An unfair advantage?
As I keep thinking about resistance to Obama's stimulus, despite foreign governments' vigorous efforts to spur their economies, it brings back a childhood memory. As a kid, I saw how every other kid in school was getting major help from their parents to sell the stupid chocolate bars that our teachers assigned us to hawk as a fundraiser. Those who sold the most won prizes -- but I could never compete, because my parents weren't about to get involved. But those other kids had both their mom and dad pushing those candy bars down the throats of their officemates.
Or, it's like telling your kid he needs to suck it up and do his own science project -- even though every other kid is receiving massive assistance from his or her own parents. So while you show up with two tin cans connected by string, they show up with a working cold fusion experiment.
Fiscal conservatives speak of being able to compete in a global economy, sans protectionism. And fiscal conservatives condemn a "paternalistic" approach on the part of governments toward business. But the analogies above show that, if every other government except yours is being paternalistic, you're bound to lose the global competition.
And that, friends, is a conundrum. Would love to hear more from John Galt on this.
Tell me, Rob, where do your former classmates stand in today's economy vis-a-vis yourself? My guess, probably not very favorably. And when you reflect on your adolescent years, do you sometimes think your parents were derelict? Of course not.
You took a snapshot in time that wasn't even a harbinger of future state. This is what liberals and big government types do - they take selective snapshots of economic conditions just before they demand more government and more protectionism. If big government and economic nationalism are such good things, why don't we demand them all the time, even when the economy is strong? I mean, why not make a strong economy even stronger?
When the United States enacted Smoot-Hawley in 1930, our major trading partners responded with retaliatory tariffs. The world still responds to America. Today, the world is responding to a president who is skeptical of free trade and urging us to buy American. The Economist - a periodical you have referenced several times on this page, especially when it endorsed Obama for president - is more or less saying the same thing. In fact, it urged Obama to reject the stimulus package if there was even a hint of protectionism contained therein.
We need a president who recognizes that the world still looks to America for leadership. We need a president who won't repeat the mistakes made by Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't fit the bill.
John, first of all, I'm not sure who your economic heroes are. Reagan, who ushered in the era of huge deficits, and whose recovery was only due to Paul Volcker, a Carter appointee? Bush I, who raised taxes (which did actually allow Clinton to finally balance the budget)? Bush II, whose tax cuts for the rich led us to exactly this moment?
I'd also disagree with your "snapshot" of the game, as it's you who's redefining the entire game. By my definition, the other kids won "the game," which was to sell the most products at our school. You've somehow turned this into a discussion as to whether I ultimately had a better career than them. Once I got to college, my writing abilities became the deciding factor rather than my ability to sell candy bars. That's an entirely different issue, and irrelevant to the issue of selling candy bars.
Finally, when you say that the rest of the world looks to the U.S. for leadership, you're neglecting that the rest of the world demands a stimulus from America. Yes, they don't want America to be protectionist, and Obama responded to that. Do you give him any credit for that? You may want to take a peak at what the world's leaders are actually asking for.
Obama's supporters have sometimes referred to the president as the messiah or the anointed one, and you're asking me who my heroes might be? I don't have heroes; I hold people accountable, regardless of what political party they might belong to. I believe in the radical (lol) concepts of small government, free enterprise, and individualism. I have an affinity for people - regardless of their occupation, skin color, political affiliation, whatever - who believe in the same concepts.
As far as the so-called stimulus package is concerned, do you think the details matter at all or, alternatively, do you believe, as many Democrats do, it's merely important enough to do something, regardless of what that something might be? Rather than launching a personal attack against me, can you reference specific line items that you believe will stimulate the economy? What sort of ROI are you expecting out of this package? How will you measure whether or not it's successful? Doesn't it bother you that even Obama doesn't know what's in the bill? I do care about the details, and I'm going to take a wild guess that our allies care, too.