The Impact of Government Regulations

Are the consequences of government regulations unintended or intended?

If they are unintended, we are governed by a bunch of tone-deaf, idiots. If they are intended, we are governed by a nasty bunch of SOBs. Either way, we (the electorate) are screwed.

Government regulations almost always result in a tax on the governed or the end user of the over-regulated industry. Case in point:

• Loose mortgage standards = Market collapse, unprecedented numbers of foreclosures and short sales and trillions of dollars in lost false equity.
• Healthcare regulations (i.e. Obamacare) = Rationing of care.
• Health insurance mandates = More expensive health insurance premiums.
• Pollution standards = More expensive gasoline, more expensive cars, ___________, _______ all in an effort to meet the standards.
• Banking regulations (i.e. Durbin Amendment) = Higher fees charged to consumer on otherwise free or low-cost services to make up the difference.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Netanyahu's Speech at United Nations

Any honest observer of the Middle East / Israeli conflict can only conclude one thing: that Israel is in the right. If you do not see that Israel is a force for good in a region of evil, you are either ill-informed or anti-Semitic.   

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/full-transcript-of-netanyahu-speech-at-un-general-assembly-1.386464

Important excerpts from Netanyahu's Speech: 

Well, this is an unfortunate part of the UN institution. It's the -- the theater of the absurd. It doesn't only cast Israel as the villain; it often casts real villains in leading roles: Gadhafi's Libya chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights; Saddam's Iraq headed the UN Committee on Disarmament.

You might say: That's the past. Well, here's what's happening now -- right now, today. Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon now presides over the UN Security Council. This means, in effect, that a terror organization presides over the body entrusted with guaranteeing the world's security.

The truth is that so far the Palestinians have refused to negotiate. The truth is that Israel wants peace with a Palestinian state, but the Palestinians want a state without peace.

In 2000 Israel made a sweeping peace offer that met virtually all of the Palestinian demands. Arafat rejected it.

Prime Minister Olmert afterwards made an even more sweeping offer, in 2008. President Abbas didn't even respond to it.

Better a bad press than a good eulogy, and better still would be a fair press whose sense of history extends beyond breakfast, and which recognizes Israel's legitimate security concerns.

this is the body that recognized the Jewish state 64 years ago. Now, don't you think it's about time that Palestinians did the same?

The Jewish state of Israel will always protect the rights of all its minorities, including the more than 1 million Arab citizens of Israel. I wish I could say the same thing about a future Palestinian state, for as Palestinian officials made clear the other day -- in fact, I think they made it right here in New York -- they said the Palestinian state won't allow any Jews in it. They'll be Jew-free -- Judenrein. That's ethnic cleansing. There are laws today in Ramallah that make the selling of land to Jews punishable by death. That's racism. And you know which laws this evokes.

Ladies and gentlemen, I continue to hope that President Abbas will be my partner in peace. I've worked hard to advance that peace. The day I came into office, I called for direct negotiations without preconditions. President Abbas didn't respond. I outlined a vision of peace of two states for two peoples. He still didn't respond. I removed hundreds of roadblocks and checkpoints, to ease freedom of movement in the Palestinian areas; this facilitated a fantastic growth in the Palestinian economy. But again -- no response. I took the unprecedented step of freezing new buildings in the settlements for 10 months. No prime minister did that before, ever. (Scattered applause.) Once again -- you applaud, but there was no response. No response.

We have to stop negotiating about the negotiations.

Economics Lesson in 20 Minutes

If you missed Peter Schiff's Congressional testimony this week, please consider watching the video (link below). I assure you that you will learn more about economics in 20 minutes than you did in a semester at any university.

http://nation.foxnews.com/peter-schiff/2011/09/20/ceo-blows-away-congressional-hearing-i-was-fined-hiring-too-many-people

Below are some of the greatest hits from Schiff's testimony:

• “Stimulus is a sedative”
• “Higher interests rates encourage savings”
• “Demand does NOT come from government spending. Inflation comes from government spending. Demand comes from supply. You can’t consume something that isn’t produced. We have to make things first.”“How do we increase the demand for labor? It’s simple; you bring down the cost of labor. Regulations substantially increase the cost of employing people and as a result, fewer people are employed.”
• “Infrastructure spending doesn’t stimulate the economy, it drains the economy of resources. Infrastructure only works in the long run . . . if it raises the productivity of the nation.”
• “You can always see the jobs that government creates what you don’t see are the jobs that they destroy to create those jobs. All the government can do is rearrange the resources. It doesn’t create any wealth. The problem is that the jobs or the wealth that gets destroyed is more productive than whatever the government replaces it with. On balance the country is poorer.”“It is much more conducive to tax people when they spend their wealth than when they accumulate it."
• "The problem is the damage that the government does to the economy is not limited to taxation. . . It’s what the government is spending that is damaging the economy. . . Deficit spending is more detrimental to the economy than taxation.”The only stimulus that will work is cut government spending.
• Spending on education: “The problem is we are spending and not educating. We don’t need any more spending on education; we are spending too much and the kids are not getting educated.”
• Henry Ford paid his workers the equivalent of $2,500 a week. No federal income taxes back then. No minimum wage, no payroll taxes. No unions. “We paid the highest wages in the world yet we produced the best quality, least expensive products. How was that possible? That was because we had the smallest government. We had minimal regulations, low taxes and if we want to recreate American industry, we have to recreate that environment we have to allow businesses to grow and prosper and we have to remove all the road blocks and impediments that Congress has placed in their paths.”

Doomed from the Start

In the last GOP presidential debate Governor Rick Perry was challenged on his claim, made in his book Fed Up, that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme. I agree with Rush Limbaugh that it is worse than that. As Limbaugh facetiously said "Ponzi Schemes are voluntary, Social Security is not."

Case in point: The first person to draw social security payments was a woman named Ida Mae Fuller.

• Fuller paid a total of $24.78 into the system.


• In 1939, at the age of 65, she started drawing $22.54/month.


• She lived to the age of 100.


• She drew $22,888.92 from the system; a 92,000% return on her investment.

Loony Leftists

I know Obama and the Democrat Party think Americans are dense, apathetic, stupid and ignorant. They count on it to get elected? This one quote from DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, recent appearance on "Morning Joe" exemplifies their utter disdain for the American people better than anything I have seen in a long time.

"Well, the Republicans who think the Recovery Act (stimulus) didn't work are simply wrong. The Recovery Act, as of the beginning of this year, created an additional 3.6 million jobs. We have -- the Recovery Act had a direct impact on making sure the teachers, firefighters, police officers were able to remain in their jobs. It begun -- it helped begin to turn the economy around. 50% of it was tax breaks to small businesses and to the middle class. So every economist you would talk to that is worth their salt acknowledges that without the Recovery Act we would not be continuing on the upswing. We would still be either stuck or spiraling downward. So the Republicans can't make up their own facts. The bottom line is the Recovery Act had an impact."

Let's look at this one piece at a time:

"Well, the Republicans who think the Recovery Act (stimulus) didn't work are simply wrong. The Recovery Act, as of the beginning of this year, created an additional 3.6 million jobs. . . “

• How many of these were federal government employees?
• She forgot to say “created or saved”.
• How many were digging ditches and filling them in a la Keynes’ theory?
• How many jobs were created in August? ZERO!
• How many jobs for black teenagers? 50% unemployment!
  

“We have -- the Recovery Act had a direct impact on making sure the teachers, firefighters, police officers were able to remain in their jobs. . .”

• There we go! The Act “saved” teachers, firefighters and police. She forgot to mention senior citizens, sick children and "the poor" in the same sentence. Minor oversight.

“It begun -- it helped begin to turn the economy around.”

• Really? Which economy is she referring to? The U.S. economy has experienced nothing but misery since January 2009. We lost our AAA credit rating. We are bankrupt with unprecedented national debt and deficit spending. Real unemployment is somewhere north of 16%. Gold is at an all-time high. Obamacare and endless regulations stifle the economy. We have a moratorium on virtually all domestic drilling for oil.

“50% of it was tax breaks to small businesses and to the middle class.”

• She must be referring to the payroll tax holiday because no other “breaks” have been extended to small business. No incentives to hire. No incentives to make capital investments. If you are not General Electric or a “green energy company” on the brink of bankruptcy even after receiving federal funds, the Obama administration will have nothing to do with you.

“So every economist you would talk to that is worth their salt acknowledges that without the Recovery Act we would not be continuing on the upswing. We would still be either stuck or spiraling downward.”

• Where do I start? “Economist worth their salt” = “Economists who believes in the Keynsian, redistribution of wealth, command-and-control, Washington-driven policies. Anyone who disagrees with these loony progressives, is labeled as "fringe fill-in-your-own-blank-here". This is the same argument they make about man made global warming skeptics.

• The economy “continuing on the upswing”, “we would still be either stuck or spiraling downward.” Based on these two snippets, Wasserman proves that she thinks a long-time unemployed worker or someone who is working two or three jobs just to make ends meet is too stupid to recognize that the economy sucks. There is not a single economic statistic that indicates an "upswing" yet she throws this language out like it is The Gospel.

“So the Republicans can't make up their own facts. The bottom line is the Recovery Act had an impact."

• It sure did! It sent the American economy into a death spiral.
  

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/06/wasserman_schultz_republicans_who_think_the_recovery_act_didnt_work_are_wrong.html