Tag: Economy of the United States

I blame Boosh!

Because that seems to always be the battle cry of these morons on the left who can’t see the reason stuff like this happens is their policies and the implementation of said policies. Case in point revelations like One in five U.S. workers was laid off in the past five years and about 22% of those who lost their jobs still haven’t found another one, which shows you what happens whenever government assumes the role of picking winners & losers. Of course they can’t see the forest for the trees, even when the information stares them in the face.

Those who did find work had a difficult time with their job search and the effects of unemployment, the survey by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University found.

Nearly 40% said it took more than seven months to find employment and about one in five of laid-off workers said all they could find was a temporary position.

Almost half — 46% — of the estimated 30 million layoff victims who found new jobs said they paid less then their old ones, according to the survey of 1,153 U.S adults done over the summer.

“While job growth has been consistent, it has been insufficient to produce enough full-time jobs for everyone,” the study said.

Despite a declining overall unemployment rate, the study says, long-term joblessness has remained a major problem as the U.S. economy has slowly recovered from the deep recession, which technically ended in June 2009.

The study notes that 3 million Americans in August had been unemployed for more than six months. Although that figure has been declining, it still is high.

The effects of long-term unemployment can be traumatic, the survey found.

What a pile of bullshit. The economy has sucked, and continues to suck, despite the fucking LSM’s propaganda to the contrary, and it is directly tied to the burdensome government meddling in the private sector. Whatever good has happened comes despite the people in charge’s efforts that have tried to deny that growth (oil industry anyone?). Our system is one of crony capitalism: one where the powerful and connected buy favors and gain huge benefits from people in government that in turn profit and keep power from selling these favors. This system prevents real economic growth and indubitably destroys the middle class and opportunities for those in or trying to get into the middle class.

That’s why the number of jobless people, which should include people that no longer get counted because they are off the government unemployment benefit dole, is staggering, and the trend so ugly. Most of these new jobs the LA Times want to pretend are responsible for the faux growth the left has been peddling since black Jesus took power, have been low end service sector jobs too. And it is not just that have lost jobs that have suffered. The employed, unless they were in the public sector, have also been hammered. The reasons are blatant as well. Over regulation to serve the left’s various agendas and government power grabs masquerading as social improvement projects, things like Obamacare or the EPA’s assault on fossil fuels, all have drastic economic consequences.

If we had a republican in charge the LSM would be telling us that we were in a recession. Remember that whenever you see these fluff pieces that refuse to acknowledge that the bad times come from the left’s policies and practices.

The “Do Nothing” Congress Cuts Both Ways

We’ve been hearing for the last couple of years that the Republican congress won’t do anything (with “do anything” defined as “unilaterally cave in to the President’s entire agenda”). But doing nothing cuts both ways. It’s not like the Democrats are proposing a raft of great laws that would save our country. And in many cases, they are opposing them for stupid reasons:

A high-profile Senate bill that would dismantle Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suffered a blow this week when key Democrats decided not to support the legislation, likely wiping out its chances of advancing to the floor this year.

The bill has enough votes to pass the Senate Banking Committee, which plans to consider the measure next week. But the bill’s sponsors — Sens. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Mike Crapo ­(R-Idaho) — failed to win over the committee’s liberal Democrats and secure a larger majority.

Without more support, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is unlikely to move the measure to the full chamber, and its chances of gaining traction next year are unclear. The setback comes despite bipartisan support for the bill on the committee and suggests that the effort to revamp the nation’s housing finance system could stretch on for years.

The bill would gradually unwind these two behemoths and shift the risk back to the private sector, where it belongs. This has run into a firestorm of opposition from groups that want the GSE’s to loan more money to low-income groups as well as people who want to re-inflate the mortgage market and the derivatives market.

The liberal intelligentsia had been desperately trying to pretend that Fannie and Freddie — who controlled the lion’s share of the imploded mortgage market — had nothing to do with the financial crisis. They are wrong about this, cherry-picking the data that support their cause. But they are wrong on a more fundamental level as well.

The fundamental error is that encouraging poor people to buy houses is a bad thing. Not just bad for the economy, not just bad for the markets, not just bad for any of the reasons usually cited. It is bad for poor people. Buying a house for anyone is a marginal investment at best, unless it comes with a lot of land. I bought my house because I value the things that come with home ownership — stability, responsibility, possession — and because it is a form of forced savings. I also have a good credit rating so my loan was cheap. But unless you’re investing in rental properties, a home is a solid investment, not a great one. And it’s a terrible investment if you have poor credit, move a lot, have a shaky job situation or aren’t very good with money — traits that are very common among the poor.

Look at what happened during the financial crisis. Thanks to efforts to get the poor to buy houses, they had almost all of their wealth tied up in housing. When the bubble popped, it destroyed what little wealth the poor had:

The chart above splits U.S. homeowners into net-worth quintiles, and plots housing as a fraction of all assets for each quintile in 2007. For the poorest homeowners, houses were by far the most important thing they owned going into the Great Recession, making up almost 80 percent of their total assets. Another way of saying this is that the poor held very few financial assets such as stocks, bonds or mutual funds. On the other hand, housing was a much smaller part of the overall asset portfolios of the richest households — less than 20 percent.

So the poor were much more vulnerable to a crash in housing prices in 2007 than the rich were. In fact, it was even worse for the poor because they used so much debt to purchase their homes. Above, we also plot mortgage balance as a fraction of home value in 2007 for each of the net-worth quintiles. For example, if a household owned a home worth $100,000 and had a mortgage of $80,000, then the household would have a mortgage balance that was 80 percent of the home’s value.

Leverage can be a very dangerous thing for borrowers when their home values plummet. Continuing the example above, if someone has a $80,000 mortgage on a $100,000 home, and the home drops in value by 20 percent to $80,000, then the homeowner loses $20,000, or 100 percent of their equity in the home. Home prices fell 20 percent, but the homeowner lost 100 percent. That’s the effect of leverage!

The so-called “ownership society” encouraged this behavior under the belief that housing was a magical money maker that would turn poor people into rich people. Rich people own homes; therefore owning homes must make your rich. But it doesn’t and it never will. Owning a house is not a path to sudden riches. It is, at best, a sound investment if you have the means, the stability and the discipline.

Not that Fannie and Freddie have learned from their experiment in sucking away what little wealth the poor have. Just today, the overseer of the GSE’s announced that he wants to expand their role in the markets, to encourage people to buy houses and to not lower the caps on their mortgages. This is being done to “stimulate the economy”. But we’ve been down this road before. The only things that got stimulated were Wall Street crooks and mortgage sharks. Everyone else ended up getting “stimulated” right up the keister.

Enough. End this madness. End the GSE’s. Let’s not go down that road again thinking that this time, it will be different. If the President and his sycophantic media want Congress to “do something” I suggest they start right here with a bi-partisan effort to finally end this failed experiment.

Yes, the Debt Ceiling Matters

There is an effort on to pretend the debt ceiling is no big deal. We won’t default, they say, because Obama can simply re-direct spending to make sure our debts get paid. Why, hitting the debt ceiling could be a good thing, forcing the government to live within its means and balancing the budget in one fell stroke.

There are multiple problems with this line of thought, the primary one being that this would be an awfully big gamble. If the ceiling-deniers are wrong, the result will be economic chaos. A huge amount of the global economy rest on the idea that US debt is reliable. If that pillar is tumbled, it could be chaos. Sure, it might not be the disaster some fear. But do you really want to pull that trigger to see if the chamber is empty?

Second, it’s not clear that Obama has the Constitutional authority to balance the budget like this. Spending, as you know, originates in the House. And under laws passed by the House, most spending continues to go on even in the case of a shutdown. To prioritize debt, Obama would have to break the law and possibly violate the Constitution by essentially writing his own budget. Even if that passed Constitutional muster — do you want to give Barack Obama unfettered control of the national purse? It thought we didn’t like executive overreach.

Third, prioritizing our spending to allow for debt may not be logistically possible. Our government pays its bills — millions per day — through an automated system.

The Treasury Department maintains that it has no ability to pick and choose which bills to pay if it’s short of cash. According to the agency’s inspector general, its computer systems are designed to “make each payment in the order it comes due.” Full stop.

Under this view, if Congress fails to lift the debt ceiling, the U.S. government will only have money to cover about 65 percent of its bills. Some payments will simply fail to clear. Perhaps a payment to a defense contractor comes up short. Maybe a Social Security check bounces. Maybe an interest payment to bondholders fails.

For people who say our government is too big, the GOP seems to be kind of clueless about just how big it is and how much money flows into and out of its coffers. Two years ago, Obama noted that, with a debt ceiling breach, he couldn’t guarantee that Social Security checks would be paid. He was accused of trying to scare seniors, but what he said was correct: if any check comes in when the federal coffers are registering zero, it will not be paid. If anything, Plumer understates the problem. Both federal revenue and expenditures are highly variable depending on the time of year. Even if the budget were perfectly balanced over a fiscal year, we would run a debt in some months and a surplus in others. Under a no-more-debt scenario, this would make federal payments erratic at best.

The response to this has been to say, basically, the a default would be such a catastrophic thing that the Treasury would find a way to avoid it. I simply can not buy into that appeal to magic: problems have to be solved, not thrown out there in the hopes that a solution will magically present itself within the next week. This was the same thing they said about the sequester: it was such a bad way to cut spending that Congress would certainly find a better way to cut spending.

But aside from that, do you trust this Administration to not default in this situation? Right now, their healthcare exchanges are a debacle. And that’s with less than a million visitors a day and years to prepare. Do you really trust this Administration to carefully sort and prioritize the millions of bills our government pays every day and not fuck it up? On a week’s notice, you expect this? This isn’t a challenge on Survivor; this is our full faith and credit.

I recently had a debate about what Obama should do if we hit the debt ceiling. We came to the conclusion that he would be in a position where he would violate the Constitution either way: either by refusing to spend money Congress has authorized or by taking out debt Congress has not authorized (even with the shutdown, the government is obligated under law to continue a great deal of spending; Congress would have to pass a raft of laws to stop that spending). My opinion was, in that situation, that Obama should just issue debt. Congress’s spending authority is well-established Constitutional law. A President does not have the legal authority to refuse to spend money they have authorized or to make statutory alterations to programs. Congress’s authority to limit the debt, however, has never been challenged in the courts and some legal scholars believe the debt ceiling violates the 14th Amendment (although there is a lot of disagreement on this.

If your choice is between two Constitutional crises — and no doubt the Republicans starting impeachment proceedings either way — should you take the one with less fiscal uncertainty and more legal uncertainty?

Employment facts in Obama’s America

Hope and Change (TM)! Looks like in Obama’s America the two largest employers are, well from the article:

Behind Wal-Mart, the second-largest employer in America is Kelly Services, a temporary work provider.

Friday’s disappointing jobs report showed that part-time jobs are at an all-time high, with 28 million Americans now working part-time. The report also showed another disturbing fact: There are now a record number of Americans with temporary jobs.

Approximately 2.7 million, in fact. And the trend has been growing.

In the first quarter of 2013, U.S. staffing companies employed an average of 2.86 million temporary and contract workers, according to the American Staffing Association. This represents a 2.9 percent growth from the same period in 2012. For just the month of June, there was a 6.7 percent growth in the number of staffing jobs than last year.

As I already pointed out in this post: Our unemployment numbers are much worse than they tell us. Much, much worse. How pissed should the liberals be that after 5 years of Obamanomics and all the stimulus spending by the Kenesian idiots that the two bigges US employers are Wal-Mart and some fucking temp agency? Obamacare, which is a dream for the Oh so competent IRS, is causing a lot of this pain, but do we hear anyone in the LSM pointing this out? Must gall the LSM that too many people see through them, though.

Big fucking fail all around. I am sure they will find a way to blame Booosh.

Meet the New Standards, Same as the Old Standards

Well, knock me over with a feather:

The government is establishing new rules for mortgages that will make it harder for some borrowers to qualify but that are designed to prevent the kind of risky lending that nearly caused the housing market to collapse during the financial crisis.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Thursday will roll out the first of several far-reaching changes to the nation’s mortgage market, limiting upfront fees and curtailing practices such as interest-only payments that can leave homeowners stuck with unsustainable loans. The agency also will set standards for how much income a consumer must have to obtain a mortgage.

To obtain a qualified mortgage, a borrower cannot have a debt burden that amounts to more than 43 percent of income. That may make it more difficult for people with lower incomes to qualify. In real estate markets such as Washington, where prices are high, prospective buyers could run up against the cap as they stretch their finances to purchase homes.

In return for complying with the standards, a bank would be immune from most lawsuits. However, I’m sure that, if another collapse happens, the government will bail out the banks who don’t play by these rules as well.

Gee. It’s almost like someone realized that simply handing out sacks of money to anyone who walks in the door isn’t such a hot idea! After years of pushing banks to lend, lend, lend, the government is finally asking them to do what they should be doing anyway.

The pressure on banks to make stupid loans in the last decade were simply enormous. You had the CRA, the implicit guarantee of Fannie Freddie and the enormous pressure from the CDS and CDO markets to produce more tradable mortgages and damn the fundamentals. You then had a bailout which took only the downside risk of bad lending practices.

So having thrown all their weight — through CRA, Fannie/Freddie and bailouts — toward encouraging banks to make riskier and riskier loans, the Feds are now stepping in and saying, “Hey, you shouldn’t make risky loans! Ha-ha! Glad we finally reigned in you capitalist idiots. Why if it weren’t for us, you’d forget to lock your vaults at night.”

Here’s a prediction: these standards will pass. And in a few years, the government will start pressuring banks to make risky loans again. They will do this because securities brokers have lobbyists too. They will do this to promote home ownership, even among those who can’t afford homes. They will do this for “fairness”. But whatever the excuse and whichever party is in power, they will do it.

Because the mantra of the Nanny State always holds: whatever is not forbidden is mandatory. And preferably both.

Of Ceilings and Coins

Ugh. Do I have to write about this again? Apparently.

Let’s be clear. Hitting the debt ceiling is a seriously stupid idea. The debt ceiling was never intended to be a debt control measure. It does not, in fact, limit the amount of debt we can run up, only the amount we can pay to creditors for things we’ve already authorized. Here’s Ezra Klein on what will happen if we crash the debt ceiling.

The choices [the government] will face quickly become stark. It can cover interest on the debt, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense spending, education, food stamps and other low-income transfers, and a handful of other programs, but doing all that will mean defaulting on everything — really, everything — else. The FBI will shut down. The people responsible for tracking down loose nukes will lose their jobs. The prisons won’t operate. The biomedical researchers won’t be funded. The court system will close its doors. The tax refunds won’t go out. The Federal Aviation Administration will go offline. The parks will close. Food safety inspections will cease.

This is the difference between a debt-ceiling shutdown and a government shutdown. As Shai Akabas, a research at the Bipartisan Policy Center, puts it, “in a government shutdown, the government is shutting down future obligations. With the debt ceiling, They’ve already obligated the money. They owe these people the payments now, and they can’t make them.”

This means businesses that have already done work for the Feds won’t be paid and will have to lay off workers. It means government agencies — prisons, for example — will not be able to contract basic things like food and electricity because they don’t have the money. A government shutdown is something that can be prepared for and dealt with. It’s not even clear that we have the ability to selectively pay our bills.

That’s to say nothing of the hit the economy would take because of the uncertainty (Remember uncertainty? That think we’ve been blaming for the slow economy?) and the wallop our government would take in the bond market. We’ve already had one downgrade. A second debt ceiling hit could raise the interest rates at which people will loan us money. And every point of interest rate hike is a $160 billion hit on the budget. That’s a bigger impact than all the spending cuts and tax hikes anyone has discussed. “Giving in” on raising the debt ceiling is like giving in on not burning your own house down.

I just wanted to get out of the way before I address the $1 trillion coin yet again. This is the idea that we should mint a $1 trillion coin to pay our debts. The typical liberal response to criticism of the coin idea is “well, the platinum coin may be dumb but hitting the debt ceiling is really dumb”. I know that. I just wrote several paragraphs about that. No one is seriously disputing that.

But here’s the thing: the debt ceiling foolishness does not make the trillion dollar coin a good idea.

I know that should go without saying, but it apparently does. Last week, the trillion dollar coin was a fringe idea we snickered about. Today, it’s being taken seriously by people who should know better. The platinum coin idea is being defended by heavyweights like Laurence Tribe, who argues that because the law does not expressly forbid the coin idea, it could be legal (although the former Mint Director disagrees. And Paul Krugman has written a third op-ed in support of the idea in which he calls on the treasury secretary to wear a clown suit. Metaphorically. I hope. Actually, I don’t. Geithner wearing a clown suit would be the most productive thing he’s done in four years.

The thing is that, even we posit that the trillion dollar coin is legal and doable, the platinum coin problem runs into many of the same fucking problems as a debt ceiling crisis. Klein again:

Imagine a Japanese bond trader who hears we’re now running our government off of a trillion-dollar coin created through a loophole in the law. Is there any way that trader is going to keep lending to America at near-riskless rates? The result might be better than default, but it won’t be good.

That, of course, involves pretending that the platinum coin would not precipitate a gigantic legal and constitutional battle that will bring about they very economic chaos it is designed to prevent. I’m really glad that someone from Harvard thinks the platinum coin is legal. God knows we can’t decide what to do in this country until Laurence Fucking Tribe weighs in. But no matter what opinion anyone has on the coin’s legality, this does not mean the everyone in America is obligated to accept it. Somebody won’t and they will fight it in court. Of course, I’m sure the ensuing legal battle will be blamed on Republicans for daring to oppose Obama. That will be a great comfort while we’re all out of work.


The trillion dollar platinum is an absurdity wrapped in a legislative incongruity inside a farce. It is the logical extension of an utterly illogical legislative process that only becomes more irrational with each passing day. Each partisan battle has become stupider than the last. Silly loopholes are exploited for bargaining power, and the resulting stalemates are generally solved with a temporary patch that solves the immediate problem by creating a bigger one down the road. When the bigger problem arrives, naturally the other side seeks an even sillier loophole, resulting in an even more temporary patch.

We are now approaching the era of permanent fiscal crisis.

The Great Platinum Coin Caper is everything that is wrong with Washington: a stupid partisan maneuver that erodes the institutions of our government for no gain other than an immediate political win. The only good thing that can be said about it is that the President seems to be too sensible to actually consider doing it. Nonetheless, the fact that intelligent people like Professor Krugman are even discussing this debacle, much less endorsing it, is a depressing reminder of just how nasty and short-sighted our nation’s capital has become.

The more I read these pro-coin articles, the more I think this is really about giving the middle finger to the GOP. The Left has long wanted Obama to have a temper tantrum to match the hysterics that the GOP sometimes descends to (ignoring that Obama doesn’t have to have a temper tantrum because they’re always having one on his behalf). This isn’t about economics. This isn’t about the economy. And it’s certainly not about the debt. It’s about winning one from those damned GOP bastards by some bit of trickeration. It’s about saying, “Ha-ha! Got you!”

It won’t work. Even if it works, it won’t work. The only way to get out of the debt ceiling crisis is either for the GOP to come to their senses or for Obama to give into their faux demands and pretend to cut spending.

You know, it’s January. We are nine days into this year. I’m going to call it right now. The platinum coin will be the Official Stupidest Fucking Thing I Blogged About in 2013. It just shows that the vener of “reasonableness” that the Left has cloaked themselves with in recent years is just that, a veneer. The minute the wind turns, they turn just as idiotic as a talk radio host on meth.

Update: You know, it might advance the debate a bit if the liberals would acknowledge, for once, the Senate’s failure to have a vote on a budget bill for three years. That’s where this problem got its initial start.

Update: Douthat nails it.

All the Coins That’s Fit to Print

A long time ago, the Simpsons did an episode about Congress creating a trillion dollar bill to rebuild Europe after World War II. Apparently, a few pundits and at least one Congressman think that was a documentary:

Rep. Jerrold Nadler has an admittedly “out of the ordinary” solution to the coming fight over the debt ceiling.

“There is specific statutory authority that says that the Federal Reserve can mint any non-gold or -silver coin in any denomination, so all you do is you tell the Federal Reserve to make a platinum coin for one trillion dollars, and then you deposit it in the Treasury account, and you pay your bills,” Nadler said in a telephone interview this afternoon.

I’ll let Doug Mataconis tackle the legal and statutory issues. A short version is that Nadler is using a bill for a purpose for which it was never intended. The authors of the bill have specifically said it was meant for making commemorative coins and such. The idea of avoiding the debt ceiling by printing an inflation-producing trillion dollar coin is way beyond any authority in the law. And even if it weren’t, Congress could override it in about ten seconds.

Stand by for a few, “well, actually…” articles from the left wing claiming this idea isn’t as stupid as it sounds. But rest assured, it is stupider than it sounds.

Economy sucks, and is going to get even worse… UNEXPECTEDLY!

I am sure that if Mittens had won the election, the headline U.S. retailers scramble after lackluster holiday sales, as well as the content of the post, would be decrying how horrible our economy is, and with the fiscal cliff now all but a given, t DNC propagandists in the LSM would be telling us that the end was here.

(Reuters) – The 2012 holiday season may have been the worst for retailers since the 2008 financial crisis, with sales growth far below expectations, forcing many to offer massive post-Christmas discounts in hopes of shedding excess inventory.

While chains like Wal-Mart Stores Inc and Gap Inc are thought to have done well, analysts expect much less from the likes of book seller Barnes & Noble Inc and department store chain J. C. Penney Co Inc.

Shares of retailers dropped sharply on Wednesday, helping drag broader indexes lower, as investors realized they were likely to be disappointed when companies start to report results in a few weeks’ time.

As if it is a surprise that the economy is horrible and getting worse! Wait until next year when taxes go up, the economy gets wrecked by the fiscal cliff happening and the deficit spending &the debt ceiling going up, all so democrats can score some political points with the help of the LSM that keeps pretending the problem is wit the people that at least are trying, and Obamacare kicks in and the shit really starts flying. ng on for the ride. Bumpy is an understatement.

Banking On AIG


The U.S. Treasury’s sale of its remaining stake in American International Group Inc (AIG.N) will leave taxpayers with a profit of nearly $23 billion – more than the next three most successful bailouts combined.

The government’s profit on the deal is a turnabout from what was one of the most reviled bailouts of the financial crisis.

The 2008 rescue later spurred a senator to suggest top executives at the insurer consider suicide. The Government Accountability Office at one point suggested there was a real chance taxpayers would never be repaid in full.

Yet they were, with $22.7 billion in total returns, including the proceeds of the sale Treasury launched Monday night, AIG said. The government provided AIG with some $182 billion of support.

Before we start dancing in the streets, let’s clarify a few things. We’re still about $38 billion in the hole on TARP, most of the outstanding sums being those lent to the automakers. A lot of the AIG money was actually money paid to European banks that had CDS’s with AIG. Moreover, some losses are not being counted here. How much tax revenue did the government lose because of a stinky economy created by the bailout culture? How much money did we all lose because of that? If the bailouts hurt our economy, on net, to the tune of one tenth of one percent, that would easily wipe out any “profit” from TARP. You might still argue it was necessary as the lesser of two depressions, but let’s not pretend TARP made us all rich.

Most importantly, the money was never the big problem. The big problem was and remains the moral hazard. A big signal has been sent to the big banks that the United State government will bail them out of trouble. Do you think that’s going to cause them to invest more conservatively? And the big banks used that money to consolidate the banking industry, with the Big Five gaining more market share by using the loaned money to buy banks rather than fix the mortgage market. I don’t think it’s all that remarkable that banks managed to turn a profit with monopoly money loaned to them without restriction by the government.

The big risk? This time we are only (so far) out $38 billion. Next time it may be far far worse. And every time someone celebrates TARP “turning a profit”, they should be reminded of the precipice we have put our economy on. If we do end up turning a profit on TARP, it will be because of luck, not because it was good policy.

Democrats think they will win no matter how bad the consequences to America

I now believe that we are going to go over the fiscal cliff, not because a deal can’t be reached, but because democrats now believe they have far more to gain from not getting a deal and having the cuts go live. You think I am crazy for thinking they feel this way? Well, hear me out, then think about it.

First off, the democrats know that no matter who junks this deal, they can count on the LSM to blame the republicans. The sad thing is most people will believe them too. Think I am way off or exaggerating? Well, check out how the NYT is reporting on the current deal on the table. And what is the current deal? Here is what the NYT has to say;

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed proposal on Thursday to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax increases over 10 years, $50 billion in immediate stimulus spending, home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits.

The proposal, loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts, met strong Republican resistance. In exchange for locking in the $1.6 trillion in added revenues, President Obama embraced the goal of finding $400 billion in savings from Medicare and other social programs to be worked out next year, with no guarantees.

So we get $1.6 trillion in new taxes, $50 billion in immediate stimulus – that’s money for democrats and their friends – some undefinded mortgage refinancing scheme that is sure to be loaded with social engineering nonsense, and thus, going to cause more pain down the road, and basically an end to any control on how much these fuckers just borrow. That last one is a doozy too.

As the first line in the second paragraph points out: the democrats’ “concessions” is basically their Christmas list – which by fiat then means more government vote buying schemes, and by default more spending – and nothing else. There are no cuts, as I pointed out in my previous posts, just promises some cuts will happen 10 to 20 years out. Anyone pretending there are cuts is lying or stupid and to be laughed at. But hang on you say! The NYT points out I am wrong, because there are some upfront cuts that were proposed.

He did propose some upfront cuts in programs like farm price supports, but did not specify an amount or any details. And senior Republican aides familiar with the offer said those initial spending cuts might be outweighed by spending increases, including at least $50 billion in infrastructure spending, mortgage relief, an extension of unemployment insurance and a deferral of automatic cuts to physician reimbursements under Medicare.

Heh, sure. At least even the author couldn’t pretend that these promises amount to much more than the usual “Sure, I will respect you in the morning” line, and they are so miniscule that the $50 billion the donkeys want immediately to shell out to their buddies and causes, is likely to be far more than any cuts they allow. In the end the balance sheet ends up with red. The NYT dutifully parrots the DNC talking points by then saying the following:

Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, said: “Right now, the only thing preventing us from reaching a deal that averts the fiscal cliff and avoids a tax hike on 98 percent of Americans is the refusal of Congressional Republicans to ask the very wealthiest individuals to pay higher tax rates. The president has already signed into law over $1 trillion in spending cuts and we remain willing to do tough things to compromise, and it’s time for Republicans in Washington to join the chorus of other voices — from the business community to middle-class Americans across the country — who support a balanced approach that asks more from the wealthiest Americans.”

It’s the fault of those intransigent republicans! And both the democrats and the NYT love this, as the following paragraph ending the DNC propaganda bit shows:

Senate Democratic leaders left their meeting with Mr. Geithner ecstatic. If the Republicans want additional spending cuts in that down payment, the onus is on them to put them on the table, said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.

And there you have it. While the LSM is doing gyrations to not have to point this out, it is obvious that all that the democrats want is higher taxes AND spending increases. That’s what the “stimulus” money is. And it won’t be a one time thing either. If the republicans want cuts, they have to propose them. That’s so we can then blame them for the cuts and score political points. If this sweetheart tax hiking deal doesn’t go through, the left plans to lay the blame at the foot of the republicans, regardless. Their choices and decisions are not about what is best for the country, but what is politically expedient for them. Period! They could care less how people are impacted. They smell blood and they think they are going to come out of this on top.

And have no doubt that now that the whole “Blame Boosh” thing has become stale that they are looking for new excuses to explain why their economy crushing policies have kept our economy in a coma. If they don’t get their tax & spending hikes, with zero cuts, plan to pass, they have an instant excuse for why the next 4 years are going to see an even gloomier economy. Get ready for the “Our awesome deal, sure to stop the seas from rising, while immediately eliminating the debt, dropping unemployment below 4%, and giving everyone an Obamaphone, was rebuffed by the evil republicans, to protect the rich of all reasons, and that is why the economy, which had been recovering and doing great, UNEXPECTEDLY went south” excuses.

The left thinks it can’t lose. That is why America and Americans are going to lose. In the mean time the useful idiots will keep pretending that this disgrace of a proposal is all a great deal, that the democrats care for the little people, that Obama is a genius, and that our problems are always caused by anyone but them.

At least some republicans realized how horrible this democrat proposal really is. At this point I am starting to believe that Krauthammer is right when he recommends republicans just walk away. They are going to be blamed anyway.