12 07 11 - 03:17No one wants to buy a sick cow. There are other cows available; why pick a sick one?
What makes this "recovery" so different? Perhaps the simplest answer is that labor has been broken as a force that can put pressure on management, so there's little incentive for employers to turn profits into wage hikes or new jobs. Instead, employers are squeezing more out of the workers that they've got, and investing in equipment upgrades and new technology instead of human assets -- labor productivity has risen sharply since the end of the recession.
Globalization also plays a potent role -- and not just as a source of cheap labor to undermine the bargaining power of American workers. The Journal notes that many companies "are benefiting from demand from emerging markets, where they are deriving an increasing share of their sales." Job creation is probably following the sources of new demand. If the Chinese and Brazilians and Indians are the ones buying American goods and services, then it makes sense to staff up overseas. But with American consumers still shellshocked by the economic crash and dutifully obsessed with paying down their debts while trying to hold on to their homes, domestic demand is hardly a force to be catered to.
Wages are moribund, unemployment is stuck at 9 percent, and the corporate bottom line is doing just fine. You could be excused for thinking that if ever there was time to put the stake through supply-side economics, it would be now. Wall Street and big corporations are doing just fine, but absolutely nothing is trickling down. And yet Republicans are still pushing the same old song and dance, passionately holding the entire creditworthiness of the United States hostage in return for even lower taxes on corporations, adamantly refusing to countenance even the slightest revenue increase to help cushion the hard times for the Americans who are getting a raw deal out of the current recovery. - Full Derp Magazine
Why aren't they investing in America?
It's a sick cow.
America spends its money like an idiot:
The idea is, as Newt Gingrich might say, simple liberal social engineering. You take the million or so poorest 3- and 4-year-old children and give them a leg up on socialization and education by providing preschool for them; if it works, it saves money in the long run by producing fewer criminals and welfare recipients â and more productive citizens. Indeed, Head Start did work well in several pilot programs carefully run by professionals in the 1960s. And so it was "taken to scale," as the wonks say, as part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty.
It is now 45 years later. We spend more than $7 billion providing Head Start to nearly 1 million children each year. And finally there is indisputable evidence about the program's effectiveness, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services: Head Start simply does not work.
According to the Head Start Impact Study, which was quite comprehensive, the positive effects of the program were minimal and vanished by the end of first grade. Head Start graduates performed about the same as students of similar income and social status who were not part of the program. These results were so shocking that the HHS team sat on them for several years, according to Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution, who said, "I guess they were trying to rerun the data to see if they could come up with anything positive. They couldn't." - Time
And spends its money bribing the world to go along with the American agenda:
The United States is assessed at 22% of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27% for U.N. the peacekeeping budget. Mr. Obama has requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget for 2011.
The United States is also assessed for numerous other United Nations organizations as well. More than $6.347 billion went to U.N. organizations in FY 2009.
The United States also provides money to the U.N. through the State Department, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies.
Andrea Lafferty of The Traditional Values Coalition writes: âThe U.S. taxpayer is forced to pay billions to an inefficient organization run by world leaders who hate America and the free market system. This doesnât make any sense â nor does our paying 22% of the cost to keep this bureaucracy alive when we have only one vote in the General Assembly.â - AIM
And we spend even more billions -- over half of our budget -- on entitlement programs, most of which go to our permanent underclasses.
How's socialism working out for you?
-- Of course. It never does.
The sick cow has been brought on by the demographic warfare of Democrats. As Thomas Sowell notes, in 1965 they switched strategies -- start importing voters.
They did that because they can count on those imports to grow in number, and never vote for the majority:
The growth rate of the Palestinian population inside Israel is highly instructive. In 1948, the Arab population of Palestine (which included the land today called Israel) numbered 1,319,000.
Of this figure, over 1.2 million were driven out in the 1948 civil war which erupted following the establishment of Israel, and by the time the dust settled, there were only 160,000 Arabs left inside Israelâs 1948 borders.
It is this figure of 160,000 which has now multiplied, through natural growth only (bearing in mind that Israel does not allow Arab immigration) has now reached 1.5 million. It is a staggering increase, and is certainly higher than the Jewish population growth rate, which has been aided greatly by immigration from Europe, the USA and the former Soviet Union.
Palestinians already form the majority of the population in the Galilee and Triangle regions, and the Jewish population in the northern part of Israel is declining.
Dr. Wahid Abd Al-Magid, the editor of Al-Ahram Weeklyâs âArab Strategic Reportâ predicted that âThe Arabs of 1948 (i.e. Arabs who stayed within the bounds of Israel and accepted citizenship) may become a majority in Israel in 2035, and they will certainly be the majority in 2048.â
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called this a âdemographic bombâ in 2003 and he specifically said that if the âpercentage of Arab citizens rises above its current level of about 20 percent, Israel will not be able to maintain a Jewish demographic majority.â - BNP ideas
How about a Palestinian president of Israel? Think he'll vote for what's in the best interests of Jews, or Palestinians, when those interests collide?