«

»

Here comes a recession, UNEXPECTEDLY!

Reading this CNBC article about the current plunge in economic data, you get the impression, yet again, that these “experts” in the MSM are constantly baffled by the continued negative economic news that keeps coming because they, after all the evidence to the contrary, still think that the destructive borrow-or-print & spend policies of the last 2 or 3 years from the anti-business Keynesian jackasses in charge, somehow should be working.

The last month has been a horror show for the U.S. economy, with economic data falling off a cliff, according to Mike Riddell, a fund manager at M&G Investments in London. “It seems that almost every bit of data about the health of the US economy has disappointed expectations recently,” said Riddell, in a note sent to CNBC on Wednesday.

“US house prices have fallen by more than 5 percent year on year, pending home sales have collapsed and existing home sales disappointed, the trend of improving jobless claims has arrested, first quarter GDP wasn’t revised upwards by the 0.4 percent forecast, durables goods orders shrank, manufacturing surveys from Philadelphia Fed, Richmond Fed and Chicago Fed were all very disappointing.”

“And that’s just in the last week and a bit,” said Riddell. Pointing to the dramatic turnaround in the Citigroup “Economic Surprise Index” for the United States, Riddell said the tumble in a matter of months to negative from positive is almost as bad as the situation before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

Heh! WTF are they talking about? Did they miss all the people pointing out that the tack the democrats took – to make the deficit spending of the Bush years suddenly look like the good years, while targeting all the bloat towards their operatives, lobbyists, union & corporate buddies, and in general, any front they could use that would then funnel the money into their campaign coffers, cushioning the impact of the Dodd & Franks lending/financial industry collapse for state and federal government employees at the expense of the private sector – was a recipe for disaster? At least they aren’t claiming the problem was that they didn’t do double the stupid anymore.

Housing prices continue to fall because the fundamental underlying policy that caused the implosion remains untouched, Freddie & Fannie are still at it, while the new regulation that was passed to supposedly “protect” the American people from the “greed” of Wall Street, makes it virtually stupid for any lending institution to loan money to job creators. Job creators that even when doing fine BTW are not creating any jobs, because they simply can not predict the actions of this business-hostile government and the insane regulations it puts out. Regulation that instead of dealing with the problems are instead intended to make government responsible for picking the winners & losers, heavily favoring the idiotic industries and giant corporations the left feels will help it grow it’s political & financial power, at the tax payer’s expense. In the mean time the private sector hunkers down and hopes to whether the storm.

And let’s not forget that we have not had a budget for over 2 years now. The democrats call any attempt to roll back the most massive expansion of the welfare state since the days of FDR “draconian”, and infer the people that are calling for fiscal sanity want to kill granny, kids, pets, and the planet. All so they can avoid actually having to admit their fiscal policies are insane and unsustainable. They refuse to propose any changes to address the looming and massive entitlement spending problem and the out of control deficit spending that is tacking trillions to our debt each year, and demagogue those that dare propose any changes that don’t involve fleecing the productive sector even harder than they already do. They rammed through a government takeover of healthcare bill that will drastically impact not just healthcare, but puts us on a quicker path to financial implosion. They have virtually had no energy policy, other than to drive up the prices of the types of cheap energy sources that stand in the way of them gauging people, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, while pushing both inefficient and marginal “green” technologies nobody would go for otherwise. Their job policy has consisted of funneling billions of tax payer dollars to temporarily prop up government/public jobs over tax payer/private sector jobs, and it shows. The list of other such economic transgressions is long and replete of idiocy. It’s why we are seeing soaring inflation and a dramatic deflation in the value of the dollar. Heck, despite falsely blaming military spending for our predicament, they up and started another war in the Middle East, this time to steal oil for real, which I remind you should be ironic considering how that’s what they falsely accused their predecessor of, and completely ignoring all the politically motivated grandstanding they did back when, proving yet again that the only thing important to them is power at all costs. Think all of that isn’t going to come back home to roost?

“The correlation between the economic surprise index and Treasury yields is very close, so the lesson is that whatever your long term macro views are regarding hyper inflation vs. deflation or the risk of the US defaulting, the reality is that if you want to have a view about government bond prices, the best thing you can do is look at the economic data to see what’s actually going on,” said Riddell.

“And right now, the economic data is suggesting that however measly you may think a 3 percent yield is on a 10-year Treasury, the yield should probably be a fair bit lower given what’s going on in the US economy,” said Riddell. “You’ve also got to wonder at what point the markets for risky assets start noticing, too.”

The markets noticed. And while they may claim to be baffled, they are now seeing the obvious end game. The economic path the left has us on right now is unsustainable. The deficit spending to grow government was wrong during the Bush years, it affected the 2008 elections, and it is magnitudes of orders more wrong now that the left is doing orders of magnitude more insane spending. Gird your loins people. The ride is about to get even more bumpy, and the morons refuse to accept the fact that the gravy train is about to run off the proverbial blown up bridge.

51 comments

No ping yet

  1. Seattle Outcast says:

    They had this same issue with social issues – after doing all the BS to “end poverty” and a bunch of other problems, they were extremely confused as why the problems not still existed a generation later, but many had actually gotten worse.

    This is what happens when academics and “intellectuals” claim to have found the cure for all the world’s ills – none of it takes into account reality.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Seattle Outcast says:

    Also, I do think there is an energy policy – but it’s one of decreased availability and increased prices. It’s for our own good, of course….

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  3. CM says:

    Reading this CNBC article about the current plunge in economic data, you get the impression, yet again, that these “experts” in the MSM are constantly baffled by the continued negative economic news that keeps coming

    In your example, the “expert” would be Mike Riddell “a fund manager at M&G Investments in London”.

    From the article:

    “It seems that almost every bit of data about the health of the US economy has disappointed expectations recently,” said Riddell, in a note sent to CNBC on Wednesday.

    I assume that he’s talking about the expectations of financial experts, but you believe he’s referring to journalists working in the ‘mainstream media’?

    after all the evidence to the contrary

    But the evidence wasn’t to the contrary. Which is the point of the piece, and which is clear from even the part you quoted.

    Heh! WTF are they talking about? Did they miss all the people pointing out that the tack the democrats took – to make the deficit spending of the Bush years suddenly look like the good years, while targeting all the bloat towards their operatives, lobbyists, union & corporate buddies, and in general, any front they could use that would then funnel the money into their campaign coffers, cushioning the impact of the Dodd & Franks lending/financial industry collapse for state and federal government employees at the expense of the private sector – was a recipe for disaster? At least they aren’t claiming the problem was that they didn’t do double the stupid anymore.

    Again, depends who you’re talking about.
    But if you want lower taxes, then you’ll get less Government income. As pointed out in the other thread, that would appear to be the main cause of the larger deficit. Non-discretionary non-defence spending increased only 0.7% apparently. But income was down about 6 times that much.
    Also, the lending/financial industry collapse happened here (and in other countries) as well – but we didn’t have rules making companies lend to poor people. Even in the US, that component is very tiny.

    Housing prices continue to fall because the fundamental underlying policy that caused the implosion remains untouched, Freddie & Fannie are still at it, while the new regulation that was passed to supposedly “protect” the American people from the “greed” of Wall Street, makes it virtually stupid for any lending institution to loan money to job creators. Job creators that even when doing fine BTW are not creating any jobs, because they simply can not predict the actions of this business-hostile government and the insane regulations it puts out. Regulation that instead of dealing with the problems are instead intended to make government responsible for picking the winners & losers, heavily favoring the idiotic industries and giant corporations the left feels will help it grow it’s political & financial power, at the tax payer’s expense. In the mean time the private sector hunkers down and hopes to whether the storm.

    What is the risk for a lending institution to lend money to a ‘job creator’? Can you point to an article or similar where this is explained?
    So what do you think should have happened, instead of that legislation you don’t like? Which regulations would work?

    Heck, despite falsely blaming military spending for our predicament, they up and started another war in the Middle East, this time to steal oil for real,

    Where is your evidence of this? How are they going to steal it?

    The markets noticed. And while they may claim to be baffled, they are now seeing the obvious end game.

    What is the “obvious end game”? Obama wants to destroy the US economy? Really? Why?

    The deficit spending to grow government was wrong during the Bush years, it affected the 2008 elections, and it is magnitudes of orders more wrong now that the left is doing orders of magnitude more insane spending.

    How did it affect the elections? People voted for Obama because Bush was spending too much?
    Where is all this “insane spending” that you’re talking about?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. CM says:

    Their job policy has consisted of funneling billions of tax payer dollars to temporarily prop up government/public jobs over tax payer/private sector jobs, and it shows.

    How does your link demonstrate that?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. richtaylor365 says:

    But if you want lower taxes, then you’ll get less Government income.

    Actually, it is just the opposite. lowering the tax rate increases tax revenue, we have seen this over and over. And it is not really surprising, lowering the capital gains rate will spur more trading, more selling of stock, and this increases tax revenue. Same with the corporate tax rate, lowering that rate will incentivise more growth, more production, and more hiring, selling more widgets, 15% tax on one $million of profit will bring in more tax revenue then say a 35% tax on $400,000.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. Seattle Outcast says:

    Even in the US, that component is very tiny.

    Really? WTF are you talking about?

    The housing bubble was very much a product of government pressure for lending institutions to make unsound loans – it was very much a series of dominoes set up by the feds to “help” people that couldn’t afford a home to purchase one.

    1) Federally chartered institutions receive pressure
    2) Fannie & Freddie back up the bad loans
    3) Bubble starts as anybody can get a home loan and prices soar
    4) The invention of mortgage backed securities
    5) Investors start buying MBS like fucking crazy
    6) Housing bubble grows to stupid proportions, propped up by Fannie and Freddie past the normal bursting point
    7) Bubble finally pops – mortgage backed securities, sold world-wide, are worthless
    8) Financial institutions fail due to massive reliance on MBS
    9) Government steps in with “bail-out plan”, throwing more money after bad
    10) Obama embarks on business hostile economic agenda, paying off campaign contributors
    11) Great recession keeps on going due to Keynesian “economics”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  7. AlexInCT says:

    How does your link demonstrate that?

    My link didn’t demonstrate that at all CM. My link was about how the MSM is still baffled that the stupid Keynesian bullshit these idiots told people would save the economy, but instead imploded it at an even faster rate, isn’t working. I just put together a well known list of failures of these idiots currently in charge. But since you asked for a link, I will Oblige. The most important function of that stimuluspatronage bill was to save so many jobs and prevent unemployment from going to 8%. Instead it helped push unemployment far above that and actually destroyed a million private sector jobs to temporarily protect 450K government jobs, as discussed here. Google it. There is a lot about this out there, but let me offer a helping hand and link you to the study in question.

    Hope that helps.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Hal_10000 says:

    Rich, I have to disagree. It’s he Laffer Curve, not the Laffer Line. When marginal rates are 70%, then yeah, a tax cut can increase revenues. That doesn’t work when the marginal rates are in the 30′s. We’ve seen hat pretty conclusively over the last decade.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  9. Hal_10000 says:

    The thing is, that I think the plunge in housing prices is a good thing. We are now down to close to the historical average, the ridiculous bubble having now been completely erased. We may see houses start to move again and maybe, in a few years, construction start up. I don’t see why everyone is shitting bricks over the drop in housing prices. This had to happen at some point.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  10. AlexInCT says:

    In your example, the “expert” would be Mike Riddell “a fund manager at M&G Investments in London”.

    Actually in my example it is the moronic author of the piece which found someone to give lip service to the MSM’s meme that this is all unexpected. I, along with a lot of other people, fully expected and predicted precisely these consequences long ago when the idiots were selling their snake oil.

    I assume that he’s talking about the expectations of financial experts, but you believe he’s referring to journalists working in the ‘mainstream media’?

    Again, this “expert” was picked and quoted because he is pushing their meme that this stuff is unexpected. I guess you haven’t been paying attention either, or you would have known this is the MO for these shillers. I recommend you check out the Instapundit site for example. He has at least a couple of these “unexpected” stories from the MSM every day as part of the running joke. The only people that think things keep going from bad to worse unexpectedly, are the ones that think Obama has any kind of skills other than community organizing and giving speeches from a teleprompter. The rest of us are only baffled by these idiots inability to grasp by now that disaster is what we should expect.

    But if you want lower taxes, then you’ll get less Government income.

    I see Mr. Taylor already tackled this fallacy. Here is a bit of logic for you: when the productive feel they are being unfairly targeted and their success punished, they stop working so hard. When they don’t they work real hard. Government takes in more money when the tax rates aren’t punitively stupid as the democrats always seem to want them to be, not to improve government’s take – even they know that rates that go high depress capital growth – but to again control the economy and hold the power to pick winners & losers. The economic depression heading our way is coming because they are threatening more taxes, by keeping spending so out of control that there will be no other choice, and the economy is reacting, and doing so negatively, to their disastrous policies.

    What is the risk for a lending institution to lend money to a ‘job creator’? Can you point to an article or similar where this is explained?

    Here is an article on risk determination, and then you have another on interest rates, which is how banks hedge against failure. In short, banks determine if the business plan is sound, the business is viable, the person running it can do the job, then loan with a variable interest depending on risk, or don’t loan if the risk is too high. It’s called market rules.

    So what do you think should have happened, instead of that legislation you don’t like? Which regulations would work?

    Well, for one CM, I would like to see the repeal of the regulation that forces lending institutions to loan money, under threat of government action, to bad risks. Regulation that completely ignores the reality of how markets work, by pretending everyone is an equal risk, and worse, that bad risks can suddenly turn into great risks and grand investments, simply because now they have some vested interest in the property they coerced the lending institution to let them get. Go back to forcing people to prove they are responsible and will not do stupid things, by putting down a big chunk of cash or verifying they have a good credit record and take their obligations seriously, instead of forcing lending institutions to loan money to people to avoid lawsuits and reputation destroying campaigns by the various special interest hucksters. But most importantly, put some real independent oversight on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so they can no longer be abused, as Frank’s boyfriend did for the decade before the housing collapse happened, and friends of Franks & Dodd did before that. The housing market will not recover as long as lenders still have to throw pearls at swine.

    Where is your evidence of this? How are they going to steal it?

    Are you seriously asking this? The current “non-war” in Libya is to prevent the Chinese, whom have been focusing on Africa as a partner to get their needed resources, from working with Gaddafi to take the oil Europeans, but especially France, believe should belong to them. That’s why they will not stop until Gaddafi is replaced by someone that will guarantee them they keep that oil – Google it.

    How did it affect the elections? People voted for Obama because Bush was spending too much? Where is all this “insane spending” that you’re talking about?

    You must not have paid close attention to the democrats 365/24/7 campaign to call the massive bump in increased deficit spending the House approved, after the democrats won a majority in the house in 2006 I should add, in the 2007 and beyond budgets, that caused the democrats to rant & rail about the fiscal irresponsibility of the republicans? One of the key platforms of the “I am the anti-Bush” they all ran on in 2008, was based on the claim that it was solely the republicans that were responsible for deficit spending, while giving tax breaks to the evil rich!, of all things, and that they would restore fiscal sanity when they finally won. They won, but instead resorted to deficit spending that surpassed all 8 years Bush in but a single year, while blaming Bush, of all things, and then doubled down the year after, and are again doubling down for the foreseeable future. I guess you have never seen the Bush vs. Obama deficit’s graph, huh? I might have to create a new post with it for you.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  11. richtaylor365 says:

    Rich, I have to disagree. It’s he Laffer Curve, not the Laffer Line.

    I think the Laffer Curve bolsters my argument:

    The idea that lower tax rates could translate into higher total tax revenue is described by the “Laffer curve.” Legend has it that supply-side economist Arthur Laffer sketched the curve on a cocktail napkin at a Washington restaurant in 1974, showing it to then-Ford administration officials Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. At a tax rate of 0%, total tax revenue would, of course, be $0. At a tax rate of 100%, Laffer argued, it would also be $0, since the tax would kill all incentive for people to engage in the taxed activity. Therefore, he concluded, tax revenues would not keep rising with increasing tax rates. At some point, increasing tax rates would reduce total tax revenue—and diminishing tax rates would increase it.

    We saw this work when both Kennedy and Reagan lowered taxes. It took Bush two tax cuts before he got similar results:

    But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.

    Even Laffer himself admitted that there existed a number of other economic factors that could skew results, that is why we don’t take the curve as gospel, only a guide line. But assuming that this exercise is revenue neutral (meaning that lowering taxes will not bring in a windfall) the very fact that it will spur economic growth in the private sector meaning healthier companies (better export numbers, more jobs, prosperity all around) isn’t that incentive enough to lay off with the tax hikes?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  12. CM says:

    That the roots (cause) of the entire crisis was sub-prime lending by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is one theory, but it’s by no means fact. From what I can tell, it would be more accurate to say that it was PART of the problem (and hey, I don’t believe in extending credit to people who can never pay it back, so I agree with the criticism, I’m just questioning the simplistic ideological apportioning of blame).

    Others have pointed out that there were not enough of these loans made to cause a crisis of this magnitude. In an article in Portfolio Magazine, Michael Lewis spoke with one trader who noted that “There weren’t enough Americans with [bad] credit taking out [bad loans] to satisfy investors’ appetite for the end product.” Essentially, investment banks and hedge funds used financial innovation to enable large wagers to be made, far beyond the actual value of the underlying mortgage loans, using derivatives called credit default swaps, CDO and synthetic CDO. As long as derivative buyers could be matched with sellers, the theoretical amount that could be wagered was infinite. “They were creating [synthetic loans] out of whole cloth. One hundred times over! That’s why the losses are so much greater than the loans.”[66]

    Economist Paul Krugman argued in January 2010 that the simultaneous growth of the residential and commercial real estate pricing bubbles undermines the case made by those who argue that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, CRA or predatory lending were primary causes of the crisis. In other words, bubbles in both markets developed even though only the residential market was affected by these potential causes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_financial_crisis

    Your number’s 10 and 11 are highly speculative.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. CM says:

    The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that “the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“

    So a whole lot of stuff.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_late-2000s_financial_crisis

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  14. CM says:

    Actually in my example it is the moronic author of the piece which found someone to give lip service to the MSM’s meme that this is all unexpected. I, along with a lot of other people, fully expected and predicted precisely these consequences long ago when the idiots were selling their snake oil.

    Did you predict things would slowly improve before they tumbled in a matter of months to negative from positive?

    It seem that things were getting better month by month but then went backwards for no apparent reason, and nobody can really put their finger on why. That’s quite different from having a fundamental different view on how the country is being run economically. If it was all so spectularly wrong from the outset, why did it look like things were improving until just recently?

    Again, this “expert” was picked and quoted because he is pushing their meme that this stuff is unexpected. I guess you haven’t been paying attention either, or you would have known this is the MO for these shillers.

    Mike Riddell and others like him offering their opinion backed by their professional expertise are shillers? Do you have any evidence of that?

    I recommend you check out the Instapundit site for example. He has at least a couple of these “unexpected” stories from the MSM every day as part of the running joke. The only people that think things keep going from bad to worse unexpectedly, are the ones that think Obama has any kind of skills other than community organizing and giving speeches from a teleprompter. The rest of us are only baffled by these idiots inability to grasp by now that disaster is what we should expect.

    But they didn’t go from bad to worse. That’s the whole point. They went from improving to getting worse. Why is it moronic to report that, and get appropriate quotes from reputable experts?

    I see Mr. Taylor already tackled this fallacy. Here is a bit of logic for you: when the productive feel they are being unfairly targeted and their success punished, they stop working so hard. When they don’t they work real hard. Government takes in more money when the tax rates aren’t punitively stupid ……

    Yes I understand the basic logic behind the theory. In reality, as has been pointed out, it’s not as simple as either of us has painted it. And it’s quite difficult to quantify the specific effects because you need to make judgement calls on a whole lot of other factors.

    http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

    Here is an article on risk determination, and then you have another on interest rates, which is how banks hedge against failure. In short, banks determine if the business plan is sound, the business is viable, the person running it can do the job, then loan with a variable interest depending on risk, or don’t loan if the risk is too high. It’s called market rules.

    Thanks, yes I understand how a bank determines risk, and market theory. I’m asking for more explanation about the new regulations which “makes it virtually stupid for any lending institution to loan money to job creators”. Which regulations have been introduced that make it virtually stupid for a bank to lend according to acceptable levels of risk?

    Why do you seem to want to place 100% blame on regulation and 0% blame on those involved in the financial sector? As mentioned, Govt mandates that poor people need to be lent money was no doubt a factor, but there is clearly far far more to the crisis than that. There are many areas where the only government involvement has been to relax the regulations.

    Well, for one CM, I would like to see the repeal of the regulation that forces lending institutions to loan money, under threat of government action, to bad risks. Regulation that completely ignores the reality of how markets work, by pretending everyone is an equal risk, and worse, that bad risks can suddenly turn into great risks and grand investments, simply because now they have some vested interest in the property they coerced the lending institution to let them get. Go back to forcing people to prove they are responsible and will not do stupid things, by putting down a big chunk of cash or verifying they have a good credit record and take their obligations seriously, instead of forcing lending institutions to loan money to people to avoid lawsuits and reputation destroying campaigns by the various special interest hucksters. But most importantly, put some real independent oversight on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, so they can no longer be abused, as Frank’s boyfriend did for the decade before the housing collapse happened, and friends of Franks & Dodd did before that. The housing market will not recover as long as lenders still have to throw pearls at swine.

    Sorry, given the deregulation and practices in the financial sector over the last 10 years I don’t see how LESS regulation makes the system more sustainable. I have no issue with repealing regulation that forces financial institutions to lend to people who will not be able to pay it back. But beyond that, the reasons for the crisis pretty much all rest with those who create and use financial products and risk other people’s money. One finance company after another has collapsed here, and they invariably involved appalling risk decisions by the main players, most of whom wouldn’t even understand the concept of ethics even if it was explained to them. No government involvement required for tens of thousands of people to lose their savings. So I certainly don’t buy the narrative which puts all the blame on Govt regulations. Anywhere.

    Are you seriously asking this? The current “non-war” in Libya is to prevent the Chinese, whom have been focusing on Africa as a partner to get their needed resources, from working with Gaddafi to take the oil Europeans, but especially France, believe should belong to them. That’s why they will not stop until Gaddafi is replaced by someone that will guarantee them they keep that oil – Google it.

    Sorry but you made the statement, it’s up to you to back it up with fact. I’m fully aware that I can use Google to find whatever narrative I’m looking for. I’m asking for actual evidence that this is the plan. If it’s simply what you believe, and you have none, that’s fine, you can just say so.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  15. CM says:

    My link was about how the MSM is still baffled that the stupid Keynesian bullshit these idiots told people would save the economy, but instead imploded it at an even faster rate, isn’t working.

    You can’t say that with any certainty. We simply can’t tell. It could have been far far worse without it. With respect to TARP a lot of the money lent to GM and other companies has been repaid already. And jobs weren’t just saved at those places, but at all the places that rely (or partly rely) on those big companies. There is substantial flow-on. Parts manufacturers for example. If someone makes parts for Ford and GM, and GM goes under, that might be the end of their company. Which can significantly affect Ford.

    I just put together a well known list of failures of these idiots currently in charge.

    That’s your opinion. They’re all arguable. You’re writing all this as if this is all fact.

    But since you asked for a link, I will Oblige. The most important function of that stimuluspatronage bill was to save so many jobs and prevent unemployment from going to 8%. Instead it helped push unemployment far above that and actually destroyed a million private sector jobs to temporarily protect 450K government jobs, as discussed here. Google it. There is a lot about this out there, but let me offer a helping hand and link you to the study in question.

    Did you read the study? I read much of it when it was posted here the other week. It doesn’t really reach any strong conclusions – they acknowledge how hard it is to quantify. They even mention in the conclusion that there could have been ‘negligible’ effects on total employment.
    For someone who doesn’t like the uncertainties in climate science (and partly uses that as a basis to dismiss the entire field), you sure seem to be placing significant weight on something that even the authors acknowledge is hard to determine. They also point to other studies which suggest the jobs were created (see Section 5). All depends on how you look at it. Is there any reason why you’ve decided that this report (and, again, even they find that there has possibly been no effect) is preferable?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  16. CM says:

    ….the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can’t have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth.

    “Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts,” Alan D. Viard of the conservative American Enterprise Institute told the Washington Post last October. Viard, who worked in the Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Analysis and the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, told FactCheck.org that “nobody can absolutely prove that.” Proof would require time travel and a reversal of tax policy. “But among economists, there’s no dispute.”

    Tax cuts can be a sound economic move that spurs growth, says Viard. “But it doesn’t mean that [the cuts] gained revenue.”

    The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee’s estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office’s receipts baselines.

    The projections were not off the mark. A look at the committee’s estimates of total federal revenue including the effects of the 2003 tax legislation versus the actual federal receipts shows that the JCT’s projections were higher than actual revenues in 2003 and 2004 and slightly lower than actual receipts in 2005.

    Also, Rob Portman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Ed Lazear, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, told journalists at the Washington Times last October that the tax cuts prompted economic and stock market growth. But, the paper reported, “they conceded that the tax cuts…cut deeply into government revenue.”

    A CBO chart in Orszag’s letter shows that legislation (not counting an impact on capital gains) had a total negative effect on revenue growth.

    The impact of the tax cuts on economic growth is a matter of debate among economists. We’re not voicing a view on whether the tax cuts should have been enacted; that, too, is a separate discussion. But it is clear they did not “increase revenues.”

    http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

    As the piece points out it would be accurate to say that tax cuts contribute to economic growth. But beyond that I don’t think you can claim that lower tax raises government revenue. At least not recently.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  17. CM says:

    See my responses above. However my main point in that section of my response was that the deficit is higher because revenues are lower (rather than new discretionary spending by Obama).

    As pointed out in the other thread, that would appear to be the main cause of the larger deficit. Non-discretionary non-defence spending increased only 0.7% apparently. But income was down about 6 times that much.

    Unless American Thinker has got it all horribly wrong??! ;-)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  18. CM says:

    Laffer is convinced that the reduction of the top tax rate from 70% to 28% during the Reagan years paid for itself–in part by encouraging the rich to stop finagling–and the evidence mostly backs him up. “You find these enormous responses in the upper brackets,” Laffer says. “These guys fire their lawyers and accountants and actually pay their taxes. Yay! Isn’t that what we want them to do?”

    But Reagan’s tax cuts for the nonrich were big money losers, and it took the fiscal discipline of Bill Clinton to mop up the resulting red ink. Laffer gushes with praise for Clinton, but he’s also a fan of Clinton’s successor. “What Clinton did was, he gave Bush the fiscal flexibility to do what was right,” Laffer says. In the face of the recession and terrorist attacks of 2001, Bush “needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense, and Clinton gave him the ability to do that.”

    In other words, the Bush tax cuts were meant to create big deficits. But Laffer’s O.K. with that. “The Laffer Curve should not be the reason you raise or lower taxes,” he says. Perhaps not, but it does make for great campaign promises.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html

    This piece was from 2007 and says that it’s not the plan anyway, before your 2010 piece when it’s claimed that it was the plan all along ;-)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  19. CM says:

    Many in the general public and many Republican elected officials believe lowering tax rates would help reduce the deficit. Virtually all economists disagree, including the most respected ones who identify themselves as Republicans and who have served in Republican administrations. The stakes are high. If we double down and cut tax rates as many want, the deficit will balloon, not shrink. That will compound our economic problems.

    I know this assertion will spur a flood of angry emails telling me I don’t know anything about economics. But I prefer the company of the respected economists, especially the Republicans who oppose the idea of self-paying tax cuts, to the “cranks and charlatans” who sold this delusion to the American people in the first place.

    Andrew Samwick, a Dartmouth economist who was chief economist at the Council of Economic Advisers early in the George W. Bush administration, expressed a view most economists endorse: “You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know that the first effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. The ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.”

    As noted at the top of this column, Joel Slemrod, who served as a tax specialist on the staff of Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers in the 1980s, strongly agrees.

    So does Martin Feldstein, a Harvard economist who headed the CEA in Reagan’s first administration. Feldstein led the respected National Bureau of Economic Research for 30 years and is a past president of the American Economics Association.

    And there’s Greg Mankiw, who headed the CEA for George W. Bush and made the “cranks and charlatans” remark about advocates of self-paying tax cuts.

    These are just four highly respected economists who served in Republican administrations. One could go on and on listing others. And it is exceedingly difficult to find any prominent ones who disagree with them.

    http://www.edlotterman.com/RWE/Articles/20100314.htm

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  20. Seattle Outcast says:

    Without the massive investing in MBS, there wouldn’t have been the ramp-up of the derivatives and the Credit Swap Defaults. Neither of these are new to me.

    Your number’s 10 and 11 are highly speculative.

    To you perhaps, but you apparently aren’t totally up on what’s been going on here in the USA, or perhaps think that Keynes didn’t have his head so far up his own ass that he saw the world through his belly button…

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  21. CM says:

    Well I’m no economist. I can only read what economists have said. Hardly any blame it solely on MBS, or suggest that it’s even more than one factor amongst many. The only people saying that seem to be doing it for political/ideological reasons.

    So how is a lack of regulation over mortgage backed securities solved by even less regulation? I get the issue of regulations forcing some lenders to lend money to people they shouldn’t, but they weren’t forced to package them all up and sell them.

    I think Keynesian economics has problems, but no more so than Friedman’s Chicago School. The problems are just different. Claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work is patently ridiculous.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  22. Jim says:

    For many people, the drop in housing prices represents a drop in net worth. Real estate is considered one of the safest “banks” there is, because, historically, real estate always increases in value. We are now faced with people who owe far more on their houses than the house is worth. If you were planning on living in your house for 20+ years anyway, oh well, just view it like riding out the market. However, I personally know people who took out consolidation loans on their house, or bought houses “temporarily” who now have to sell and are faced with *huge* shortfalls. The housing market is fluid, people are often moving into different houses, either because of job re-locations, family size increasing/decreasing, or major financial situation adjustments. When what you considered to be your most reliable investment suddenly takes a 10-50% hit in value, you are often completely screwed. Some people even plan to retire on their home’s value by selling it off and living in something much smaller, or a retirement village, etc. If you plan on having 200k from a sale, and all your retirement plans hinge on that, and you are suddenly told you will be lucky to get 125k, that is a huge shortfall to overcome, especially if you are 65 and out of a job.
    I agree, it did have to happen at some point, but it is completely understandable why is has sent people into a panic.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  23. balthazar says:

    We dont have to cut or raise taxes, we need to cut spending. We dont need 40 redundant agencies.

    http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-714T

    We need to restrict unnecessary aid that gets abused aka Welfare fraud

    http://www.wrdw.com/onyourside/headlines/82855172.html

    These are just 2, we also can cut foreign aid to countries that give us no benefit whatsoever. Let the private charities handle them. The US governement can do stuff like immediate aid for places such as Haiti and Japan after thier natural disasters, but it should be limited and end after other aid agencies are in place.

    Charity is not a Constitutional function of the United States Government.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050209/ai_n11498440/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  24. balthazar says:

    Can anyone explain why we are giving Aid to countries that are lending US money?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/02/us-offers-foreign-aid-to-countries-holding-billions-in-treasury-securities/

    Cut the aid.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  25. Hal_10000 says:

    Another dissenting voice for me is today’s horrid jobs report. We’ve now had five months of extended tax cuts hat were supposed to end the recession. This is on top of three previous waves of tax cuts. This isn’t working.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  26. richtaylor365 says:

    However my main point in that section of my response was that the deficit is higher because revenues are lower

    Um, NO

    For all the rice bowls on the chopping block, the grant money in jeopardy, and the political agendas influenced, it is hard to separate climate change facts from driven agendas ( and this is not coming from a denier/skeptic, I believe it is real and a threat, I just don’t know to what degree) I’m surprised that you can’t see the politicization of economic studies that point to raising taxes. Did you read of of my links that I posted above? Did you read that section I posted about the second Bush tax cut and the revenue it generated? For every Paul Krugman hit piece there is for poo pooing tax cuts, I can find several, bolstered by Treasury and CBO numbers, that indicate (in certain circumstances) lowering tax rates will generate more tax revenue.

    Obama and his minions would have us believe that the rich are not paying their fair share, I think they are:

    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

    I guess we can quibble about the word “fair”, Obama would not be satisfied until that extreme right column pays 100%, and we know what Laffer said about that.

    Unless American Thinker has got it all horribly wrong??! ;-)

    Wait a minute, weren’t you the one that branded them an unreliable partisan hit blog? So now they speak the truth?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  27. richtaylor365 says:

    And yes, I do think that .7% number is dubious (I know how you like charts)

    I see lots of wiggle room in the Other Mandatory chart. And regarding “non discretionary”, how hard is it to change the law or change the rules (such as NOT extending unemployment insurance out to the next millennium)? You make it seem like all this spending is written in stone, like a charging locomotive unable to be slowed or derailed, I think that is nonsense, the only thing lacking is the political will.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  28. loserlame says:

    Ah, the US, always trying to buy love abroad with money. That, and oil.

    I’d like to know why Obama hasn’t raised the minimum wage everywhere to $10+. I earn less than I did a full 19 years ago.

    District of Columbia $8.25 Raised pursuant to FMWA. This rate is automatically set at $1 above the Federal minimum wage rate if the District of Columbia rate is lower.[45] The tipped wage in Washington, DC is $2.77 per hour

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  29. Rann says:

    This has generally become my major problem with the core philosophy of the Democrat party.

    They see that something is wrong with the world and they want to fix it. And often times they’re right about what’s wrong with the world and that it probably should get some attention aimed towards fixing it. However, their ideas of how to fix it and what the result should be when it is fixed are naive in the extreme, based on an idealistic, childlike view of how the world works that has nothing to do with reality. They keep putting forth a child’s solutions and are shocked when again and again these solutions just don’t work in a grownup’s world.

    Contrast with the Republicans who often have a somewhat skewed idea of what exactly the problems worth addressing are, but generally have at least one foot on the ground as to how the world actually works.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  30. loserlame says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7

      
  31. Rann says:

    oh my god please shut up oh my god

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  32. AlexInCT says:

    Did you predict things would slowly improve before they tumbled in a matter of months to negative from positive?

    No I did not. I predicted that the media and the left would PRETEND things were getting better when that was not the case, and that eventually things would get so bad they couldn’t hide it anymore. I got that totally right. Things never got better: they got seriously worse, and finally, they are so bad that there is no hiding it. There was no positive. That things ever got better was all an artificial and false perception, created by people with an agenda.

    It seem that things were getting better month by month but then went backwards for no apparent reason, and nobody can really put their finger on why. That’s quite different from having a fundamental different view on how the country is being run economically. If it was all so spectularly wrong from the outset, why did it look like things were improving until just recently?

    Yeah, it “seemed” that way because the MSM did a fine job pretending that was the case. The reality, for those of us that know better than to believe anything these scumbags pass off as news, was quite different. Want examples? Unemployment ONLY went up by .x% so that’s an IMRPOVEMENT! We heard this nonsense constantly. The fact was that unemployment kept going the wrong way, and that was bad. Back when Bush was president a 4.2% and dropping unemployment number was a terrible thing. Now that their horse’s ass is in the WH, suddenly any change to the numbers, even when it keeps hovering between 9-11%, and actual unemployment – the sum of those under employed or that have given up looking for jobs and have dropped of the rolls of those collecting unemployment – is over 20%, everything was an improvement! Plain old bullshit.

    Same shit for the housing market. The insane rate at which property was losing value slowed down, so they all told us that the economy is now good! In fact properties have steadily lost value and continue to do so. Same applies to foreclosures. More and more people are losing their homes because they can not get jobs. They all lost interest in this when they could no longer blame the banks and it was obvious the problem was unemployment and the fact that anything and everything that the democrats were doing was making unemployment numbers go up. There has been no improvement of any kind in the housing market, unless you are a buyer sitting on a pile of gold, looking for steals. And it will not improve anytime soon because the left thinks it can fix this with gimmicks and by decree.

    More of that same shit for the stock market. Their line? The stock market is back to the same numbers of the Bush years, so all is great again! Yeah, it’s there because the dollar has lost about 40% of its buying power, which all by itself accounts for that higher number, while energy costs have sky rocketed – because of the loss of value of the dollar as well as the fact that these idiots’ energy policy is to limit access to it to those they approve off – so in reality today’s numbers don’t reflect the fact that over a trillion dollars in wealth was destroyed and continues to be destroyed by these morons and their policies.

    The list of other instances like this is long. About the only things that Obama and the democrats have made go up are the cost of energy, inflation, and the misery index. Those are all setting new records.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  33. richtaylor365 says:

    We’ve now had five months of extended tax cuts hat were supposed to end the recession.

    You think there might be other factors in play? Such as world uncertainty about a 14 plus trillion dollar debt and no political will on the part of the President to address it? Did you notice the Senate vote this week on Obama’s proposed budget? 0-97, that’s right, not one single Democrat was willing to put his head on the chopping block for his president.

    America is being viewed as a rudderless ship, how is that suppose to inspire confidence and get businesses hiring again? We have an administration that punts on anything involving responsibility. You can look at their energy policy (lack thereof) their obstanance at putting forth any serious budget or plan to reduce the debt, their unwillingness to consider Simpson/Bowles, even them ignoring any and all medicare fixes, they have become the party of NO, with no solutions of their own. This is not the type of environment that encourages optimism for the future. If you were a small business owner looking to expand, would you be hiring now?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  34. AlexInCT says:

    Mike Riddell and others like him offering their opinion backed by their professional expertise are shillers? Do you have any evidence of that?

    You have a reading comprehension problem, CM? Mike Riddell might well believe the tripe he is mouthing. I don’t know if that’s the case or he is just saying this to soften the blow to the Keynesian morons because he is a groupie. But, Mike Riddell is being quoted by the media because he is saying what they want to hear and to have the people believe, and then for purely partisan political reasons. There are countless others that say this downturn is neither unexpected or a fluke, but exactly what they predicted would happen if these idiots kept doing what they did, and they are all ignored or dismissed. They aren’t part of the unexpected narrative and we never get to hear from them by the “unexpected” crowdof shills in the MSM.

    But they didn’t go from bad to worse. That’s the whole point. They went from improving to getting worse. Why is it moronic to report that, and get appropriate quotes from reputable experts?

    Uh, yes they did. Read my above post. Maybe you didn’t get the facts and listened only to the shills, or maybe you are playing dumb, but the fact is things never got better. Ever. At best, the left continues to pretend that their efforts saved jobs or prevented a worse economic downturn, and reality, now that people are looking at the facts – like the researchers of the article I linked above explaining how the stimuluspatronage bill destroyed more jobs than it created – disproves that. And it’s not moronic to report that BTW CM: it’s deceptive, if not downright duplicitous. It proves a double standard and an agenda. Real good when someone else was in charge was never enough, real bad now that their guy is destroying the economy, is unexpected and no matter how bad things are they pretend it is an improvement. Bullshit.

    Yes I understand the basic logic behind the theory. In reality, as has been pointed out, it’s not as simple as either of us has painted it. And it’s quite difficult to quantify the specific effects because you need to make judgement calls on a whole lot of other factors.

    And therein lays the rub CM: government is down right HORRIBLE, if not practically always just plain wrong, when making judgment calls. And while you might not want to believe it the fact is that leftists economics, because they are based on unrealistic and naive view of what the world should be like aren’t just wrong, they are down right unsustainable. Eventually you run out of other people’s money. And that happens a lot faster when your tax burden and policies force the productive sector and capital into hiding. It’s basic human nature. I do not want to be forced by government to “help” (that’s in quotes because I don’t for a second believe this is anything good for the recipient) others, I want to work hard and help my family, my community, and the people I choose to. When you try to force me to do so I will just work less and go out of my way to limit what I need to pay. If I was a democrat I would likely also break the law and cheat on my taxes, but I have not been able to cross that line yet.

    Thanks, yes I understand how a bank determines risk, and market theory. I’m asking for more explanation about the new regulations which “makes it virtually stupid for any lending institution to loan money to job creators”. Which regulations have been introduced that make it virtually stupid for a bank to lend according to acceptable levels of risk?

    Some background first. The original problems started when a bill was signed during the Carter years, called The Community Reinvestment Act. Clinton then followed with the Glass-Steagall Act in 1993. These two combined caused us a world of hurt, leading to horrible abuses and things like Obama suing Citibank to force them to make bad loans, or worse Frank, Shumer, and Dodd to name the big three, coming up with all kinds of schemes and scams, resulting eventually in Frank and his lover abusing the power government gave itself at the tax payer’s expense. In short, this is what set up a forced lending practice and then the government hiding the fact that such a big percentage of these loans were sub-prime and volatile through Freddie & Fannie and then creating the whole credit default swaps to make them even more palatable. In short, they were pushing ideological economics that fly in the face of how the real world works, then became surprised when it failed miserably.

    So when this house of cards came tumbling down, Dodd & Frank demanded to be the ones to “fix” evil Wall Street, and they stuck us with the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which neither stops the idiotic practice of government forcing lenders to give loans to horrible risk or face legal consequences nor addresses the problems with Freddie & Fannie and the abuse that these collectivists in government not just allowed, but protected, while making it insane for lenders to loan to anyone else.

    Why do you seem to want to place 100% blame on regulation and 0% blame on those involved in the financial sector?

    Because I, unlike you, understand how the game is played: who fundamentally sets up the rules and the way the game gets played. The people in the financial sector, just like those in every other private sector enterprise the left loves to demonize and accuse of abuse for profit, are only able to do these bad things when the politicians pass laws that allow them to do so. Wall Street did what it did because government forced it to make bad loans, with a nod and a wink that they would have the tax payers bail them out if things went bad, because government used Freddie & Fannie to then muddy what was obviously horribly risky and bad loans by repackaging them, and because government forced them to come up with the credit default swap scheme to make investors want to buy this crap. If these crooks that use their government power to pass these special regulations and then cause behavior that results in economic problems were not doing that, we wouldn’t have the problems.

    As mentioned, Govt mandates that poor people need to be lent money was no doubt a factor, but there is clearly far far more to the crisis than that. There are many areas where the only government involvement has been to relax the regulations.

    It is far, far more to the crisis if you don’t want to focus on the fundamental fact that the fundamental underlying problem is an ideological one. These dominoes were doomed to fall when government forced the lending institutions to ignore the reality of the way economics, in the real world and not in some marxist’s classroom, work. The bad case of solipsism that affects the left IS what caused the problem. If I told you that because I don’t want them to the laws of gravity no longer would apply so you here OK jumping of a 20 story building, how likely do you think it would be that my desire to ignore the way the real world works would trump the laws of gravity, huh?

    Sorry, given the deregulation and practices in the financial sector over the last 10 years I don’t see how LESS regulation makes the system more sustainable.

    Can you link me any of this mythical “deregulation” of the last 10 years? Because I have yet to have anyone that claims this happened be able to provide me with any of that. In fact, when Bush & McCain where pointing out Freddie & Fannie were not properly regulated Barney Franks shut them down by accusing them of doing this out of racist motives.

    I have no issue with repealing regulation that forces financial institutions to lend to people who will not be able to pay it back.

    And the Dodd-Franks bill gave us none of that.

    But beyond that, the reasons for the crisis pretty much all rest with those who create and use financial products and risk other people’s money.

    Absolutely agree. BTW these are the same politicians that screamed the loudest about “deregulation” – when they couldn’t point to any of it – sued the financial institutions that didn’t want to lend to high risk people and forced them to, then protected the schemes and scams at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from anyone that dared point out this was a disaster waiting to happen with the accusation of racism, created the legislations that credit default swap scam, and then, when the whole thing blew up, demanded to be the ones allowed to fix it.

    One finance company after another has collapsed here, and they invariably involved appalling risk decisions by the main players, most of whom wouldn’t even understand the concept of ethics even if it was explained to them.

    Ah yes, blame it on their lack of “ethics”, not on the politicians that passed the laws and protected the schemes and scams.

    No government involvement required for tens of thousands of people to lose their savings.

    Really? Are you truly this dense that you simply can not make the connection that we live in an age where the biggest criminal activities to plague the common man are only possible because of their own or other governments? Don’t bother answering. I know.

    So I certainly don’t buy the narrative which puts all the blame on Govt regulations. Anywhere.

    Of course you wouldn’t. And the facts be damned. The narrative says you blame the people you want to fleece.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  35. AlexInCT says:

    Sorry but you made the statement, it’s up to you to back it up with fact. I’m fully aware that I can use Google to find whatever narrative I’m looking for. I’m asking for actual evidence that this is the plan. If it’s simply what you believe, and you have none, that’s fine, you can just say so.

    OK, CM. Let me do the leg work for you. Not thinking the facts will make you suddenly see the light and acknowledge this, but let me do it anyway.

    First off : Politifact corrects Donald Trump on where Libya’s oil goes. As you can see it is going to Europe. But where Politifact failed, was the fact Trump was pointing out that Libya was being lobbied heavily by the Chinese, whom have for a long time now focused on Africa as a place to stave their ravenous appetite for natural resources. The Chinese are not intensifying their condemnation of NATO’s actions in Libya because they think wars are bad like the left kept telling us while Bush was president, but which now we can’t find even one of those patchouli smelling hippies to ask about Obama about . The media certainly isn’t interested in reporting this angle these days either, because it would actually make them, Obama, and the Europeans look like tools, and Bush whom didn’t go to war for oil despite their lies, but it is there.

    Seriously, if you think the war in Libya is about humanitarian reasons, ask yourself why we didn’t start bombing Egypt, and some others in the region, but for sure Iran, Syria, or Yemen, where much worse was happening, and is even now going on. And no, it is not because these morons thought Gaddafi’s Libya was an easy military target and these others wouldn’t be. Think about it hard.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. AlexInCT says:

    You can’t say that with any certainty.

    You are joking right?

    We simply can’t tell. It could have been far far worse without it.

    Oh man, are you kidding me CM? Without the stimulus and TARP they projected 8% unemployment and a year of real bad economic news. Tell me again where we are now? Unemployment stubbornly remains at over 9% (20% when you count the people no loner looking or working part time but wanting full time employment), and the shit is worse than it was in 2008. I can say categorically and without doubt that the stimulus wasn’t just bad; it prolonged and intensified this economic downturn. And I guarantee you that all but a few economists will be saying just that a few decades from now when they are no longer muzzled by the uninterested media or bound to this Keynesian bullshit and the left.

    With respect to TARP a lot of the money lent to GM and other companies has been repaid already.

    GM is going to stiff the tax payers to the tune of $14 billion. And I guarantee you because they didn’t let it go bankrupt and restructure its debt to protect their union buddies, that GM’s debt load and shitty products will put it back at death’s door sooner than later. Hey, BTW, how much is GM stock trading for these days? Heh!

    And jobs weren’t just saved at those places, but at all the places that rely (or partly rely) on those big companies.

    You are referring to government as a big company? Because the study I linked you showed that the only jobs saved, and then temporarily, were in government, while a million jobs were destroyed or not created in the private sector.

    There is substantial flow-on. Parts manufacturers for example. If someone makes parts for Ford and GM, and GM goes under, that might be the end of their company. Which can significantly affect Ford.

    Yeah, those someones better watch their asses though. When the government screws them over the next time like they did the last bunch of GM creditors – most of which declared bankruptcy and simply vanished – they are going to hurt all these fictitious saved jobs you are talking about.

    Too easy!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. Miguelito says:

    I don’t know.. I honestly don’t feel bad for most of the people that lost a lot of value in the RE market drop, mostly because most of those that did lose a lot, were being dumb. Far too many people were able to buy far more then they could really afford, which is dumb in and of itself. However, tons of those people also HELOC’d the hell out of their homes, bought toys, took vacations, remodeled, etc.

    I almost laughed in the face of some people that came to some neighborhood planning meetings and argued against every development. They’d say things like, “I don’t want something to effect the value of the home I paid $1/2Million for.” It’s not the responsibility of everyone else to make sure you keep the inflated value on a home you were an idiot to pay so much for.

    I have friends that did some extra investing in rental properties but didn’t extend too far. They tried to get me to go in with them in late ’07 into ’08 in larger places, but I kept pushing back saying that anyone looking could see the writing on the wall. They didn’t agree, but couldn’t do much without my help. Later they thanked me because they knew if we had bought a larger place (or a couple, like they were talking) we would’ve been screwed when the market dropped. Especially since they were going to have to use borrowed money via HELOCs and such.

    I was basically laughed at by some when I bought my house in 2001 with 20% down and a fixed 30 year loan. Now I’m the one laughing. Even those that can still afford their places are having a much harder time due to higher payments on their ARM and 80/20 or 90/10 setups. They’re completely screwed if they need to sell due to most having bought after prices rose a good deal from 2001 and are upside down.

    Part of the problem was looking at your home as an investment rather then your home in the first place. Yes, it can still be a type of investment, but it should be seen only as your home first and foremost.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  38. JimK says:

    I was basically laughed at by some when I bought my house in 2001 with 20% down and a fixed 30 year loan. Now I’m the one laughing.

    I hear that. Same thing, same time frame. Who’s laughing now, Mr. “I bought a $350,000 with nothing down OMG NOW IT’S WORTH $125K WTF?”
    JimK recently posted..Tour de Cure 2011 – Donations needed!My Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  39. AlexInCT says:

    heh, I bought my home with 20% down in 1997, but because my wife was carry lots of credit card debt we had to refinacne to roll that in a year later. When I refinanced to a 15 year a couple of years ago because of the crazy low rate, the bank could not believe that I didn’t want to get “some of that equity in the house” considering what I refinanced for still was well below half the value of my home even now. I will finish paying that mortgage in another 9 years tops, if our economy doesn’t plunge into a depression and everything falls apart before then, and then I can spend that money on hookers and booze.

    The idiot living next to me bought his place, on wetlands that the developer got certified as buildable during the draught we had about 4 years ago, for an insane $650K+. His basement has flooded every spring, and he mortgaged even more of that house to buy his “awesome” car. Now I he cries foul because he can’t sell the house worth less than $475K because he still owes $690K on it. Wan’t the government to bail him out. What a maroon.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. Kimpost says:

    Did you notice the Senate vote this week on Obama’s proposed budget? 0-97, that’s right, not one single Democrat was willing to put his head on the chopping block for his president.

    To be fair, that vote was just political theatre, much like the one before where republicans lost.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  41. richtaylor365 says:

    To be fair, that vote was just political theatre, much like the one before where republicans lost.

    Not at all comparable, that vote was pretty much along party lines, 40-57, with some GOP’ers voting no because the cuts were not deep enough, but at least both sides were willing to take a stand. What sort of stand did the dems take on this vote? No one willing to fall on their sword for their leader? not one?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  42. Kimpost says:

    They were both comparable in the sense that the outcome was 100 percent known. They would both fail. Democrats forced the first vote to out who amongst the opposition would dare to stand for “dismantling Medicare”, while the Republican forced the counter-vote was to expose the ones not willing to “fall on their sword for their leader”.

    Political theatre, designed to attack each other. So in my opinion, the votes, both of them, were meaningless. It should have surprised no one that the Ryan plan received popular support among Republicans. Given the political climate they had to support it. Anything but would have been political suicide on the Republican side.

    The Obama plan, which was more a basis for (failed) negotiations, than an actual plan, wasn’t as loaded as the Ryan plan was. Democrats didn’t need to support it. Obama never expected them too. Obama never even expected a vote on the plan.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  43. richtaylor365 says:

    They were both comparable in the sense that the outcome was 100 percent known.

    So, to use a tennis analogy, if Nadal beat Federer 6-0/6-0/6-0 you would not bat an eye, after all he was suppose to win, totally negating the method in which he got there and how this score would shock every tennis fan on the planet.

    Democrats forced the first vote to out who amongst the opposition would dare to stand for “dismantling Medicare”,

    Really? So you are telling me that since every single Democrat voted with the opposition, that every single one is for “dismantlying medicare”, how likely is that?

    The Democrats knew they did not have the votes to pass the presdents budget, they could have thrown him a bone. If this was politcal theater then the entire (to a man) audience walked out in the opening credits. The president’s budget was shit, but not one on his side was willing to stand with him on it, very telling.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  44. richtaylor365 says:

    Political theatre, designed to attack each other.

    So voting with the opposition is attacking them? “I’ll really show those guys, I’m voting with them and against my president’s budget, see how they like that”.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  45. AlexInCT says:

    Yeah Hal, blame the fact that the Keynesian bullshit isn’t working on Obama and the demcorats not getting to raise taxes – and please stop refering to the fact that the demcorats didn’t get to raise taxes on us as a tax cut, it smacks of stupid – and not the fact that the idiotic policies and hostility to business still remains and is preventing the needed steps to make the economy turn around. It sure as hell makes it much easier for you to then pretend your idiotic stance that we should let these thieves raise taxes, because they have promissed to then make cuts already anway, happen is a good idea. Genius!

    Take a look at how well the morons that think like you did with their new governor right here in Connecticut. We got the largest tax hike ever, and those promised cuts and austerity measures from the state unions have all but gone up in smoke. So the budget looks balanced, on paper, for now, but the economic carpet bombing that he did will have consequences. My bet is that he will do more of the same next year or two again when the revenues fall short yet again by hundreds of billions. The same idiots will all go along thinking he is going to finally keep his promise to bring spending under control, but after hiking taxes yet again, he will just increase spending, and we will be doing more of the same yet again very soon after that. That’s why the tax hikes should be off the table period.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  46. Kimpost says:

    I merely called both votes political theatre. Your outlined premise above was not the outcome of the vote.

    Try this from the Republicans:

    “Bastards. The dems forced us to vote on the Ryan plan. Well, this clearly is a vote on a plan which will not happen – ever. However, this particular plan actually means something to us. Mainly, because it has become so high profile. So we need to vote yes to it. It’s the wise thing to do, even if democrats will try to portray our votes as dismantling medicare. Oh, and because the dems were so evil to us (by forcing the vote), we’ll force them to vote on an equally meaningless plan.”

    Meanwhile, on the other side of the isle.

    “Bastards. The republicans forced us to vote on the Obama plan. Well, this clearly is a vote on a plan which will not happen, and never was meant to happen. The Obama plan means nothing to the democrats. And nothing to the president. Nor is it a profile issue. As such we don’t need to vote yes on it. And since it’s irrelevant, the politically smart move here, is to reject it – by suggesting that it isn’t fiscally responsible enough.”

    The end result. Two meaningless votes, a week of hot air, and much ado over nothing.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  47. Kimpost says:

    Well, Nadal did win, and I’m a bit gutted over it. Federer should have won that first set, and who knows what could have happened then. I sensed an epic there for a moment. And the three Fed break points in the first game of the fourth… fuck!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  48. Kimpost says:

    The Democrats knew they did not have the votes to pass the presdents budget, they could have thrown him a bone.

    They didn’t want to pass it, nor was there a presidential call for having it passed. He didn’t want or need the bone.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  49. richtaylor365 says:

    Bastards. The dems forced us to vote on the Ryan plan

    They did not force them to do anything, that is the political process, part of their job. The House Republicans put forth their budget, they knew it was a credible budget and something to be proud of but they also knew that they did not have the votes, but the process has to go forward. Now, they know where they stand, who they need to woo ( a few votes here and there will make the difference) and if they can gain a few more Senate seats in the next election, then their chances are great.

    The Dems, OTOH, found out that they have a clueless leader, who could not craft a budget that they could even hold their nose and vote for.

    And I don’t buy your premise about the Dems and their president vote. Without doing a Google search, was there ever a president budget that went down without garnering one single vote of approval? This was a clear bitch slap for Obama, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  50. richtaylor365 says:

    To be honest, two weeks ago I would have thought that Federer was never going to win another major, that Djokovic and Nadel would vie for all the majors or a while, with maybe Murray or Soderling grabbing one here or there. Although I did not expect him to win today, he showed me incredible grit. My hat goes off to him, and I would put him(Federer) as the favorite for Wimbledon.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  51. Kimpost says:

    Looking back, the first set was key to the match. I knew that Federer needed a good start, and had he won that, who knows what would have happened. As things turned, he had a Spanish mountain to climb. In the end, he couldn’t do it. Nadal was too consistent, too strong. I really liked Roger’s approach to the game, though. He gave it a serious shot.

    I couldn’t write off Federer, as you had done. Not yet. He had a really good fall last year, and particularly the end of the season, when he arguably led the flock. And he has only lost to Nadal and Djokovic this year, taking them to deciding set a couple of times.

    He’s the favourite for Wimbledon. Will be a great and open tournament, with Djokovic looking for revenge (and the number one spot). Nadal’s got another 2000 points do defend. And Murray will fancy his chances too.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.