Friday, Dec. 9, 2016    Login | Register        

The continuing failure of Obamanomics

Lance McMillian's picture

One of the first lessons of political spin is, whenever possible, to release damaging information on a late Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend. The theory: no one is paying attention anyway.

Applying this lesson well, the White House quietly published a report before the July 4th weekend by the White House Council of Economic Advisors — a group of three economists chosen by President Obama — that laid out the dismal effect of the stimulus on job creation: $666 billion spent to create only 2.4 million jobs, for an astronomical total of $278,000 per job.

The news did not get any better the following Friday when the jobs report for June shocked everyone by showing rising unemployment — the latest in a continuing string of bad data on the dreadful state of the U.S. economy. The real unemployment rate — which includes discouraged and part-time workers who desire full-time employment — now sits at 16.2%.

Nearly three years of Obamanomics and the results are not pretty: record deficits, catastrophic debt levels, rising inflation, high gas prices, no jobs.

Why all this pain? The answers for the Obama malaise are many, but three explanations predominate:

First, government cannot “fix” the economy. It is the conceit of all centralized planners that the mere implementation of their plans will alleviate the problem to be solved. History, however, has shown self-regard of this sort to be unfounded.

The failed war on poverty, the billions spent on education for inferior results, the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the price controls of the 1970s — all attest that the best laid plans of the best and brightest minds play out much differently in the real world than they do on paper.

Experience is the best teacher, and the perennial failure of these big government programs brings to mind Milton Friedman’s warning: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

Similarly, throwing money at the unemployment problem in the form of a bloated stimulus does not lead to meaningful job creation. Business creates jobs, not government. President Obama’s pro-government, anti-business vision doomed his agenda from the start. The proof is in the results.

Second, debt matters. For far too long, America’s political leaders — Democrat and Republican — have pretended that dealing with the country’s debt was an issue that could be pushed down the road to another day. With the additional $4 trillion in debt accumulated since President Obama took office, that day is here.

This bipartisan failure to make tough spending cuts has imperiled trust in the American economy, once thought to be the safest in the world. Combined with the steady rise of capitalism in other parts of the globe, the decreasing faith that the United States has the financial capability to meet its future obligations has led to significant capital flight as investors seek safer havens for their money.

To restore investor confidence, spending must be constrained. Economics is about making choices in a world of scarcity. Any leader unwilling to honestly deal with the realities of the debt crisis is unfit for office. Delay only worsens the eventual pain. The time for action is now.

Third, uncertainty depresses business investment. A little-reported fact is that corporate America presently sits on huge reserves of cash. In times past, businesses would already have jump-started an economic recovery by putting such cash to use in the form of labor and capital investment.

Today, however, corporate money remains on the sidelines because of the lingering uncertainty of the Obama administration’s plans — the continual threats of higher taxes, cap-and-trade, card check, job-killing environmental and energy rules, vague financial regulations, and biggest of all, the implementation of Obamacare.

In high school civics, we learn about the three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. This conception of the federal government has long been inadequate. In reality, there exists a fourth branch of government: the administrative state.

The administrative state — alphabet agencies such as the EPA, the SEC, the NLRB, the IRS, and the like — develops and enacts the myriad of federal regulations that control much of American life. Two things to know about these agencies: (a) they possess wide discretion to do what they want, and (b) they are now managed by regulators hostile to the policies that foster economic growth.

An Obama victory in 2012 will only embolden these anti-business bureaucrats to carry out their political agendas without fear of electoral consequences. The business community knows this.

One of the biggest drags on the economy, therefore, is the terror that President Obama will be re-elected. To create more jobs, the President needs to lose his. Everything starts at the top.

[Lance McMillian is a Fayette County resident and law professor at Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School.]


BHH's picture

After Obama's fiasco, whoever is to succeed him can do no worse and will inevitably improve our situation immensely.

And the sooner the better.


I'm sure Sarah, Santorum, Paul, Trump, Gouliani, AND OTHERS will do wonders.
Especially the headache lady!

This fellow is a law professor? His writing does not rise above the level of a moderately advanced PTC 10th grader trying to sound intelligent by cobbling together an assortment of sentences from the Internet! I hope he has paralegals write all his briefs! I wonder how his essay would fair if run through one of those plagiarism checkers! I don't see any originality anywhere! Does Editor Cal hang out with all these regular contributors at the Motel Six?

At least the Braves won last night, if only by a bad call by an umpire willing to do anything to get to bed after 19 innings!

Tort law is the great fiction by which lawyers use the state to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else!

PTC Observer's picture

Results in the end do matter, it must be very upsetting to you to see failed socialist policies, fail once more.

Just keep watching baseball while the financial world collapes around you, you seem to be pretty good at this.

God protect your family, you certainly are in no position to do it.

Good luck pal.

are management failures in the private sector. Social security work, medicare and medicaid did not blow a whole in the economy. CMOs, CDOs and synthetic derivations thereof did that! We did a good job clamping down on the bankers for about 50 years, but Robert Rubin decided his buddies were more important than the country! Greenspan was blinded by Objectivism! You continue to live in la la land despite my counseling, which would be very expensive for you at market prices! You should watch sports for a good dose of reality! Only so many heads can fit in Thomas Sowell's rectum! Remove yours and give him some much needed relief! I doubt you stay at the Motel Six with Editor Cal when out traveling. Why force others to do so! You are nothing more than a wanna-be despot with delusions of grandeur! How is Anders doing?

Classical liberalism is the great fiction by which economic nonsense was made a religion for semi-educated Scots-Irish!

Braves vs. Pirates again tonight. NFL back on track!

PTC Observer's picture

we're a little testy today aren't we?

Forcing people to do things is not a precept that I agree with so what's your point again?

You're correct about one thing in your post above. The neo-capitalists are in bed with the politicians. I think this is true of all fascists states everywhere. The politicians let the neo-capitalists run rough sough over the masses as long as the neo-capitalists pay them off with "re-election" support. You don't actually believe the government had no idea that the CMOs, CDOs and synthetic derivatives were a bunch of hooey. Why exactly do you think Mr. Obama has nearly a billion dollars for his campaign, because he's popular? Grass root support? LOL.

Finally, I think you should check your math on the assertion that medicare is not "blowing" the economy. This is wrong and now we have our new Obama health care plan to push it along.

You know Ninja, I sense that you sense that the end of the gravy train is near. You're right again.

Hope you're prepared...but my guess is your head is in a game somewhere. Your "reality".

kevink's picture

I think I'll stop paying my car insurance today. I'm not paying my storm water tax, golf cart tax, vehicle ad valorem tax, property tax, Ga State income tax, local sales tax. All of these taxes are required of me in good old conservative Red State georgia. Socialist policies, Observer?

For too long *conservatives have thrown the "socialist" slur around while living in a Red State as fond of taxes as Massachusetts. That's what makes this article junk: It ignores the deficit-increasing effect of *conservative policies while assigning them to the current president. Luckily most Americans are smarter than that.

We know that Iraq and Afghanistan weren't free wars.

We know that the 2001 tax cuts that *conservatives will do anything to protect have added 3 trillion dollars to the deficit (according to George W. Bush's own financial team).

We know that The military, police forces, medical first responders, clean water, clean air, and consumer protections require tax money.

It seems, at times, that *conservatives want the anarchy and lack of government seen only in sub-Saharan and Eastern Africa. Makes good blog fodder, but it's truly not a way to run the greatest nation on Earth.

Hard to understand how someone can be pro-military yet constantly malign the process through which it is funded. We'll see how it plays at the ballot box next go round.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

PTC Observer's picture

don't call me a conservative, if anyone is a conservative it's you.

You would like to keep things exactly as they are, I on the other hand would like to see the whole "business as usual" upset in government.

I am not a Republican, not a conservative, and most certainly am not an advocate of using government to control the lives of its citizens.

I have already explained how the voting process works, it is this process that needs some major overhaul.

kevink's picture

How should things be run, in your opinion. I just want to understand your angle.

Vote Mytmite in 2012!

PTC Observer's picture

For starters we could start with a government that is more interested in freedom than one that is always looking for a way to control our lives.

I would suggest that you go look up some of my other posts and you may understand better where I stand. Let's see if I can summarize.

1. A return to a Republic, not a I don't want to re-institute slavery, I simply want to limit the vote to those that don't have a conflict of interest in the process of taking money and giving it to others, primarily themselves.
2. A tax code that is simple and doesn't allow big corporations or individuals to ride on the backs of those that actually create wealth. I think a simple code is the best way of doing this, a flat tax or consumption tax of some sort. We of course would have to eliminate the income tax and it's complicated tax loopholes.
3. A recognition by those elected to office that they are not there to get re-elected, they are there to represent our interests and not their own. This takes a degree of heroic virtue that is absent in most if not all politicians.
4. A dismantling of government departments, agencies, and other miscellaneous make work programs that add no value to our lives.
5. A free market. Where individuals can decide what they spend their money on, when they spend it, and who they spend it on. You know like not taxing "bad" food because it's "good" for us, I don't need the government telling me what is and isn't good for me, I don't need a wet nurse disguised as a government.

I could go on and on, but the central point is that government has a role in our lives, our government was founded on the principle of individual freedom. We need to return to it. It should focus it on what it should be doing, protecting life, liberty, and property.

when people like call for armed insurrection! You should change your screen name to PTCO-X or Che-PTCO! You are paving the way for modern-day vandals, goths, and visi-goths! Anarchy is not the answer! Keep PTC beautiful!

Good day sir! Braves win again!

PTC Observer's picture

"Forcing people to do things is not a precept that I agree with.."

How do you go from the statement above to "call for armed insurrection"

Have you been smoking that funny stuff again?

Taxation = theft. WE have the right to defend lives and property. If that is the case, who you gonna call--Ghostbusters?

Braves take on the Pie-Rats again tonight! Watch'em and learn about the fallacies of classical liberalism!

PTC Observer's picture

Oh, I see. Well it doesn't work that way Ninja or we would have anarchy. You see there is this little matter of law. We are in fact a nation of laws. It is our ability to change them that I support. I think this idea is shared by a lot of people Ninja.

Taxation is not theft BTW, taxation for the express purpose of taking money from one group of people in order to "level" the playing field (note the sports analogy) is theft. So, we need to get rid of these programs as they do not serve the purpose of fulfilling the role of government. That is to got it Ninja. Life, Liberty, and Property.

Let us go back to voodoo economics as practiced by Reagan or tax cut and spend as practiced by W. I think not.
Now Clinton had great success with the budget, let's practice what he did.

Robert W. Morgan's picture

He was forced to compromise on his stupid healthcare and other social issues by a Republican controlled Congress. True, whoever replaces the Campaigner-in-Chief will be perceived as a savior, but it will actually be the Congresspeople sworn in January 2013 that will do the heavy lifting. Need a new Speaker at that time as well. Boehner is too soft on Democrats.

Live free or die!

JeffC's picture

Clinton's budget, which raised taxes amidst wails and gnashing of teeth by the Republicans claiming it would destroy the economy, was passed without a single Republican vote. In fact, VP Gore had to go to the Senate to cast the tie breaking vote.

Mike King's picture

....Would the following lend any credibility to what's going on in Washington?

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Just asking.

JeffC's picture

“Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility, This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.”

Ronald Reagan, September 1987

Jeff -

Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama. Reagan passed away, and Obama, then Senator, now President, speaks out of both sides of his arse.

President Obama tried to raise enough income to pay the debt over a few years but the republicans want to do it NOW with Education, environment, FAA, medicare, health insurance, pensions, social security, and food stamp money!

The republicans, having reduced the federal income while fighting wars and allowing Wall Street to get rich and break us, not to mention 15 million unemployed, are still fighting wanting to pay the debt from the masses rather than capitalism!

There is only so much one President can do in 21/2 years to avoid Bush's depression, find unavailable jobs, and allow corporations to accumulate cash to further screw the masses.

The debt was made more so by the conservatives than by the liberals---they also voted for most of it over the years.

Taxes just weren't high enough to pay for it.
Salaries weren't high enough to keep many from over using credit cards and buying expensive homes!

I think the confidence in America is now shot for a long time by this TEA bluff, and there is no way they can get 40% budhet reduction, no tax increases, go through this fiasco every 6 months, and stop a depression now!

Well America, are you happy with how the 2010 election turned out?

Remember those tea party meetings with naive, mostly senior citizens, deciding to read the Constitution for the first time (or at least skimming it) and deciding that everything in American History since 1789 was not true to the Constitution as they now understand it? Remember those innocent and naive tea party Americans listening to ultra right wing speakers like Herman Caine? Those were exciting times weren't they.

Limited Federal government was the answer. Just like during the Civil War.

Well now we know that the tea party representatives America elected are just a bunch of deadbeats, unwilling to pay for the obligations that America hss already voted for.

It is not enough for them to reduce Federal spending in the future; the tea party folks don't want to pay for bills that are now due.

It is clear that the tea party folks are too iresponsible to share in the governing of America.


PTC Observer's picture

Well....I don't know actually whether I am happy or not about this movement. They seem to be getting off in the weeds of social issues, instead of focusing on fiscal issues.

Just FYI, we didn't have limited federal government during the Civil War, we had a dictatorship and a repeal of many of the Constitutional guarantees that were protected for the states and the individuals. Or don't you read history?

Whether or not the tea party folks are irresponsible or not depends on the outcome, not the theoretical outcome. However, they have been duly elected so they are in fact a fact of life Lion.

It will be very interesting to see if President Obama has enough money to buy the Presidency in 2012. I am beginning to wonder given his most recent display of incompetence. The real question is who will make up the Congress following the 2012 election, fiscal realists or spendthrift "visionaries"? It really doesn't matter what party they are in.

i read history.

I know it took the Federal government to make conservatives give up slavery. It took the Federal government to make conservatives give up segregation. It took the Federal government to give Americans a minimum wage and safer working conditions. And it took the Federal government to to give women and blacks the right to vote. Conservatives opposed all of these things.

And now conservatives are "rebelling" against the Federal government because it makes them drink clean water, breathe clean air, and conserve energy and on and on. Conservatives are angry because the Federal government provides Social Security, Medicare, etc.

America will thank President Obama for protecting us from the tea party extremists.


good to see you on here again, lion! (and Jeff, Kevin, Carb, NUK)

lion, your post reminded me of this PSA I just saw, for the teabagger/libertarian and Glenn Beck loving crowd... enjoy!

PTC Observer's picture

posting, you're just the kind of guy that we need to hear from in America.

1. It took an Army to subdue the states that seceded from the union, the Union states kept their slaves throughout the war, many of the Southern states, including some that seceded, kept their slaves throughout the war. That's history lion. Slavery was evil pure and simple and if it was right to attack those that left the Union to free the slaves then it was right for those Union states to immediately give up their slaves. They didn't for a reason, they freed the slaves for a reason following the war, you can go read some history and figure it out for yourself why they did this.

2. The minimum wage was a payoff for Union support (as it is today), the minimum wage keeps the poor poor. It feathers the nest of a limited number of people at the expense of those who would work for less. It drives up the cost of our domestic products, it is inflationary and ships jobs overseas where they have no unions. All to protect a special interest group. Look at our automobile industry and what the union helped do to these companies against foreign competition. That's history lion.

3. Safer working conditions were not union driven they were driven by the need to avoid re-training and improved productivity by private companies. It was in the capitalists interest to accept "safer working conditions" as a union "demand". The only people that benefit from Unions are the union bosses. Unions have never, I repeat, never saved one job anywhere. That's history lion

4. Segregation was evil, it violated the principles of the rights of man, it needed to be eliminated by law and justice. It was through the enforcement of law that segregation was ended in the south, it took a lot longer in the north, or are you not old enough to remember the riots in Boston? That's history lion.

5. If we want or need clean water, air, and clean energy then we should demand these through the protection of property rights and free markets. That's not history lion, that's the Constitution, which I suppose in a way is history.

Mr. Obama will not be able to "protect" us from the tea party as long as we have free and open elections. If their philosophy is supported by the voters then their representatives will be elected and they will demand what they demand out of government. That's called representative government lion. You can read about this idea in a history book, almost any history book dealing with our form of government.

You lion, are a conservative by definition. You want to keep things just the way they are, aka increasing the power of the federal government. You in someway are acting in your own self-interest. Aren't you lion? Just be honest with yourself, even if you can't be honest with us on this board.

carbonunit52's picture

This Tea Party stuff is really amateurish. A true conservative giving important and politically correct advice to his son sounded like this: "My granddaddy used stone tools, my daddy used stone tools, I use stone tools, and dammit boy you're gonna use stone tools too".

PTC Observer's picture

conservative as well.

"Conservative - –adjective
1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."

We have been on a socialist binge since 1913, I think people who want to keep things just the way they are, are conservatives by definition.

Now if you mean conservatives as we define them today, incorrectly, I might add. They are simply bent on keeping things from getting "worse" they are not for actually changing anything. However, they do like and insist in getting involve in personal decisions about how we live our lives.

Hope this clears up why I call you and lion conservatives, because you are no matter what camp you claim to be in.

carbonunit52's picture

I am a conservative, as the term applies to conservation. Otherwise I have to notify Cal that you are trying to hurt my feelings.

PTC Observer's picture

your own property then and leave other people to use their property the way they see fit, when it infringes your property rights take them to court, otherwise leave people alone to pursue happiness. See I am not trying to hurt your feelings.

carbonunit52's picture

My dad thought that burning tires on his property was within his rights. If you were a property owner upwind from him, would you agree?
Of course, if this discussion goes far enough, I will mention fracking for gas wells.

PTC Observer's picture

was wrong, if the smoke diminishes the value or the pleasure in using my property, I can sue him for a remedy. Just as if someone upstream from my property builds a dam and doesn't compensate me for the loss of the flow of water onto my property. "Fracking" for gas wells explain how this would diminish my property or take something under the surface of my property (mineral rights) without compensation and I will tell you that you have legal recourse. That's property rights carbon, and we don't need to have an EPA to protect them, only the law.

Mike King's picture

Should you substitute the word Democrat for conservative in your rant you might be correct for once in your life.

But that's not your intent, is it?

Mike King's picture

"Well now we know that the tea party representatives America elected are just a bunch of deadbeats, unwilling to pay for the obligations that America has already voted for."

Would you please elaborate on those obligations that the TEA Party folks are unwilling to pay?

I didn't think so.

I think right now there are abut 14 trillion plus that has been spent and owed!

Congress passed spending bills for all of it!

The TEA Party now doesn't want to pay honest debts except by cutting off all current spending---maybe even pensions!

I swear that I remember all of the hard scrabble groups call one kind of tea or another saying they were not a party---just someone to stop taxes!

NUK_1's picture

[quote=lion]Well America, are you happy with how the 2010 election turned out?

I sure am. With the total wipeout in the House of the Dems, the focus now isn't on furthering the terrible ideas of the Obama administration and progressives like Pelosi and instead on fiscal reform. Plus, since the TP found out that you can't just nominate any idiot like Angle, Miller or O'Donnell and expect to win no matter how poor the opposition is, maybe next year they field better candidates that have been a little more scrutinized.

The midterms in 2010 stopped Obama/Pelosi/Reid from making any further "progress" on their hot button issues and have put them on the defensive instead.

All across the country right now states are suddenly showing the backbone to stand up to labor unions and force reform. Even rock-solid Dem states with Dem governors are participating in meaningful reform and fiscal accountability for once. Love it myself.

NUK_1's picture

The supporters of Obama don't like to reflect back on anything he said while serving as a Senator or his voting record, especially this one issue where he voted against raising the debt limit and was very blunt about it.

The MSM generally has given him a free pass on this too and tried to make him into a statesman despite the fact that everyone from Obama to Reid to Boehner, Dem or Repub, is actually sinking even lower in the public's eye than before on their collective failures.

Change we can believe in turned into "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" about a week after Obama got elected. Despite the inbred stupidity of some Repubs and other kooks who had to howl about birth certificates/citizenship and other utter nonsense that actually gave Obama a lot of cover since he was being attacked by a bunch of idiots, that has passed and now he has to stand on his own record without the benefit of sympathy by being attacked by people that most in society consider a bunch of freaks.

Obama probably made a tactical political mistake in releasing his birth certificate in order to shut up the lunatic fringe. Now they are suddenly quieter and the focus is more on Obama instead of the crazies, and that's not so good for him.

JeffC's picture

Obama did vote against the debt ceiling and Mike King posted his reason for doing so above:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure..... America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." - Obama

That is undeniably true. It was true in 2007 when he said it and it is true now. We had failed leadership then and we have failed leadership now. I agree with him. However, even though his analysis was correct, his voting against raising the debt limit was a mistake because Reagan was right too:

“Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility... The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.” - Reagan

Obama has been blessed with enemies so unhinged that no matter what he does, they always look astonishingly worse. And now, the TEAs in the House are about to allow him to pin the economy on them. He is going to wrap their extremist positions around the whole Republican Party and campaign on inheriting Bush's economy in the past and being the stalwart against the crazies taking over in the future.

The debt limit will be raised. Even if the suicide-bomber mentality of the House TEAs who are willing to bring lasting economic harm to the country prevails and no agreement is reached, Obama will just unilaterally raise the limit based on the 14th Amendment. Let the Supreme Court decide. How long will that take? Meanwhile, does anybody think banks won't accept and cash US government checks that are issued?

Oh, and those never raise taxes under any circumstances TEAs? They have now guaranteed that the Bush tax cuts will never be extended when they expire. Think any Dems are going to support them after this?

PTC Observer's picture

could be right on this, but you could be wrong as well.

I guess we'll all have to wait until 2012 to see what happens, until then we will watch both parties gather their financial forces to throw mud at an ever increasing rate.

Both parties will swing wildly to each extreme attempting to pick up special interest votes. The Democrats are a bit crippled by the fact that everyone will be watching to see how they fund the dole to their special interests in light of the big debt debate. The Republicans can't do much to pass legislation for their special interests either. It's kind of like a standoff.

Let's call it the battle for the independent vote. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans can muster enough special interests to pull the election either way. It will be the independent vote that will determine the outcome of the next election. The only question is which party has hurt themselves the most with this latest round of incompetency.

2012 will tell where the country will go over the next decade, fiscal realism or inspired socialist "vision". I am betting on fiscal realism as the age demographics move the population to being more and more risk adverse.

It is likely that President Obama will have enough money to buy the Presidency, the question is will the Democrats be able to get enough money to buy the Congress? I say it's unlikely given the current environment.

JeffC's picture

Your analysis:

"2012 will tell where the country will go over the next decade, fiscal realism or inspired socialist "vision". I am betting on fiscal realism as the age demographics move the population to being more and more risk adverse."

seems counter-indicated by your premise.

When you say: " the age demographics move the population to being more and more risk adverse", you can only be referring to the population aging. But doesn't that make the bet lean toward the "inspired socialist vision", as surely an aging population will demand more from SSI, Medicare, etc.?

You are, of course, correct that my earlier conjecture may or may not be viable. However, it is my considered opinion that the statements made by the TEAs will be used to scare people about Social Security and Medicare, which will help the Ds to a much greater extent than cutting the government by 40% in the next few years helps the Rs.

Plus! Don't forget that these House Republicans have to produce a budget between now and the election.

First of all, its risk averse; NOT risk adverse. Second, JeffC is correct in that the aging of the population will tend to lean at least that demographic toward the inspired socialist vision, and that demographic is growing.

Braves Fry the Fish Tonight!

PTC Observer's picture

averse, you're correct Ninja, sorry for word miss on this one.

JeffC, perhaps your'e right about the risk factor. However, if this was the case why are there so many "old" people supporting the likes of the Teas?

There is another demographic that you are forgetting Jeff, that is the elderly are rich, not poor. Most have accumulated a lot of money over their lifetime. In the case of the boomers, the majority will inherit the largest sum of wealth from their parents than any generation in American history.

Thus, my premise that they will simply want to be left alone. They certainly won't want to be taxed more and more for services they don't use. It is apparent that they will want less out of government. Thus, the answer to the question about the "old" people in the Tea Party.

It's true that the Republicans will have to produce a budget, it is also true that the Senate will fight them tooth and nail. This rancor will continue right up until the election. It will be the independent that will decide who's to blame for the issues to be raised. I am guessing that the fiscal realists will come out of the woodwork. So long Democrats for at least a decade.

However, just as with your speculation, I could be wrong. We will just need to wait for 2012 to see how it all turns out.

your myopia is showing! Get thee to a LASIK clinic! It may be that most of the elderly at your Atlanta country club are wealthy, but there are many elderly that have nothing or next to nothing. Come on man! Reality awaits you! Follow Siddhartha's lead and venture beyond the confines of your walled compound!

Braves Fried The Fish Last Night On Uggla's 3-Run Homer!

Vote No On Motel Six In PTC!

PTC Observer's picture

I don't play golf, and yes there are many elderly that have nothing this is true, but the point of this discussion is to speculate on why there are so many "old" people in the Tea Party and why this will have implications for the next election as it did in 2010.

My premise is that there is a very large cohort of wealthy elders that want to reduce the risk of having their money depleted by a government that provides nothing for them in return. Will they get SS? Sure they believe that that is their money anyway. The fact is most worked hard for their money, they planned ahead and in many cases they truly do care what happens to America in the future. My guess is they want to leave whatever they have left to their families and don't want the government seizing it when they die. There goes that family and personal responsibility thing again.

So, to return to this argument, the increasing rate of wealth creation among the elderly is undeniable, demographics show that not only are seniors accumulating wealth they are using the freedom their wealth gives them to volunteer at unprecedented rates. Thus, when they see their future and the future of they families threaten they "volunteer" for organizations like the TEA Party, why not they have the time and they are highly motivated by self-interest. Most studies that are funded by the government don't show this trend as it doesn't support a growth in government funded programs essential to the socialist agenda. Here's a study that questions earlier study methodologies:

Since the senior population is increasing at an increasing rate and the "youth" generation is declining or at best maintaining it's numbers through immigration, you can easily speculate what the next several decades will look like politically. Both parties should take heed of these trends or lose the independent vote, remember these seniors influence a large segment of our society that is highly, educated, motivated, family, friends, small businesses and relatively wealthy.

Ninja, it is you that needs to snap out of it and try a big dose of reality, the gravy train is running out of steam as an entire, very large, population cohort moves from active middle age, to planning for their retirement. I don't think the majority of them want the gruel the government is serving. Look for much bigger rallies by the TEAS in the months ahead. Remember this is the generation that started the mass protest movements of the 1960's, or aren't you that old Ninja? Nah, I guess not, probably early 40's with some kids, not much money, and dependent in some way on the government dole. Better start planning an alternative lifestyle pal.

you must be engaging in some of those bad habits I witnessed you and your draft-card-burning buddies engaging in back then! Or, perhaps you are just having flashbacks! What are the two biggest programs the elderly benefit from--SS and medicare! What are most seniors scared of--medical bills that would wipe out any savings intended to go to kids or grand kids! You think retirees are going to rise up and demand that medicare be dismantled? Toke again friend! BTW, I have a total of 23 kids in all three nations for which I have passports! Only half are on government support! Only 1 in the US and its territories, and that's in Puerto Rico, which doesn't count!

You refuse to slay your own dragons, so I have to do it for you!

I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?
John Lennon

Let us not limit the time others have on earth just because our own is short.
Ninja Guy

PTC Observer's picture

don't you get tried of being wrong Ninja? I guess I must have nailed your profile or you wouldn't be so glib.

You are right on SS and Medicare these are programs that pick up part of the cohort in question, but not all. The vast majority of seniors are wealthy Ninja and while they would like to see the benefits of both these programs, they are bright enough to know that neither are ultimately sustainable. So, back to my premise. You will see much bigger rallies by the TEAS in the future and they will have a significant impact on the future of the body politic in the future. You can believe in this until it is disproved and we will all see in 2012 whether my premise is correct. The gravy train is chugging to a stop, it may even back up! Better look for a lifestyle change pal because it's coming. Don't say I didn't forewarn you.

As far as limiting others time on earth, I am a peaceful person Ninja, you can ask my friends, both of them. The only way I would intentionally shorten another's time on earth is if they threaten my life or the life of my loved ones, reference the 2nd Amendment and laws concerning self-defense. This I am perfectly willing to do without regret or second thought.

in ARC, I am a net donor, and I don't mind! Life is good and doomsday is not coming! Get out of the bomb shelter and enjoy the sunlight! Humans need vitamin D in non-pill form!

Braves get Michael Bourn from the Astros! Great move Frank Wren, who lives in PTC--not Palmetto!

Vote No On Motel Six in PTC!

PTC Observer's picture

I am happy you're happy Ninja, just keep ponying up til it hurts pal.

What amount seems just right for you? You know to pay for government that is "just about right"?

In your case I think you should donate say 95% to the government, that would make it fair for me, but let's let the government decide, you know those guys that are in perpetual re-election mode, let's see how much money they will take from you.

After all the rich and corporations pay little to no tax, so that just leave people like you Ninja, pay up pal.

Have you started that job search yet?

morning, but the Braves pre-game show is about to start! Have a good day stocking up on canned goods!

PTC Observer's picture

it too, let us know how it looks from the dark side of the moon. ;-)


Ad space area 4 internal