the economy, the amount blown on government overhead, graft, and corruption, the multiplier is usually less than one. The Internet started as a distributed military network that could survive even a nuclear attack. It didn’t become what it is today until the government let the private sector take over.
The success of the internet is due to how little the government has regulated it. So, it isn’t any surprise that Democrats want to regulate what people say, who can speak, how businesses operate, and what kind of businesses are allowed on the internet. Its like they see a golden goose and the first thought is how best to cook it.
Counter-example: allowing the Keystone Pipeline.
Counter-example: setting up a regulatory and fee framework for oil production on Federal lands.
Okay, now what can they do that won’t get vetoed?
It’s worthwhile to pass bills that do good things and make the president veto them, for political gain purposes. But it won’t actually create jobs.
Maybe nothing, but vetoes of popular measures (e.g., Keystone) will just damage the Dems even more in 2016.
“Okay, now what can they do that won’t get vetoed?”
Let Obama use his veto and make him defend his choices in the media. Obama will become the party of no. Obama will be the obstructionist. As long as the Republicans put up good legislation, Obama will look like a petty little child.
I suspect that because a lot of the jobs bills out of the House were bipartisan, that there will also be bipartisan support in the Senate and Obama will have a hard time vetoing things his party voted in support of. The reason Reid refused to allow anything to the Senate floor wasn’t ideological opposition from the Democrats but because it was a conscious strategy to prevent Republicans from being able to claim any legislative accomplishments that helped the country and to portray the Republicans as the obstructionist party of no.
I’m getting the impression that most people think that what the Republicans can actually do about jobs that won’t get vetoed is nothing.
But if they can get some Democrats on board it would be a lot harder to veto.
They may be able to slip Keystone through. Maybe some minor tweaks of ObamaCare, like the medical device tax. Maybe some kind of corporate tax reform, but that may have too many moving parts.
After last Tuesday night’s results, it’s quite possible that some Democrat senators and many of those in the House up for reelection in 2016 won’t be so eager to support Obama. If they see an advantage in going against him, they will. Obama likely has very few friends or allies in Congress. He has burned too many bridges and stabbed too many backs. I’m not saying that over ruling a veto will be easy but it’s likely far short of impossible.
Many of the TV talking heads have been asking about what the Republicans have to do to work with Obama. I’ve yet to hear a single one of them ask what Obama must do to work with the Republicans. Obama’s idea of leadership and compromise is “Give me everything I want or else.” Now, the Republicans can as, “Or else what?”
“asking about what the Republicans have to do to work with Obama. I’ve yet to hear a single one of them ask what Obama must do to work with the Republicans.”
Ask not what the Republicans can do for . . . are you channeling Ted Sorensen?
The ironic thing is that pushing through the jobs bills stalled on Reid’s desk and creating a better climate for business in general will boost Obama despite Obama’s best efforts to prevent it from happening. Obama will then take credit for the work of congress. Much like fracking, the GOP taking the senate could be the best thing that ever happened to Obama.
Perhaps so, but only if Obama is smart enough to allow it to happen. Evidence of his alleged intelligence is quite lacking.
One of the biggest mistakes I think is often made in a discussion of what the GOP can do in this situation (or others like it in the past) is to worry about whether or not BarryO will veto their initiatives. I suspect that the political cost of all those vetoes would be minimal (the MSM is going to cover for him, and the bulk of the population simply won’t notice or care), but on the other hand, making him play defense for 26 months will limit the damage he can cause, force him to surrender to the initiative to the GOP, and annoy him immensely. Don’t underestimate how important that last factor could be, especially when dealing with a thin-skinned narcissist.
Lets also keep in mind that some of the initiatives that the GOP can champion (Keystone is an obvious example) have enough supporters to override a veto. This would have several positive effects in and of itself, aside from the sheer pleasure of pissing off BarryO and humiliating him in front of his base.
There are also options available that can combine good policy with a chance for revenge. Yucca Mountain clearly comes to mind here. Good policy, combined with the option of sticking it to Harry Reid…what’s not to like? Let the Democrats go on record opposing nuclear power, and forcing the nuclear waste to be stored unsafely all over the country just to protect Dirty Harry and avoid pissing off the tree-hugging luddites. The campaign ads write themselves.
Finally, but probably most importantly, passing good legislation, whatever its fate, is its own reward. Get in the habit of doing the right thing because it is the right thing…people might even notice…
it’s possible that the more Obama vetoes things, the more the populace will get angry and then, possibly, the more democrats willbe willing to break from Obama and vote to override.
One question is whether Obama will have to veto very much. If McConnell keeps the filibuster, the Democrats have enough votes to stop things like Obamacare repeal from every making it to Obama.
Personally, I think the filibuster is a terrible rule regardless of which party holds the majority, and that McConnell should do away with it. He’s said that he won’t, but hopefully he’ll change his mind.
“One question is whether Obama will have to veto very much.”
The talk from Democrats is that they want to obstruct anything and everything done by the Republicans. They are the party of no.
“If McConnell keeps the filibuster, the Democrats have enough votes to stop things like Obamacare repeal from every making it to Obama.”
See? You guys just want to filibuster everything rather than work in the country’s best interests.
Private investment can create wealth and jobs, and so can public investment.
Public investment can never create net wealth. It can only reduce overall wealth. This is trivial to see. It’s a simple question of efficiency. X dollars will be spent more efficiently privately by a wide margin. Therefore every dollar spent publically is a net loss including anything you could point to as a contrary example. Pointing to multiplier effects is completely disingenuous since a dollar spent multiplies at a rate independent of the source. Repeat that lie and you prove yourself incapable of holding to truth.
Government does one essential thing with everything else being a mistake. We overlook the inefficiency in this case because this essential thing is the purpose of government… to protect us from other governments. Only a blind ideologue, liar or idiot ignores the countless examples where government fails. Failure by the private sector is how it beats government. Call it a thousand points of light (just to twist the knife a bit.)
It’s a simple question of efficiency. X dollars will be spent more efficiently privately by a wide margin.
No, it isn’t that simple. First of all, public spending can be more efficient than private spending, thanks to economies of scale and the lack of competition. Social Security is as efficient as any private pension. But even if private firms were somehow always more efficient, you’re assuming that they would invest money in the same things. DARPA and NSF’s investment in creating the Internet was not only phenomenally efficient — millions in, trillions out — it was an investment that no private company was able to make. Private companies invested much more than the government in a variety of failed attempts at large scale data networking, but because they each looked at it as a way to boost their individual bottom lines, they missed the thing that made the Internet successful: the fact that it was open to equipment and software and services from any inventor or company.
I for one don’t take the side that public investment cannot do great things. I am told that fracking was aided by government research funding, at least in its early stages.
But this Administration and its base do not want fracking. This Administration and its ideological base would oppose the TVA.
If any insurance company operated the same way as Social Security, the officers would go to jail. If people had been allowed to invest the same money as was taken from them in SS taxex, they’d get a better return for their money plus the remainder would go to their estate.
As for goverment being more efficient, perhaps in theory but very rarely in practice. Most of the time, government wastes money hand over fist.
“thanks to economies of scale and the lack of competition”
Lack of competition does not lead to increased efficiency. Economies of scale can lead to increased efficiency but just because an organization is big, doesn’t mean there are economies of scale there. Economies of scale don’t just happen on their own.
“But even if private firms were somehow always more efficient, you’re assuming that they would invest money in the same things. DARPA and NSF’s investment in creating the Internet was not only phenomenally efficient ”
A private retirement plan would never invest in DARPA and it would be very irresponsible for the government to invest ss taxes in DARPA or other high risk low payout schemes. You seem to be saying, “Don’t worry about ss, we are investing all of the taxes in cold fusion and will make big profits.” And you are worried about privatizing ss so people can control their own retirement lol.