Skip to content
November 7, 2012 / JayMan

Victory

Last night the right man was re-elected President. There is no question who should have been elected. Many conservatives in the HBD world supported Mitt Romney; but, really, there were no good reasons to do so, as many of these same conservatives pointed out:

In Obama’s defense, much of the employment circumstances have been beyond his control. It’s not as if George W. Bush had any great love for native-born Americans, and it’s not as if a putative President Romney will give a rat’s ass about them either. [Mangan]

Today I want to write about the ridiculous Republican assertion that we can’t raise personal income taxes on those with income greater than $250,000, because those people are small business owners who won’t be able to create any jobs if their income tax is raised by a few percentage points.

Do the people who believe this even understand the meaning of income tax? Employee payroll is a business expense, so the personal income tax rate has nothing to do with whether or not a new employee will be hired. All employee expenses are paid out of pre-tax dollars. Higher income taxes are just as likely to encourage more employment. “If the government won’t let me keep the money myself, I may as well spend it on another employee.”

As small business owner Lew Prince writes:

My tax rate doesn’t affect hiring. If I think I can do more business, I hire more workers. The costs of finding, hiring and paying new employees are business expenses. They’re deducted upfront from our taxable income.

Why do we put small business owners on a pedestal, anyway? To hear Republicans talking about them, you’d think that each small business owner is the second coming of Jesus. Not that there’s anything wrong about being a small business owner, but neither is there anything holy about it. Not everyone can be a small business owner. If every owned their own business, who would do all the work of employees? We probably already have too many people trying to start small businesses.

Do people even know the definition of a “small business”? It’s fantastically broad. Anyone who fills out a Schedule C is considered a small business owner. That means I am a small business owner. And a “small” business can have millions of dollars of revenue and hundreds of employees but still be classified as a “small business.” That doesn’t sound very small to me.

They say that fewer than 3% of small business owners make enough money to be affected by Obama’s proposed tax increase on the rich. And why does it matter whether a lawyer making more than $250,000 year is making that money as the owner of his own law firm or as an employee of someone else? If you look in the yellow pages (if yellow pages still exist), you will see that there is no shortage of lawyers. If one less lawyer decides to hang a shingle, I assure you all that there will be no great loss to our society.

Republicans seem to think that starting businesses is something rich people do in order to pay back society. Sorry, this is not the case. People start businesses in order to become rich, become richer, or because they hate working for someone else. Starting a business is a winner-take-all endeavor. The vast majority of small businesses either fail, or never make their owners especially rich. [Half Sigma]

The Republican anti-abortion platform is toxic to key voter constituencies such as the upper middle class, Jews, and most non-evangelical women.

The Republican anti-abortion platform is a huge turnoff to those undecided voters that Republicans have to win. Anyone who was strongly anti-abortion would already be voting Republican. People who are only slightly anti-abortion don’t care if other women want to abort their own pregancies. People who are slightly pro-abortion are turned off by Republicans because they want to keep their own or their family’s options open. The anti-abortion platform reminds the smart upper middle class people that the Republicans are a bunch of stupid Jesus freaks.

Republicans need to dump their suicidal anti-abortion platform. Back when Republican Mitt Romney was pro-choice, he was able to win the gubernatorial election for the very liberal state of Massachusetts. This demonstrates that it’s abortion more than any other Republican policy that keeps a lot of people voting for Democrats. [Half Sigma]

I don’t see why gay people need to get married. I don’t see the benefits for society. On the other hand, the inevitable legalization of gay marriage (the gays will eventually win this one, they are effectively brainwashing the younger generation to be pro-gay) is not going to destroy society, which is gong to be destoryed because of dysgenic breeding and dysgenic immigration. [Half Sigma]

Not surprisingly, it’s always 1980 for the Republicans. Mansized Target notes:

Romney’s W-Esque Foreign Policy

Romney gave a big foreign policy speech at VMI. In it, he shows he has basically been living in a cave since 1980. Bottom line for him: America must be strong and America must lead. …

He wants to be the next Reagan, but his written-by-others foreign policy neglects to remember that Reagan was a creature of time and place: a diminished economy, much like what we face today, but also a world where American faced a sui generis and aggressive foreign policy threat in the form of the Soviet Union. Likewise, Reagan inherited a demoralized military gutted by the post-Vietnam malaise of the 1970s. Today we have a strong and capable, if small, military, that is state of the art in every way. Whereas in 1980 out-in-front leadership and universal engagement made sense, today we are in a period of forced austerity, overcommitment, and failed nation-building.

Boosting military spending in the 1980s turned out to be colossally successful. The Red Army gave up without a fight. But because there’s no more Red Army, the upside of more defense spending is small. What’s the best that can happen now?

Historically successful policies can’t help but run into diminishing returns. [Steve Sailer]

Democratic blogger Kevin Drum responds:

Really, it’s pretty amazing. Just two years ago, Republicans walloped Democrats in the midterm election, at least partly due to a tsunami of ads accusing them of taking money away from Medicare. And Republicans have been on the receiving end of Medicare attack ads too. So they know perfectly well just how sensitive this issue is and how much damage it can do. And yet, somehow they convinced themselves that Paul Ryan had some kind of magic fairy dust that would make the American public sit up and suddenly say to themselves, “He’s right! We do need to turn Medicare into a voucher!”

I dunno. The entire Republican Party seems to have fallen into some kind of Svengali-like trance, convinced that Paul Ryan, alone among men, can deliver the bracing tonic that will convince voters to do away with program benefits they’ve loved and supported for decades. The self-delusion here is inexplicable.

Okay, but what else are the Republicans allowed to put forward other than a libertarianish ideology at home and war abroad?

Then, again, if you let your enemies define which arguments you are allowed to make, is it any surprise if the permitted lines of appeal aren’t all that effective? … I know there is much knife-sharpening among Republicans to denounce Romney and/or Ryan as bad candidates who couldn’t sell a good ideology, but, I dunno. You’ve got a ticket of smart, good-looking, hard-working, competent, sane, morally decent, diversely-accomplished guys and, yet, what they’re selling isn’t being bought. Maybe the problem is less with the messengers than with the message? [Steve Sailer]

The Romney/Ryan ticket really had nothing to offer, and wouldn’t have made much progress in solving the real problems facing the country. As well, they would have enabled the Republicans they presided over to wreak untold havoc.

I actually called this result long ago; I stated after Obama’s first election that he would be re-elected in 2012. (I will also mention that I predicted Obama’s Presidency way back in 2006.) My reasoning was that the Republicans simply didn’t have a similar star candidate to put forward to defeat Obama, and that has come to pass, as predicted (Half Sigma made a similar prediction.) I will now say that Republicans should take heart: I predict that the odds are in your favor in 2016, simply because the Democrats have no act to follow Obama. I will also predict that White conservative outrage this time around will make the Tea Party look like nothing.

Sure, problems remain. We still have immigrants flowing in unchecked, and the strain that that causes for our economy. We still direct untold amounts of education dollars towards the least able students in a futile attempt to close “the gap“. We still have rampant denial of the reality of HBD. And, we will have to address all these problems. But for today, it’s a time to celebrate!

Edit, 12/23/12: Also see Peter Frost’s dispelling of the putative harms of Obama’s policies compared to that of the Republicans’ at Evo and Proud: Obama: White America’s bogeyman?

About these ads

15 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. asdf / Nov 7 2012 12:48 PM

    From the exit polling it seems that Hispanics really put Obama over the top in a lot of places. I guess this means his pivot to support immigration basically bought an election at our expense.

    I have no love for Romney, but if you like Obama there is something wrong with you.

  2. Kiwiguy / Nov 8 2012 1:53 AM

    It seems to me that the Supreme Court appointments are the main reason to vote Republican. Particularly when you read the Ginsburg dissent in Ricci.

    http://www.halfsigma.com/2012/11/what-happens-when-we-get-a-liberal-supreme-court.html

    • JayMan / Nov 9 2012 9:33 AM

      Ginsburg is the most likely to go first, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she retires in the next two years, with Democratic control in the White House and the Senate. Obama’s replacement of her will not change the balance of power in the court.

      I think the court right now is adequately balanced, and I don’t want to see either side gaining more pull, for a variety of reasons.

      Republicans should relax, likely they will win the White House in 2016, simply because the Democrats don’t have a good successor to Obama (I seriously doubt that either Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden will run). I’ll vote Republican if the Democrats nominate a nincompoop.

  3. jeff / Nov 8 2012 2:06 PM

    You are focusing on areas of your own expertise at the expense of greater truth. The problem with Obama is that he believes in massive regulation. I design and manufacture bespoke products of the highest quality in the world. My business depends on designing products, validating products, establishing production protocols, testing those protocols, developing a marketing plan, finding production financing, going into production, then selling the products. This is majorly hard-work. In fact, only the most educated of nations: Korea, Germany, Japan are excelling at it (bespoke design); China is excelling at the non-design aspects.

    Obama has overseen an astonishing rise in regulations that only serve to retard my mission. In most small businesses, there is one man with the intellect to perform any task. He is best served performing the tasks above. If you make this man focus on adhering to regulations, then he cannot focus on what actually matters. Because so few people in America are actually involved with the design and production of goods (must be both), the populace is completely and utterly ignorant as to the incomprehensible costs of regulation.

    If regulations are so good, then why not regulate abortion to such an extent that it become unfeasible to give one? Liberals would cry foul. So why then regulate, who I hire, how I hire them, how safe my products are (what a joke: it is okay to kill a baby at 23 weeks, but I cannot sell ephedra or I have to crash test my car)? Once abortion is legal, then pretty much everything should be legal. I can live with that. Romney would not be for such a bargain, but unlike Obama, Romney has actual accomplishments at the sharp end of the human spectrum and understands that the mission should not include making sure some idiot government worker is satisfied with your paperwork.

    • JayMan / Nov 9 2012 9:26 AM

      You are focusing on areas of your own expertise at the expense of greater truth. The problem with Obama is that he believes in massive regulation … Obama has overseen an astonishing rise in regulations that only serve to retard my mission … Because so few people in America are actually involved with the design and production of goods (must be both), the populace is completely and utterly ignorant as to the incomprehensible costs of regulation.

      I can’t speak to the merits of specific regulations, but regulation overall is clearly a good thing. See Half Sigma’s discussion on that.

      If regulations are so good, then why not regulate abortion to such an extent that it become unfeasible to give one? Liberals would cry foul. So why then regulate, who I hire, how I hire them, how safe my products are (what a joke: it is okay to kill a baby at 23 weeks, but I cannot sell ephedra or I have to crash test my car)? Once abortion is legal, then pretty much everything should be legal.

      Nonsense like this is why Republican power in government must be kept tightly in check.

  4. Fun / Nov 9 2012 1:21 AM

    Why, Jeff, do you think regulatory policy is an all-or-nothing scenario? Unless you are coming from a rigid libertarian perspective, the debate was never about whether we should regulate businesses or not. It is about what ought to be regulated and to what degree. There are trade-offs. The best way to figure that out is by looking at cost-benefit analyses of specific regulations. But that never happens because talk of regulation, for or against, is usually alarmist (“DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DIE ON THE STREET?!”, “JOB CREATORS WILL MOVE TO IRELAND!”, etc.), hard data are mostly ignored or misused, and the politicians are perfectly content with a stupefying level of public discourse.

  5. asdf / Nov 10 2012 10:30 PM

    Could some regulation be good? Obviously.

    Are most regulations currently being put into place or maintained by the government good? It would seem the answer is a resounding no.

    I’m a regulator myself (though not for long, just got a job offer) and it’s turned me sharply against regulation. It really is terribly harmful in the real world. Working for the government and regulating things has been the most depressing episode in my entire life. I consider even my time ripping people off on wall street a lesser evil.

    People like the idea of Obama, not his policies. I’ve worked up close an personal with his signature policies and they are terrible.

  6. Anonymous / Dec 23 2012 12:10 PM

    I found your website via link from Greg Cochran. I’ve been reading backwards from the present (Dec 2012) and found much cogent, unblinkered analysis. Thus I was unprepared for this post. I’ve been puzzled by how often scholars abandon their intellectual tools when it comes to politics. I think this is the case here. Obama is an economic naif and his policies will be ruinous. He has been a racially divisive figure when many voted for him to help healing. Ironically, his policies have particularly hurt blacks. This administration’s diplomacy is not helpful to achieving peace and security. Obama’s disregard for legal process (e.g., GM bond holders, targeted killing a US citizen with a drone) and the constitution are astonishing. Not to mention his fostering of crony capitalism… His personality appears to be particularly unsuited to tackling problems which require negotiation. He has not the tools, world view, or personality to be helpful. He does seem to be able to double down on GW Bush’s policies without the press screaming, including massive spending and indebtedness – some may see that as a benefit. While I would rather not put the populace through the economic wringer to come, and would rather avoid the dangerous precedents being set about executive power and regulatory overreach, the one good thing is that Obama and the Dems will OWN the consequences of their actions. Maybe then more people will be clear-eyed enough to see cause and effect. Naaa,

    • JayMan / Dec 23 2012 6:07 PM

      I found your website via link from Greg Cochran. I’ve been reading backwards from the present (Dec 2012) and found much cogent, unblinkered analysis.

      Thank you!

      Thus I was unprepared for this post. I’ve been puzzled by how often scholars abandon their intellectual tools when it comes to politics.

      You sure I’m the one “abandoning my intellectual tools when it comes to politics” here? Let’s see:

      Obama is an economic naif and his policies will be ruinous.

      Because the Republican policies were/would be so much better, yes? :\ As it stands now, the Republican-controlled congress want to take no steps towards any semblance of balancing the budget because of their religious devotion to low taxes.

      He has been a racially divisive figure

      …because he’s Black.

      Ironically, his policies have particularly hurt blacks.

      How so?

      This administration’s diplomacy is not helpful to achieving peace and security.

      …because the Bush administration’s and either the putative McCain or Romney neocon-dominated administrations would be so much better at that…

      Not to mention his fostering of crony capitalism…

      Yep, because this is such an Obama-only thing.

      His personality appears to be particularly unsuited to tackling problems which require negotiation.

      …because no sort of deals have been brokered under Obama’s presidency.

      I edited the post to include a link to Peter Frost’s discussion of the putative problems of the Obama presidency. By any measure, Obama’s leadership, while far from perfect, is far better than anything any of the Republican contenders would have given us. What you’ve recited here was just the standard partisan nonsense. Before criticizing others for their supposed ideological blindness, take a good look at your own.

  7. Antifeminist / Jun 11 2013 10:26 PM

    > Last night the right man was re-elected President.

    Since the majority of men voted for Romney and the majority of women voted for Obama, your statement is basically a pro-female and anti-male statement. And since Obama is one of the biggest femastastic presidents your statement is pro-feminist and man-hating.

    • JayMan / Jun 11 2013 10:30 PM

      That makes no sense. If the majority of doctors voted for one candidate, would supporting the other guy be anti-medicine?

      No more nonsense like that here, please.

    • Antifeminist / Jun 11 2013 10:33 PM

      Typo: “femastatic presidents”

    • Antifeminist / Jun 11 2013 10:39 PM

      > That makes no sense. If the majority of doctors voted for one candidate, would supporting the other guy be anti-medicine?

      No, it would be anti-doctor.

      Simply accept, that this president is a women’s president, who additionally is a feminist. These are 2 attributes that make him anti-men, because both feminism and political choices of women (= more welfare, higher taxes, less free speech etc) are anti-men. Your article therefore _is_ anti-men.

      The point is not even whether Romney would be a better president. They point is that without suffrage guys like Romney wouldn’t even be candidates.

      http://gatesofvienna.net/2013/05/a-european-spring/#comment-132827

    • JayMan / Jun 11 2013 10:41 PM

      So supporting Romney would be inherently anti-Black then?

      Enough of this.

Trackbacks

  1. Dystopian Conservative Future? « JayMan's Blog

Comments are welcome and encouraged. Comments DO NOT require name or email. Your very first comment must be approved by me. Be civil and respectful. NO personal attacks against myself or another commenter. Also, NO sock puppetry. If you assert a claim, please be prepared to support it with evidence upon request. Thank you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 948 other followers

%d bloggers like this: