Posts tagged with: john stossel

Blog author: ehilton
Wednesday, May 27, 2015

student debtIs it time to write off the college experience? John Stossel thinks so.

Half today’s recent grads work in jobs that don’t require degrees. Eighty thousand of America’s bartenders have bachelor’s degrees.

Politicians such as Hillary Clinton promote college by claiming that over a lifetime, college graduates “earn $1 million more.” That statistic is true but utterly misleading. People who go to college are different. They’re more likely to have been raised by two parents. They did better in high school. They’d make more money even if they never went go to college.


On Thursday at 9PM EST, Victor Claar will be a guest on “Stossel”  on Fox Business. Claar and John Stossel will discuss fair trade coffee. Claar frequently lectures on the fair trade movement at Acton University and wrote, Fair Trade? It’s Prospects as a Poverty Solution. If you can’t catch the premier of the show, it will air again multiple times, including on Fox News at 10PM EST on Sunday, December 15. The full episode will also be available online several days after the original airing.

russell brand socialismJohn Stossel is fed up with celebrities whining about the very economic system that made them rich. From Russell Brand demanding redistribution of wealth to George Lucas decrying “capitalist democracy,” celebrities who are rolling in dough seem to be suffering from some sort of entrepreneurial guilt. Of course, they aren’t feeling guilty enough to ditch one of their seven planes (à la Harrison Ford) so as to lower their carbon foot print, but guilty enough to tell us that capitalism is wrong. Very wrong.

It’s bad enough that celebrities trash the only economic system that makes poor people’s lives better. What’s worse is that many are hypocrites. (more…)

I remember my first Acton event in 2002, a “Toward a Free and Virtuous Society” conference that I attended as a graduate student.

There are a number of things I remember quite clearly, but perhaps most striking was an occasion when someone said something to the effect that those with wealth are able to do more for the Kingdom of God than the poor. This is basically the same view that was once articulated in John Stossel’s special TV program on greed, that Michael Milkin had done more for the poor than Mother Theresa. To this I responded with the example of the widow’s mite (Mark 12; Luke 21). Fr. Sirico then proceeded to correct the mistaken view in a quite, shall we say, pointed fashion.

The lesson: God doesn’t need your money as such. He wants your obedience. He can turn two minas into millions if he so desires, just as he fed thousands with two loaves and some fish. Don’t let your concern about effectiveness and quantitative analysis distract you from the reality that we are called to be obedient and faithful, sine qua non.

Tonight the Acton Institute is hosting its twentieth anniversary Annual Dinnner. Share your favorite Acton memory from the first twenty years below.

Update: It was a great night all the way around. David Bahnsen passes along his reflections on the dinner: “The Liberty to do what we ought.”

Channeling his inner Ralph Nader, John Stossel calls shenanigans on the GOP talking points touting the viability of nuclear power.

As I noted in the context of a recent commentary on Obama’s promise of a new generation of nuclear reactors, Ralph Nader has asked a prescient question: “If these nuclear power plants are so efficient, so safe, why can’t they be built with unguaranteed private risk capital?”

Stossel similarly says, “I like the idea of nuclear energy too, but if ‘America is on the cusp’ of a revival, then taxpayers shouldn’t have to offer billions in guarantees! In a free country, when something is a good idea, it happens. Private capital makes it happen, without government force.”

Stossel raises and dismisses the disposal issue, which I examine at some length here.

In the end, I agree with Nader and Stossel on this point. But as I’ve said I’m a bit more sanguine about the chances of nuclear to compete on a level playing field. The problem is determining how well it can do without guarantees or subsidies when so many other forms of energy are on the receiving end of government largesse. It’s not right to ask nuclear power to go unsubsidized when its competitors don’t have such limitations.

For a look at the playing field from 1999-2007, see this summary paper, “Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy Markets 2007” (PDF). Historically nuclear power has been handicapped relative to the incentives given to other forms, including fossil fuels. Add to that the extra regulatory burden, and you can see why there’s been so little movement in building new power plants in the last thirty years.

Blog author: jwitt
Friday, September 18, 2009

If it doesn’t faze you that

  1. Uncle Sam badly mishandled the stimulus porkanaza
  2. Congress would have directed bazillions to a surreally corrupt Acorn but for these two young heroes
  3. Michael Moore’s Sicko is Wacko
  4. Canadians will no longer have a free market healthcare system to flee to
  5. Government-run health care will look and smell and feel like the Department of Motor Vehicles … with sharp needles and bedpans
  6. If none of this has convinced you that a government-run healthcare system is a bad idea, then spend some time perusing Jay Richards’ thoughtful blogging work on health care here at The Enterprise Blog.

And have a blessed weekend.

Blog author: jarmstrong
Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Both of our major political parties have missed what seems so obvious. One says that we need more tax cuts to strengthen the economy. This is correct. The problem is that they are not willing to also make serious budget cuts. That party has spent more than any previous administration. The other political party wants to expand federal government by spending more of our money by raising taxes. The first plan helps the economy in the short run but not in the long term. The second is an even worse disaster I think.

Look, budget deficits are not a good thing, at least not in my simplistic understanding of economics. What individual would decrease their revenue, at least for the short term, and then also increase spending, for the long term? I know, cutting tax rates generates more money in the long run and thus the government benefits. I agree with that proven principle. Ronald Reagan advanced it and to the astonishment of all his enemies it worked.

What I do not think is a proven fact is that you can keep raising government spending, so as to increase deficits, and not someday have to "pay the piper." The late Milton Friedman, a hero of mine, continually noted that the burden of government is best measured by the level of our spending, not by the level of our tax rates. John Stossel pointed this out very clearly in his syndicated column that appeared in my paper today.

Here is the bad news. Your FICA and Social Security taxes currently exceed the expenditures of these programs. But by 2017 or 2018 this will all change when the baby boomers start to retire in massive numbers and begin to drain the system. Stossel gives President Bush some credit for the falling deficit because of his tax cuts. This plan has shrunk the deficit, at least to some extent. Cutting taxes and cutting deficits are not opposites. Both can and should be done. There is enough blame to go around in Washington. I want to decrease tax rates even further but I also want to seriously decrease federal spending.

John Stossel notes that the anti-Federalist writer Melancton Smith (1787) wrote: "All governments find a use for as much money as they can raise." That is the real issue and few will admit it, whether Republicans or Democrats. One party generally does a better job with this issue than the other but the difference is more one of degree than of deep and true principle, or so it seems to this amateur. I am open to seeing this differently but I think the obvious is pretty obvious. We need to grow the economy, allow people to keep their own money so they can spend it and create new jobs, and limit the role of government in solving every social ill we face. I believe there are some pressing issues that demand federal solutions. I am not a libertarian Luddite. But I also believe that at some point we had better face this deficit issue and slow spending or we will soon face financial and social chaos like we have never imagined.

John H. Armstrong is founder and director of ACT 3, a ministry aimed at "encouraging the church, through its leadership, to pursue doctrinal and ethical reformation and to foster spiritual awakening."