Newsweek reports that Obama is bringing hope to the country despite delays caused by the down-and-out Republicans and those who want charges brought against Bush.
From http://www.newsweek.com/id/194981 we have:
Despite the current controversy, Obama gets high marks; not an A, because we still have to wait for outcomes, but a solid B-plus. He has established himself in the office, the country is more upbeat, but the hard decisions are yet to come. The great asset he has is the collapse of the Republican Party. They have neither a credible message nor messenger. They’re railing against big government, when the core issue is the failings of capitalism. They call for smaller government and berate Obama for moving toward socialism when people are not hungering for tax cuts. They’re looking for jobs so they can pay taxes. Instead of developing alternative policies, they’re back to attacking FDR.
Where is this money coming from? That includes both the tax cuts and the “creation” of jobs. At its best, all that the government can do is shift the wealth. What about those who are self-employed and overloaded with work but cannot hire anyone else because they can barely afford to live? For each of those people, we have at least one job that taxes have helped to eliminate.
I have many problems with the spending patterns of the Republican party as well but Obama is not helping us in this either.
The article’s author, Eleanor Clift, even had an answer for those who want to decrease government spending in her closing remarks.
At a time of crisis, when Americans look to Washington for help, the GOP has reverted to an outmoded form of libertarianism, calling for government to get out of the way when, if government had been more watchful, we might not be in this mess. There are opportunities for Republicans in the public’s apprehension over the rising deficit, and in the discomfort many feel over the various bailouts. But a party is not serious when its headliners are a radio talk-show host and a discredited former vice president. Newt Gingrich is back as a rising star and Republicans are battling FDR, giving the GOP a rather retro feel. That gives Obama lots of latitude looking forward.
Before saying government should have been more watchful, the author of this article may want to do some digging in the Newsweek archives. Back in 2004 they ran an article called “Birth Dearth.” The population growth of the world is only expected to continue to increase until 2050 (others say 2040).
Any idea why this is? This older article gives us some clues:
This revolutionary transformation will be led not so much by developed nations as by the developing ones. Most of us are familiar with demographic trends in Europe, where birthrates have been declining for years. To reproduce itself, a society’s women must each bear 2.1 children. Europe’s fertility rates fall far short of that, according to the 2002 U.N. population report. France and Ireland, at 1.8, top Europe’s childbearing charts. Italy and Spain, at 1.2, bring up the rear. In between are countries such as Germany, whose fertility rate of 1.4 is exactly Europe’s average. What does that mean? If the U.N. figures are right, Germany could shed nearly a fifth of its 82.5 million people over the next 40 years—roughly the equivalent of all of east Germany, a loss of population not seen in Europe since the Thirty Years’ War.
Flip to the next page:
Other factors are at work. Increasing female literacy and enrollment in schools have tended to decrease fertility, as have divorce, abortion and the worldwide trend toward later marriage. Contraceptive use has risen dramatically over the past decade; according to U.N. data, 62 percent of married or “in union” women of reproductive age are now using some form of nonnatural birth control. In countries such as India, now the capital of global HIV, disease has become a factor. In Russia, the culprits include alcoholism, poor public health and industrial pollution that has whacked male sperm counts. Wealth discourages childbearing, as seen long ago in Europe and now in Asia. As Wattenberg puts it, “Capitalism is the best contraception.”
As much as I like capitalism, that last quote is actually pretty accurate.
With fewer families needing houses, many people are content to simply rent an apartment. This would have encouraged the housing market to slump naturally in the mid-90’s in our own country were it not artificially extended by government meddling… er… watchfulness with policies such as those covered under Affirmative Action.
There is good reason to downsize the government. The slump would not have been so bad or taken down so many businesses if we had not encouraged (practically requiring in many cases) that they take on so much risk.
Recent Comments