Stacy McCain has a post up about the negative economic growth reported for the last quarter of 2012. He wonders how the Main Stream Media will spin their reporting. I’ll bet they will claim that they were drinking heavily while celebrating the election results and blame Busch.
Mr. McCain’s post is entitled Obamanomics Fails–Unexpectedly! in a riff on the Main Stream Media’s continuing disbelief that The Lightworker is unable to defy the Laws of Economics.
Folks, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Expect the “unexpected.”
UPDATE–For the past year, I’ve expected the economy to begin contracting if Barack Obama were reelected. Business that were putting off investing in expansion in hope of a Romney victory are now being joined by joined by other firms facing the costs of Obamacare and four more years of over-the-top regulation and irresponsible fiscal policy. More people are going Galt.
The next four years are going to be
… a recession.
OK, I admit that I only made a B in ECON101 when I was a freshman, but I did learn this: When you tax something, you tend to get less of it. That is, after all, one of the justifications for high taxes on tobacco and booze. So if you taxes profits too heavily, you should expect to reduce profitable economic activity.
The Congressional Budget Office was asked by a senator to take a look at the likely effect of the looming tax increases (due in January). For the first time ever, the CBO has forecast a recession. The expectation is that, when coupled with across-the-board, non-targeted spending cuts, the net result of the tax hike will be reduced economic activity. This isn’t what we need to speed up growth.
Someone may think its “fair” to tax the rich. Maybe, but the poorest will be the ones who suffer. Not many rich folks will miss a meal because of a higher tax bill on business profits. OTOH, a lot of unemployed people won’t get jobs that might have been created if the profits had been invested in new or expanded businesses.