Gay Patriot Header Image

Nominations Open for Grande Conservative Blogress Diva 2012/13

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 7:18 pm - December 3, 2012.
Filed under: Blogress Divas,Strong Women

Due to circumstances beyond our control, we were unable to hold the competition last year for the most coveted honor in the right-o-sphere, the title, Grande Conservative Blogress Diva.  As you know we here at GayPatriot define a diva as “a strong, confident woman who commands the respect of men.”

“A conservative blogress diva”, we noted in 2009, “need not be conservative  per se; all she must do command the respect (or have otherwise earned the admiration) of gay conservatives.”  In 2006, I observed that some nominees are

are libertarian. And others, while more centrist, distinguish themselves by their iconoclasm and the manner in which they take on the silliness of certain leftists — and conservative pretenders, i.e., those who, in the words of one of our nominees, “drive . . . liberals nuts.”

Please indicate those blogresses, whom you feel, meet the criteria for Grande Conservative Blogress Diva.

All nominees are, by their very nomination, blogress divas, but only one can wear the coveted tiara belonging to the Ethel, as we call the winner, honoring of the greatest Republican diva of all time.

We will honor the runner-up or runners-up, as the case may be, as Conservative Blogress Diva Regent, also known as the Agnes or Endora in honor of another staunchly Republican diva.

Potential nominees include such divas, er, bloggresses, as:

Please feel free to nominate one of the above divas in the comments section or via e-mail.  The committee will meet sometime in the next week and present a list of official nominees sometime after our Meatless Mondays steak dinner next Monday.

Government Spending Hurts the Economy

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 6:27 pm - December 3, 2012.
Filed under: Big Government Follies,Economy

Last quarter, I wrote a guest post called Does government spending help the economy? Phrased as a question, because it reviewed an Arthur Laffer article that (in my view) fell just a little short of proving its case.

But yes, we know government spending hurts the economy. And Philip Bagus of the Mises Institute illustrates why. (Hat tip: Zero Hedge)

Tom wants to open a restaurant. He makes the following calculations. He estimates the restaurant’s revenues at $10,000 per month. The expected costs are the following: $4,000 for rent; $1,000 for utilities; $2,000 for food; and $4,000 for wages. With expected revenues of $10,000 and costs of $11,000 Tom will not start his business.

Let’s now assume… reduce[d] government spending. Let’s assume that the government closes a consumer-protection agency and sells the agency’s building on the market. As a consequence, there is a tendency for housing prices and rents to fall. The same is true for wages. The laid-off bureaucrats search for new jobs, exerting downward pressure on wage rates. Further, the agency does not consume utilities anymore, leading toward a tendency of cheaper utilities. Tom may now rent space for his restaurant in the former agency for $3,000 as rents are coming down. His expected utility bill falls to $500, and hiring some of the former bureaucrats as dishwashers and waiters reduces his wage expenditures to $3,000. Now with expected revenue at $10,000 and costs at $8,500 the expected profits amounts to $1,500 and Tom can start his business. (more…)

For Obama to be truly magnanimous. . .

. . .  he needs not merely meet with his erstwhile opponent for the White House and negotiate in good faith with Republican legislators, he also needs acknowledge the sincerity ofRepublican concerns and appreciate that over 49% of Americans who voted in the presidential contest had legitimate reasons for voting against him.

And by acknowledge of Republican concerns, he needs express his understanding of why Republicans fear tax hikes, even if just on the “wealthy,” might dampen the sluggish recovery.  And if he is going to insist on this tax hike, he needs counter their argument in civil terms.

If Obama can’t fix the economy, did W really wreck it?

Yesterday, ran into a Democratic friend whom I hadn’t seen since the debacle.  I told him I feared that the election returns would mean continued economic stagnation, with the slow recovery sputtering out and the twentysomethings who voted overwhelmingly for Obama finding it increasingly difficult to find jobs.

He, citing “most economists”, insisted that the president alone can’t fix the economy.

And that comment got me thinking, wondering. . .

I mean, haven’t you noticed that many of the people insisting that the president alone can’t fix the economy are some of the very people who still blame the immediate past president (a Mr. George W. Bush) for the Great Recession?