BornLib's Blog

Life, Liberty, and the Firearms that protect them both

Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

Obama administration ends welfare reform by fiat

leave a comment »

Washington Examiner: Romney hits Obama move gutting welfare reform

While the Obama campaign goes all out attacking Mitt Romney’s business history, the Romney campaign is looking carefully at a new Obama administration policy that could become a significant part of Romney’s case against the president.  In a quiet move Thursday — barely noted beyond the conservative press — the Obama administration “released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare reform law of 1996,” according to Robert Rector, a welfare policy expert at the Heritage Foundation.

They keep using that word, “progressive.”  I don’t think it means what they think it means.

The directive — which some Romney aides found stunning — allows the Department of Health and Human Services to waive the work requirement at the heart of welfare reform.  That reform, originally vetoed but later signed into law by President Bill Clinton, is widely viewed as the most successful policy initiative in a generation.  Under it, the growth in welfare rolls was reversed and millions of people moved from welfare to work.

People working? Less government spending?  This shall not stand!

Despite its success, however, many liberals remain opposed to reform.  For example, in the years immediately after passage of the law, Barack Obama himself pledged to do all he could to undo it.  Now, he has.

This move perfectly encapsulates this administration.

Ignores the law and does what he wants?  Check!

Spends more?  Check!

Expands dependence on government?  Check!

So here is what we’ve got:

Romney: ”You know, let me tell you, no no, look, look let me tell you something. If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy. That’s what he’s all about, okay? That’s not, that’s not what I’m about.”

Obama: Yeah!  What he said!

Edited to add for further reading:

Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post: Obama to Clinton welfare reform: Drop dead

President Obama is the chief executive, obligated by the Constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama, however, seems to have — by executive order — altered that to read “take Care that the Laws [which he likes or wished Congress had passed] be faithfully executed. The list of laws he won’t enforce or is unilaterally amending is getting long: Defense of Marriage Actimmigration laws,voting laws, and anti-terror laws. He won’t even enforce all the provisions of his signature legislation as we’ve seen in the bushels-full of Obamacare waivers. The latest and most inexplicable gambit is his decision to undo bipartisan welfare reform.

Second update:

And just when I thought I could not be more disgusted…

From Mickey Kaus at The Daily Caller: Make Ignoring Work Pay

The Obama Department of Agriculture has pulled the radio”novelas” that urged Spanish-speakers to wise up and get on the dole. (“In one of these, an individual tries to convince a friend to enroll in food stamps even though that friend declares: ‘I don’t need anyone’s help. My husband earns enough to take care of us,” says GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions, describing the novelas. “The first individual replies back: ‘When are you going to learn?’”)

Written by BornLib

July 13, 2012 at 6:10 pm

Posted in Economics, Liberalism

Remember when Greece was a shining example of public health care?

leave a comment »

Bloomberg: Greek Crisis Has Pharmacists Pleading for Aspirin as Drug Supply Dries Up

The reasons for the shortages are complex. One major cause is the Greek government, which sets prices for medicines. As part of an effort to cut its own costs, Greece has mandated lower drug prices in the past year. That has fed a secondary market, drug manufacturers contend, as wholesalers sell their shipments outside the country at higher prices than they can get within Greece.

Strained government finances only make matters worse. Wholesalers and pharmacists say the system suffers from a lack of liquidity, as public insurers delay payments to pharmacies, which in turn can’t pay suppliers on time.

“Wholesalers simply do not have the money anymore to play bank to the pharmacies,” Heinz Kobelt, secretary general of the European Association of Euro-Pharmaceutical Companies, said in a telephone interview.

To quote a great lady, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”  Unfortunately for the Greeks, the Socialists managed to mess up a lot more than just their finances.

Written by BornLib

January 11, 2012 at 9:53 pm

Posted in Economics, Liberalism

So that’s why they’re called the stupid party

leave a comment »

About two weeks ago I was feeling good about how Obama had managed to hand the GOP a way out of the Payroll Tax trap they had found themselves in by given them a completely daft ultimatum about the Keystone Pipeline.

Well House GOP lawmakers decided they were not to be out-dafted and threw away the opportunity.

Via Ace of Spades HQ:

WSJ: The GOP’s Payroll Tax Fiasco

House Republicans yesterday voted down the Senate’s two-month extension of the two-percentage-point payroll tax holiday to 4.2% from 6.2%. They say the short extension makes no economic sense, but then neither does a one-year extension. No employer is going to hire a worker based on such a small and temporary decrease in employment costs, as this year’s tax holiday has demonstrated. The entire exercise is political, but Republicans have thoroughly botched the politics.

Ed Morrissey at HotAir asks what I think is the essential question here:

I have a question — do Republicans on Capitol Hill bother to talk to one another?  If this package was so objectionable, why didn’t Boehner work with Mitch McConnell to force the demanded compromise in the Senate?  Only ten Senators voted against this bill, which means that the overwhelming majority of the Republican caucus gave it the thumbs-up.  Under those conditions, Reid’s anger is entirely legitimate.  He and McConnell worked out a compromise in which Republicans got the pipeline in exchange for a short-term extension that will get Congress through the holidays, but allows the GOP to push for more in later negotiations. Bear in mind that both parties have taken the same approach on budgeting matters — as they did last year in that bout of brinksmanship.

Written by BornLib

December 21, 2011 at 9:13 am

Posted in Economics, Liberalism

How to go from lose-lose to win-win

with one comment

HotAir: Boehner to Obama: Thanks for the veto threat!

The short version is that Obama has been putting pressure on Congressional Republicans to temporarily extend his fairly useless payroll-tax cuts (useless mainly because they are temporary).  Republicans have been resisting it, because like all of the President’s stimulus measures they have succeeded only in spending money we don’t have, which put them in a position where Democrats could demagogue them as wanting to raise taxes on the middle class while preserving tax cuts for the “rich.”

It was a nasty pickle, to be sure.  Then, our glorious leader said this:

Any effort to try to tie Keystone to the payroll-tax cut, I will reject.

So now Obama has painted himself into a corner.  All Republicans have to do is call his bluff.  If he vetoes it, it’ll be him who killed the payroll-tax cut.  If he doesn’t, not only will he be diminished by having to back off from his threat but America will get oil and jobs.

Maybe it’s all reverse psychology and the President secretly wants both the payroll-tax cut extension and the oil pipeline, and is trying to use the Republicans to screen him from the environmentalists fighting the pipeline, and is willing to take the hit to his stature that caving on a veto threat would bring to accomplish this.  Given the size of the man’s ego, I doubt that’s the case though.

Update: Here is a an even better reason to discard that theory.  Straight from the President himself:

However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline, they’re going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance.

So yes, not only does he believe paying people to not work creates jobs, but creates more jobs than a private enterprise that transports oil to the United States.  To think, if I had gone to Harvard I could have learned stuff like this as well.

Written by BornLib

December 9, 2011 at 9:14 pm

Posted in Economics, Liberalism

Obama Osawatomie Speech Reaction Roundup

leave a comment »

The Full text of President Obama’s economic speech in Osawatomie, Kansas hosted by The Washington Post.

The preordained response from the sycophants in the MSM are everywhere so I won’t be including those.

Real Clear Politics: Obama Now Blames The Internet For Job Losses

Layoffs too often became permanent, not part of the business cycle. And these changes didn’t just affect blue collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the internet

The Right Sphere: The President Willingly Lied to You

The President seemed to pull out a number at random, saying the some billionaires (which is now apparently a bad thing to be) pay only 1 percent on their income in taxes.  Here’s the quote:

“Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent — 1 percent. That is the height of unfairness.”

The problem: it’s just not true. And the President and the White House know it. From the Washington Post:

An administration official conceded the White House had no actual data to back up the president’s assertion, but argued that other reports showed that some of the wealthy pay little in taxes.

Peter Suderman at Reason noticed the same thing: Obama Declares That 1 Percent Tax Rates on Billionaires are the Height of Unfairness, Not That He Has Any Evidence That Such Rates Exist

Investor’s Business Daily:  Five Big Lies In Obama’s Fairness Speech

Michael Barone: Obama’s thin gruel at Osawatomie

Even by the standards of campaign rhetoric, this is a shockingly shoddy piece of work. You can start with his intellectually indefensible caricature of Republican philosophy: “We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.” Or his simple factual inaccuracy: “The wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century.” Or his infantile economic analysis, blaming job losses on the invention of the automated teller machine (they’ve been around for more than four decades, Mr. President, and we’ve had lots of job growth during that time) and the Internet.

But what’s really staggering is the weakness of his public policy arguments. The long-term unsustainability of our entitlement programs he blames solely on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts—an explanation no serious observer regards as anything but incomplete, to say the least. He points to growing income inequality and to remedy it advocates policies that are utterly inadequate to the task.

HotAir: Obama’s BIG small-minded class warfare speech in Kansas doesn’t disappoint

Today, the president did sweepingly what he has done patchily for the past few months, did at last what I have long wished he would do. He honestly argued for a welfare state and directly stated his disbelief in trickle-down economics. For once — again, except in a few places — this wasn’t conservative rhetoric to cover up progressive policies. It was progressive rhetoric to promote progressive policies. Nobody who reads this speech should be in doubt as to what he’s selling — but they should think deeply about how much freedom they’re willing to give up to buy it.

David Harsanyi at Reason: Obama Promises to Save the Middle Class by Enslaving It

Michael Kinsley at Bloomberg:  When Obama’s Music Stops, Class Warfare Starts

Fairness to bankers may not seem like the most pressing issue on the justice agenda. But in addition to being unfair, conflating actual crooks and the innocent affluent makes it hard to claim that raising their taxes isn’t punishment for some form of misbehavior. Taxes are not a punishment; they are a source of necessary revenue. But if you tie them to the financial scandal, they sound pretty punitive.

Ace of Spades: Obama: Capitalism Has “Never Worked”

He says “trickle-down economics” rather than capitalism, but “trickle-down economics” is merely an argument in favor of capitalism. There is no such thing as “trickle-down economics.” There is capitalism, and the argued advantage of it, which is the trickling down of created wealth.

So he is in fact saying, as the headline puts it, that capitalism has never worked.

Yves Smith: Obama Road Tests Hopey-Changey Big Lie 2.0: He’ll Reincarnate as Teddy Roosevelt if You Are Dumb Enough to be Fooled Twice

The misdirection is blindingly obvious. The claim is that the Administration needs new tools to get tough on banks. No, it has plenty of tools, starting with Sarbanes Oxley. As we’ve discussed at length in earlier posts, Sarbox was designed to eliminate the CEO and top brass “know nothing” excuse. And the language for civil and criminal charges is parallel, so a prosecutor could file civil charges, and if successful, could then open up a related criminal case. Sarbox required that top executives (which means at least the CEO and CFO) certify the adequacy of internal controls, and for a big financial firm, that has to include risk controls and position valuation. The fact that the Administration didn’t attempt to go after, for instance, AIG on Sarbox is inexcusable. The “investigation” done by Andrew Ross Sorkin in his Too Big To Fail (Willumstad not having a good handle on the cash bleed, the sudden discovery of a $20 billion hole in the securities lending portfolio, the mysterious “unofficial vault” with billions of dollars of securities in file cabinets) all are proof of an organization with seriously deficient controls.

But more broadly, it’s blindingly obvious this Administration has never had the slightest interest in doing anything more serious than posture.

Matt Welch at Reason: Obama Gets His Teddy On

Some other New Nationalism items that President Obama left out:

* A call for using the state to “destroy privilege.”

* “[G]overnment supervision of the capitalization, not only of public-service corporations…but of all corporations doing an interstate business.”

* Also, “the same kind and degree of control and supervision which should be exercised over public-service corporations should be extended also to combinations which control necessaries of life, such as meat, oil, or coal.”

* Plus, “franchises should never be granted except for a limited time, and never without proper provision for compensation to the public.”

* Creation of a “Federal Bureau of Corporations.”

* Regarding people making a fortune, “It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.”

* Using the Department of Agriculture to “cover all phases of farm life.”

* And finally, one of the boldest (and most prescient) calls for executive power expansion in presidential history

Jonah Goldberg on Twitter

Obama is simply crushing the straw man he’s arguing with. Brutal beat-down of imaginary “generic Republican.” #Downgoestrawman!

Legal Insurrection: Obama grows shorter

I have posted numerous times before about Obama’s penchant for creating false choices in his speeches, invariably some non-existent supposedly conservative position versus his position. This enables Obama to knock down the conservative straw man and make his own position seem reasonable by contrast.  He’s a classic shorter.

It’s a cheap rhetorical trick, but he can’t seem to shake the habit.

Obama’s speech yesterday in Kansas presented yet another example, as Obama set up his call for more government regulation and redistribution of wealth against opponents who supposedly want everyone to fend for themselves and play by their own rules

Jacob Sullum at Reason: There Are Those, and There Are Some, and They All Sound Like Real Dicks

In a column a couple of years ago, I noted that President Obama often resorts to the rhetorical tic/trick “there are those who”—a setup that warns you to be on the lookout for straw men. His speechtoday in Kansas (noted earlier this evening by Matt Welch and Mike Riggs) features a variation on that theme:

In the midst of this debate [about the best way to restore growth, prosperity, balance, and fairness], there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

I am here to say they are wrong.

Who are these “some” who say everyone should fend for himself while playing by his own rules? Obama does not say, but they sound like real dicks, don’t they?

Outside The Beltway: Barack Obama Tries To Channel Teddy Roosevelt

It’s not surprising that Obama would be hitting these themes. In reality, they aren’t all that much different from what we’ve seen from the President in different matters for a long time. Last December, even as he was making a deal with the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts, the President was talking about how the “rich” needed to pay their “fair share,” terms that were, as all political terms are, left purposely vague. The Administration repeated that theme during the March/April budget showdown, during the July/August debt ceiling showdown, and against in September when the President called on the debt Super Committee to put forward a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction and put forward the idea of the “Buffet Rule,” another political term that was left purposely undefined. So, in reality, there’s not much new in what the President had to say yesterday other than the location of where he said and the invocation of the memory of the Rough Rider, which seems to have all started with an appearance by Doris Kearns Goodwin on Meet the Press that Stephen Taylor wrote about earlier this week. In some sense the whole speech struck me as a campaign kickoff speech, although we’ve had many of those types of speeches from the President lately, which makes the fact that the entire trip was funded by the taxpayers rather than the campaign rather ironic.

Monty at Ace of Spades

There are a lot of things wrong with Obama’s recent stump-speech; to list them all would be a book-length project. But one thing stands out, and it’s more a thematic issue than with anything in particular that President Obama said or did not say. He keeps spewing the canard that the government is capable of moving poor people into the middle class — that somehow it is in a benevolent government’s power to perfect the raw human material and turn it into something better and nobler. In previous Administrations, this took the form of pushing home ownership — the idea being, of course, that owning a home would foster the qualities that one finds in the middle class: frugality, civic-mindedness, responsibility, a strong sense of community and family, and so on. However, others have pointed out that Obama and his fellow travelers get it exactly backwards: people achieve a middle class life because they are thrifty, responsible, and careful; not the other way around. President Obama once again displays his fundamental and abyssal ignorance of his own country’s character and history. (The progressive project to ‘improve’ humanity always seems to focus less on moral and ethical development than it does on behavioral changes: “progressives” seem to view citizens as little more than rats scurrying around a Skinner box.)

David Bernstein: Obama’s Progressive Mythology

Oddly enough, Obama also praises Roosevelt for supporting a minimum wage for women. Chapter 4 of Rehabilitating Lochner describes the impetus for such laws, and much of the relevant the information in that chapter can be found in this paper published in Law and Contemporary Problems. The history is too rich to give an adequate summary here. Let’s just say that the history of such laws is not pretty. The laws’ primary supporters included male-only labor unions that wanted to keep women out of the workplace–women-only minimum wage laws almost never passed without strong from unions that typically opposed minimum wage laws for men; eugenicists who wanted women to stay home and take care of their children; bigots who thought that only the lower order of men (including Eastern European immigrants) would allow their women to work for wages; moralists who believed that low-wage women were susceptible to vice and should therefore stay out of the workforce; and economists who believed that, as Felix Frankfurter summarized in his brief in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, women who wanted to work but could not command a government-imposed minimum wage were “semi-employable” or “unemployable” workers who should “accept the status of a defective to be segregated for special treatment as a dependent.”

Damon W. Root expands on this at Reason: Why Is Obama Championing Sexist Progressive Era Laws?

Mickey Kaus: Obama’s Charity Capitalism

It’s pathetic if the mighty U.S. is really forced to beg corporations to produce here out of Warren-Buffetesque philanthropic urges. But it’s especially pathetic for American liberalism, which has always been most appealing when it stood up against the condescension of “alms givers”–but which now celebrates wealthy philanthropists with nauseating ease (a trend I blame, in very small part, on my old employer Slate, with its annual “Slate 60″ charity porn feature). “Giving back” is the credo of Hollywood celebrities, not New Deal liberals.  Democrats are supposed to be the party of government–government that establishes a foundation for the essential dignity of working people–not the party that sucks up to the Google guys and the Gates Foundation.

At least Elizabeth Warren only wanted rich businessmen to pay higher taxes. It’s a sign of liberalism’s humiliating inability to do enough with those taxes that left-wingers now seek to substitute The Giving Pledge.

Mike Riggs at Reason: Obama Touts ‘Oversight for Thee, But Not for Me’ in Kansas Speech

In a Very Important Speech he gave today President Obama made a strong case for more government oversight. That is, more government oversight of you, not the government

Walter Russell Mead: The Age of Hamilton

If you asked Theodore Roosevelt what kind of Republican he was, he would — and did — tell you that he was a proud standard bearer of the Hamiltonian tradition in American politics.

Ron Paul, who would have fought TR tooth and nail as much as he is currently fighting both President Obama and ex-Speaker Newt would agree. Gingrich, Obama and TR are all Hamiltonians, and Ron Paul thinks they are all dead wrong.

As we gear up for 2012 and beyond, American attention is increasingly returning to the oldest battle in our political history: the battle between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians that split George Washington’s cabinet down the middle and established our first party system.

That fight was essentially over three things that divide us intensely today: the role of the federal government, the nature of the credit system, and the future of the social hierarchy.

IBD: A Lesson in Fairness For Obama

President Obama this week started testing his new campaign theme, replacing “hope and change” with the equally vacant promise of “fairness.” Apparently he hopes Americans can be fooled twice.

A pair of insightful reader emails published at Instapundit

A 1910 letter to the editor of the NYT on TR’s New Nationalism speech

This article is from a year and a half ago, but it is very relevant to the issue at hand:

Jonah Goldberg: What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama?

Obama is no Marxist. This is a point lost on some who like to highlight the president’s indebtedness to the ideas of the late radical Saul Alinsky, who was no Marxist either. Rather, Alinsky was a radical leftist and a proponent of “social-ism” before Blair named it. He believed that all institutions, indeed the system itself, should be bent to the needs of the underprivileged and the downtrodden in the name of social justice. Bent, not broken. Like the progressives and various Marxists, Alinsky was a proponent of radical pragmatism, using the tools available to change the existing order. This was the core of what the New York Times, in a remarkable 1913 analysis surveying Theodore Roosevelt’s ideas in the wake of his third-party campaign for president, dubbed T.R.’s “super-socialism”: “It is not the Marxian Socialism. Much that Karl Marx taught is rejected by present-day Socialists. Mr. Roosevelt achieves the redistribution of wealth in a simpler and easier way”—by soaking the rich and yoking big business to the state. “It has all the simplicity of theft and much of its impudence,” the Times asserted. “The means employed are admirably adapted to the ends sought, and if the system can be made to work at all, it will go on forever.”

Written by BornLib

December 8, 2011 at 10:39 am

Posted in Economics, Liberalism

There are regular Obama lies, and then there are ones even the AP will call him on

leave a comment »

AP: FACT CHECK: Obama’s jobs plan paid for? Seems not

President Barack Obama’s promise Thursday that everything in his jobs plan will be paid for rests on highly iffy propositions.

It will only be paid for if a committee he can’t control does his bidding, if Congress puts that into law and if leaders in the future – the ones who will feel the fiscal pinch of his proposals – don’t roll it back.

Underscoring the gravity of the nation’s high employment rate, Obama chose a joint session of Congress, normally reserved for a State of the Union speech, to lay out his proposals. But if the moment was extraordinary, the plan he presented was conventional Washington rhetoric in one respect: It employs sleight-of-hand accounting.

Short version:

OBAMA: “Everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything.”

By somebody else.  Later.  Somehow.  Or not.

OBAMA: “Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including many who sit here tonight.”

Especially the proposals that they have already rejected twice like income tax hikes.

OBAMA: “It will not add to the deficit.”

By more than a half trillion dollars.

OBAMA: “The American Jobs Act answers the urgent need to create jobs right away.”

“Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.” – Obama

Written by BornLib

September 9, 2011 at 12:49 am

Posted in Economics, Liberalism

Heartless Republicans want to spend money on disaster relief instead of luxury electric cars

leave a comment »

The bastards.

WSJ: Leveraging a Hurricane

Here’s the story: In June, House Republicans passed the 2012 Homeland Security appropriations bill, which included an amendment adding $1 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In a sensible move for taxpayers, the amendment offsets this new disaster funding by cutting spending on the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program. This may ring a bell with readers as the funding conduit for one of Washington’s adventures in crony capitalism.

In 2009, the Department of Energy announced that it would loan more than half a billion dollars through this program to a California-based company, Fisker Automotive, to make luxury electric cars. About a month after the loan package was conditionally approved, CEO Henrik Fisker and Joseph Biden appeared in the Vice President’s hometown of Wilmington, Delaware to announce that Fisker would now be making some of its cars at the city’s old General Motors factory.

At the event, Mr. Biden described many “long talks” he’d had with Mr. Fisker. The Vice President’s office later said that Mr. Biden didn’t make any direct appeals to Energy before the loan was approved, but Delaware’s chief of economic development told the Journal that Mr. Biden was the state’s “secret weapon, except there is nothing secret about Joe Biden.”

All of this is background to say that the GOP has found the federal program that is arguably the most deserving of a cut to free up funds for disaster victims. But Senate Democrats refuse to pass the House bill and Mr. Cantor has earned their ire this week by continuing to press for cuts in corporate welfare.

Democrats standing up for the little guy… driving a big luxury electric car.

Written by BornLib

September 3, 2011 at 6:11 pm

Posted in Economics, Liberalism

So how was that job report?

leave a comment »

ABC: Employers Add No Net Jobs in Aug.; Rate Unchanged

Total payrolls were unchanged in August, the first time since 1945 that the government has reported a net job change of zero.

Holy smokes! The President had better have a heck of a speech for us Thursday.

Fox: White House Hints at More Economic Speeches, Proposals Ahead

 “There’s no question the president will want to keep returning to jobs,” one top aide told Fox News. “I don’t want to downplay the speech [next week] — it’s going to be substantial. But the idea that this is the be-all and end-all is wrong.”One scenario being discussed by White House aides is the president highlighting individual economic proposals at appearances around the country throughout the fall, just as the Republican presidential candidates are ramping up the sales pitch for their own economic proposals.

Nuts.  Well… at least the Administration understands the seriousness of the situation, right?

 U.S. Labor Secretary Hilda Solis expressed optimism about the jobs situation. “I do feel like we’re going in the right direction,” Solis said.

I give up. These people are completely clueless.

Written by BornLib

September 2, 2011 at 7:38 pm

Posted in Economics

Stephen Colbert lied like a dog about debt deal

leave a comment »

From his August 2nd program:

President Obama signed the debt ceiling compromise and America narrowly avoided a catastrophe, giving the Democrats anything they want.

The Democrats made out like bandits.

President Obama wanted the largest debt ceiling increase in history. He got it, to the tune of 2.1 trillion dollars.  “Since 1979, the average debt-limit vote has given the Treasury 251 days — about eight months — of borrowing, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Office of Management and Budget data.”  The President demanded enough to get through the next 18 months, past the 2012 elections, and he got it.

Because the only way this bill was two-sided was that the Dems had to take it in both ends.

The only ones who got screwed were the American public.  The deal “limited” spending to increases of only $7 trillion above current levels over the coming decade, as opposed to the $10 trillion in increases in the Obama budget.

Just look how this defeat has broken Harry Reid…

Harry Reid managed to con the Republicans into letting Senate Democrats dodge their legal responsibility to pass budget resolutions. So not only have Senate Democrats not passed a budget for the past two years, now they don’t have to pass them for the next two years either.

Folks, this is what happens when you only give Republicans 98% of what they want.

Total garbage.  Republicans, and the majority of Americans, wanted the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.  The Senate Democrats shot it down and the President said he would have vetoed it if it had reached his desk.  The Budget Control Act debt compromise is nothing like Cut, Cap, and Balance.

1. Cut: We don’t even get past 2012 before we see Republicans losing half the cuts they wanted.

2. Cap: The 20% of GDP spending cap Republicans wanted is gone.

3. Balance: CCB required Congress to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to raise the debt ceiling.  Now they only have to vote on it, and still get all but $300 billion of the debt ceiling increase if they don’t pass it.

Colbert somehow figures that is 98%.  At best, I would say that is 20% of what Republicans wanted.  Since I doubt they really wanted to “deem” the Democrat controlled Senate to have passed budget resolutions when they did not do so, 15% might be an even better number.  Then there are the triggered cuts to national defense discretionary spending by 10%.  Boy, the more you read about the Budget Control Act the more it sounds like the Democrats wrote it, which they did.

Colbert then goes on to blame Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s for our economic woes, rather than the politicians who are spending us all into oblivion, going so far as to accuse them of “economic terrorism” and suggest they be sent to Gitmo.  The fact that US debt is now more than 100% of our nation’s GDP apparently has nothing to do with it.  No, apparently the rating agencies are just doing it because they are a bunch of evil jerks.  This is, of course, the only reason anyone ever does anything liberals don’t like.

Written by BornLib

August 6, 2011 at 10:01 pm

Posted in Economics, Liberalism

What a Deal! Markets Crash and US Downgraded to AA+

leave a comment »

Markets Crash: Faber: Brace for a Global ‘Reboot’ and a War – CNBC.

“I think Treasurys are perceived still as a safe haven because everybody knows the U.S. has an endless ability to print money. The interest will be paid,” he said. “The trouble is that governments can default in two ways. Either they just stop paying the interest and there is a debt restructuring, like Argentina went through; or they just pay the interest and the principle eventually, in a worthless currency. That’s the way the U.S. will likely do it.”

I’m taking the advice of a certain Toledo cop and investing “in precious metals – lead, gun powder and brass.”

ZeroHedge: S&P Downgrades US To AA+, Outlook Negative.

When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ‘AAA’ long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers–Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.–we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.’s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.

Worse than France or the UK. That’s just embarrassing.

Now the White House says we shouldn’t have been downgraded, but frankly, that is a load of bull.

Financial Times Op-ed: Deal or No Deal, a US Downgrade Is Deserved.

This week America must wait nervously to find out whether the deal will be enough to save its credit rating. The rating agencies recently laid out two important vulnerabilities that might lead them to mark it down. Given the deal does little to address either, the agencies are likely to make good on their threat to downgrade.

Written by BornLib

August 5, 2011 at 10:08 pm

Posted in Economics