Morning Reads for Thursday, May 9

Today’s edition of Morning Reads is especially monumental for the sole fact that I did not complete them at 4:30 A.M.

Peaches

Jimmy Carter

Sweet Tea

Liberty Drum

20 comments

  1. Ed says:

    “Obama approval up, effectiveness down. GOP to blame.”

    Probably some truth to this, FWIW.

  2. pettifogger says:

    I can’t figure out what the left’s strategy is regarding gun control. If they’re serious about trying it again, it makes sense to keep the energy up. But at the same time, I imagine a number of leaders understand that the odds aren’t going to improve much for a second go. Thus, they’re just keeping a failure on voters’ radars with little chance of redemption.

    • D_in_ATL says:

      From what I gather they are waiting until after the 2014/2016 election cycle to see how much if any blowback the dissenters caused and if that affects their reelections.

    • sockpuppet says:

      They are doing it because the base demands it. In their eyes, it is better to try and fail than to not try at all. Another thing: why not push stuff like this and immigration reform? They have no agenda. No agenda for jobs and economic development. No agenda on energy independence. No agenda on foreign policy or defense. No agenda on crime. No agenda on infrastructure … you saw what a failed boondoggle the stimulus was. The Democrats are a social issues/social welfare party now. And thanks to the need to have to defend and implement ObamaCare, they have no real social welfare programs that can be implemented, at least for now anyway.

      • Dave Bearse says:

        Trying an failing has been quite effective in Georgia in connection with restricting abortion.

        We hate Obama, shrink government, except for defense, and cut middle class security and taxes for the rich about sums up the GOP agenda.

        • sockpuppet says:

          Restrictions on abortion never pass in Georgia because too many GOPers are actually “former” Democrats. States that have a sizable number and decent tradition of actual Republicans have had a lot of success in passing pro-life laws the past two years, and after the Kermit Gosnell horrors you will see even more. But it will take about 10 years to get rid of enough pro-abortion Democrats who switched to the GOP and are now pretending to be pro-life Republicans to finally get meaningful pro-life legislation passed.

          “We hate Obama, shrink government, except for defense, and cut middle class security and taxes for the rich about sums up the GOP agenda.”

          Well at least it is agenda. You may disagree with it, but the GOP actually does have an agenda for economic growth: lower taxes, less government spending. fewer government employees (because it forces those employees to compete for what they can find in the private sector, making the private sector more competitive and vital), less regulation, better exploitation of nuclear and fossil fuel reserves to bring more profits and jobs to that sector and decrease the price of energy so it will also help transportation/agriculture/manufacturing sectors, etc. That’s their agenda, and if they were in power they would enact it, or at least propose it and campaign on it and force the Democrats in the Senate to block it via filibuster.

          The Democrats aren’t even doing that. Instead, it is gun control, gay marriage and immigration reform. The only economic proposals are enacting a living wage and Keynesian spending. Keynesian spending on what? Infrastructure? Rebuilding the basic research powerhouse that we used to be during the Cold War? Rail networks? Solar, windmill and fuel cell farms? Refueling stations and grids for electric and compressed natural gas vehicles? They don’t say. Krugman at the New York Times just argues for more spending because, well, it is just the right thing to do.

          You can try to play equivalency games by blaming the Republicans for having the unmitigated gall to represent the 80% of Americans who favor abortion restrictions, but the truth is that the Democrats have had no discernible economic agenda since Bill Clinton left office, and since Nancy Pelosi became the de facto leader of the Democratic Party it has gotten worse.

          • Dave Bearse says:

            The fetal pain bill passed by the General Assembly less than three months ago cut six weeks off the time at which an woman may chose an elective abortion.

            There’s no need to identify the other restrictions that have been enacted since 2005 if a 23% reduction in the period for elective abortion doesn’t meet your definition of restriction.

            • sockpuppet says:

              Well, the sham pro-life movement led by pro-abortion Republicans in disguise purposefully passes bills that they know that the state supreme court and the federal courts will strike down so they can say “well we tried, and this is more evidence that we need to work even harder to elect more (secretly pro-abortion) Republicans as president and to the Senate to we can appoint more (pro-abortion) judges to the federal bench the same way that Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes did.” The actual pro-life movement would look and see which laws have survived court challenges in other states and enact those. Pennsylvania and Mississippi (who have actual Republicans as well as the rare species known as pro-life Democrats) have had such laws on the books for years, and any state GOP that is serious about restricting abortion while not directly challenging Roe v. Wade (meaning in a way that would withstand legal challenges) would simply just pass the same laws that they have. That the Georgia GOP refuses shows that they simply aren’t truly pro-life. Mississippi has been particularly successful, because now there is only one abortion clinic left in the entire state (which just happens to be in a heavily black area by coincidence). Georgia wouldn’t be able to do what was done in Mississippi, but they could certainly pass the same laws that Pennsylvania does.

              Anyway, enough on the abortion issue. My original point: your party doesn’t have an economic agenda on the national or state level beyond nonsense like green jobs and a living wage. You guys need to get busy developing one. You can’t keep depending on GOP incompetence to bail you out like it did in 2012 and in some key Senate races in 2010 forever.

  3. sockpuppet says:

    Economic development Georgia Republican style: paying $44,000 of tax incentives per job in the much-ballyhooed carpet factory in Dalton.

    http://www.myajc.com/news/business/incentives-for-dalton-area-carpet-plants-could-top/nXk4B/

    So, we won’t pay for public transportation projects that not only draw high paying employers and workers by making the region more livable, nor will we give enough money to Georgia State, Kennesaw State, SPSU, Georgia Southern, MCG etc. for them to start the competitive research programs needed grow our own entrepreneurs, but we will play the crony capitalism game – picking winners and losers just like Solyndra – by bribing companies to come here to the effect of pretty much having the taxpayers pick up their salaries. We are basically making them government employees, adding them to the state payroll.

    But that is small compared to this:

    Caterpillar will get $53,000 per job to build their plant.
    http://www.myajc.com/news/business/caterpillar-plant-to-bring-1400-jobs-to-athens/nQRP7/

    And that is tiny compared to:

    Baxter getting $140,000 per job to build their facility!
    http://www.myajc.com/news/business/total-incentives-for-baxter-plant-top-200-million/nQTNj/

    Add it all up and it is $375 million in incentives to attract these jobs. That is almost twice the $200 million that is going to build the new Falcons stadium. So, where are the people who were outraged about public money going to private business on that deal when it comes to stuff like this? If we would put money into transportation, education and cultural/tourist attractions, we wouldn’t have to bribe employers into putting their nonessential operations here (the important and really high paying jobs are still going to be where the highly educated and skilled talent is, right-to-work state and low tax state or not).

    • Harry says:

      I can make an argument for incentives to bring in certain technical jobs assuming they are really what they are supposed to be; but incentives for carpet mills? This seems like a carved-out incentive for somebody maybe to offset the taxes they paid when they sold the real business a couple of years back? Besides, who wants carpet in their house anymore? Seems to be an effort to subsidize a dying segment of the flooring industry.

      • sockpuppet says:

        @Harry:

        Even for the technical jobs, the reality is that the much-maligned (in these parts anyway) blue states can attract and more importantly home grow these jobs without having to bribe people with tax incentives, and without having to be low tax, right to work states to begin with. San Diego, California doesn’t need to pay $140,000 per job to get biosciences jobs to locate there. Seattle, Washington doesn’t need to bribe companies to locate engineering/computer/IT jobs there. New York doesn’t have to pay incentives to get financial and insurance jobs.

        I am not against manufacturing jobs, but we need to get to where we attract those jobs because we have the best manufacturing workers and managers, not because they can save on taxes and labor costs. The reason is because stagnant and struggling companies are often the ones that are looking to cut down tax and labor costs in order to manage their bottom lines to inflate their stock prices. Growing, innovating companies look for the best people and environments to help them grow. The question is how to we produce them?

        Put it this way: Texas may be a red state, but they spend a ton of money on their research universities, especially in engineering and medicine. They also put a lot of money in making Dallas, San Antonio, Austin etc. are places that people actually want to live because there are things to do there, not just because the land is cheaper and taxes are lower. That’s why Texas doesn’t have to bribe companies to move there either. They either grow their own companies, or companies relocate there because of an abundance of people capable of doing the work.

    • Scott65 says:

      Whats worse is after they get the money…they dont even have to do the things they say they will do. In the past they have not been held accountable to pay the money back either

      • sockpuppet says:

        I agree that the green jobs thing is dumb, and shows that Dems are more interested in social/ideological issues than the economy. The real reason to pursue alternative energy and new technology is because there is money in it. But the Dems think that trying to make money is immoral. So, they pursue trying to create jobs that allegedly help the environment out of thin air, basically trying to use environmentalism as an excuse to resort to a command economy. The sad thing is that this approach actually removes money from new technology that will actually work and yield a return on the investment. Between the Democrats’ hatred of money and the GOP’s hatred of anything other than oil, America is making less progress than Europe, Israel, and even China.

    • I agree with the author. Work on cleaning up the area’s image together without forcing the businesses out through zoning / ordinances. When someone buys a house, they should do plenty of research on the neighborhood and surrounding areas. If they don’t like what they see there, then perhaps they should buy somewhere else. Plenty of large cities have a red light district. For Atlanta, it’s Cheshire Bridge. If not there, where do these businesses move to?

Comments are closed.