« Boeing: A Jobs Case Study | Main | Romney: Part II »

May 19, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

SMALL BUSINESS ----

Once again evidence of why small business should be aided by government instead of punished emerges. While the Union loving administration works diligently to favor the union shops of America's big businesses and government organizations in return for political funds and votes, America's small business owners, the same people threatened by the tax raises are creating jobs. Companies with 500 employees or less have accounted for 97% of the new public sector jobs created in the past year. 50% of these have been created by businesses with less than 50 employees. Professional service companies who's salaries average 20% above average have created 20% of these jobs. Retail and hospitality typically lower paying jobs have created the most. SO, where are those big US companies with all their trillions of dollars on the sidelines? Where are all those multinational companies the Administration has encouraged to come to America and create jobs? Here are the alarming statistics: Multinational US companies have cut 2.9 million US jobs in the past ten years while adding 2.4 Million jobs overseas. US Manufacturing companies have cut 2.2 million jobs in the past 3 years. So, let's tax those little guys and give healthcare exemptions to those big companies. Let's regulate the little companies and keep them out of government contract bidding to level the playing field for the union guys. Let's fine them for not providing healthcare so they can't create as many jobs. And, then let's not secure the borders so that these jobs created (that they say no American wants) can go to Mexicans without green cards. Thank goodness American small business people cannot be discouraged and keep their jobs in America. Otherwise where would we be? By the way anyone see "green job companies" on the list?

Well Harrycat---

We are having a dialogue. I would agree that Obama is perhaps protecting the environment as a consequence of his policies. I could write about this for pages but in the interest of ink I'll try to make my case even though I know it will not convince liberals. First and foremost is that economics drives the world community and what they do. Cost of production drives the economic system. In the end it all boils down to where the environment fits in our hierarchy of values as a nation versus the cost of production that determines our competativeness in the world markets. The willingness of Europeans, so often used as the shining stars by liberals, to engage in the purchase of high mileage and alternative fuel cars is driven by their high cost of gasoline (oil) not so much their care for the planet. Gasoline in Europe has always been 50 to 125% higher than the USA. This is because they have little domestic production except in Russia. And this Russian supply was off limits for much of the cold war. Thus, with higher gasoline prices the market for alternative auto's is bigger in the European market than in the US where we cowboys and soccer moms still prefer SUV's. The reason gasoline is so much cheaper here is that we produce large quatities here. We actually export some gasoline to Mexico. So, Obama began his moves to drive up the price of oil in the name of environemntal safety so that it will artificially prouce a market for alternative fuels in America. As I pointed out in the preceeding comment he has done other things that drive the price up as well beginning with restricting the growth of American oil production offshore.

As I write this I am looking at the Summary section of a Study I managed for the Defense Department in early 1973 in response to the impact of the Arab Oil Embargo on US security and economics. Here are a few things we concluded and reported to the US Government:

1. The US policies of environmental constraints of domestic fossil fuel production and government regulatory policies implemented against nuclear power generation allow us to forecast that the US supply of Domestic petroleum and natural gas will be significantly less than demand. I point out that this was 1973--we are not exactly being blindsided by this shortfall nor were we not aware that environmentalists would eventually impact the price and availablility of oil.

2. Of the alternatives only the increase in oil and gas exploration can result in increases in supply to significantly reduce the gap between supply and demand. This is unlikely given the legal and environmental constraints being imposed. None of the alternative energy sources can significantly reduce the gap. Coal used to produce electricity will help. Conservation measures can also help but both only slightly and are unlikely to be implemented quickly.

3. The importation of foreign oil from sources in the middle east does not appear to be a desireable alternative but it is likely to continue anyway. Arab countries appear to be willing to use oil politically purposes and to inflict harm to the US eceonomy if necessary. Large dollar outflow to these producers reduces US economic security as the balance of payments is harder to maintain and as Arab countries may use these large reserves of dollars to fund activities against US interests.

After this study we were tasked to look at the use of domestic Coal as a supplement to oil. We also looked at global warming during this study and concluded that fossil fuels would likely increase the temperature of earth slightly although it would be far less significant than mother nature's effect. For example the recent earthquake in Japan altered the earth's axis slightly. This will have an effect on weather as well. The Ice Age came and went without man's help. Ocean currents change as well. Sun activity changes the weather significantly. And,many other emerging countries will not invest in the environment as we already have and continue to do.

In the end, Harrycat, we can argue this stuff to death. It all boils down to what we put first and how we split the resources we have to use. Artificially raising the prices to produce demand for alternative energy sources that cannot bridge the gap is an expensive way to implement an environemntal policy and creates a lot of pain and suffering on the people that liberals are supposed to care about. To me, perhaps not to you, the alternative of allowing exploration with safety constraints while we wait for natural market price increases to come is far more realistic. We spent $1T on the stimulus plan. Little if any went to the construction of a natural gas distribution system. Even Senator Harry Reid is a big proponent of natural gas development. In the end I believe in the economic development of our country as our first priority to employ our people and allow the funds to create and maintain our support system. Liberals see it another way. However, in this dialogue we have gone from you labeling the Republican candidates of being idiots and religious fanatics to labeling my thoughts as "unfounded accusations". Some observations and opinions are based on experience, Harrycat. It is not that I don't think Obama knows what he is doing --he knows exactly what he is doing--I just don't agree with him on some approaches. And, what bothers me the most is that he tries to make it appear that he is doing something else. That's why I call him the smoke and mirrors man.

Bill M. -
It is a far stretch to conclude that, since Obama has tried to protect the environment, his true objective is his "fixation on increasing the cost of oil". Why would he do that? It makes no sense. Unfounded accusations such as this are one of the reasons we, as a nation, are unable to have a dialog.

Harrycat---I'll let you do the research on Obama's policies with regard to oil. Simply look to his major environmental speeches, his energy tax proposals,his carbon trading plan, his ban on offshore drilling, his use of EPA to restrict access to new exploration and his support for restricting the use of all fossil fuels to reduce global warming. You'll find the evidence.

As for the elimination of the tax break for Exxon--I'm for eliminating special favors for companies. While we are getting rid of that how about we have GE pay a little tax on their $13B profit last year? How about we eliminate the tax break we gave for electric cars, golf carts, first time home buyers,farmers,insulating your home, etc. The list goes on. You point to one, I can point to many including the 70 Million Americans who pay little to no tax. My guess is Exxon paid Billions of dollars in tax despite the tax credit and the Federal and State governments tax gasoline at a very high rate.

The problem in this situation is not tax credits it is high tax rates and even higher government spending. Illinois is now in debt to the tune of $42,000 per household on the state level. California and New York are similar. Those three states already have the highest tax rates in the country--how do these high tax rates work out?

Bill M -
A small point: you state that Obama is fixated on increasing the cost of oil. Where is the evidence? Which policies? Are you referring to the attempt to eliminate the $21b tax break the oil companies get from us taxpayers?

HARRYCAT------

Yep, I'm talking about the American Congressional leaders who are fiscally charged with the American budget process and spending controls. Presidents send them suggestions but Congress controls fiscal welfare of the country. For most of the post WWII time period Democrats have controlled Congress so they bare the brunt of the debt blame. However for a narrow period in the Clinton--Bush era Republicans too behaved irresponsibly. It matter little if the politicians raise or lower federal income taxes. The hundreds of other taxes continue to rise every year and they continue to erode the purchasing power of Americans putting pressure on the economy. Combine that with the current Administrations fixation on increasing the cost of oil which is also increasing the cost of food and you have a very heavy burden that consumers are incurring. But, perhaps the most insulting of all is the lack of even putting together a budget for two years by the President. This simply indicates to me that he has not a clue as to how to run a fiscal operation. Hi is literally a kid with a credit card. His play is to use that credit card to "level the playing field for the minorities in the country knowing full well that the "haves" will eventually have to pay the bill. The "haves" in his mind are the small business owners and the people earning between $200 and $400k. There is no mystery--this is the liberal motive, plan and execution. He is doing it well and if you are of that mindset then you are happy. Are you happy, Harrycat?

Bill M.
I have to assume that you are talking about W:
tax cuts for the wealthiest (not paid for)
drug benefit for seniors (not paid for)
two wars (neither concluded)
biggest recession since 1929

When you give your college kid a credit card and despite your requests they won't stop charging then you take away the card. It's pretty simple. Who is fiscally irresponsible? The kid or the parent?

How can the party of fiscal conservatism as recently as a few years ago argue that "deficits don't matter", and now defaulting on our national debt is not a big deal? This is fiscal conservatism?

Can anyone explain the Rep position on the debt ceiling as anything else than risking our nation's welfare for political advantage?

The comments to this entry are closed.