What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[mercury14]

We're in a similar spending mode and it we don't stop it soon, we're going to end up in the same boat. The liberals in Congress and the White House don't seem to recognize this and have poisoned the debt discussions by insisting that they need new revenue (increase taxes) as part of the deal when excessive spending is the problem. The republicans want taxes kept low (and made lower) and government made smaller so that we have more capital, liquidity, less burden and stability to compete in the world and start to bring back jobs. The Democrats are talking positively about jobs on one side of their mouth and doing everything the can to sabotage the job-making initiatives with the other side.

Quite possibly the stupidest post on this thread. You say all this crap about Republicans wanting low spending but how many decades of overspent Republican budgets do you need to see before you realize that's not what they want at all? Watch what they do, not what they say. They're lying to us, Right.

And seriously, shut up with your horrid spin about either revenue or spending causing deficits. By definition, the deficit is a factor of both. Any ECON 101 student will tell you this (though the NRO will lie and say otherwise).

 

[NeverEndingMe]

The Bush tax cut was a Keynsian approach. Why aren't you bitching about that? Seems you're cherry picking again and parroting conservative blab instead of trying to think.

numb-ass, don't you think the fact that Greece was able to bitch slap their lazy socialist bastards back into shape has anything to do with the stock market going up? I have not looked this week, so I'm assuming you are not pulling a Drixx

 

[RightField]

Quite possibly the stupidest post on this thread. You say all this crap about Republicans wanting low spending but how many decades of overspent Republican budgets do you need to see before you realize that's not what they want at all? Watch what they do, not what they say. They're lying to us, Right.

And seriously, shut up with your horrid spin about either revenue or spending causing deficits. By definition, the deficit is a factor of both. Any ECON 101 student will tell you this (though the NRO will lie and say otherwise).

I can understand your perspective since you're a social worker and more government money now and in the future for social programs is the only way you'll make a living once you and your wife are separated from the military...you need big government in order to survive or you'll be spending your life as Mr. Mom. Wife in military and you in social work...interesting dynamic there. Maybe that's why you're such an angry and emotional young man.

Lets go back to facts though. You are right, we did have a large increase in spending in response to 9/11, it probably should have been lower. Nevertheless, we did have to deal with some significant challenges (attacks) and strengthening our intelligence and military were probably good things to do. By the way, there was a good article by Rumsfeld today on military spending.

During the period after 9/11, the Republicans recognized that spending was too high and that the deficits were dangerous and they implemented an economic program that would truly stimulate growth (marginal tax rate reductions, regulation reduction, legislative stability and generally less intrusive government) while trying to reduce spending or at least control it. The economy grew, unemployment was reduced, tax revenue actually increased, most people thrived and the result was that the budget deficit in the last year of Republican control of Congress was down to $172B - and, for the record, unemployment was down to 4.6%.

Since the democrats have taken over Congress and later the Presidency our spending has increased dramatically, economic activity has slowed, we've shed jobs mercilessly and tax revenues have fallen. All these factors, lack of leadership by Democrats mostly, has led to massive deficits which are literally 10 times greater than the last all-Republican-government deficits (Democrat deficits @ about $1,600 B vs. Republican Budget Deficit about $172 B). Democrats put us out of jobs and destroy the economy...it's that simple.

In general, tax rates have stayed stable for over a decade. Obama wanted to raise them last cycle, but eventually relented and let them stay the same for a couple more years. As noted above, there has been some reduction in tax revenue and this is for a variety of reasons. It's partially due to increased unemployment. Remember, there are about 14 million unemployed now...about twice as many as when Republicans were running things - and those people are collecting money from the government rather than paying taxes in as they would if they were employed. There are also earnings problems and tax credits and checks to people who don't pay income taxes, which is really spending, but is hidden in the tax revenue equation instead of being plainly visible in the welfare and other spending ledgers.

But spending has gone way up under the Democrats. There’s been a multitude of crazy programs that have wasted our money and that of our kids and grandkids with little or no benefit (cash for clunkers, GM/UAW buyout, the buy-a-chinese-large-screen-tv giveaway, etc). The stimulus (yes it “maintained" a few jobs – but at an outrageous cost and didn’t do what they claimed it would), increased regulatory costs and generally increased spending on the non-defense portions of government (EPA spending is 125% higher now for example). Here we are with several trillion in new deficits and increased interest payments and we still have unemployment over 9% and dismal prospects for the future.

Yes, both revenue and spending are the ingredients of a deficit and it is obvious to any elementary school student as you point out, but in the case we’re talking about revenue has been relatively stable (no change in rates but some decrease due to the unemployment problem)… but spending has grown significantly. Now the government is coming to us and saying that they don’t want to get rid of the much of the new spending and they therefore have to take more out of our pockets because if they don’t get the money children will die and grandparents will eat cat food.

Personally, I'd have considered it differently if they'd said we need to spend more money on this thing/widget and we need more tax dollars to pay for it. Lets have a debate, discussion and vote on it. However, they haven't even done budgets for a couple years. Now, they've wasted a bunch of money on horrible spending priorities and now they're saying "it's already spent so pony up to pay for it". I'll support whoever makes the promise to reduce spending significantly, keep a strong military and keep taxes low.

Have you gotten your Obamawaiver yet?

 

[RightField]

The Dow is up 165 points, flirting with 12,600 and we're finishing off the best week in the last 51 weeks. Manufacturing jumped more than expected. How come this thread suffers conservative spam whenever the Dow dips, since that's a sign of Obama sucking - but when it's going up there's just dead silence? I mean, a week like this is huge news compared to the mini-dips conservatives gloat about. Where are you guys?


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-...&ccode=&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

Maybe some day soon we'll reach the dow levels we had when Bush was President. That would be good news, wouldn't it?

 

[RightField]

The Bush tax cut was a Keynsian approach. Why aren't you bitching about that? Seems you're cherry picking again and parroting conservative blab instead of trying to think.

The Bush tax cut, which reduced the marginal rates and reduced the amount that everyone who had to pay taxes had to pay to the government simply left more money in the hands of people who earned it. Not Keynesian.

Those tax reductions were simple and clean and benefitted everyone.

These Obama taxes are Byzantine in comparision and are "nuanced" to favor friends and influence enemies. It has lots of special provisions so that the government can influence people to make decisions that they like...for example, investing in solar energy, wind energy and other programs (I wonder if beanie hats qualified for a tax break?). They also put lots of tax credits in place which are really just more spending for people who he thinks he can get to vote for him. Granted that some people need more help and I know and agree that we need a safety net. However, Obama's disasterous economic policies are changing huge numbers of people who were once productive citizens into people who need more help from the government...and now he wants to put even more programs into place...will those change more citizens from productive to needing handouts?

 

[RightField]

Now I'm going running. Have a good weekend.

 

[mercury14]

The Bush tax cut, which reduced the marginal rates and reduced the amount that everyone who had to pay taxes had to pay to the government simply left more money in the hands of people who earned it. Not Keynesian.

Those tax reductions were simple and clean and benefitted everyone.

Nope, you're 100% incorrect. Keynsian economic theory advocates for temporary tax cuts to stimulate the economy. That's exactly what the Bush tax cuts were: textbook Keynsianism in action.

 

[mercury14]

I can understand your perspective since you're a social worker and more government money now and in the future for social programs is the only way you'll make a living once you and your wife are separated from the military...you need big government in order to survive or you'll be spending your life as Mr. Mom. Wife in military and you in social work...interesting dynamic there. Maybe that's why you're such an angry and emotional young man.

Lets go back to facts though. You are right, we did have a large increase in spending in response to 9/11, it probably should have been lower. Nevertheless, we did have to deal with some significant challenges (attacks) and strengthening our intelligence and military were probably good things to do. By the way, there was a good article by Rumsfeld today on military spending today.

During the period after 9/11, the Republicans recognized that spending was too high and that the deficits were dangerous and they implemented an economic program that would truly stimulate growth (marginal tax rate reductions, regulation reduction, legislative stability and generally less intrusive government) while trying to reduce spending or at least control it. The economy grew, unemployment was reduced, tax revenue actually increased, most people thrived and the result was that the budget deficit in the last year of Republican control of Congress was down to $172B - and, for the record, unemployment was down to 4.6%.

Since the democrats have taken over Congress and later the Presidency our spending has increased dramatically, economic activity has slowed, we've shed jobs mercilessly and tax revenues have fallen. All these factors, lack of leadership by Democrats mostly, has led to massive deficits which are literally 10 times greater than the last all-Republican-government deficits (Democrat deficits @ about $1,600 B vs. Republican Budget Deficit about $172 B). Democrats put us out of jobs and destroy the economy...it's that simple.

In general, tax rates have stayed stable for over a decade. Obama wanted to raise them last cycle, but eventually relented and let them stay the same for a couple more years. As noted above, there has been some reduction in tax revenue and this is for a variety of reasons. It's partially due to increased unemployment. Remember, there are about 14 million unemployed now...about twice as many as when Republicans were running things - and those people are collecting money from the government rather than paying taxes in as they would if they were employed. There are also earnings problems and tax credits and checks to people who don't pay income taxes, which is really spending, but is hidden in the tax revenue equation instead of being plainly visible in the welfare and other spending ledgers.

But spending has gone way up under the Democrats. There’s been a multitude of crazy programs that have wasted our money and that of our kids and grandkids with little or no benefit (cash for clunkers, GM/UAW buyout, the buy-a-chinese-large-screen-tv giveaway, etc). The stimulus (yes it “maintained a few jobs – but at an outrageous cost and didn’t do what they claimed it would), increased regulatory costs and generally increased spending on the non-defense portions of government (EPA spending is 125% higher now for example). Here we are with several trillion in new deficits and increased interest payments and we still have unemployment over 9% and dismal prospects for the future.

Yes, both revenue and spending are the ingredients of a deficit and it is obvious to any elementary school student as you point out, but in the case we’re talking about revenue has been relatively stable (no change in rates but some decrease due to the unemployment problem)… but spending has grown significantly. Now the government is coming to us and saying that they don’t want to get rid of the much of the new spending and they therefore have to take more out of our pockets because if they don’t get the money children will die and grandparents will eat cat food.

Personally, I'd have considered it differently if they'd said we need to spend more money on this thing/widget and we need more tax dollars to pay for it. Lets have a debate, discussion and vote on it. However, they haven't even done budgets for a couple years. Now, they've wasted a bunch of money on horrible spending priorities and now they're saying "it's already spend so pony up to pay for it". I'll support whoever makes the promise to reduce spending significantly, keep a strong military and keep taxes low.

Have you gotten your Obamawaiver yet?

1) I'm not a social worker. I have a master's degree in social work but practiced for two years before leaving the field. My license has lapsed and I'm not going back.

2) Your analysis of Republican spending ignores 4 trillion for wars, Medicare-D, and a bunch of other crap.

3) You ignore that Republicans took the Clinton-era surplus and turned it into a deficit.

4) You ignore the consensus of independent economists who believe the stimulus, cash for clunkers, etc worked. AJ even posted a non-Keynsian independent economic report saying it saved 3-4 million jobs and prevented a depression. Plus you have reports from Moody's, IHS/Global Insight, and Macroeconomic Advisors saying the same thing. The list of independent sources that agree with your position is exactly zero. Why is that?

5) How can you say government revenue has been stable amidst the Great Recession? You're flat wrong.

6) First you say that government revenue isn't a key part of the deficit, now you say it is. Make up your mind.

7) You already proved that you have no idea what health care waivers are. You showed that you got your "information" from deceitful sources and were showed how they work from objective sources. Yet you still chose to believe things that aren't true. Have fun bringing it up again because last time your ass was kicked horribly hard.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I can understand your perspective since you're a social worker and more government money now and in the future for social programs is the only way you'll make a living once you and your wife are separated from the military...you need big government in order to survive or you'll be spending your life as Mr. Mom. Wife in military and you in social work...interesting dynamic there. Maybe that's why you're such an angry and emotional young man.

What a sexist, asshole frat-boy thing to say. Thought you were supposed to be above that type of shit, but looks like right wing boys will always be right wing boys. Everything is copacetic as long as the females know their place in the pecking order, eh?

Not that Merc can't bitch-slap you with facts in return, since that's what's going on right now. Carry on.

 

[RightField]

What a sexist, asshole frat-boy thing to say. Thought you were supposed to be above that type of shit, but looks like right wing boys will always be right wing boys. Everything is copacetic as long as the females know their place in the pecking order, eh?

Not that Merc can't bitch-slap you with facts in return, since that's what's going on right now. Carry on.

Yeah, I can be so vulger sometimes.

When's he going to come up with facts? All I've seen so far is a bit of cherry picking numbers that don't fit the overall context and a bit of whining with some temper tantrum mixed in.

 

[Luk]

Maybe some day soon we'll reach the dow levels we had when Bush was President. That would be good news, wouldn't it?

It was better under Clinton than Bush. Fact.

Yeah, I can be so vulger sometimes.

When's he going to come up with facts? All I've seen so far is a bit of cherry picking numbers that don't fit the overall context and a bit of whining with some temper tantrum mixed in.

He's been killing your sorry asses with facts. Believe that.

 

[RightField]

1) I'm not a social worker. I have a master's degree in social work but practiced for two years before leaving the field. My license has lapsed and I'm not going back.

Good for you.

2) Your analysis of Republican spending ignores 4 trillion for wars, Medicare-D, and a bunch of other crap.

The total cost of the wars "to date" at the time of the stimulus was less than the cost of the one-time-shot stimulus which was around $800 B. Please note that they originally talked about shovel ready jobs and creating (CREATING) new jobs and later retreated from that while the unemployment rate deterioriated and only then started talking about "saved" jobs, a metric without a firm defintion or calculation methodology and based on very subjective assessments making it excessively inclinded to political posturing (since the figures couldn't be "proved.") Now, just last week, Obama was joking that there really weren't many "shovel-ready-jobs". I don't find that very funny, especially since he's asking me to pay for all that wasted money. He's going to take money from me that I can't use for my kids, my family, and my own interests and pursuits for what....because he didn't really know what was in the $800 B wasted money?

Also remember, while Bush was President and he had a Republican Congress, they were recovering from 9/11, waging two wars and still managed to get out of the way of the economy enough to get the budget deficit down to $172B and 4.6% unemployment. The spending has only exploded since the Democrats took over Congress and then the Presidency. Medicare Part D, while I disagree with having put it in, is costing far less than estimated because of the market competition that was structured into the deal. Has Obama stopped or slowed spending on the wars like he said he would...and he had Democrat supermajorities in Congress? That would make it his spending then, wouldn't it?

3) You ignore that Republicans took the Clinton-era surplus and turned it into a deficit.

This must be an example of one of those democrat "facts." You forget that Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming into reduced spending by a Republican Congress and that's what caused the surplus. There was even a government shutdown that caused tremendous political distress for Republicans because Clinton wanted more spending and the Republicans were adamently against it, but despite the political fallout, they stood on their principles and reduced spending. Now you say "Praise to Clinton for controlling costs". lol. Typical democrat. You also forget that Bush had to deal with the aftermath of the attack on our country on 9/11 and had to implement massive investment in rebuilding our military and intelligence systems...things that had to be done.

4) You ignore the consensus of independent economists who believe the stimulus, cash for clunkers, etc worked. AJ even posted a non-Keynsian independent economic report saying it saved 3-4 million jobs and prevented a depression. Plus you have reports from Moody's, IHS/Global Insight, and Macroeconomic Advisors saying the same thing. The list of independent sources that agree with your position is exactly zero. Why is that?

How could you not "save" some jobs with spending around $800 Billion? First, it's almost impossible to measure "saved" jobs and that's why the range of estimates is so big....because there's no quantitative measure, it becomes a "political" answer rather than a precise answer and there are lots of democrats ready to stand up and give political answers. The "stimulus" was done in such a way that the effects weren't lasting, was highly inefficient and much of the money was steered towards "favored" constituencies....kinda like...got your Obamawaiver yet (money for favors based on cronyism rather than the rule of law is very bad for a Republic such as ours). The claim by the administration was that unemployment would not exceed 8% and, instead, their failed policies took us the other way, to over 10% and long-lingering unemployment that's still over 9% years later. The economic "theory" that they've employed is based on a hope and a wish and has never worked, it is causing distress across the nation. This is particulary worrisome because Reagan's recovery from a bigger recession (Carter recession) was roaring back with significant growth in the 7% range within a few months and yet in Obama's recession is lasting years (caused by liberal policies in housing/real estate) and is still mired in levels of growth lower than our historical averages. His policies are extending the recession. Obama is the anti-Reagan and it shows.

5) How can you say government revenue has been stable amidst the Great Recession? You're flat wrong.

Rates of taxation have been stable, revenue has fallen because the democrats have put so many people out of work with their irresponsible spending, excessive regulation, promises for the future (Obamacare) and demogogery against business and enterprise. One good thing, Obama did reluctantly agree to keep tax rates stable for a couple more years (the evil Bush rates) instead of raising them like he said he would. Ironically, he said that we shouldn't have tax increases during a recession, though he's arguing for them now. I wonder what he really thinks, particularly since it would only raise $700B over 10 years and he's already raised our debt by $6 or 7 Trillion in far fewer years with many more trillions to go over the next 10 years.

6) First you say that government revenue isn't a key part of the deficit, now you say it is. Make up your mind.

You just have to read and comprehend....rates have been stable, revenue has dropped some because of the large number of structural unemployed that we have now thanks to the Dems anti-growth policies.

7) You already proved that you have no idea what health care waivers are. You showed that you got your "information" from deceitful sources and were showed how they work from objective sources. Yet you still chose to believe things that aren't true. Have fun bringing it up again because last time your ass was kicked horribly hard.

Got your Obamawaiver yet? You too can get one with fealty to the democrats. 50% of those receiving waivers are from unions yet unions only represent 5-7% of the working population. It looks to me like you just make a few campaign donations to the Dems and they'll decide to give one to you too. You can argue arcane details and deceptive political slogans all you want, but the macro trends are clear...featly to Dems will get you an exception from the "rule of law".

Democrats targeted young people in their campaigns over the last several years and got enthusiastic support with emotional appeals to hope and change while advocating programs that practically eliminated economic growth and with that, prospects for the future for jobs and careers for those same young people. Hopefully, they have recovered from their collective hangover, won't be deceived again and won't vote democrat and we'll be able to escape this schizophrenic economic miasma that the dems have created.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Quite possibly the stupidest post on this thread. You say all this crap about Republicans wanting low spending but how many decades of overspent Republican budgets do you need to see before you realize that's not what they want at all? Watch what they do, not what they say. They're lying to us, Right.

And seriously, shut up with your horrid spin about either revenue or spending causing deficits. By definition, the deficit is a factor of both. Any ECON 101 student will tell you this (though the NRO will lie and say otherwise).

You quite possible have a point there about Republicans spending in order to curry favor with your crowd, but the absolute proof is the actual spending of the Democrats once given the chance, they spend with no regard to the future, only the next election...

It is a clear factor, boy did you get that one right, but now, we have a new factor called unsustainable debt interest that no amount of revenue can cure because we simply have never produced that amount of revenue. That's one is squarely on the Democrats and the stimulus spending that did not work, and by did not work, we mean did not accomplished but a smidgen of what it was supposed to accomplish.

As a Libertarian, the spending of the Republican Left is of great concern to me, but the spending of the Democrat right is actually terrifying (note I did not say Left, since we know, there is no such thing as the Left, Marxists, Socialists, Progressives or any of that crap in the Democrat Party, it's all pragmatic centrists now...)!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Hey Merc, how about a 90% tax rate on Capital Gains to sock it to the evil rich?

FORTUNE -- Why did Greece's brush with default seem to catch so many investors off guard? With stocks ping-ponging six ways from Sunday over the past two weeks, you'd think people hadn't seen this coming. Except that they did. Even if the country did default, we should have been ready for it. But the "market"—whoever that is—can't seem to keep more than one thing in its head at once.

If Nike (NKE) reports better than expected earnings, it seems to forget about Greece for a day. And then it remembers. Am I the only one who sees the ridiculousness of this tendency? Quarterly reports come and go, but Greece will never repay these debts. So it really doesn't matter if the panicked European heads of state put off their day of reckoning or not. My finance professors always told me the market "priced" things like this in. I don't buy it anymore. I'm starting to think that global investors are clueless.

Yes, I know it's hard to be a professional investor and to keep your eyes on the ball. How can you when there are important things to know, like who killed Caylee Anthony? Plus, it's summer, and the beach beckons. But that doesn't mean the "market" has any right to be ignorant of events that are barreling down the pike toward it. Greece's near default is only the latest example of such. The kick-off of QE2 in November 2010 was another. The Federal Reserve practically sent up smoke signals on that one and people still responded as if had only been announced that morning.

Here's the bad news. I asked Pip Coburn of Coburn Ventures, one of the more insightful thinkers out there, whether he thought investors would ever wake up to the larger patterns around their own micro decisions. Short answer: No. "I think the root issue is that 'investors' live in survival mode and rarely work to observe (en masse) their own patterns and are instead sucked into the stuff of the day," he says. "I don't see that ending whatsoever unless suddenly 60% or more of market participants decide to pursue investing seriously as opposed to just randomly voting without increasing levels of thought."

So fine, I'll do their job for them....

1. A major U.S. bank will need to be recapitalized. Candidate numero uno: Bank of America (BAC). Christopher Whalen, the always-pointed analyst in charge of Institutional Risk Analytics, offered this one. This week's $8.5 billion mortgage settlement ($14 billion with add-ons) makes that even more likely. Will bank investors be surprised? Of course they will.

2. A municipal debt crisis in the U.S. There has been much ink spilled of late over the fact that star analyst Meredith Whitney predicted a rash of municipal defaults and they haven't happened yet. She still maintains that the state of state and local finances are a looming crisis. She's in good company: Warren Buffett has predicted similar things. And anyone who thinks we're not about to see some Greek-style anger at public officials in this country hasn't noticed that their garbage only gets picked up one day a week these days instead of two. Perhaps too many municipal analysts live in Manhattan to even know about garbage truck schedules. (I'm talking to you, Alexandra Lebenthal.) Please do not tell me you didn't see this one coming when it happens.

3. The Chinese economic engine is going to have a backfire, and we'll all feel it. The inimitable James Grant, of Grant's Interest Rate Observer, would like to remind us all that the state of Chinese banks is a perilous one. You know, that whole thing about growing their loan books too quickly, having directed lending, some to government itself, and an abnormally high percentage of non-performing loans? Evan Lorenz, an analyst at Grant's, puts it succinctly: "The so-called Asian development model of state-directed fixed asset investment always leads to massive misallocation and mispriced debt. We've seen this before—in the Soviet Union in the 1970s and South Korea in the 1990s. It works well until it doesn't, and then it crashes."

4. Speaking of China, Mark Anderson of Strategic News Service says that the 30-year effort by the Chinese of "obtaining" intellectual property from other nations is coming to a head. Remember the Aurora attack on Google (GOOG), Juniper Networks, Morgan Stanley (MS), and Adobe (ADBE)? Apparently, and this just emerged at Anderson's latest conference, Intel (INTC) was a target too. Forget low-cost Chinese labor. Anderson is looking at the defeat of capitalism at the hands of a Chinese Communist version of mercantilism that is effectively stealing western intellectual property. He's planning a conference in D.C. this fall on the very subject. Stay tuned.

5. Lest we forget, there's the whole debt ceiling issue. I know this has gone all partisan in Washington, although for what reason, I cannot comprehend, as the sanctity of the nation's credit rating should be a bipartisan issue. Republicans daring the President to a game of chicken over this show a profound lack of awareness beyond their own short-term poll numbers. (Which, sadly, is a corollary to the whole investors not paying attention to the big picture issue. Is it just human nature not to step back and think about context? It's just not a partisan issue, folks.) Matt Zames, head of fixed income at JP Morgan, wrote to Tim Geithner in April that if we blow this one, we're going to lose foreign investors, risk a downgrade of our long-cherished risk-free rating, trigger a run on money market funds, raise interest rates, and imperil the economy. So no big deal, really. Let's get back to scoring soundbites on Fox News. That's what really matters.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011...eed:+rss/magazines_fortune+(Fortune+Magazine)

But President Obama would rather fight to the death for insignificant tax increases that only benefit his wealth-envy message for the next election. He's willing to let us go into default so that he can say the Republicans sabotaged the economy in order to protect the rich, push granny off a cliff, starve children, under-employ minorities, kick students out of schools, force women have unwanted babies, end science, rob the poor, eliminate the middle-class and destroy the Unions...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Cash for clunkers did not work; it merely accelerated sales and then kicked the poor in the ass by making spare parts spare and used cars more expensive.

The Stimulus, like the Greek bailout only pushed the problem into the future, which allows it to grow, just as TARP did and as my report pointed out, the one you cherry-picked to find what you wanted to see.

A quick fix economy turns into an economy that cannot be fixed.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

In the Republic of Brokistan, that’s the choice, is it? Give me safe kids or give me corporate jets! No corporate aviation without safe kiddification! In his bizarre press conference on Wednesday, Obama made no fewer than six references to corporate-jet owners. Just for the record, the tax break for corporate jets was part of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” — i.e., the stimulus. The Obama stimulus. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid stimulus. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Democratic-party stimulus that every single Republican House member and all but three Republican senators voted against. The Obama–Corporate Jet stimulus that some guy called Obama ostentatiously signed into law in Denver after jetting in to host an “economic forum.”

Charles Krauthammer did the math. If you eliminate the Obama-Pelosi-Reid Corporate Jet Tax Break, you would save so much dough that, after 5,000 years, you would have clawed back enough money to cover one year of Obama’s debt. Five thousand years is the year 7011. Boy, our kids’ll really be safe by then. I see some leftie at MSNBC has just been suspended for characterizing the president’s performance on Wednesday as that of a demotic synonym for the male reproductive organ. So I shall be more circumspect and say only that even being a hollow unprincipled demagogue requires a certain lightness of touch Obama can’t seem to find.

Speaking of corporate jets, did the president fly commercial to Denver? Oh, but that’s different! He’s in “public service.” A couple of weeks before he flew Air Force One to Denver, he flew Air Force One to Williamsburg, Va. From the White House (well, via Andrews Air Force Base). That’s 150 miles, a 30-minute flight. He took a 747, a wide-bodied jet designed to carry 500 people to the other side of the planet, for a puddle-jump across the Potomac.

Oh, but it was for another “economic forum.” This time with House Democrats — the ones who voted for the Obama Corporate Jet Tax Break. “Economic forums” are what we have instead of an economy these days.

...

What else isn’t “the same for everyone”? A lot of things, these days. The president has a point about “tax breaks.” We have too many. And on the scale of the present tax code that’s a dagger at the heart of one of the most basic principles of free societies — equality before the law. But, of course, the president is not opposed to exemptions and exceptions and special privileges on principle: After all, he’s issued — what is it now? — over a thousand “waivers” for his own Obamacare law. If you knew who to call in Washington, maybe you got one. If you didn’t, tough.

But that’s the point. Big Government on America’s unprecedented money-no-object scale will always be profoundly wasteful (as on that Williamsburg flight), stupid (as at the TSA), and arbitrary (as in those waivers). But it’s not republican in any sense the Founders would recognize. If (like Obama) you’re a lifetime member of the government class, you can survive it. For the rest, it ought to be a source of shame to today’s Americans that this will be the first generation in U.S. history to bequeath its children the certainty of poorer, meaner lives — if not a broader decay into a fetid swamp divided between a well-connected Latin American–style elite enjoying their waivers and a vast downwardly mobile morass. On Independence Day 2011, debt-ridden America is now dependent, not on far-off kings but on global bond and currency markets, which fulfill the same role the cliff edge does in a Wile E. Coyote cartoon. At some point, Wile looks down and realizes he’s outrun solid ground. You know what happens next.

Mark Steyn
NRO

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Here in Schlubville GOP pols are backing away from frugality and embracing spending. At the same time theyre spending more, public employees are being fired and popular public programs are being cut.

Up to 1775 American pols got elected to office because of their wealth and charity. Guys like John Hancock built new churches and schools, gave widows pensions, and sponsored clever boys at Harvard. King GEORGE then gave him titles, and Governor Hutchinson appointed Hancock to lucrative and influential committees.

Today's pols start out poor, are sponsored by rich patrons, and work for The Man once theyre elected. Fuck the widows and orphans and churches.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

what I love about today's news. NEW YORK and CHICAGO both socialist controlled cities are demanding cuts & concessions from the unions!

this is a good day in America

Here in Schlubville GOP pols are backing away from frugality and embracing spending. At the same time theyre spending more, public employees are being fired and popular public programs are being cut.

Up to 1775 American pols got elected to office because of their wealth and charity. Guys like John Hancock built new churches and schools, gave widows pensions, and sponsored clever boys at Harvard. King GEORGE then gave him titles, and Governor Hutchinson appointed Hancock to lucrative and influential committees.

Today's pols start out poor, are sponsored by rich patrons, and work for The Man once theyre elected. Fuck the widows and orphans and churches.

 

[kbate]

The Obama attacks on Corporate Jets, are more of a "nod to the Union" and "a dig at the wealthy" than about the economy.

It is about Boeing and South Carolina and a Union Crying, "Foul."

Let us get back to 1864 and the battle cry, "South Carolina Must Be Destroyed!"

 

[NeverEndingMe]

The Obama attacks on Corporate Jets, are more of a "nod to the Union" and "a dig at the wealthy" than about the economy.

It is about Boeing and South Carolina and a Union Crying, "Foul."

Let us get back to 1864 and the battle cry, "South Carolina Must Be Destroyed!"

obama, and joe biteme yesterday in Vegas are clearly setting up for class warfare

 

[Sean Renaud]

obama, and joe biteme yesterday in Vegas are clearly setting up for class warfare

Took the cowards long enough.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Took the cowards long enough.

and how on earth could that be a good thing? if you declare war on the rich, who will you steal from to get your welfare check? after all, people like you only know how to rob, so once you rob all the wealthy people and the money is gone, than what?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

There are only a few certainties in life: Death & taxes, and folks wont work if you confiscate all their income. YOU PRETEND TO PAY US, AND WE PRETEND TO WORK.

 

[koalabear]

Clinton balanced the budget, best joke on this thread.

 

[eyer]

Mark Steyn
NRO: On Independence Day 2011, debt-ridden America is now dependent, not on far-off kings but on global bond and currency markets, which fulfill the same role the cliff edge does in a Wile E. Coyote cartoon. At some point, Wile looks down and realizes he’s outrun solid ground. You know what happens next.

I hold Steyn as one of the most enjoyably witty observers of politics and current events (even if this latest piece doesn't totally showcase that).

But, here again is a writer who does a good job in pointing out what will cause our downfall, and assuring us the downfall is on its way.

Within his words is also the avenue of individual escape from the calamity ahead he portends...

...but Steyn, like so many others who claim to champion individual independence, seems totally stuck on the premise that the fall must be collective, that we're all going down on the same Titanic...as if no other option(s) exist. I surmise this might be because most folks can offer collective critique, but actually are preferably ingrained in the benefits of a bastardized economy, a thoroughly corrupt political arena, and a greatly demented cultural sphere they, on the other hand, lament upon while getting paid by the word to enjoy the ride as much as they can,

This Independence Day weekend I would urge every heart that yearns for individual liberty to spend these glorious hours seriously contemplating what you and your immediate family need to do to claim your independence from a ship you believe to be sinking.

If you don't truly believe it's sinking and will take everything you hold dear down with it, then quit whining and writing about it and admit you're just like every other passenger: simply attempting to gain your most personally advantageous deck chair for the journey.

If this is the USSA Titanic we're all on as so many seem to be pontificating these days, an individual has the choice of going down with the ship or start swimming to survive.

I reckon most would be too intimidated to jump ship and start swimming toward America again - and most of them from fright and the sense of helplessness of such a seemingly daunting task. It's not "easy" by "Titanic" standards, yet it's the most instinctively pleasant move a liberty-loving individual can make.

It seems today Liberty is, yeah, a good thing, but there's so much more to Life...

...but there lived a spirit in the founding days which bore the greatest political proof the world has ever known:

GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH​

Where have all the American patriots gone this Independence Day?


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

- Samuel Adams