Story #1 describes what life would be like with Wealth Distribution. #2 is a Klavin on the culture looking specifically at OWS. #3 is an editorial that calls for the end of the Obama Presidency in just over one year. #4 talks about the difference between liberals and conservatives in what they want to watch on TV.
1. Wealth Redistribution
In light of the Occupy Wall Street protests, it is worth listening to what Milton Friedman had to say when asked about the need for wealth redistribution (HT to Mark Perry):
FRIEDMAN EXPLAINS THAT THE ONLY EFFECTIVE WAY TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH IS TO DESTROY THE INCENTIVE TO HAVE WEALTH. He also answers the question about taxing inheritance at 100 percent by making the point that wealth creators tend to be motivated by the prospect of leaving wealth to their children. If you impose a 100 percent inheritance tax, you encourage wealth creators to consume all their wealth, which would in turn reduce savings and investments, with negative consequences for economic growth…
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284929/milton-friedman-wealth-redistribution-veronique-de-rugy
The law of unintended consequences is a scourge of liberal policies. They never work as the left think they will.
2. Wall Street on Trial
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284979/wall-street-trial-john-j-miller
Just for fun.
3. Time for a New President
PRESIDENT OBAMA IS HORRIBLE AT GOVERNING. HE’S NOT BAD, THOUGH, AT MOVING GOALPOSTS.
The stimulus was supposed to “save or create” a bazillion jobs. When the jobs on the “create” side of the ledger were smaller than predicted, the administration did away with the term and started using jobs “funded.” That, of course, includes numerous pre-existing jobs (including part-time ones) at every company or government entity that received stimulus money. …
…Now the President who gave himself one term to fix the economy is asking for another four years to complete the job.
“After all that is happening in Washington, it may be tempting to believe that change may not be as possible as we thought,” Obama told donors last week. “It has been three wrenching years for this country ... It’s going to take more than a few years to meet the challenges that have been decades in the making.”
Then the clincher: “‘I’M GOING TO NEED ANOTHER TERM TO FINISH THE JOB.”
We wonder if any of the donors who gave Obama money that night (he reportedly raised $2.4 million as Occupy Wall Street protesters rallied on the street outside the hotel) recall the January, 2009, Today Show interview in which Obama gave himself three years to turn the economy around.
“I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years,” he told Matt Lauer. “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
IT’S BEEN THREE YEARS. TIME’S UP.
The stimulus was supposed to “save or create” a bazillion jobs. When the jobs on the “create” side of the ledger were smaller than predicted, the administration did away with the term and started using jobs “funded.” That, of course, includes numerous pre-existing jobs (including part-time ones) at every company or government entity that received stimulus money. …
…Now the President who gave himself one term to fix the economy is asking for another four years to complete the job.
“After all that is happening in Washington, it may be tempting to believe that change may not be as possible as we thought,” Obama told donors last week. “It has been three wrenching years for this country ... It’s going to take more than a few years to meet the challenges that have been decades in the making.”
Then the clincher: “‘I’M GOING TO NEED ANOTHER TERM TO FINISH THE JOB.”
We wonder if any of the donors who gave Obama money that night (he reportedly raised $2.4 million as Occupy Wall Street protesters rallied on the street outside the hotel) recall the January, 2009, Today Show interview in which Obama gave himself three years to turn the economy around.
“I will be held accountable. You know, I’ve got four years,” he told Matt Lauer. “If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
IT’S BEEN THREE YEARS. TIME’S UP.
Time is up and the majority of Americans will deliver that message next November.
4. Lefties want comedy, right wingers like work
Republicans don’t watch MTV’s Jersey Shore. But they dig ABC’s Castle.
Democrats don’t like Discovery’s Deadliest Catch. But they swoon for NBC’s Parks and Recreation.
Those are a few of the findings from an annual research survey by Experian-Simmons that measures the consumer preferences of various political ideologies. In a report prepared exclusively for EW, the company calculated some of the favorite — and least favorite — TV shows of political partisans. (Specifically: the report measures which shows among the survey group were watched by the highest concentration of self-identified “Liberal Democrats” and “Conservative Republicans.”)
In the findings, “sarcastic media-savvy comedies and morally murky antiheroes tend to draw Dems. While serious work-centered shows (both reality shows and stylized scripted procedurals), along with reality competitions, tend to draw conservatives.
http://insidetv.ew.com/2011/12/06/republican-vs-democrat-tv/
Read the link and see what the favorite shows of both the left and the right are.
No comments:
Post a Comment