Don't b.s. me, bro

I'm not as dumb as I look, you know. Also, when and why did governments start confusing taxpayers with ATMs?

25 Aug 11
Filed under: obama jobs economics 

Chief among Obama’s many flaws: he has no idea how to be a leader of people. Strike one. And you can’t fake it. Strike two. Which could still work if he knew what he was doing. Which he does not. Strike three. Yer Out!

moneyissues:

Obama’s “Very Specific” Jobs Plan Downgraded From “Outline” To “Some Reasonable Ideas”…

talkstraight:

President Obama’s post-Labor Day policy speech on job creation will include “some reasonable ideas that can have a tangible impact,” his spokesman says.

Those ideas and others are being considered by the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, whose leaders — General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt and American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault — spoke by phone with the president Wednesday.

“There will be some ideas that the president will lay out in this speech … new ideas,” Earnest said. At the same time, he said, Obama is not “backing away” from proposals he has pushed in the past, such as a public-private infrastructure bank to jump-start highway projects, and free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama.

The spokesman said Obama is constantly “dismayed” by Republicans’ charges that his economic proposals are intended for political consumption.

_____________________________________________

And this is the second time it has been downgraded.

22 Aug 11
Filed under: economics private sector 
puddinheadwilson: “Perhaps the most amazing thing about Central Park is how little tax money goes into maintaining it. Though it is still ultimately the city’s responsibility, the park has been managed since the 1980s by the nonprofit , and it relies on private donations for most of its budget. The marriage between the city and the Conservancy has been a fruitful one. Can this model, known as a public-private partnership, restore and invigorate all of New York’s green spaces, including neighborhood parks in less affluent areas? It’s an important question, not only as the city faces tough fiscal times but as urban planners increasingly view parks as tools of economic development and public health. People who lived in New York in the 1970s and early 1980s still remember how forbidding the parks were in those dark days. Douglas Blonsky, now head of the Central Park Conservancy and thus Central Park’s administrator, recalls that when he started working there in 1985, most of the benches were broken and most surfaces sported layers of graffiti. “The Great Lawn was a dust bowl,” he says, at least when the weather was dry; when it rained, seas of mud meant that “you could barely walk through the park for days.” But where “government had given up,” citizens stepped in. In 1980, landscape designer Elizabeth Barlow Rogers and others founded the Central Park Conservancy, whose original purpose was to raise money, stop the park’s decline, and restore several of its major landmarks. The city eventually gave the Conservancy the lion’s share of day-to-day control of the park.Because its workers weren’t organized into public-sector unions, the Conservancy had a great deal of freedom to institute private management practices—above all, emphasizing accountability. The park is now divided into 49 sections, with a master gardener responsible for the condition of each. About 85 percent of the Conservancy’s annual budget comes from private donations, mostly from people who live within a ten-minute walk of the park. “Obviously, it’s an incredible backyard, and look what it does to your real-estate values,” says Blonsky.” Private sector fixes for government problems: remove graft, instill accountability, watch good things happen.

puddinheadwilson:

“Perhaps the most amazing thing about Central Park is how little tax money goes into maintaining it. Though it is still ultimately the city’s responsibility, the park has been managed since the 1980s by the nonprofit , and it relies on private donations for most of its budget. The marriage between the city and the Conservancy has been a fruitful one. Can this model, known as a public-private partnership, restore and invigorate all of New York’s green spaces, including neighborhood parks in less affluent areas? It’s an important question, not only as the city faces tough fiscal times but as urban planners increasingly view parks as tools of economic development and public health.

People who lived in New York in the 1970s and early 1980s still remember how forbidding the parks were in those dark days. Douglas Blonsky, now head of the Central Park Conservancy and thus Central Park’s administrator, recalls that when he started working there in 1985, most of the benches were broken and most surfaces sported layers of graffiti. “The Great Lawn was a dust bowl,” he says, at least when the weather was dry; when it rained, seas of mud meant that “you could barely walk through the park for days.”

But where “government had given up,” citizens stepped in. In 1980, landscape designer Elizabeth Barlow Rogers and others founded the Central Park Conservancy, whose original purpose was to raise money, stop the park’s decline, and restore several of its major landmarks. The city eventually gave the Conservancy the lion’s share of day-to-day control of the park.Because its workers weren’t organized into public-sector unions, the Conservancy had a great deal of freedom to institute private management practices—above all, emphasizing accountability. The park is now divided into 49 sections, with a master gardener responsible for the condition of each. About 85 percent of the Conservancy’s annual budget comes from private donations, mostly from people who live within a ten-minute walk of the park. “Obviously, it’s an incredible backyard, and look what it does to your real-estate values,” says Blonsky.”

Private sector fixes for government problems: remove graft, instill accountability, watch good things happen.

(via kaching)

18 Aug 11
Filed under: economics deficit 

Raising Taxes Will NOT Help the Deficit

Tax revenues are mainly a function of GDP, and almost independent of tax rates (with conditions, e.g., existing rates are not uber-low). If somebody has evidence that proves that statement wrong, I’d like to see it.

So assuming that premise is factual why do people who should know better, like David Stockman, continue to confuse the public about this issue? I.e, since higher tax rates WILL hurt economic growth, how is it a good idea to raise tax rates in order to achieve the goal of lowering deficits by increasing government revenue? How can that possibly work?

You must grow the economy to increase government revenues and therefore help with deficits. Raising taxes will NOT grow the economy. The way to grow the economy is to CUT tax rates. 

Again, if somebody has evidence to the contrary, I’d like to see it. I’m open to discussion on this point, but the reading I’ve done points to this conclusion. 

We need to understand what are, and what are not, the relevant factors in a complicated system like this, so that we change the right ones and make it better instead of worse. This is rule #2 of problem solving, right after defining the problem itself. 

9 Aug 11
Filed under: economics debt ceiling deficit 

Under Debt Ceiling Deal, Debt to Rise $12 Trillion and 95% of Network Stories Leave That Out

talkstraight:

If you’ve been watching the news media react to the debt ceiling deal you might thing some drastic spending cuts were signed into law. After all, ABC made it sound like Congress took a “machete” to the budget and NBC’s “Today” wondered if those spending cuts could harm the economy.

What has been completely missing from much of the network reporting was an admission that the deal “doesn’t cut federal spending at all,” according to a Cato scholar. The national debt is still projected to go up $12 trillion in 10 years under the plan.

That’s right. Not one bit of cuts. Chris Edwards, Cato Institute’s director of tax policy studies, explained that despite some media outlets view that the cuts were “sharp” and “severe” (He cited The Washington Post), the cuts aren’t what Washington politicians and media made it sound like. They are really cuts to projected growth of spending and debt, something Investor’s Business Daily exposed on July 22 in a front-page article.

Business & Media Institute looked at transcripts for 43 stories, interviews and news briefs mentioning the debt ceiling deal on network morning and evening shows Aug. 1 and 2. Only 2 of them admitted the debt will rise anyway. On ABC’s “World News,” Diane Sawyer put the spending cuts in perspective by admitting that federal spending won’t get any lower as a result of this deal - in fact it will grow.

More at the link

8 Aug 11
Filed under: economics deficit debt celing 
U.S. Public Debt as a Percentage of GDP Is this the Tea Party’s fault, too? (via The Market is Crashing Tonight, What Should You Do? 6 Definitive Steps for Your Money | Points and Figures)

U.S. Public Debt as a Percentage of GDP

Is this the Tea Party’s fault, too?

(via The Market is Crashing Tonight, What Should You Do? 6 Definitive Steps for Your Money | Points and Figures)

7 Aug 11
Filed under: economics debt ceiling deficit 

Axelrod: 'This is essentially a tea party downgrade'

And that is a steaming pile of crap.

Just because the Tea Party can do math, don’t hold it against them.

Next »   Designed by Sam Paro