Mitt's Right: Some of us feel entitled

[carlfense]

The lead story on the front page Wednesday dealt with Mitt Romney's assertion — secretly taped — that many Americans have a sense of entitlement.

Amen, Brother Mitt.

Right next to that story was an article about Ballpark Village. That project is finally going to get under way because the Missouri Development Finance Board has approved its share of $17 million in public incentives for the first phase of the project. Before it's completed — if it's completed — the Village could receive city and state subsidies totaling more than $183 million.

Think about that.

The city is broke. The state is broke. The owners of the Cardinals are millionaires.

 

But like many wealthy people, the Cardinals owners have a sense of entitlement.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/columns/bill-mcclellan/mitt-s-right-some-of-us-feel-entitled/article_670e27b0-3bca-5e10-bdf4-697a4c372874.html

[sd'sker]

i did a google search of 'wealthy, rich, entitlement' and it appears as though the wealthiest are also the most entitled.

[TonyStalloni]

The amount of money the governments receive isn't the main problem. It's the amount they spend. Individuals, cities, counties, states, and feds all expect too much.

[sd'sker]

The amount of money the governments receive isn't the main problem. It's the amount they spend. Individuals, cities, counties, states, and feds all expect too much.

there is only one way to fix the economy and it is not by cutting spending. only through fixing the economy can we pay down our debt. austerity is for booms, not busts. it does matter how much the gov't receives, very much. then we will worry about how much we spend.

[huskerXman]

The amount of money the governments receive isn't the main problem. It's the amount they spend. Individuals, cities, counties, states, and feds all expect too much.

there is only one way to fix the economy and it is not by cutting spending. only through fixing the economy can we pay down our debt. austerity is for booms, not busts. it does matter how much the gov't receives, very much. then we will worry about how much we spend.

 

I disagree 100%. Spending only mean printing more money, printing more money will only devalue the dollar even more.

[carlfense]

I disagree 100%. Spending only mean printing more money, printing more money will only devalue the dollar even more.

You seem to be implying that you think the dollar is already significantly devalued. Is that right?

[sd'sker]

The amount of money the governments receive isn't the main problem. It's the amount they spend. Individuals, cities, counties, states, and feds all expect too much.

there is only one way to fix the economy and it is not by cutting spending. only through fixing the economy can we pay down our debt. austerity is for booms, not busts. it does matter how much the gov't receives, very much. then we will worry about how much we spend.

 

I disagree 100%. Spending only mean printing more money, printing more money will only devalue the dollar even more.

then how do you fix the economy? specifically when you want to cut spending by the only entity able to spend in this economic environment?

[huskerXman]

The amount of money the governments receive isn't the main problem. It's the amount they spend. Individuals, cities, counties, states, and feds all expect too much.

there is only one way to fix the economy and it is not by cutting spending. only through fixing the economy can we pay down our debt. austerity is for booms, not busts. it does matter how much the gov't receives, very much. then we will worry about how much we spend.

 

I disagree 100%. Spending only mean printing more money, printing more money will only devalue the dollar even more.

then how do you fix the economy? specifically when you want to cut spending by the only entity able to spend in this economic environment?

 

One great start would be to remove all the bogus regulations hampering economic progress.. That would be a great start.

[huskerXman]

and before you ask..

 

http://coffman.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=455:may-12-2011-coffman-epa-regulations-hurting-small-business&catid=36:latest-news&Itemid=10

[carlfense]

and before you ask..

 

http://coffman.house...s&Itemid=10

Which regulations in particular do you think are "bogus?" Your link isn't very specific.

[huskerXman]

and before you ask..

 

http://coffman.house...s&Itemid=10

Which regulations in particular do you think are "bogus?" Your link isn't very specific.

 

Glenn Johnston, vice president of regulatory affairs for Gevo Inc., an advanced biofuels company located in Englewood, Colorado, said the EPA regulations in the Clean Air Act are blocking his company from providing a bio-based alternative to petroleum-based fuels.

 

“Gevo and the Advanced Biofuels industry in general believe that the EPA should review its regulatory regime and to the extent possible should assure that biofuels other than ethanol have equal and unfettered access to the market,” Johnston said.

 

Johnston says provisions in the Clean Air Act would prohibit the use of isobutanol, a fuel source made from renewable raw materials that could be used as an alternative to gasoline in combustion engines. Gevo is working to develop the fuel, which would lessen our dependency on foreign oil.

Coffman’s subcommittee also heard testimony from John Ward, chairman of Citizens for Recycling First in Broomfield, Colorado. Ward said that EPA, through the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, is hindering the ability to recycle coal ash, a byproduct of burning coal.

 

Currently, almost half of America’s energy is generated from coal and in 2009, 135 tons of coal ash was produced as a result. However, it is possible to recycle coal ash to make concrete and cement.

“In the Agency’s single-minded quest to gain more enforcement authority over the disposal of coal ash, EPA appears resolved to ignore the negative impacts of its actions on an entire recycling industry and the small businesses that comprise it,” Ward said. “If EPA succeeds in getting the regulations it wants, our nation will end up putting hundreds of millions of tons more material into landfills rather than safely recycling it – hardly a ‘green’ result.”

[zoogs]

I like how Marco Rubio puts it. It's not a question of regulations themselves being bogus, it's a matter of tax code stability. Businesses, especially smaller ones, are more likely to flourish with a more long-term-predictable and more simple tax situation. The large corporations have the resources to maximize and find all the loopholes no matter what.

 

That's about general economic growth, however, and it doesn't especially solve the issues with spending. It's true that it will boost revenue by extension - more taxes - but the spending issue appears to be tied to % GDP and it's unlikely that anything short of a drastic addressing of tricky problems (medicare, social security spending) will put an appreciable dent in it.

[carlfense]

So . . . coal ash and isobutanol regulations . . . that's what's holding back economic progress?

[Ziggy]

You ask for examples then you scuff at people when they provide some. What do you want, a list of 30 regulations? Maybe come up with a few examples of your own that explain why regulation helps the economy.

[knapplc]

You ask for examples then you scuff at people when they provide some. What do you want, a list of 30 regulations? Maybe come up with a few examples of your own that explain why regulation helps the economy.

 

2008 says you should know the answer to this one.