Friday, August 29, 2008


Just reading a good article at titled: Anti-Obamanomics: Why Everyone Should Be in Favor of Reducing Taxes on the "Rich" Generally, the economists at the site don't post about particular candidates. But with so much focus on the election now, I urge you to go read some from it. It's actually a response to an article in the New York Times Magazine:
Are the American people being primed to elect as President of the United States a home-grown version of Hugo Chavez, in the person of Barack Obama? This is a question one can come away with after reading "Obamanomics," the featured article in this last Sunday's (August 24, 2008) New York Times Magazine. Written by Times' columnist David Leonhardt, the article provides insight into Obama's thinking on economics and the economic policies he would be likely to pursue if he were elected President.

Some of the highlights are as follows:

Two major impediments make it difficult for people to recognize the fact that everyone would benefit from reductions, or, better still, the total abolition of all of these taxes on the so-called rich — made possible, of course, by equivalent reductions in government spending. The first is simply massive ignorance of economics, especially of the general benefit from private ownership of the means of production. People have not grasped the profound insight of Mises that, in a market economy, in order benefit from privately owned means of production, one does not have to be an owner of the means of production. This is because one benefits from other people's means of production — every time one buys the products of those means of production.

I think I know a lot of extremely smart people who say they just don't "get" economics. I don't "get" a lot of things (like chemistry or physics), so that's understandable. But when we're talking about massive redistribution of wealth, this affects us all, so people should try to comprehend economics. And to pre-empt the comment that the Republicans are the ones who have allowed spending to get out of hand - I cede that point. I don't agree with that, but I'm a Conservative and not a Republican. There is a difference! Further, and with more pre-emption in mind, take a look at Senator Obama's acceptance speech. I was going to go through and count the new programs he's wanting to instate that "the government" will pay for, but could not stomach reading past the first few paragraphs of partisan politics and pandering. But you can go here or here for more information on how he's misleading us and how he will increase spending as well. Until Congress decides to buckle down, we'll have to keep raising taxes to pay for the pork.
The redistribution of wealth is allegedly necessary to enable an individual who does not own the wealth presently owned by others to benefit from that wealth. Only as and when their property passes to him can he benefit from it, the redistributors believe. This is the kind of "largesse" Obama intends to practice. It is taking funds from those most prodigious at accumulating capital, capital that would benefit all, and then giving the funds to others to consume. Meeting the needs of the poor with the consumption of capital is Obama's formula for prosperity.
Small business owners will have a hard time growing their businesses when their capital is further taxed. Less growth also means less new jobs. And further, increased taxes on businesses will likely lead to increased cost of goods - which leads to increased prices at the counter. So while the personal income taxes may be less for a person, how much will that be offset by the increased costs incurred because the manufacturers of goods and services now have higher costs?
Starting with tax cuts for the so-called rich — based on equivalent reductions in government spending — is the only hope for the resumption of significant economic progress, indeed, for the avoidance of economic retrogression and growing impoverishment. Because of this, it is actually the quickest and surest road to any major reduction in the tax burden of the average wage earner. It holds out the prospect of the average wage earner being able to double his standard of living in a generation or less. The average standard of living would double in a single generation if economic progress at a rate of just 3 percent a year could be achieved. Such economic progress would also mean a halving of the average wage earner's tax burden in the same period of time — if government spending per capita in real terms were held fixed, for then he would have double the real income out of which to pay his present level of taxes. And then, of course, once all the taxes that most stood in the way of capital accumulation and economic progress were eliminated, further reductions in government spending and taxation could and should take place that would be of corresponding direct benefit to wage earners, that is, show up in the reduction of the taxes paid by them.

This analysis makes clear that an essential flaw of so-called supply-side economics — the policy both of the Reagan administration and of the present Bush administration — was the failure to face up to the need to reduce government spending. While the policy of reducing taxes by both administrations was perfectly correct, most of the potential benefit of the tax cuts was lost through the corresponding enlargement of federal budget deficits. Regrettably, both administrations and their supporters lacked the courage required to abolish government spending programs to make those tax cuts possible without deficits.

Their failure to have done so explains why the great mass of the American people have not benefitted from the tax cuts as they should have. The explanation is that, absent equivalent reductions in government spending, the tax cuts did not translate into increases in capital formation, but the opposite. Instead of there being more demand by business for labor and capital goods, there was less; instead of more rapid economic progress and rising real wages, there has been economic stagnation or outright decline, along with stagnant or falling real wages.

Of course, in a further display of their ignorance and blindness, members of the Left will undoubtedly characterize the line of argument I've presented in this article as the "trickle-down theory." There is nothing trickle-down about it. There is only the fact that capital accumulation and economic progress depend on saving and innovation and that these in turn depend on the freedom to make high profits and accumulate great wealth. The only alternative to improvement for all, through economic progress achieved in this way, is the futile attempt of some men to gain at the expense of others by means of looting and plundering. This, the loot-and-plunder theory, is the alternative advocated by the redistributionist critics of the misnamed trickle-down theory. The loot-and-plunder theory is the theory of Obama, of the Democratic Party, and of much of the Republican Party. It is time to supplant it with the sound economic theory developed by generations of intellectual giants ranging from Smith and Ricardo to Böhm-Bawerk and Mises.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Great points from Dick Morris

I find it rather humorous that the DNC is still thinking they have to run against George W. Bush. A little reality check - he's not in the race! Here's a great article from Dick Morris:


The truth is, of course, that McCain is the most unlike Bush of any of the Republican senator. (When Obama’s people claim that Bush and McCain voted the same 94 percent of the time, they forget that most of the votes in the Senate are unanimous.) The fact that McCain backs commending a basketball team on its victory doesn’t mean that he is in lockstep ideologically with the president.

The issues on which McCain and Bush differ are legion:

* McCain fought for campaign finance reform — McCain-Feingold — that Bush resisted and ultimately signed because he had no choice.

* McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.

* McCain went with Joe Lieberman on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.

* McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.

* McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.

* McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican senators oppose.

* McCain’s energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.

* After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain’s changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.

* McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress).

Remember that McCain ran against Bush in 2000.

McCain’s Republican advisers need to realize that they won the primary and that they do not need to cotton to the delegates at their convention or to appease the Bush White House. The more they respond to Obama’s and Biden’s attacks on Bush by saying, “It ain’t me, babe,” the more he will moot the entire purpose of the Democratic convention.

It is a rare opportunity to nullify the entire Democratic line of attack, and McCain should seize on it.

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Lincoln Brewster featured in the Line 6 Newsletter

This was cool - the most recent Line 6 newsletter has a "recommended" section in which they have this:
Lincoln Brewster discusses his live rig and the great gear responsible for creating his sought-after sounds.
Here they link to a YouTube clip where Lincoln discusses the gear he uses live. This was random to see Lincoln, who is a great worship leader and guitarist, featured in this. We have done a good bit of his music at church. The reason he is featured is because of the Line 6 PodX3 Live that he uses (I have the XT Live). He also discusses the '57 reissue Fender Strats he uses (like those hon??) :P.

But there's more - while looking at the video, I saw a link on the right to Lincoln playing a Journey song. So, being the child of the 80's that I am, I had to click that. Turns out that Lincoln used to play for Steve Perry - how crazy is that!

Here's the clip of Lincoln's rig:

Here's the Journey clip:

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Happy Anniversary Honey!

Just want to wish my wife a Happy 8th Anniversary today!! I love you! I can't believe we have been married 8 years now and have been together for nearly 11!

Here we are just the other day - our big, happy family (except for OT who was being held captive by EG!)

Senator Obama Makes Paris Hilton Look Like a Recluse

Sounds like something that the vast right-wing conspiracy would be accused of saying through a new John McCain ad. And to make the point that there is a wild media frenzy surrounding Obama, the McCain camp did release an ad touting that Obama is "the biggest celebrity in the world" complete with a passing picture of Paris Hilton.

However, the title of this blog post isn't something that McCain is saying to undermine Obama. Here's the full quote:
"Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," ... "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."
Yes, you read that correctly, that was something that Barack Obama said about himself!! Even he had to admit (back in 2005 - even before the hype surrounding him has escalated to where it is today!!) that he was getting so much "fame" (a synonym of which is "celebrity") that it appeared to be more coverage than one of the "top" celebrities at that time.

I love irony... ;)