February 17, 2010

"The real story, of which Mr. Bayh's frustration is merely the latest sign, is the failure once again of liberal governance."

"For the fourth time since the 1960s, American voters in 2008 gave Democrats overwhelming control of both Congress and the White House. Republicans haven't had such large majorities since the 1920s. Yet once again, Democratic leaders have tried to govern the country from the left, only to find that their policies have hit a wall of practical and popular resistance."

125 comments:

AllenS said...

Instapundit has a link:

SISSY WILLIS: Susan Bayh and the appearance of impropriety.

There might be more to the story than frustration.

Florida said...

The wall of resistance is among Democrat Congressmen.

What the Wall Street Journal doesn't really get is that we didn't vote for Democrats ... we merely fired Republicans.

Democrats just happen to be the temporary beneficiaries of this activity. It's not that we want Democrat policies ... we don't.

But if we're to fire Republicans, we're only left in this country with one alternative ... and that is Democrats.

We didn't hire Democrats so much as we fired the Republicans who were doing a piss-poor job.

The benefit of having only Democrats to vote for is that we know they're incompetent and won't ever actually be able to implement their policies. And even if they were able to implement some policies, those would be so unpopular that there would be a huge Republican mandate to roll back those policies.

So, the media really doesn't get it. As far as Congress is concerned we didn't vote for Democrats ... so much as we voted against Republicans (remember Duke Cunningham, Foley, hell John McCain trying to push amnesty down our throats?)

Now, we're in the mood to also fire the Democrats to teach them a lesson. And it's going to be a good firing come November. MSM heads will explode live on television. Pass the popcorn!

One wonders whether the political elite is capable of getting it.

I doubt they are since most of them went to Harvard and Yale.

Idiots.

Bill said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

The same thing happened with Republicans, didn't it, and their feeble attempt to change Social Security?

And Florida, are you saying that we didn't elect Democrats, but only fired Republicans?

Peter V. Bella said...

That practical and popular resistance will kick you in the ass every time.

garage mahal said...

The WSJ also had a great piece today on at least a dozen Republicans asking for some of that stimulus they railed against.

Source

More than a dozen Republican lawmakers supported stimulus-funding requests submitted to the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Forest Service, in letters obtained by The Wall Street Journal through the Freedom of Information Act.

Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who called the stimulus a "wasteful spending spree" that "misses the mark on all counts," wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in October in support of a grant application from a group in his district which, he said, "intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs." A spokeswoman for Mr. Ryan said the congressman felt it was his job to provide "the basic constituent service of lending his assistance for federal grant requests."

Heh. Read the whole thing.

Florida said...

"Florida, are you saying that we didn't elect Democrats, but only fired Republicans?"

Repetition ... the hallmark of an effective communicator! Also repetition.

MayBee said...

Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who called the stimulus a "wasteful spending spree" that "misses the mark on all counts," wrote to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in October in support of a grant application from a group in his district which, he said, "intends to place 1,000 workers in green jobs."

Why do people think that works as a "gotcha"? The only thing worse than saddling constituents with the bill for the stimulus would be saddling constituents with the bill and not giving them any benefit. It's THEIR money!

Robert Cook said...

The fiction that the Dems are trying to "govern from the left" does not become truth--or any less daft--no matter how many times it is repeated by the right and their news organs such as the WSJ.

Would that the Dems WOULD try to govern more from left of center, at least, rather than as suckdogs of the wealthy! A brute who sips tea with his pinky raised is no less a brute, and the Dems, if not so obviously insane as many on the right, are no less whores for the empire and its owners.

And, hey, I'm still looking for that "liberally biased media" that controls all we see, read, and hear...they hideout pretty good, is all I can figure.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The same thing happened with Republicans, didn't it, and their feeble attempt to change Social Security?

Yes and you didn't see Bush trying to continue to try ramming it down the throats of the electorate either.

I guess to an outsider Bayh's decision not to seek re-election may seem odd but to those of us who live in Indiana, it's not much of a shock. Bayh is a moderate, classical blue dog Democrat. He enjoyed popularity in a traditionally red state because he wasn't a San Fran whackjob who saw every problem as a nail for the Federal government to hammer.

Liberals didn't like Bayh because they perceived him as not 'standing for anything'. Well maybe they missed the part where he listened to the voters rather than do what he thought the voters needed.

I'm a conservative who had voted for Bayh both as Governor and Senator and I'm not ashamed of it.

2yellowdogs said...

"The fiction that the Dems are trying to "govern from the left" does not become truth--or any less daft--no matter how many times it is repeated by the right and their news organs such as the WSJ."

LMFAO That's right, nationalizing two auto companies, major banks, the attempted nationalization of the healthcare system...none of that constitutes governing from the left. Silly voters. What WERE we thinking?

jeff said...

The fiction? Heh, that's funny. And Robert, really. Drinking this early in the morning is not good for you.

garage mahal said...

Why do people think that works as a "gotcha"? The only thing worse than saddling constituents with the bill for the stimulus would be saddling constituents with the bill and not giving them any benefit. It's THEIR money!

So the stimulus was a benefit to the constituents? Then why were every single Republican against it??

Hoosier Daddy said...

So the stimulus was a benefit to the constituents?

I guess if you were a union member or a newly hired federal employee or current one who got a nice fat pay raise then yes, it was quite beneficial. For those of us worried about the fiscal health of the country, not so much of a benefit.

garage mahal said...

So all these Republicans are asking for stimulus money for only union or gov jobs? haha. Good one Hoosier.

Hoosier Daddy said...

So all these Republicans are asking for stimulus money for only union or gov jobs? haha. Good one Hoosier

Let me know when you actually obtain a brain and can discuss the facts of how the 'stimulus' money was spent rather then harp on 12 GOP congressmen who want to dip into the pot.

Your snark at one time was kind of funny but nowadays you just come off as a tool and a pretty poor one at that.

garage mahal said...

You just stated the only sectors receiving stimulus money were union members and government workers, who received pay raises, dipshit.

Jeremy said...

"LIBERAL GOVERNANCE"

Imagine if, one year ago, Congress had passed a stimulus bill that really worked.

Let’s say this bill had started spending money within a matter of weeks and had rapidly helped the economy. Let’s also imagine it was large enough to have had a huge impact on jobs — employing something like two million people who would otherwise be unemployed right now.

If that had happened, what would the economy look like today?

Well, it would look almost exactly as it does now. Because those nice descriptions of the stimulus that I just gave aren’t hypothetical. They are descriptions of the actual bill.

Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com.

They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.

Seems to be working just fine...

Hoosier Daddy said...

You just stated the only sectors receiving stimulus money were union members and government workers, who received pay raises, dipshit.

Sorry. I forgot community organizers got some use out of my money too.

Hey garage, why not move to Greece and see what kind of country we're going to end up with if more of your dumbass liberal policies get passed.

robert said...

Not everyone getting stimulus money was a government employee or union member, but a great many were. Money went to states, who spent it to do things they were already doing and couldn't afford to. Joe Biden is right when he says the stimulus package created and saved jobs, but it is saving and creating the wrong ones. It is moving money in ways that prevent the creation of even more jobs and more productive ones.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Seems to be working just fine...

Should be rather easy to point to those 1.6 million jobs.

robert said...

p.s. I am a different Robert -- shld have signed it Bob M. Visit often, comment rarely.

Peter V. Bella said...

Jeremy,
Then why is the unemployment rate still hovering around ten percent?

Why haven't the figures moved downward if that many jobs were added?

Were these secret jobs?

Just curious.

Jeremy said...

Peter V. Bella said..."Jeremy, Then why is the unemployment rate still hovering around ten percent?"

Anybody who has ever taken an econ or biuusiness course knows that job growth is the last thing one sees coming out of a recession.

Companies lay off personal to save money, then only rehire when either necessary or affordable.

Because we've streamlined our economy over the past two decades via computers and much outsourcing, there are many jobs that probably will never return.

Oh, and by the way, when Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan was President, during his recession, things didn't turn around four four years:

"According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery.From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984."

So you see? U.E. was OVER 10% all the way up until Ronnie held office for four years.

Maybe you should do some research before asking such stupid questions.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier Moron - "Should be rather easy to point to those 1.6 million jobs."

Read the article...for a change.

You can find it in the business section of the NYT's.

garage mahal said...

Hey garage, why not move to Greece and see what kind of country we're going to end up with if more of your dumbass liberal policies get passed.

We were hemorrhaging 700k jobs per month when Obama took office from Bush's reign of error, and if McCain were elected, we'd be in a barter economy right now. Since that didn't happen, I think I'll stay right here.

Jeremy said...

"According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery.From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984."

Note: "DEFICIT SPENDING"...AND..."lowering of interest rates"

Sound familiar?

Peter V. Bella said...

Jeremy you stated "They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far..."

That many jobs should have had an impact on the unemployment rates. You mentioned impact, not job growth.

If that many jobs were added, the impact on unemployment would have gone down.

Evidently there was no, zero, zip, nada impact because the jobs did not exist.

Jeremy said...

"Hey garage, why not move to Greece and see what kind of country we're going to end up with if more of your dumbass liberal policies get passed."

Maybe you should do some more research into Goldman Sachs' role.

Joe said...

According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending...

Well no fucking shit. Through the eyes of a Keynesian economist deficit spending is always a good thing and the source of economic fixes (even thought that misunderstands Keynes, who, however, was still wrong even when understood correctly.)

Hoosier Daddy said...

if McCain were elected, we'd be in a barter economy right now.

And here I thought only God could see the future.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Read the article...for a change.

Try learning how to link dumbass.

Peter V. Bella said...

Maybe you should do some more research into Goldman Sachs' role.

Next you will be blaming the Rothschilds and the Zionists.

Jeremy said...

Peter, as usual, you ignore the facts and merely regurgitate the same wing nut mantra one can hear from Beck and other tea baggers on a daily basis.

Why you would think the stimulus created 1.6 jobs would immediately push the unemployment rate down illustrates how uninformed and uneducated you really are.

Many of the jobs eliminate the necessity of people GOING ON unemployment and collecting benefits.

This is the most severe recession since the Great Depression and it's not going away in the first year of a new President's tenure...no matter who the President is.

Jeremy said...

Peter - Once again, you reveal your lack of education and research.

Google Goldman Sachs and Greece and see what pops on you little screen.

SOmething like this:"Goldman Sachs: the Greek connection"

www.independent.co.uk/.../goldman-sachs-the-greek-connection-1899527.html -

Jeremy said...

Hoosier Moron - If you don't know how to research via the internet, it's too late.

I'm not here to educate people like you, only to provide contrary opinion and research to balance out the wing nut bullshit you and other splash across this site every day of the week.

I wouldn't expect you to believe anything the President does is good or helping, it's all part of being a tea bagging loser.

Peter V. Bella said...

Jeremy 1.6 million jobs would have a direct major impact on unemployment. Either the jobs are there or they are not.

But, I am not going to argue with an idiot. They just bring you down to their own level and try to beat you.

Jeremy said...

I love it when someone like myself provides factual information to counter the silly crap posted here...ALL OF THE WING NUTS crawl right back into their caves.

spongeworthy said...

So you see? U.E. was OVER 10% all the way up until Ronnie held office for four years.


You do know what the word "gradually" means, don't you? And if unemployment, as you are claiming, stayed at 10% for four years of "Ronnie's" first term, how did he ever get re-elected?

I'll await your correction.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Whew. So all we needed to save the economy is deficit spending and low interest rates! This is obviously in contrast to the high interest rates and low spending of the Bush years.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier Moron - If you don't know how to research via the internet, it's too late.

You said read the article. What article? You make the claim, back it up. It's not that hard to make a link on Blogger. In fact its so easy even garage mahal can do it.

Jeremy said...

Peter V. Bella said..."Jeremy 1.6 million jobs would have a direct major impact on unemployment. Either the jobs are there or they are not."

"Creating" NEW jobs doesn't necessarily have any effect on current unemployment roles. There are many, many who are unemployed who don't show up in the unemployment numbers...because they're no longer collecting benefits.

The unemployment rates ONLY count those who are actively COLLECTING benefits...NOT those who have already collected all they can or can't (independent contractors/real estate sales people, etc.)...and those who have stopped looking for a job.

How can you post comments and not know this??

Peter V. Bella said...

Jeremy,
I know how to do research. Try this-
Goldman Sachs contributed $974,995.00 to the Presidents campaign. They were number two between University of California and Harvard.

Other six figure contributors- Citi, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and UBS.

Look it up yourself.

So we can assume there is a banking conspiracy in the Obama administration right? Just like Greece.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Next you will be blaming the Rothschilds and the Zionists.

Wait, I don't think the Zionists were part of the Pentaverate

Jeremy said...

spongeworthy said..."You do know what the word "gradually" means, don't you? And if unemployment, as you are claiming, stayed at 10% for four years of "Ronnie's" first term, how did he ever get re-elected?"

I never said it "stayed" at 10%+.

Can you read?

"From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984."

Which means we could have exactly the same situation play out as we recover from the current recession...correct?

DUH.

Peter V. Bella said...

because they're no longer collecting benefits.

Because they are too lazy to get jobs. They will not work. They want their careers back. They refuse to work at anything else. Just like people on welfare, they are lazy.

BTW, don't you find it dishonest that they are dropped from the stats. The are still not working. Which is why economists- you know those guys who study economics- state the actual unemployment rate- the real numbers- are one and a half to two times the governments reported rate.

Peter V. Bella said...

HD,
I am waiting for him to throw out the Sponge Bob Square Pants conspiracy to take over the world.

Jeremy said...

Peter - I'm not defending Goldman Sachs, I'm merely posting information that relates to their role in Greece's current problems.

All of the major corporation donate millions to candidates so if you want to get into that, let's talk about candidates from BOTH sides of the aisle...unless of course you think McCain and the Princess didn't accept any corporate donations.

Is that what you're implying?

spongeworthy said...

I never said it "stayed" at 10%+.


You certainly did. I requoted you saying exactly that. Here, I'll do it again.

So you see? U.E. was OVER 10% all the way up until Ronnie held office for four years.

Now you owe me two (2) corrections. Oh, and maybe you should link to the Wiki page you got your "ficts" from. There's a lot of other fascinating statistics over there that you omitted.

Why?

Jeremy said...

Peter - "Because they are too lazy to get jobs."

So you think the unemployment rates are where they are...because so many Americans are just "too lazy to get jobs??"

If that's what you actually believe, you're not only an uneducated fool...you're an asshole to boot.

Jeremy said...

Spongehead - You ignore the entire quote I provide and point to my comment that the U.E. was up over 10 "all the way" until Ronnie was re-elected?? (My deepest apologies for misquoting.)

Read it again, dickhead and tell me why it's any different that what we're seeing right now:

"According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery.From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984."

Hoosier Daddy said...

Google Goldman Sachs and Greece and see what pops on you little screen.

Well Jeremy I did just that and found the article very very interesting indeed. I wonder if this part of the article (assuming you actually read it) had any meaning to you.

The euro membership rules place strict caps on the size of government deficits relative to a national economy, but Goldman Sachs and other banks helped Greece raise cash earlier in the decade in ways that did not appear in the official statistics.

So the Greek government used Goldman Sachs to help them raise more money than they should have to spend on more government social programs, which by the way, constitute over 51% of the country's GDP (Linky here

So that kind of goes back to my point, massive government spending does not do a nation good. Now you go ahead and blame it all on Goldman Sachs, the real problem is hiding behind the curtain.

I love it when someone like myself provides factual information to counter the silly crap posted here...

Yep you just keep on doing that numnutz. It takes a real moron to post "factual stuff" that undermines their own argument.

Jeremy said...

Spongehead - As I said: I'm not here to educate you idiots.

Do your own research and provide objective counters to anything I've provided today.

You and the other tea baggers are great at throwing out bullshit, but when you're called on it, you bail out.

And I have provided the "correction" you're so concerned with.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier Moron - I never said Goldman Sachs was good, nor do I deny Greece spends much of their money on public employment...I merely pointed out the fact that G.S. played a role...

As to you usual BIG GOVERNMENT tripe...are YOU and others here going to sign a pledge, refusing to accept Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran's Benefits, Social Security and other BIG GOVERNMENT (socialist) programs?

We BOTH know the answer to that, don't we?

And once again:

"According to Keynesian economists, a combination of deficit spending and the lowering of interest rates slowly led to economic recovery.From a high of 10.8% in December 1982, unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% on Election Day in 1984."

Note: "DEFICIT SPENDING"...AND..."lowering of interest rates"

spongeworthy said...

That's it? That's your correction? Claiming you "misquoted"? You didn't "misquote, Jeremy. You made a mistake, and a doozy at that: You made a claim that ran counter to your own provided evidence. And then threw in some insults to compound it, all the while claiming you didn't do what you plainly did. Pathetic.

I swear, kicking you around the Web is like kicking a puppy. Fortunately, I enjoy putting the boot to errant pups.

Tell us, Oh Wise Sage of Econ 101, what acts of Saint Ronnie do you consider to be "Keynsian". I'll give you 2 hints:

1) Ryhmes with "fax butts".

2) We won't see any under Obama.

And there's your answer to this pearl:

Read it again, dickhead and tell me why it's any different that what we're seeing right now:

Too easy.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier Moron - I never said Goldman Sachs was good, nor do I deny Greece spends much of their money on public employment...I merely pointed out the fact that G.S. played a role...

LMAO! Oh you little disengenious POS. You know exactly what you were implying when you posted that and you got called out on it. Your inane follow up on 'big government' programs I should waive proves it.

You just got pwned you twerp. Now go get your shinebox.

AllenS said...

Where on earth are these jobs being created? People around here are continuing to lose their jobs. The local weekly paper has a constant list of bankruptcies. The foreclosures are page after page. Talking to people who still work where I used to, report continuing jobs losses. These are not people being laid off either, these are people being permanently let go.

Jeremy said...

Sponge Pants - "Jeremy. You made a mistake."

And I said I did.

As for Ronnie's "tax cuts"...

As for Reagan, you really need to read up on what happened after his disasterous lowering of the top tax rate.

We lost so much revenue, he then RAISED taxes at least 4 times to try to get things back in order.

*During Reagan's tenure, income tax rates of the top personal tax bracket dropped from 70% to 28% in 7 years (WEALTHY), while social security and medicare taxes increased. (MIDDLE AMERICANS)

During Reagan's time in office the national debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion.(DEFICIT SPENDING=DEBT)

ALSO: Average productivity growth was slower under Reagan and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan. Furthermore, real wages declined during the Reagan Presidency. (MIDDLE AMERICANS)

ALSO: Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year’s reduction.(OH-OH)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax (MIDDLE AMERICANS) and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years (MIDDLE AMERICANS), mainly through closing tax loopholes for business (SMALL BIG AND SMALL BUSINESSES).

Reagan raised taxes a grand total of FOUR TIME just between 1982-84.

Robert Cook said...

Peter Bella said:

"Goldman Sachs contributed $974,995.00 to the Presidents campaign. They were number two between University of California and Harvard.

Other six figure contributors- Citi, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and UBS.

Look it up yourself.

So we can assume there is a banking conspiracy in the Obama administration right? Just like Greece."



We can certainly know the Obama administration is continuing the previous administration's servile obeisance to the prerogatives of the banks, and all their so-called "stimulus" plans are intended to benefit the government's only constituency that counts...the banks, Wall Street, the military-industrial-corporate complex at large.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier Dolt - You really need to bone up on your reading comprehension.

This is my initial posting that relates to G.S.: "Maybe you should do some more research into Goldman Sachs' role."

I never said they were the ULTIMATE cause, the ONLY cause or even the PRIMARY cause...ONLY that they have had a hand in it.

And the story is going to get bigger by the day.

Why not buy a newspaper or a periodical or, hey...maybe even a book and educate yourself?

Calypso Facto said...

@ Bushman: Nice point.

@ Jeremy & Unemployment: How can you post comments and not know this??
Well, cuz it's not true. Definition of unemployment from BLS:
Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
Note: nothing about actively receiving benefits.

And the administration could have joined you in asking the public for some time to let the Keynesian magic beans work, but instead they projected employment would be immediately increased which, of course, hasn't happened.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Where on earth are these jobs being created?

The increases are in government/public jobs of course. Meanwhile, the private sector withers away.

Jeremy said...

Robert Cook - Well, based on the DOW going from about 6,000 on the day President Obama took office...to 10,000 today, I would think his brand of economics has had a hand in helping any American who holds stocks, mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, pensions, etc.

*Take a look at where your retirement funds or investments are today...versus January of 2009.
Ours is UP 40%...discounting any contributions since he took office.
We've also invested in 5 specific stocks that are UP 300%.

I'm not here to defend the "banks," but without them how exactly do you propose the economy function?

Jeremy said...

Bushmen - "The increases are in government/public jobs of course. Meanwhile, the private sector withers away."

That's ridiculous and untrue.

You think the 1.6 million jobs were all related to government hiring??

Run that one by any state in the country and see how many are HIRING versus LAYING OFF.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier Dolt - You really need to bone up on your reading comprehension.

This is my initial posting that relates to G.S.: "Maybe you should do some more research into Goldman Sachs' role."


Yes and what exactly does that have to do with anything? My point was Greece was a textbook example of a nation that has uncontrolled government spending. What does G.S have to do with it? I dunno other than being a tool used by the Greek government to get around EU rules on deficit spending as a proprotion of GDP, which, was central to my comment.

I mean what exactly was your point because it really didn't offer anything to the conversation. Other than making you look more stupid then usual.

Why not buy a newspaper or a periodical or, hey...maybe even a book and educate yourself?

You might want to take your own advice and actually read those items before using them to make some kind of point.

Calypso Facto said...

You think the 1.6 million jobs were all related to government hiring??

Well we can start with 1.2 million temporary Census Bureau positions. Then 200,000 other federal hires. So, in a word, yes! At least 87.5%!

Jeremy said...

Bureau Of Labor Statistics

What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?

The UI figures are not produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Statistics on insured unemployment in the United States are collected as a by-product of UI programs.

Workers who lose their jobs and are covered by these programs typically file claims ("initial claims") that serve as notice that they are beginning a period of unemployment.

Claimants who qualify for benefits are counted in the insured unemployment figures (as "continued claims").

Data on UI claims are maintained by the Employment and Training Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, and are available on the Internet at: workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims.asp.

Some countries base their estimates of total unemployment on the number of persons filing claims for or receiving UI payments or the number of persons registered with government employment offices as available for work.

These data are also available in the United States, but they are not used to measure total unemployment because they exclude several important groups.

To begin with, not all workers are covered by UI programs. For example, self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, workers in certain not-for-profit organizations, and several other small (primarily seasonal) worker categories are not covered.

In addition, the insured UNEMPLOYED EXCLUDE the following:

1. Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
2. Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
3. Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
4. Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits

*Right now, I would estimate the unemployed to be at at least 14%, and it was probably at that level when Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan was at the helm...BUT...that's NOT how the government reports U.E.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier Dolt - "My point was Greece was a textbook example of a nation that has uncontrolled government spending." (And when did I say it didn't play a role?)

And based on your comment, you must also feel Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan was some kind of real "uncontrolled government" spending asshole??

As in:

During Reagan's time in office the national debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion.

It's nice to know at least one of the local wing realize what a wasteful government spender Ronnie was.

Right??

Calypso Facto said...

@ Jeremy: But you didn't SAY (or provide) Unemployment Insurance claim rates. You said (and referenced) "unemployment rate" which is the definition I provided you with.

Just sayin'.

Jeremy said...

Calypso Facto - Where are these 200,000 "federal hires" you mention?

As for the census workers, they're only in the process of doing the hiring, and the jobs are only to last a matter of weeks.

The report today has nothing to do with future jobs, temporary or otherwise.

spongeworthy said...

This is Jeremy's MO. Post a silly comment cut-and-pasted from some source that he refuses to link. The clip will most liely refute whatever point he was trying to make. Insult and repeat.

What was the point of your c-n-p job referring to Reagan? First you wrongly claim unemployment was at 10+% for four years and then point at something you called "Keynesian" to prove, I guess, that President Toonces was following the same prescription? How so? And doesn't your string of complaints about Reagan kind of demolish the point you were flailing at making?

You're terrible at this, one of the worst.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Right now, I would estimate the unemployed to be at at least 14%, and it was probably at that level when Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan was at the helm

Bzzzzzt! Wrong again Jeremy. Now using my superior reading comprehension and research skills, you will find that unemployment was 7.1% when Ronaldus Magnus took over and finished out at 5.5% when he left office.

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt

Robert Cook said...

"I'm not here to defend the "banks," but without them how exactly do you propose the economy function?"

I do not want or suggest the banks should fail, but they must be put under the lash of strict regulation...which they are fighting.

That aside, our economy cannot truly recover until substantive, well-paying jobs are returned to our shores from off-shore. At present, I don't even see a slowing of the off-shoring murder of our domestic job market, much less a halt or reversal.

A true stimulus would have provided billions for a Federal Works program...paying people, putting them to work rebuilding our aging and decrepit national infrastructure, building high-speed rail nation-wide, etc. Also, we could have provided direct assistance to those losing their homes and prosecuted those who sold them worthless mortgages, (rather than reward them with stimulus money).

Jeremy said...

Calypso Facto said...The "unemployment rate" being discussed is what the U.S. Government posts.

Not what we think it is, or wonder what it is...it's the rate that is released by the federal government.

And once again: "Right now, I would estimate the unemployed to be at at least 14%, and it was probably at that level when Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan was at the helm...BUT...that's NOT how the government reports U.E."

Hoosier Daddy said...

And based on your comment, you must also feel Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan was some kind of real "uncontrolled government" spending asshole??

LOL! I have to hand it to you Jeremy, you do deflection well.

Well lets see, how about you do some reasearch and let me know what the percentage of Reagan spending vs GDP and get back to me. Cause that is the issue with Greece, spending as a proportion of GDP and why they are teetering on the edge of economic collapse.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Good thinking Robert. Have the federal government provide everyone with a job and a home. That should get the economy firing on all cylinders in no time at all.

Jeremy said...

Robert Cook - "That aside, our economy cannot truly recover until substantive, well-paying jobs are returned to our shores from off-shore."

I agree, but many of the jobs that are offshore are either not high paying positions or the amount of money saved by corporations is so great, you'll never get them to hire Americans at much higher rates. (Stockholders want "profits" and profits have nothing to do with jingoistic management.)

"A true stimulus would have provided billions for a Federal Works program...paying people, putting them to work rebuilding our aging and decrepit national infrastructure, building high-speed rail nation-wide, etc."

All of that is included in the package at hand, but you don't just fire up such work overnight. Each and every state is buried in debt and it will take some time to get things under control. When Reagan had his recession...why didn't he do what you propose, instead of massively cutting taxes, only to raise them again? Why did HE increase the national debt the way he did?

"Also, we could have provided direct assistance to those losing their homes and prosecuted those who sold them worthless mortgages, (rather than reward them with stimulus money)."

I think this is being addressed, but we're talking about millions and millions of homes and commercial properties throughout the entire country. Are you proposing the Federal Government take over these mortgages...as in "BIG GOVERNMENT? EXPANDING THE DEFICIT?

As to prosecuting whoever, it's such a tangled web I don't even know where one would start.

I do believe this, and I have plenty of friends and associates who are in the investment/banking community who agree: Without the bailout (800 billion via G.W. Bush...remember him?) and the stimulus (Obama) and continued spending programs...the entire worldwide economy would have been turned upside down and we'd probably be mired in a deep depression right now.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier - "Well lets see, how about you do some reasearch and let me know what the percentage of Reagan spending vs GDP and get back to me. Cause that is the issue with Greece, spending as a proportion of GDP and why they are teetering on the edge of economic collapse."

First of all, comparing Greece's economy to ours is rather lame. Any percentage comparisons would be ridiculous.

But here...read on:

Reagan did not achieve a significant reduction in federal spending as a percent of national output. Federal spending was 22.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal 1981, increased somewhat during the middle years of his administration, and declined to 22.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 1989.

The privately held federal debt increased from 22.3 percent of GDP to 38.1 percent.
(Library of Economics)

Trooper York said...

How can you trust a guy whose father was named after a tree?

Trooper York said...

I mean if he was the affectionate sort and embraced his dad all the time wouldn't that make him the ultimate tree-hugger?

Jeremy said...

Hoosier - Cat got your tongue?

t-man said...

Oh Great, Althouse's own Dr. Amy Bishop is back.

And he's professor to boot!

Bruce Hayden said...

Sorry Jeremy, but I don't buy your stimulus employment numbers. You need links to those sources. It beggers the mind to think that unemployment is up by maybe 2% while the "stimulus" added almost 2 million jobs.

My view is that this is a result of the Keynesian fallacy - only counting the jobs directly or indirectly created by the spending, but ignoring the jobs lost as a result. Yes, there is a Keynesian multiplier (much used to justify this boondoggle), but it is lower than the opposite multiplier - the number of jobs lost paying for the stimulus.

Keynesian economics depends on the Manna from Heaven theory - that the money used to pay for the spending drops from heaven, and that the rest of the economy (and esp. the taxpayers) don't have to pay for it somehow. But we can already see this falling apart, as President Obama, in order to pay down the deficit that he caused by the borrowing to support this spending, is talking about raising taxes (or letting them rise back up after the Bush tax cuts expire) on the middle class.

Always keep that in mind - the reason that the Democrats are talking tax increases right now is that they wasted so much money so irresponsibly on what they call Keynesian stimulus. If they hadn't hired all those government workers and given federal, state, and local government workers raises, and overall just spread the wealth around a lot (especially to their friends), there would be far, far less pressure for a tax increase on the productive sector of the economy in the midst of the biggest recession of our lifetimes.

If you want to prove your point, then give us links to the studies showing that employment actually increased because of the Keynesian spending, and we can track down the bona fides and reputability of those figures. But just throwing them out makes most of us think that you just pulled them off of Kos or some other far left site.

Jeremy said...

Bruce Hayden said..."Sorry Jeremy, but I don't buy your stimulus employment numbers. You need links to those sources."

They're not MY "numbers."

An evaluation of the stimulus is provided by some of the best know research firms in the business of providing such data:

IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com.

They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs.

Oh, and the Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.

Jeremy said...

Bruce Hayden - Give the business section of the NYT's a shot.

I posted that before.

Jeremy said...

I have to assume not many here have ever owned and operated a business.

Otherwise we wouldn't be hearing the dire whining and bitching about how horrible things are after President Obama's first year in office.

Maybe if you had, you'd know that the first year in any failing business or economic downturn like we've had here, the recovery is not going to happen in one fell swoop.

And I can't quite understand why, when I post the data relating to Ronnie "The Saint" Reagan's first term, which mirrors much of what we see today...no one appears to think it's relevant.

Other than the fact that so many here are nothing more than wing nut Obama haters and just want him to fail...even if it works against their own country's best interests.

Pretty sad.

Hoosier Daddy said...

First of all, comparing Greece's economy to ours is rather lame. Any percentage comparisons would be ridiculous.

I wasn't comparing their economy to ours you idiot. Jesus talk about lack of reading comprehension. I was talking about government spending as a proportion of GPD. Greece's spending on social programs alone constituted over 50% of the country's GDP. You don't have to compare that to any other nation's economy to know that's essentially unsustainable.

Reagan did not achieve a significant reduction in federal spending as a percent of national output. Federal spending was 22.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal 1981, increased somewhat during the middle years of his administration, and declined to 22.1 percent of GDP in fiscal 1989.

Ah so Federal spending vs/ GDP under Reagan was pretty much was stable for an eight year period and essentially averaged 22%.

Um...what point are you making?

Peter V. Bella said...

First off Jeremy,
I may be an asshole, but I am not an ordinary asshole. The worst thing in life you can be is ordinary.

The unemployed are lazy. Pure lazy. They would rather sit home and wait for a career collecting unemployment instead of working. There are jobs, they are not glamorous but they are jobs. Work. Or do the over-educated idiots like you find it too demeaning to work at something like a fast food restaurant, grocery store, or retail store?

I love the fact that when you are proven dead wrong you immediately resort to name calling. It reallllly enhances your credibility.

You are just like all the rest of the far left- crude, boorish, vulgar, obscene, profane, and base. The only classes you were able to pass were in scatology 101-401.

Hey, don't you belong on KOS or Huffing Glue?

Peter V. Bella said...

Bruce Hayden - Give the business section of the NYT's a shot.

That's a real laugh Jeremy. NYT Business Section. What do their writers know about business? If they knew so much, they would be trying to save the NYT from its impending bankruptcy. Reading the NYT business section is like the comics without the pictures.

Oh, and before you trot out how many prizes they won- journalism prizes are political, like the Nobel Peace Prize. They are meaningless.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier - You post this: "Well lets see, how about you do some reasearch and let me know what the percentage of Reagan spending vs GDP and get back to me. Cause that is the issue with Greece, spending as a proportion of GDP and why they are teetering on the edge of economic collapse."

Hoosier - "I wasn't comparing their economy to ours you idiot."

Oh, now I see. The GDP of any country has absolutely nothing to do with their..."economy?"

As to their "percentage" of GDP, that would obviously pertain to whether they provide social programs that we do not, how many people hold government related jobs, and of course, the SIZE of the GDP in the first place.

Greece has a GDP of $341.6 Billion
($30,500 Per capita)- #33rd
So they spend about $170 BILLION

While we roll in at:

$14.441 trillion
($47,500 Per capita) -1st
Spending about 2.8 TRILLION

And once again: I didn't blame Goldman Sachs for Greece's meltdown...ONLY that they apparently contributed to it.

If you don't believe it...don't.

traditionalguy said...

Jeremy...When a new idea is started as a business here in the USA, it will be patent protected , maybe, seldom in China, and as soon as it takes off the jobs it creates are suddenly shipped to the low wage world in the Caribbean, the Eastern Rim countries and China. We need something that requires work here. ( Did you know that all pineapple processing jobs are no longer located next to the fields in Hawaii...the fruit is shipped to the Philippines where it is canned, etc. and the shipped back from there ) We need #1 to use our coal, gas, oil cheap resources to make jobs in manufacturing plants here that are now efficient enough to compete. So what does Obama and Soros have as their goal # 1 of all goals? why it is only the legal destruction of our sole chance to remain economically strong using our resources advantage here in the USA. They base that on a BIG LIE about CO2 being Pollution. Explain that one. I will give you a hint: Fifth Columnists.

Jeremy said...

Peter - Blowing smoke about the NYT's a waste of time.

They are and always have been considered one of the premier news publications in the entire world.

Just because you're not literate enough to read it, and consider papers like the Washington Times or Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity as sources of your news...makes your opinion meaningless.

As to their "impending" bankruptcy...every news organization in the country and the world for that matter is struggling because of the "free" news via the internet, and the economy driving ad sales down.

You're an uneducated fool.

Peter V. Bella said...

Hoosier this is the econ class Jeremy took

Peter V. Bella said...

They are and always have been considered one of the premier news publications in the entire world.

Not for the past ten or so years. The have been a disgrace. No one in journalism takes them seriously except the over paid writers who work there.

The NYT has been having financial problems and on life support long before the recession and free content. It is horribly mismanaged. But don't let facts get in your way of your personal propaganda.

Jeremy said...

traditionalguy - If you can come up with an idea that provides corporate America with labor that is as cheap as what they can find elsewhere, start sending your emails to the CEO's.

Corporations are in business to make "profits" for their shareholders (you know...like the insurance companies that have quadrupled theirs over the past 8 years)...and until corporations decide to do business for fun, versus such profit...many jobs are gone...FOREVER.

As an example: It costs United Airlines about $10 a day, per telephone representative, to answer telephones, make reservations, etc. by locating their call centers in India...versus about $100+ to have it here.

Now...if you're a shareholder...where do YOU suggest they locate the call center?

And it's considerably more of a savings for companies that don't need people to handle the kinds of calls an airline would need.

Start sending your suggestions.

Jeremy said...

Peter - "Not for the past ten or so years."

Based on WHAT?

Your opinion?

Glenn Beck?

Sean Hannity?

Show me what you base your claim on.

Robert Cook said...

"Good thinking Robert. Have the federal government provide everyone with a job and a home. That should get the economy firing on all cylinders in no time at all."

Have you got a better idea? Please don't suggest we put our unemployed and newly homeless on slow (or fast) boats to China and other points east, north, south and west outside our "homeland" (detestable term, smacking of xenophobia and the Nazis)to snap up the jobs being permanently furloughed abroad.

I suppose if we wait long enough, desperate Americans will be willing to work for less than the pittances paid to overseas labor, and we'll see jobs begin to flow back to our shores, along with the institution of indentured servitude.

In the meantime, our infrastructure continues to crumble and millions sit idle with no jobs.

Jeremy said...

Peter - I had forgotten that you were a retired cop who doesn't read.

But just for fun: Google "top ten newspapers in the world"...and see what you get.

Jeremy said...

Robert - I understand why you want the government to help out, but how does it square with the maniacal right wing mantra that President Obama is spending too much and allowing the government to grow too big?

The entire tea bagger enterprise (and it is indeed a financial enterprise for many) is based on just the opposite.

You actually think the GOP would vote yes...for once...if Obama suddenly suggested we have the government provide jobs for everybody?

GFL with that one.

traditionalguy said...

Jeremy...The CEOs will start using American labor as soon as the Politicians vote out the per worker legal costs of workers comp, unemployment tax, social security matching, minimum wage and affirmative action hires. That is the fact jack. I fthat is not "Fair" then open up shut down the coal, oil and gas fields ASAP. Doing nothing because Marin County millionaires have all they need invested into Swiss Gold Francs is no reason to condemn the future of all other living Americans to no jobs and mega inflation planned for them by Obama. Let's elect Palin and fix things.

Robert Cook said...

Jeremy,
Were Obama other than a dithering bureaucrat with no spine or convictions, he could have seized the moment in January 2009 and used his bully pulpit to put forth a raft of policy initiatives meant to get people working, keeping them in their homes, and holding the rapists on Wall Street to strict regulatory oversight and specific conditions as a prerequisisite to their receiving any bailout dollars. The zeitgeist and public sentiment was for it--the distinct minority opinion of the right-wingers, tea-baggers, and barking loons and their hysterical braying notwithstanding.

He's lost that moment, never to be retrieved, and he never had the character for it. Given that his inside circle and members of his administration are furloughs from Wall Street, the fix was obviously in from the git.

Robert Cook said...

"Let's elect Palin and fix things."

If Palin is ever elected we'll be fucking f-f-f-fixed alright... right and royally!

Peter V. Bella said...

If you can come up with an idea that provides corporate America with labor that is as cheap as what they can find elsewhere, start sending your emails to the CEO's.

All regulations be written in plain English.

Eliminate unemployment insurance.

Eliminate the minimum wage.

Tell unions to go piss up a rope.



There are three ideas. I am sure there are hundreds more, but people of your ilk would screech.

You forgot one thing Jeremy- business purpose is to make maximum profit at minimum cost.

Peter V. Bella said...

Yep,
When Jeremy is wrong he insults. Then when that does not work he insults people's careers. My, my. If this is an example of the left, why do people listen to or vote for them.

BTW- Top Ten...
Is all bovine excrement. It is as legitimate as say, the Peace Prize.

Robert Cook said...

Jeremy,

I forgot to add...Obama had--and has--a Democratic majority in Congress. Had he and the Dems really wanted to do other than serve the oligarchs--as they are doing, paranoid fantasies of Glenn Dick and his ilk that Obama is imposing a communist/socialist/fascist (sic) regime on America to the nonsensical contrary--they could have done so.

Bush and Cheney were and are evil motherfuckers, but they knew how to turn the engines of government to their purposes, even when it didn't involve violating the law. Omama and the Dems are feckless in this regard...or simply pretending to be so because they don't really want to rock the ship of state in order to truly serve the public. They're serving who they want to serve.

Jeremy said...

traditionalguy said..."Jeremy...The CEOs will start using American labor as soon as the Politicians vote out the per worker legal costs of workers comp, unemployment tax, social security matching, minimum wage and affirmative action hires."

So you're against workers compensation, unemployment tax, social security, minimum wage and whatever you're referring to as "affirmative actionhires?"

That's what we had at the turn of the century...and you think that was good?

Where in the world do you work and what would make you think something so ridiculous?

Robert Cook said...

(I'm not saying Obama and the Dems aren't furthering a police state in America--in this respect also they're continuing the destruction of the rule of law as their predecessors; I'm just saying the notion of a combined "communist, socialist, and fascist" regime is a Frankensteinian absurdity.)

Brian said...

So Robert, do you propose then that government advisors / political appointees / congresscritters should be like a priesthood, having no past conflicts of interest because they never work in the private sector? That seems to be the only way to avoid the charge that whatever action they take is tainted by connection to Wall Street.

Yeah, I don't like the idea that congressmen can quit and become a lobbyist tomorrow. Or that lobbyists (out of the goodness of their hears, I'm sure) help write laws the regulate their own industries. I think I can agree that industry is too cozy with the very lawmakers & regulators that are supposed to watch them. Big business in turn uses their political muscle to keep out competition from potential upstarts.

But the only alternative is that you have a political class made up of people who've never done anything outside of government, and don't have any experience of being in industry trying to make a product while answering to government regulators.

Jeremy said...

Peter, of all people...an ex-cop...with benefits out the ass, all provided via BIG GOVERNMENT...wants to get rid of unemployment, minimum wage...and UNIONS???

Are you saying you were a Chicago cop...but had no association with any organization that supported your rights, wages, benefits, etc.??

Does this ring a bell?

The Illinois Police Association...

Over the years, the Illinois Police Association (IPA) has been instrumental in getting legislation passed that benefits Police Officers.

Some of these laws have dealt with:
1. Wages
2. Liability payments by the State of Illinois
3. Pensions
4. Promotions
5. The Police Officer’s Bill of Rights, just to list a few.

Jeremy said...

Robert Cook - "I'm just saying the notion of a combined "communist, socialist, and fascist" regime is a Frankensteinian absurdity.)"

Welcome tea bagger.

Good lord...

Jeremy said...

Robert Cook said..."Were Obama other than a dithering bureaucrat with no spine or convictions..."

Tea Bagger drivel.

Say hi to Glenn and Sean.

Brian said...

The easiest way to get Democrats and Republicans to hold hands and sing kumbayah and get things done? Third party. It's the only way.

A few congressmen and a governor or two elected, third party, would have Democrats and Republicans suddenly forced to work together. It would be an overnight transformation, because the rules would have changed.

The Tea Party right now is the only thing I can think of that approaches this.

The Crack Emcee said...

Emphasis on the word "practical".

The Macho Response

Comrade X said...

Tea Bagger drivel.

Say hi to Glenn and Sean.


looks like the Non Aggression Pact is falling apart. Operation Barbarossa must be imminent.

Comrade X said...

or Left and Lefterer: When Gene Met Cookie

Jeremy said...

Brian - "The Tea Party right now is the only thing I can think of that approaches this."

The Tea Party is a joke.

90% of them don't even know what it is they're screaming about.

Jeremy said...

I can't help but notice there isn't much talk here about little things like this:

AT WAR: Another Taliban Leader Captured In Pakistan, Newsweek Reports

All part of the "soft on terrorism" thingie the wing nuts constantly whine about.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Robert Cook said..."Were Obama other than a dithering bureaucrat with no spine or convictions..."

Jeremey said Tea Bagger drivel.

Say hi to Glenn and Sean.


I think seeing Robert Cook called a teabagger by another leftist with a Beck and Hannity reference is by far the funniest damn thing I have seen in months.

I think I need to go check on the temperature in hell.

Maguro said...

I've always thought that "Jeremy" was some kind of a malware program and this latest bit just seems to prove it. It's not possible for a human to read this blog and not know where Cook is coming from.

Maybe people should stop arguing with the spambot.

Just sayin'.

traditionalguy said...

Jeremy...The need to eat and live indoors trumps the needs of many to be taken care of by a Bankrupt Governmental System that is plotting their demise anyway to reduce the carrying load of human life on the planet. People cannot eat promises coming from such a government that has nothing except debt. People must have SOME valuable product that they can market. Suicide to please the welfare state's memories of past glories has no appeal to the people at the end of their rope. Ask Evan Bayh.

Peter V. Bella said...

Jeremy, Jeremy,
IPA never represented the CPD. You cannot even get something that simple straight. We had the FOP, fondly know by us as "Fuck Our Police"- because that is all that corrupt so called union ever did.

I keep forgetting you are mentally handicapped. I have heard about your condition before- a brain without a mind. I do feel some pity for you. It is really a dirty shame they no longer put people like you in institutions where you can get the loving care you desperately need.

Big Mike said...

I think I need to go check on the temperature in hell.

I just got back. It's still pretty warm. CO2 and all, you know.

Robert Cook said...

Jeremy,

The tea baggers hardly see in Obama something so benign as a "dithering bureaucrat" lacking spine or convictions, and neither do they recognize that he serves the same larger interests as does their pre-fab plastic heroine Ms. Palin. They see Obama as far more malignant, as an agent of Satan, Mohammed, Karl Marx, Lenin or Stalin, or some combination of these, depending on their own frames of reference and degrees of sanity or craziness, smarts or ignorance. (Smarts and sanity is relative when speaking of this crowd.)

They see him as the determined and aggressive bringer of apocalypse, rather than as what he is, a clerk doing the bidding of the financiers and war profiteers.

I don't mean to get into an argument with you, as you are one of the few here who is not part of the rightist hive mind, but you do need to take a clearer look at Obama. If I am too harsh on him--although I think I am not--you are certainly too charitable.

Joe said...

I hate to do this because I disagree very strongly with Keynes, but Keynes did NOT advocate unlimited deficit spending. He was quite clear that the government should not spend more in recession than it could realistically retire when the economy recovered.

Moreover Keynes believed stimulus should be aimed toward private business, not government programs for the reason that private industry created more durable jobs (and goods.)

In the end, the deficit spending would be "self-liquidating."

Calypso Facto said...

@ Joe
"Ironically, John Maynard Keynes might not be a
Keynesian if he were alive today. He certainly would not
be a proponent of big government. In correspondence with
another British economist, he agreed with the premise of
“25 percent [of GDP] as the maximum tolerable proportion
of taxation.”2 America is now well past that stage..."
Cato

wv: eukidec. To hit over the head with a Hawaiian stringed instrument, to wit: Aloha Kabong.