And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Posts Tagged ‘financial Crisis 2008

A Historic Flood of Red Ink | The Weekly Standard.

Obama has cause a historic flood of red ink and his latest budget will put our nation $7 TRILLION  further in debt (he is trying to tell us it will “save” $3 trillion!).  Yet this “Thing” rather than sticking to his own business is sticking his nose and his political organization Organizing for America in the middle of  a battle to save the state of Wisconsin.   There are simply no words for Obama  anymore, simply none that I and my dictionary find adequate at any rate.

 

The following article from the Weekly Standard is an eye opener.  I have only copied over a portion of the article so to read the entire article do click the reference above.  BB

***********************************

Let’s try to put that into historical perspective (the source for all of these figures is the White House Office of Management and Budget’s historical tables):

* In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.  (And yet the MSM aren’t saying a word about this.  In fact they are out there praising their presidents efforts at “budget reform”. BB

* In inflation-adjusted dollars, President Obama’s $3.8 trillion (in constant fiscal-year 2005 dollars) in deficit spending in just three years is nearly double our $2 trillion (in constant fiscal-year 2005 dollars) in deficit spending in the five fiscal years during which we were fighting World War II (FY 1942-46). It’s no small feat to nearly double the United States’ inflation-adjusted deficits during the largest conflict in human history, and to do so in less time than it took American GIs to fight that two-front war.

* As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), President Obama’s average annual deficit spending is 9.7 percent of GDP. That’s higher than during any single year of the Great Depression, the Cold War, the Korean War, or Vietnam. In fact, the only deficits in more than 200 years of American history that have exceeded even 6 percent of GDP have all involved either the Civil War, World War I, World War II, or President Obama.

* In average annual deficit spending as a percentage of GDP, the nearby chart shows how President Obama stacks up against other presidents who have served during the past four decades.

* The Obama deficit legacy, moreover, will be felt well beyond his tenure in office, especially if that tenure extends beyond a single term. First, Obama’s spending through 2012 essentially doesn’t include Obama-care. The CBO projects that Obama-care will increase spending by more than $2 trillion in the overhaul’s real first decade (2014 to 2023). That’s more than $2 trillion that could -otherwise be used to pay down the debt, rather than allowing the debt to rise continually and then piling a massive new entitlement program on top of it.

Second, President Obama’s gargantuan deficit spending will hamstring future efforts to make ends meet. Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually. Under his projections for 2018, interest payments on the debt will exceed all defense spending, including wartime spending. Think about that: In the first budgetary year after the next presidential term, our creditors are projected to get more money than our military.

At the end of 2008, just before President Obama took office, the national debt was $9.986 trillion and 69 percent of GDP. Under his projections, eight years later it will be $20.825 trillion and 104 percent of GDP. That’s right: Our debt will soon exceed our national economic output for an entire year. And that’s even if you believe the president’s rosy projections of 4 percent real GDP growth over the next four years, considerably higher than the 2.7 percent achieved over the past quarter-century and the 3.2 percent over the past half-century.

To correct our course, we need to advance real entitlement reform and repeal the looming entitlement that could be the boulder that breaks the camel’s back: Obamacare. House Republicans need to produce a serious budget that offers real entitlement reform, as they appear poised to do. (I very much disagree with this authors opinion because the Old Dog Republicans are pansy butts too!  BB) Actually enacting entitlement reform, however, will require presidential leadership. The most effective champions of bold fiscal prudence on Capitol Hill and in the statehouses, respectively, have been Representative Paul Ryan and Governor Chris Christie. In the wake of President Obama’s wildly unprecedented deficit spending, such leadership is now needed at the presidential level.

Jeffrey H. Anderson was the senior speechwriter for Secretary Mike Leavitt at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Advertisements

CBO on Fannie, Freddie and Mortgage Finance Options | Cato @ Liberty.

One of the many messes the unhousebroken Obama Administration and Democratic Congress has made for  We the People to clean up is the full federal ownership of the two giant mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.  These companies under the influence of Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd have gobbled up every toxic mortgage  mortgage bankers made in order to make the initial profit and knowing they could then sell them to Fannie or Freddie.    It is probably the biggest mess this last democratic congress has made that we really can not just simply  de-fund and therefore destroy as may be the case with Obamacare and some other stupidities.  So what will the next Republican controlled House Congress do with the mess?  This is the advise of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office which has consistently;y advised against the government control of these once privately held  companies.

CBO on Fannie, Freddie and Mortgage Finance Options

Posted by Mark A. Calabria

Just in time for the holidays,CBO  ( Congressional Budget Office) has released its analysis of the costs and benefits of various alternatives to our current system of mortgage finance, particularly the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The report examines three possibilities:

  1. A hybrid public/private model in which the government provides explicit guarantees on privately issued mortgages or MBSs;
  2. A fully public model in which a wholly federal entity would guarantee qualifying mortgages or MBSs; or
  3. A fully private model in which there would be no special federal backing for the secondary mortgage market.

The report doesn’t really push one option over another, but simply lays out the advantages and disadvantages of each.  Some highlights worth keeping in mind as the debate continues into the new year:

“Relying on explicit government guarantees…would also have some disadvantages…If competition remained muted, with only a few…firms participating in the secondary market, limiting risk to the overall financial system and avoiding regulatory capture could be difficult…federal guarantees would reduce creditors’ incentive to monitor risk. Experience with other federal insurance and credit programs suggests that the government would have trouble setting risk-sensitive prices and would most likely end up imposing some cost and risk on taxpayers. In addition, a hybrid approach might not eliminate the frictions that arise between private and public missions.”

“Privatization might provide the strongest incentive for prudent behavior on the part of financial intermediaries by removing the moral hazard that federal guarantees create.  By increasing competition in the secondary market, the privatization approach would reduce the market’s reliance on the viability of any one firm. Private markets may also be best positioned to allocate the credit risk and interest rate risk of mortgages efficiently, and they would probably be more innovative than a secondary market dominated by a fully federal agency. Further, privatization would eliminate the tension between public and private purposes inherent in the traditional GSE model.”

It is worth remembering that over the years, the CBO has actually been quite strong in warning against the dangers of the GSE model.** Sadly Congress simply chose to ignore those warnings.  Here’s hoping that the CBO has little more influence on this issue than they’ve had in the past.

**The government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) are a group of financial services corporations created by the United States Congress. Their function is to enhance the flow of credit to targeted sectors of the economy and to make those segments of the capital market more efficient and transparent. The desired effect of the GSEs is to enhance the availability and reduce the cost of credit to the targeted borrowing sectors: agriculture, home finance and education. Congress created the first GSE in 1916 with the creation of the Farm Credit System; it initiated GSEs in the home finance segment of the economy with the creation of the Federal Home Loan Banks in 1932; and it targeted education when it chartered Sallie Mae in 1972 (although Congress allowed Sallie Mae to relinquish its government sponsorship and become a fully private institution via legislation in 1995). The residential mortgage borrowing segment is by far the largest of the borrowing segments in which the GSEs operate. GSEs hold or pool approximately $5 trillion worth of mortgages

Todd Zywicki: In Elizabeth Warren We Trust? – WSJ.com.

Obama appointed a new czar right over the heads of our Congress  and this new czar is answerable only to Obama.  He has instructed the Treasury Department to do anything she wants. This Harvard Law School professor  has what amounts to complete control over our whole economy because she has control over the credit sector, all of the credit sector.  Once more Obama made her agency completely independent of any control by Congress by taking the funding of the agency out of the hands of Congress and allowing the funding to come directly from the Federal Reserve.  When she wants money she simply has more printed!

This lady is dangerous!

The following article is from an op-ed page but it gives us some understanding of just who Elizabeth Warren is and how she operates.  If she had been made to go thru the confirmation process mush would have come out and it is doubtful that even the Democrats would have confirmed her.  Obama knew this and that is why he  waited for A recess by Congress  to slip her in undercover.

This week Congress has put in place measures that would make it unlawful for the President to make any appointments with out the approval of Congress.  The  so-and-so’s on The Hill are finally catching on to the fact that even they are  now superfluous!   Obama doesn’t listen to the people, he  doesn’t listen to Congress, he only listens to the Communists and Socialist, union leader thugs and criminals that he has allowed to infiltrate the West Wing.  BB

In Elizabeth Warren We Trust?

The unaccountable head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has repeatedly used shoddy data to push policies she favors.

By TODD ZYWICKI

The Obama administration has promised that the Federal Reserve’s new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be independent from politics, a model of regulatory expertise grounded in sound data and economics. Naming Harvard Law Prof. Elizabeth Warren as de facto agency head undermines both goals.

By appointing another White House czar to avoid Senate confirmation, the administration politicized the powerful new bureaucracy from its birth. And by appointing an individual with a track record of using questionable research to advance policy ends, it has jeopardized the second goal as well.

Consider Ms. Warren’s much-ballyhooed study on the alleged link among health problems, medical expenses and personal bankruptcy filings. Published in the February 2005 issue of Health Affairs, the report was timed to head off bipartisan bankruptcy legislation that was enacted later that year. Ms. Warren and her co-authors claimed that “at least” 46% of personal bankruptcy filings in 2001 (the year from they collected the data) were the result of “medical causes,” and that this represented a 23-fold increase over 20 years.

Associated PressElizabeth Warren is announced as the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Sept. 17.

zywicki

zywicki

Both conclusions are extremely suspect. First, the study provided an implausibly broad definition of “medical bankruptcy”—including any filer who reported uncontrolled gambling, drug or alcohol addiction, or the birth or adoption of a child.

Equally dubious, the authors classified a bankruptcy as having a “major medical cause” if the individual had accumulated more than $1,000 in out-of-pocket medical expenses (uncovered by insurance) over the course of two years prior to filing—regardless of income, and even if the debtor did not cite illness or injury among the reasons for bankruptcy.

In 2001, average per capita out-of-pocket medical expenses were $683. During the two-year period Ms. Warren and her co-authors studied, in other words, Americans spent an average of $1,366 on uninsured medical expenses, or 30% more than their threshold definition of a “major medical cause.” There was no larger context for their threshold figure: A debtor with $1,001 in uncovered medical expenses and $50,000 on a Saks card would constitute a “medical bankruptcy” in their study.

The claim of a 23-fold increase in medical bankruptcies was based on a comparison of their 2001 data with Ms. Warren’s research in a 1981 study—which appears to count only those who self-reported as having filed bankruptcy for medical reasons. This is a completely different and much narrower definition of “medical bankruptcy” than the one she used 20 years later, and obviously inflates the increase.

In contrast to Ms. Warren’s studies, a battery of analysis, including research done by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office of the United States Trustee (which oversees the administration of bankruptcy cases), and by Daniel Dranove and Michael Millenson of Northwestern University, concluded that fewer than 20% of bankruptcies are caused by health problems or medical expenses.

Last year Ms. Warren and her co-authors were back with an even more dramatic study, in the American Journal of Medicine, timed to promote President Obama’s health-care reform law. Drawing on 2007 filings, the authors concluded that 62% of bankruptcy filings were the result of medical issues and that the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause had doubled between just 2001 and 2007. This study was also flawed.

After Congress made it harder for people to skip out on their debts in 2005, the number of bankruptcy filings plummeted. In 2001, the year Ms. Warren used for the first study, there were 1,452,030 personal bankruptcy filings; in 2007 there were 822,590. Even if we are to accept the methodologies of the two studies for the sake of argument, there were 670,838 “medical bankruptcies” in 2001 and 510,828 medical bankruptcies in 2007—a drop of 160,000 per year. Yet Ms. Warren’s article nowhere acknowledges that the absolute number of bankruptcies and purported medical bankruptcies declined.

Concerns about Ms. Warren’s presentation and interpretation of data have been longstanding. As I wrote in these pages in August 2007, her book “The Two-Income Trap” willfully ignores the obvious in her own data: that spiraling taxes—and not living expenses—were a major cause of middle class financial woes.

Similarly, reports of the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)—a panel of which she was chair—uniformly treated home foreclosures as the result of bank fraud and the bullying of helpless homeowners. Fraud and bullying there was, but her panel consistently ignored the many foreclosures that have resulted from a homeowner’s strategic decision to walk away from a house whose value has fallen below the amount still owed on the mortgage. Economists and housing analysts widely agree that a substantial number of defaults occur for this reason. That reality is largely absent from the TARP panel’s reports.

(Gee this sounds a whole lot like how they determined the  Global Warming thing, doesn’t it?    Just grab some figures out of the air that fit what you want the report to verify.  Good work for a Harvard prof! BB)

The head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is one of the most powerful bureaucratic positions ever created in the American political system. It can regulate or ban almost every consumer credit product in the country, yet it is beyond Congress’s power of the purse because its budget is guaranteed as a percentage of the Fed’s annual revenues. Under normal circumstances, the Senate would have the opportunity to ask Ms. Warren to explain the way in which she has sometimes interpreted data in her research before entrusting her with control of the agency.

By doing an end-run around the confirmation process, the Obama administration has eliminated our opportunity to find out. And by installing the head of the agency as an assistant to the president inside the White House, it has insulated her from meaningful congressional oversight.

Mr. Zywicki teaches bankruptcy and contracts at the George Mason University School of Law, and is the co-editor of the University of Chicago’s Supreme Court Economic Review.

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax – Yahoo! Finance.

I get so angry when I hear people saying, “Tax the rich!”  I get even more angry when the Democrats  use this as a tool to try to  divide the country  in Haves and Have-nots.   The so-called “rich” are already being taxed to support the other half of the people in the United States who pay no taxes at all!  The very rich billionaires   pay 35% of the taxes in the United States although they represent less than 1% of the population. The Democrats have pushed this lie that the rich are oppressing the poor so long that the truth has been lost. It is a case of say it often enough and it becomes the truth regardless.  Now the Democrats have spent so much that even they have become aware of the dire straits this country is in. Suddenly after spending like money grew on trees  and the need for money  to keep spending since the world has put the brakes on their borrowing  the Democrats  want to cut the tax cuts given under President Bush.  Cutting taxes and putting more money in the hands of the people has proven again and again to be the most effective way for the government to GET MORE MONEY THRU TAXING INCOME.  When the people have more money to spend and invest in business there are more people working and therefore more income to tax.  It is so easy to understand but apparently the Democrats and Progressives have a mental block here.

Another fact: it wasn’t until the Democrats came into power in 2006 that our nation began the long dip into the depression we are in now.  It was the  wheeling and dealing that Democrat Barney Frank Chairman of the House Finance Committee and Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd Chairman of the Senate Banking  Committee  stuck their grasping fingers into the  mortgage market demanding banks lend money to people who could not afford to buy a house and then covered these dirty deals up by insisting all was well when President Bush was calling for investigations into Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae that the crisis finally came to a head and the finance industry  came crashing down.

President Bush was in the White House and got suckered into this mess of Bail Outs but it was the Democrats in Congress who voted for them.  Many Republicants and a good many citizens were against the Bail Outs!

So when the crisis that had been allowed to occur  when the Democrats controlled Congress what did the Democrats do?  They did what the Democrats always do: they threw a lot of money at the banks and  even more into the federal government.  Yes all this money was first given to federal agencies to  then give to the banks.  Of course the agencies had to be funded for this service so they took their cut off the top.  They then hired more people so that the agencies in the government could keep growing and growing and spending and spending.   Bigger and Bigger government.  The government agencies got the lions share of the TARP money and the Stimulus money!  Money the nation did not have and had to borrow!

Now the Democrats can only think of taxing the “rich”.  They consider the ‘rich” any couple who makes over $250,000 a year.  People please understand these are  the small business people who employ most of the working people in this country.  By letting the Bush Tax cuts expire the taxes on these people will go back up to the 40%.   This at a time when   money is needed by the people who do the hiring and creating jobs for the rest of us!  Of course they are now referring to just allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to continue as the Obama Tax Cuts.

Anyhow, this article tells exactly who pays taxes in this country and believe me it is not me because I am part of the 47% of people who pay no  INCOME taxes.  In fact, being retired on Social Security I was one who  received   a check from the government on two occasions to boost my income from tax payers who had paid taxes.  It is one thing to get some of your own taxes back but it is an  entirely different thing to get money from the government that comes from other tax payers because you personally do not pay taxes.  I and a good many of you ( 47% of us in fact)  PAY NO INCOME TAXES.  What we do pay is the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes.  BB

Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer, On Wednesday April 7, 2010, 5:38 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

Most people still are required to file returns by the April 15 deadline. The penalty for skipping it is limited to the amount of taxes owed, but it’s still almost always better to file: That’s the only way to get a refund of all the income taxes withheld by employers.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

“We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing,” said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.

That helps explain the country’s aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.

“It’s not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes,” Stretch said.

The federal income tax is the government’s largest source of revenue, raising more than $900 billion — or a little less than half of all government receipts — in the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. But with deductions and credits, especially for families with children, there have long been people who don’t pay it, mainly lower-income families.

The number of households that don’t pay federal income taxes increased substantially in 2008, when the poor economy reduced incomes and Congress cut taxes in an attempt to help recovery.

In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.

In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a law providing most families with rebate checks of $300 to $1,200. Last year, Obama signed the economic recovery law that expanded some tax credits and created others. Most targeted low- and middle-income families.

Obama’s Making Work Pay credit provides as much as $800 to couples and $400 to individuals. The expanded child tax credit provides $1,000 for each child under 17. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides up to $5,657 to low-income families with at least three children.

There are also tax credits for college expenses, buying a new home and upgrading an existing home with energy-efficient doors, windows, furnaces and other appliances. Many of the credits are refundable, meaning if the credits exceed the amount of income taxes owed, the taxpayer gets a payment from the government for the difference.

“All these things are ways the government says, if you do this, we’ll reduce your tax bill by some amount,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

The government could provide the same benefits through spending programs, with the same effect on the federal budget, Williams said. But it sounds better for politicians to say they cut taxes rather than they started a new spending program, he added.

Obama has pushed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and tax increases for the wealthy, arguing that wealthier taxpayers fared well in the past decade, so it’s time to pay up. The nation’s wealthiest taxpayers did get big tax breaks under Bush, with the top marginal tax rate reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and the second-highest rate reduced from 36 percent to 33 percent.

But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here’s how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

Internal Revenue Service: http://www.irs.gov

Tax Policy Center: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org

The People Versus the Government.

This is a good article by Alan  Caruba stating some hard factsx and things going on in the Democratic Party and the states that are in disagreement with Obama.  But the most significant thing he wrote was:

Obama is Marxist ideologue

All this comes back to the fact that Obama is Marxist ideologue. He is also a liar, a trait no one likes, and a narcissist who gives continued evidence of regarding the presidency as a daily opportunity for self-indulgence and bottomless ego satisfaction.

A recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial said, “As Americans suffer economically, President Obama golfs, vacations, campaigns, appears on a frivolous talk show—and vacations some more. Gee, don’t we have a war and other problems to attend to?”

Obama may not be easily removed, but he can be politically neutralized if Republicans can gain control of Congress in November. There are barely 900 days left in his first and hopefully last term; still time for him and his cadre of czars to do more damage.

Another really great article: Deceit and Denial upon Our Ramparts

Pundits and talking heads keep saying that Obama and his administration just don’t get it, can’t learn from their mistakes, aren’t listening or don’t understand the average American citizen. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama is listening, he does understand us and he gets it. He just hates what we stand for. It’s the Republicans that aren’t listening, don’t get it and don’t understand that we get it, we understand and we will do something about it. We are tired of being collateral damage to a deceitful, disdaining administration run by ideologues with no practical experience at any level and by politicians who lie, cheat and steal from every living human on this planet by virtue of their supposed elitist entitlement as members of a “ruling class”.

Obama is not incompetent either. He knows precisely what he is doing. His ancient agenda is deliberate and premeditated, full of disdain for everything America stands for, full of contempt for “rich people”, “poor people”, free enterprise, white people, black people, brown people, white women in particular, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Mormons, freedom, American tradition and American law. Want proof, just read his books.  He is clever, deceitful and damaged goods with no shame and no conscience. To a nation of ordained free patriots, Obama’s appearance of total incompetency is simply the measure of his intent and his refusal to accept the reality that socialism is not an acceptable form of government to Americans and a historically failed, incompetent system. Each day, while Europe scrambles to free and save itself from another miserably failed socialist experiment, Obama drives another nail into the coffin of our Republic.


» Economy: It’s a Fiscal Problem, Not a Fed Problem – Big Government.

Just how poor is President Obama’s and Congress’s hearing and how poor is their understanding of  what they are told?   EVERYONE from the Tea Party Patriots on the streets to  our European allies have  told the President and Congress that the problem is the government and the governments spending and regulating, but neither the President nor the Congress take heed.  The Federal Reserve   has printed $1.5 TRILLION   in new money  that is just setting in our banks because they are afraid to start lending.  Why?  Because of the actions taken in Congress like the Dodd-Frank Financial Reform bill that in essence covers all of the financial industry but leaves the specifics of any laws to the little bureaucrats to fill in the blanks.  No one has any idea what will be filled in and how long it will take for the filling in to stop.    When Congress is this lacks in writing a bill the bureaucrats can play with it forever: today they can decree one thing and then next week rescind that law.  Banks know this and are simply not going to allow themselves to be stranded out there again with a pocket full of mortgages  (loans for any purpose) and no money because Congress was rather more specific on this part of the law:  any business determined  (by who?) to be at risk of default can be taken over by the government. So to quote the article:

there are limits to Fed fine-tuning. The central bank can produce more money, but that doesn’t mean it can produce more jobs.

Look, the Fed has already injected $1.4 trillion of new money into the economy, of which about $1 trillion of excess reserves are unused and on deposit at the central bank. Putting it another way, the economy has more liquidity than it knows what to do with. What’s the problem? All that excess money is not being used. And this, I believe, is a fiscal problem, not a Fed problem.

Think of all the economic obstacles of spending, taxing, and regulating coming out of Washington. What should be done to spur growth? Keep tax rates down. And stop passing massive regulatory bills, like the bank reform Obama just signed into law.

What else? The White House and Congress should end the war between business and Washington. Listen to what the CEOs are saying. Reduce the uncertainty premium caused by massive deficit spending and 2,500-page regulatory bills. Stop the assault against entrepreneurship. Keep down the cost of new job hires. Stay focused on free-trade expansion.

And then reduce tax rates for large and small businesses across-the-board. Speed up business investment tax write-offs. And extend the Bush tax cuts for another couple of years until a true pro-growth tax reform can be developed — one that will flatten rates, simplify the code, and get rid of unnecessary tax expenditures (which really are spending increases, not tax cuts).

In other words, since businesses create jobs, provide businesses with a new round of tax incentives. Reduce their capital costs and raise their investment returns after-tax.

Noteworthy is a move by several Democratic senators — like Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad — who are calling for an extension of all the Bush tax cuts, including lower tax rates for upper-end earners, capital gains, and dividends. These brave souls are now in open revolt against the White House.

With gold near $1,200 an ounce, the Fed has done its job and then some in providing liquidity. Easier tax rates, rather than easier money, is what will spur jobs and a faster recovery.

Morning Bell: Slouching Towards Irrelevance | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

This article has much great information  and analysis in it as to where America is heading under Obama and the elitists traitors against the United States.  The presidents speech at West Point this weekend was a warning of what is to come if one would but listen.  The cadets did listen and the military is listening according to some reports I have gotten.  Will America be saved from this?  BB

Slouching Towards Irrelevance

Earlier this month while in Brussels, Vice President Joe Biden told the European Parliament that while “some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, DC as the ‘capital of the free world’ … it seems to me that this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union, and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title.” How revealing.

The European Union is a profoundly anti-democratic institution, created and forced on member states by internationalist leftist elites despite widespread public disapproval. It should be no surprise that the same administration that can’t bring itself to enforce our laws and protect our borders would give such strong support to an institution that has so undermined national sovereignty in Europe. And given that the EU’s unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy employs more people than the entire British Army it is no wonder that NATO member nations have been unwilling/unable to pull their weight in the Long War.

One might hope that the Obama administration would look at the path Europe has gone down (a bloated welfare state that saps economic growth and bleeds military spending) and decide to change course. But President Barack Obama’s speech at West Point on Sunday quashed any such hopes. Speaking to graduating Cadets, President Obama laid out the increasingly identifiable pillars of the Obama Doctrine: greater reliance on international institutions; substituting soft power for hard power; and a more subdued and less self-reliant America – a scheme designed more to manage American decline than to ensure its people remain safe, free and prosperous.

Last Friday Charles Krauthammer gave us a whirlwind tour of what the Obama Doctrinehas looked like in action: failed engagement with Iran, surrender to Russia on missile defense, appeasement of Syria, support for pro-Chavez leftists in Honduras, and a gratuitous slap at Britain over the Falkland Islands. And what has it secured? A completely fake deal between Turkey, Brazil and Iran that will do nothing to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons program but has already made new meaningful sanctions next to impossible.

Instead of cutting domestic spending and reining in entitlements, President Obama passed a $862 billion failed stimulus and created a brand new health care entitlement all while laying the ground work for future cuts to our nation’s defenses. As Krauthammer wrote Friday: “This is retreat by design and, indeed, on principle.”

Perhaps, the worst thing about the speech was that the President made it in front of the men and women who will have to live with the immediate consequences of his actions. The Obama Doctrine will put them in harm’s way without the modern equipment they will need; with allies who will increasingly doubt our resolve; and at the mercy of an international order that will value their lives for less than the power which the White House wants to put in their hands.


See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

Advertisements