|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 22, 2011 8:05:16 GMT -5
Economic Lunacy By Walter Williams www.JewishWorldReview.com | Economic lunacy abounds, and often the most learned, including Nobel Laureates, are its primary victims. The most recent example of economic lunacy is found in a Huffington Post article titled "The Silver Lining of Japan's Quake" written by Nathan Gardels, editor of New Perspectives Quarterly, who has also written articles for The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Times and Washington Post. Mr. Gardels says, "No one — least of all someone like myself who has experienced the existential terror of California's regular tremors and knows the big one is coming here next — would minimize the grief, suffering and disruption caused by Japan's massive earthquake and tsunami. But if one can look past the devastation, there is a silver lining. The need to rebuild a large swath of Japan will create huge opportunities for domestic economic growth, particularly in energy-efficient technologies, while also stimulating global demand and hastening the integration of East Asia. ... By taking Japan's mature economy down a notch, Mother Nature has accomplished what fiscal policy and the central bank could not." Gardels is not alone in seeing silver linings in disasters. Harvard University's Professor Larry Summers, former Obama economic adviser and Treasury secretary, said the disaster "may lead to some temporary increments, ironically, to GDP as a process of rebuilding takes place. In the wake of the earlier Kobe earthquake, Japan actually gained some economic strength." It's not just disasters in Japan. After Florida's devastating 2004 hurricane, newspapers carried headlines such as "Storms create lucrative times." and "Economic growth from hurricanes could outweigh costs." Economist Steve Cochrane added, "It's a perverse thing ... there's real pain, but from an economic point of view, it is a plus." Why might Japan's and Florida's devastation be seen as "pluses"? French economist Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) explained it in his pamphlet "What is Seen and What is Not Seen," saying, "There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen." Bastiat elaborated further in his "Broken Window Fallacy" parable where a vandal smashes a shopkeeper's window. A crowd forms, sympathizing with the shopkeeper. Soon, someone in the crowd suggests that instead of a tragedy, there might be a silver lining. Instead of the boy being a vandal, he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town. Fixing the broken window creates employment for the glazier, who will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then buy shoes and benefit the cobbler and so forth. Bastiat says that's what's seen. What is not seen is what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had his window not been smashed. He might have purchased a suit from the tailor. Therefore, an act that created a job for the glazier destroyed a job for the tailor. On top of that, had the property destruction not occurred, the shopkeeper would have had a suit and a window. Now he has just a window and as a result, he is poorer. After the 2001 terrorist attack, economist and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman wrote in his New York Times column "After the Horror," "Ghastly as it may seem to say this, the terror attack — like the original day of infamy, which brought an end to the Great Depression — could do some economic good." He explained that rebuilding the destruction would stimulate the economy through business investment and job creation. Do a simple smell test on these examples of economic lunacy. Would the Japanese economy face even greater opportunities for economic growth had the earthquake and tsunami also struck Tokyo, Hiroshima, Yokohama and other major cities? Would the 9-11 terrorists have done us an even bigger economic favor had they destroyed buildings in other cities? The belief that society benefits from destruction is lunacy.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Mar 31, 2011 8:47:57 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?cat=941Why EPA’s attempt at regulatory overreach would end up killing the recovery March 30th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain I think we all know that the recovery, such that it is, is very fragile. And, of course, the job picture remains very poor. Any GDP growth numbers we’ve seen over the past few months have been fueled mostly by government deficit spending. So a government that was concerned about jobs and economic growth in the private sector should be concerned with getting out of the way and ensuring that growth is allowed to go forward unimpeded. Instead, we see any number of roadblocks, such as the drilling moratorium, banking regulations and the like being imposed that are having the opposite effect. Another example of that is the EPA’s attempted usurpation of powers only Congress should wield. It is a classic example of a bureaucracy now attempting to make the law instead of follow it. The EPA has chosen to interpret the 1970 Clean Air Act as a mandate for it to regulate Green House Gasses (GHG), not only in automobiles, but in stationary sources as well. In fact, as the EPA has testified, it would effect up to 6.1 million stationary sources. The Clean Air Act gave the EPA the ability to regulate air pollutants that effect health, such as soot, but not the ability to regulate GHG which are not considered to be pollutants as defined by the Clean Air Act. The obvious solution here, if that is a concern of the administration, is to have Congress address the Clean Air Act with an eye on updating it to deal with the perceived pollution problems today. But there’s a very good chance that such changes wouldn’t be made given the present makeup of Congress. In fact, even when Democrats had an overwhelming majority these past two years, they were unable to pass a Cap and Trade bill. Given that reality, it seems the Obama administration has chosen to bypass Congress and allow the EPA to arbitrarily assume the power to regulate GHG. The impact of such regulation would be economically devastating. And, in an era of uncertainty, it would only add to the uncertainty. James Pethokoukis noted that, “the only thing certain about the EPA [greenhouse gas] ruling is more regulatory uncertainty leading to less economic growth and fewer jobs.” For instance: Consider Nucor Steel. The company planned a $2 billion investment that would have created 2,000 construction and 500 permanent jobs. But the project was curtailed-by more than 50%-largely because of the EPA’s regulations. Lion Oil, a refinery based in El Dorado, Ark., faced a similar fate: The EPA’s cap-and-trade agenda was, according to the company, a "critical factor" that delayed a "several hundred million" dollar refinery expansion, slated to create 2,000 jobs. Add that to this sort of economic impact on one industry: The American Forest and Paper Association estimates that, “about two dozen new regulations being considered by the Administration under the Clean Air Act, if all are promulgated, potentially could impose on the order of $17 billion in new capital costs on papermakers and wood products manufacturers in the next five to eight years alone.” EPA’s proposed regulation would hit everyone, especially small businesses: The burden of EPA’s regulations will fall disproportionately on small businesses, according to a new study released by the Office of Advocacy in Obama’s Small Business Administration. The study, titled “The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms,” small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, “bear the largest burden of federal regulations.” Specifically, the report found that “as of 2008, small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees).” Some of the regulations EPA is attempting to enforce deal with boilers. “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters.” This proposal is referred to as the “Boiler MACT.” Boilers are ubiquitous in the commercial market: The Boiler MACT (maximum achievable control technology) proposal would impose stringent emission limits and monitoring requirements for eleven subcategories of boilers and process heaters. This proposed rule covers industrial boilers used in, among other industries, manufacturing, processing, mining, refining, as well as commercial boilers used in malls, laundries, apartments, restaurants, and hotels/motels. So obviously imposing new stringent emission limits on boilers is going to effect a broad and deep swath of the economy, correct? How deep and how broad? A recent study by Global Insight estimates that, depending on the policy EPA chooses, the Boiler MACT could put up to 798,250 jobs at risk. The study found that every $1 billion spent on upgrade and compliance costs will put 16,000 jobs at risk and reduce US GDP by as much as $1.2 billion. Facing that, would you save your money to upgrade or expand? Expansion, of course, means more jobs. Upgrading, however, means less. And that’s where the EPA would take us. Then there’s ozone. The EPA wants to tighten the already stringent standard on ozone. What the EPA has proposed is to change the standard from 75 ppb to a range of 60-70 ppb. Here’s a clue as to how preposterous that is – Yellowstone National Park has 67 ppb of ozone as we speak. So yes, Yellowstone would go from an “attainment” area to a non-attainment area. That means it gets shut down until it comes into compliance. That would also be the same for any area. What does that mean? Based on 2008 air quality data, a standard of 65 ppb would create 608 new non-attainment areas, while a standard of 70 ppb would create 515 such areas. These areas would be highly concentrated in manufacturing regions and states relying on coal for electricity. Those counties and cities deemed to be in a non-attainment area would then have to put together a plan as to how to reach attainment (buy offsets from neighboring areas which are in “attainment”) and submit that to EPA. But here’s the problem. The new standard would most likely remove from the attainment list many who are now there and move them to the non-attainment list. Result? No offsets available to buy: Consider the case of Ohio. Many areas of the state are still trying to meet the 1997 standard. A further revision now would greatly complicate state efforts to achieve attainment. Bob Hodanbosi, Ohio EPA’s Air Pollution Division Chief, estimates that if the ozone standard is set at 70 ppb, 47 of 49 monitors in Ohio would exceed it; if it were set at 65 ppb, all 49 monitors would exceed it. In case you’re wondering it takes about 100 ppb of ozone to begin to effect your health. So there’s really no need to move it from 75ppb. And, as you can see in the case of Ohio, moving it down 5 points would put most of the state in “non-attainment” and moving it down 10 points would put the entire state in “non-attainment” and require exceedingly costly fixes. Result? The costs to Ohio workers and consumers could be severe. For example, in the Cincinnati-Dayton region, assuming an ozone standard of 70 ppb, production would decline by $14.8 billion, killing 91,700 jobs in 2030. If EPA chooses 65 ppb, the costs in 2030 would nearly double, and 165,000 workers would lose their jobs. And that’s in one state. This is the threat posed by the EPA’s attempt at regulating something they have no authority to regulate. It is being imposed by regulatory fiat. There’s a bill in the Senate right now that will prevent the EPA from usurping those powers and imposing those regulations. It’s the Inhofe-Upton Energy Tax Prevention Act (S. 482). It is also known as the McConnell amendment. It is worth supporting. Not worth supporting are the Rockefeller amendment which only delays the inevitable (and essentially cedes the premise that the EPA can do this) by two years. No-go. Neither is the Baucus amendment. Here’s how Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) describes the smoke and mirrors in that amendment: The amendment is modeled on the EPA’s "tailoring rule," which temporarily exempts smaller sources-schools, hospitals, farms, restaurants-from the EPA’s cap-and-trade regulations. That sounds good, but the rule blatantly violates the law, as the EPA changed the emissions thresholds established by Congress. Hence the Baucus amendment: It would codify the EPA’s permitting exemptions for stationary sources that emit fewer than 75,000 tons a year of greenhouse gases. This exemption, which is actually more stringent than the EPA’s, purportedly is designed to help farmers and small businesses. But as with the Rockefeller bill, it allows the rest of the EPA’s cap-and-trade agenda to move forward. So businesses and farmers would still face higher costs for diesel and fertilizer, while small businesses would face higher electricity costs. The American Farm Bureau is wise to the false charm of the Baucus amendment. It testified recently that, even with limited permitting exemptions, "Farmers and ranchers would still incur the higher costs of compliance passed down from utilities, refiners, and fertilizer manufacturers that are directly regulated as of January 2, 2011." Or said another way, the Baucus amendment also validates the premise that the EPA has the power to regulate GHG and just sneaks it up on us over a longer time period. Both are unacceptable. These amendments are supposed to come up for votes very soon. If you are an activist type and want to weigh in on this with your Senator, I’d recommended you push for passage of the Inhofe-Upton Energy Tax Prevention Act (aka McConnell amendment). Require those types of decisions be made by elected officials who are accountable to their constituencies, not appointed officials accountable to no one. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Apr 5, 2011 7:51:48 GMT -5
www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obamacare-corporations-healthcaresubsidy/2011/04/04/id/391722?s=al&promo_code=C04C-1Obamacare Paid Out $2 Billion to Corporations Monday, 04 Apr 2011 04:14 PM By Henry J. Reske A little-known provision in the Obamacare legislation has sent $2 billion to corporations, unions and state public employee systems to subsidize health coverage for retirees. At the current rate, the government could blow through the entire $5 billion budgeted for the program before it is set to end, Byron York of The Washington Examiner reported. The discovery by investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee was made just before a hearing to focus on Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The CCIO oversees the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, which was set up to subsidize insurance for workers who retired before they were eligible for Medicare, the paper said. The early retirees often have trouble getting health insurance, an HHS report said, because of age or chronic conditions, and the program was set up to bridge the gap between retirement and the creation of health-care exchanges provided for in Obamacare come into being in 2014. The biggest chunk of the money paid out so far has gone to the United Auto Workers, which received over $206 million. AT&T collected $140 million, Verizon $91 million, General Electric $36 million, and General Motors $19 million, the paper said. State governments have also collected large sums with the Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio receiving $70 million and the Teacher Retirement System of Texas $68 million. © Newsmax. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Apr 11, 2011 19:19:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Apr 13, 2011 7:57:52 GMT -5
Dr. Sanity Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 BAD ECONOMIC THINKING--A HALLMARK OF PROGRESSIVE POLICIES
I get exceedingly tired of the constant refrain in this country about how the "rich get richer and the poor get poorer"; or statements to that effect by the intellectuals of the left. Well, on this topic, Kevin Williamson brings up a point that even I had not considered: yesterday's "rich" are not the same as today's: The numbers generally cited in support of this argument do not actually tell us much about what has happened to the incomes of wealthy households over time. That’s because the people who are in the top bracket today are not the people who were in the top bracket last year. There’s a good deal of socioeconomic mobility in the United States — more than you’d think. Our dear, dear friends at the IRS keep track of actual households (boy, do they ever!), and sometimes the Treasury publishes data about what has happened to them. For instance, among those who in 1996 were in the very highest income group isolated for study — the top 0.01 percent — 75 percent were in a lower income group by 2005. The median real income of super-rich households went down, not up. The rich got poorer. Among actual households, income grew proportionally more for those who started off in the low-income groups than those that began in high-income groups. [...] When somebody says that that top 1 percent saw its income go up by X in the last decade, they are not really talking about what happened to actual households in the top 1 percent. Rather, they are talking about how much money one has to make to qualify for the top 1 percent. All that really means is that the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2010 made more money than did the 3 million highest-paid Americans in 2000, the 100,000 highest-paid Americans this year made more money than did the 100,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, that the 50,000 highest-paid Americans made more money this year than did the 50,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, that the 1,000 highest-paid Americans this year made more money than did the 1,000 highest-paid Americans made in 2000, etc., which is not shocking. But, as the Treasury data show: They are not the same people. [emphasis mine]
These essential facts make the argument routinely trotted out by the left repeatedly to justify their various policies to "redistribute the wealth" completely ridiculous.
WEALTH IS CONSTANTLY BEING REDISTRIBUTED --not by their Marxist policies or 'compassionate' progressivism--but through the neutral, non-partisan and entirely non-judgmental workings of the Market. The "wealthy" are an ever-changing group of individuals. And, the poor are getting richer--not because of any actions by the clever denizens of the left, thank you very much.
Of course, the political lefts and their strategists have a rather vested interest in stirring up class warfare and stoking hatred against "the wealthy". As P.J. O'Rourke wrote in Eat The Rich, "Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking."
But that is one thing that the progressive left is incredibly good at--bad economic thinking.
Consequently, much to the puzzlement and annoyance of leftist intellectuals, in those places in the world where their wealth redistribution policies have already been implemented (i.e., in socialist and communist countries) wealth is disappearing; initiative is decline; and the human misery index is climbing. Instead of "sharing the wealth", people in those countries enjoy the benefits of "sharing the poverty" that inevitably occurs when bad economic thinking is translated into public policy--even with the best of good intentions (another thing the political left is particularly good at).
The "great experiments" in the Soviet Union failed abysmally even before it came crashing dowin in the early 1990's. In 1956, when Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary and violently crushed all dissent, it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that these socialist utopias were not all they were cracked up to be. Even today, many on the left cannot bring themselves to admit that the application of Marx to the real world had only succeeded in bringing about abject poverty, misery, death, and slogans. Many many slogans.
Instead of creating a utopia for the proletariat, Marx and his theories only generated the conditions for societal suicide. Look at Cuba. Look, if you can stand it at North Korea.
Marx was entirely wrong about the labor theory of value; and about the whole class warfare thing.
Far from rising up against their "oppressors", the proletariat--in a free system--will want to become wealthy themselves. In America, they have bought into the capitalist system and the "American Dream"--i.e., that they can achieve anything they want with hard work and perseverance-- in large numbers. The sharp differences between the classes have been eroding for generations primarily because of the social mobility that Williamson writes about; as well as the very human desire to improve conditions for themselves and their posterity. Nore and more of those who start out in poverty find their way into the middle class, thus gaining hope for themselves and their children.
Those who make their way up to the highest earners, will find that it is not a "given" to remain in that upper stratum and that they may tumble down without putting forth constant effort and thought (note the number of "instant" millioaires who, after winning the lottery, will waste away their windfall and end up worse off than they were when they won it). It takes more than the possession of money to hold onto wealth, it takes rational thought and effort.
That is why, to great astonishment of the socialists, many of the "oppressed" proletariat are relatively happy and content with their lot! That is why progressives have resorted to calling such individuals "class traitors" or "race traitors", because they dare to do well (without the progressive's compassionate programs; or in spite of them more likely) and are able to move themselves into entrepreneurship and beyond.
Happy and content people do not generally initiate violent revolutions nor rise up against their so-called oppressors--particularly when they don't feel oppressed, but feel empowered.
The legacy of Marx's "social justice" has been the neverending victimhood scam perpetrated by the left.
How inconvenient for the left that the clever capitalist system actually co-opts all those oppressed workers, and empowers them enter the dreaded "middle class"!
Marx always expected that the middle class would disappear as capitalism developed, since he believed that the only sustainable positions were the ones of his dialectic.
That is not what actually happens in the real world as it turns out.
Whenever people are given political liberty and allowed to pursue their own happiness (and not the mandates of the state), the ranks of the middle class expand and grow stronger.
In fact, the values and ideals of this particular economic group have come to anchor society in the United States.
Far from wanting to ignite a worker's revolution as Marx predicted, they enjoy the creature comforts of the capitalist system and feel themselves empowered by it. They even like their health care system for the most part and don't want it overhauled by some monstronsity created by Congressional know-nothings whose "cure" is going to be much worse than the actual disease.
But, even worse from the "progressive" viewpoint, is the typical person in the middle class who believes that he or she can better themselves by using the many opportunities offered by a free, capitalistic democracy. That's why the left are so desperate to create more victimhood constituencies who will proudly stand for all those unworkable policies. That's why they always resort to stoking the "evil rich" meme.
As O'Rourke suggests, they still believe that my money (and yours) causes everyone else's poverty. They have an intense psychological need to believe that because it justifies their stealing other people's wealth.
As long as they can seduce others into believing they are being victimized by the "rich", they are able to get away with supporting the same old, tired economic policies that make them feel good about themselves, but do little to improve the lot of the poor; or to give those who are struggling economically the opportunities that will help them escape perpetual poverty.
Bad economic thinking may be a hallmark of progressive policies, but perpetual poverty for all has always been the historical consequence of those policies.
- Diagnosed by Dr. Sanity
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Apr 18, 2011 8:15:15 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?cat=409Quote of the Day–debt limit edition April 18th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain Alan Greenspan to David Gregory on “Meet the Press” (via Politico): "I have a more fundamental question. Why do we have a debt limit in the first place? We appropriate funds, we have tax law, and anyone reasonably adept at arithmetic can calculate what the debt change is going to be. … [T]here is a major problem in cutting spending. … t is inconceivable to me that we’ve put ourselves in this position. Why we are continuously going back to the well to continuously up the debt limit when we already predetermined what that limit has to be, and so, consequently, they’re trying to abrogate what the Congress did?"
It is a pretty fundamental question. What is the purpose of a debt limit – note the word, “limit” – if it only serves as a temporary point at which, when reached (again) Congress reconvenes and raises it almost automatically? It makes no sense. But then we’re talking about Congress and politicians here.
Greenspan’s point is dead on target. What is its purpose if not to limit spending to that amount or less? And what real purpose does it serve if it is continually raised?
The answer to the first is “political not policy” and the answer to the second, unfortunately, is “none.”
~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on Apr 18, 2011 11:27:09 GMT -5
The purpose of a debt limit is to try to snow the people into believing you're saying, "this far and no farther." When everyone knows that it's meaningless and you'll just raise it again when the debt approaches it. But I think the inside-the-Beltway crowd actually thinks they're convincing some of the yokels (that's us) with this inanity.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 6, 2011 8:05:40 GMT -5
Obama tunes out, and business goes on hiring strike By Michael Barone www.JewishWorldReview.com | Last week I noted that various forms of the word "unexpected" almost inevitably appeared in news stories about unfavorable economic developments. You can find them again in stories about Friday's shocking news, that only 54,000 net new jobs were created in the month of May and that unemployment rose to 9.1 percent. But with news that bad, maybe bad economic numbers will no longer be "unexpected." You can only expect a robust economic recovery for so long before you figure out, as Herbert Hoover eventually did, that it is not around the corner. Exogenous factors explain some part of the current economic stagnation. The earthquake and tsunami in Japan caused a slowdown in manufacturing. Horrendous tornadoes did not help. Nor did bad weather, though only a few still bitterly cling to the theory that it's caused by man-made global warming. But poor public policy is surely one reason why the American economy has not rebounded from recession as it has in the past. And political posturing has also played a major role. Barack Obama and the Democratic congressional supermajorities of 2009-10 raised federal spending from 21 to 25 percent of gross domestic product. Their stimulus package stopped layoffs of public employees for a while, even as private sector payrolls plummeted. And the Obama Democrats piled further burdens on would-be employers in the private sector. Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill are scheduled to be followed by thousands of regulations that will impose impossible-to-estimate costs on the economy. That seems to have led to a hiring freeze. The Obama Democrats can reasonably claim not to be responsible for the huge number of layoffs that occurred in the months following the financial crisis of fall 2008. And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke did manage to help stabilize financial markets. But while the number of layoffs is now vastly less than in the first half of 2009, the number of new hires has not increased appreciably. Many more people have been unemployed for longer periods than in previous recessions, and many more have stopped looking for work altogether. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the threat of tax increases and increased regulatory burdens have produced something in the nature of a hiring strike. And then there is the political posturing. On April 13 Obama delivered a ballyhooed speech at George Washington University. The man who conservatives as well as liberal pundits told us was a combination of Edmund Burke and Reinhold Niebuhr was widely expected to present a serious plan to address the budget deficits and entitlement spending. Instead the man who can call on talented career professionals at the Office of Management and Budget to produce detailed blueprints gave us something in the nature of a few numbers scrawled on a paper napkin. The man depicted as pragmatic and free of ideological cant indulged in cheap political rhetoric, accusing Republicans, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan who was in the audience, of pushing old ladies in wheelchairs down the hill and starving autistic children. The signal was clear. Obama had already ignored his own deficit reduction commission in preparing his annual budget, which was later rejected 97-0 in the Senate. Now he was signaling that the time for governing was over and that he was entering campaign mode 19 months before the November 2012 election. People took notice, especially those people who decide whether to hire or not. Goldman Sachs's Current Activity Indicator stood at 4.2 percent in March. In April -- in the middle of which came Obama's GW speech -- it was 1.6 percent. For May it is 1 percent. "That is a major drop in no time at all," wrote Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal. After April 13 Obama Democrats went into campaign mode. They staged a poll-driven Senate vote to increase taxes on oil companies. They began a Mediscare campaign against Ryan's budget resolution that all but four House Republicans had voted for. That seemed to pay off with a special election victory in New York's 26th Congressional District. The message to job creators was clear. Hire at your own risk. Higher taxes, more burdensome regulation and crony capitalism may be here for some time to come. One possible upside is that economic bad news may no longer be "unexpected." Another is that voters may figure out what is going on.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 8, 2011 8:57:16 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?cat=137Revisiting the Obama administration’s unemployment promise June 8th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain The folks at e21 remind us of something that should be at the forefront of every person’s memory as they consider what this administration has and hasn’t accomplished in its promise to “stimulate” the economy and create jobs. I call it the “big promise”. I don’t call it a “lie” since I use the traditional definition of a lie (a known falsehood) vs. the more modern one in use today by activists on both sides (being wrong about something). But that’s fodder for a future post. In this one I want to issue a reminder of what was promised and what has been delivered. Promise: Back in January 2009, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein produced a report estimating future unemployment rates with and without a stimulus plan. Their estimates, which were widely circulated, projected that unemployment would approach 9% without a stimulus, but would never exceed 8% with the plan. They got their “stimulus” – $800 plus billion in mostly borrowed money with which they were to stem the tide of unemployment then rising and keep it under 8% as promised. The result wasn’t even close. In fact, other than two months of this year, the unemployment rate has stayed above 9%. By this time, according to the administrations plan, we were told we’d be at about 6.5%. So it is clear that the “plan” was a total and unmitigated but costly failure. What’s their explanation for such a huge miscalculation? Romer and Bernstein defend their estimates with the argument that the economic situation turned out worse than they had anticipated; and so the economy would have done even worse without a stimulus. Is that so? Then, as e21 says, they owe us a much deeper explanation of why that was so and why they considered their solution at the time to be the proper thing to do. Because it is seeming more and more like a very expensive boondoggle at the moment: The recession “officially” ended two years ago, yet the first quarter of 2011 only saw 1.8% growth. The Administration and Congress should have a more robust discussion about their self-proclaimed “2010 Recovery Summer” – if for no other reason than to better inform the public about the recovery challenges the U.S. still faces in 2011. For example, there is new research that suggests that the stimulus may actually have resulted in a net loss of jobs. Regardless of the exact number of jobs lost or created, however, the fact that some economists are even arguing that it had a negative impact tells you that the stimulus may very well have been a wash overall. Larry Lindsey offered his own review of the stimulus this week, arguing that it failed what’s colloquially known as the Sharp Pencil Test. As he explains, “if you sit down and do a back of the envelope calculation of the [stimulus] program’s costs and benefits, there is no way to conjure up numbers that allow it to make sense.” Lindsey went on to offer this analysis: [E]ven if you buy the White House’s argument that the $800 billion package created 3 million jobs, that works out to $266,000 per job. Taxing or borrowing $266,000 from the private sector to create a single job is simply not a cost effective way of putting America back to work. The long-term debt burden of that $266,000 swamps any benefit that the single job created might provide. The 3 million claim is dubious at best with no mention of the type, quality or sector these jobs were supposed “saved or created” (the stimulus propped up a lot of state budgets which helped delay layoffs to government workers). And as Lindsey points out, the cost of what can only be a temporary “save” are way out of whack with the benefit. Instead, it appears the stimulus was a giant waste of money that did little if anything to create jobs in the private sector and mostly benefited government at a huge cost per job. I’m not sure how anyone could economically justify such an outcome. But I sure would like to hear them try. I think they owe us some answers on this. And I’d like to see the GOP begin asking those questions. This is one part of the Obama record they need to pound on – starting now. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 13, 2011 8:44:48 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?cat=18In the midst of terrible economic times, let’s raise energy prices dramatically and lay people off … June 13th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain “Never let the reality of the situation stand in the way of a political agenda”, ought to be the slogan of the Obama reelection campaign. In the midst of the worst economic downturn the executive branch of the Federal Government (the Obama administration), under the guise of the EPA is ratcheting up standards that will shut down many coal fired plants and their jobs as well as cost billions for utilities to keep other coal plants open. Result: Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years. The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation’s electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered. Of course the timing of the increase is predictable: The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as ore expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load. Yup, safely reelected (he hopes), Mr. Obama will smile benignly as he watches more of you hard earned money go for what should be cheap and plentiful energy based on incredibly abundant coal. Instead we’ll be chasing “reliable alternate power sources”. One would like to believe we’d go to natural gas, but then those abundant finds are also being slow walked through the red tape of the government approval process. More than 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity has been retired in the U.S. since 2005, according to data from industrial software company Ventyx. Generators have announced they plan to retire another 21,000 megawatts in the near future, and some industry consultant studies estimate 60,000 megawatts of power, enough for 60 million homes, will be taken offline by 2017. This in the midst of projected energy shortages as demand increases while we shut down power generation assets. Certainly we may want to, at some time in the future, shut down all coal fired plants. We may collectively wish to see other energy sources used as well. But that would require a coherent transition plan, viable alternatives, phasing and a little common sense (or essentially being in touch with the reality that one finds around them). This is a agenda driven, safely-after-the-election, regulatory fiat that will cost workers their jobs and consumers a higher portion of their earned income in poor economic times. Another, among a myriad of reasons why the man in the White House needs to be in his own house come 2014. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 17, 2011 8:46:44 GMT -5
New CAFE standards could cost a quarter million jobs
June 17th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain
When is a "green job" not a job? When you lose yours because of the initiative:
The Detroit News’s dogged David Shepardson has unearthed a study by one of world’s most respected automotive research firms that reveals that President Obama’s radical CAFE mandate that vehicles average — average! — 62 MPG by 2025 “could force vehicle prices up by nearly $10,000, reduce sales by 5.5 million vehicles annually, and eliminate more than 260,000 jobs.” Shepardson is quoting from the Michigan-based Center for Automotive Research and the 260,000 job loss figure (consistent with past job losses from CAFE rule hikes) is another dent in White House’s propaganda that Green creates jobs.
The CAR study also reveals that Obama’s NHTSA and EPA have been gaming the figures when it comes to the cost of their new rules. The center’s study predicts it will cost between $3,744 and $9,790 per vehicle, while the agencies have low-balled the figure at $770 to $3,500 per vehicle.
The resulting costs would shrink the new-car market, with 5.5 million potential buyers disappearing (and manufacturing jobs with them) by 2025. That assumes that the auto fleet can even be built to meet such an absurd spec. Currently, no car — much less the average — meets 62 mpg. Indeed, only a handful of small vehicles meet the 35-mpg fleet-wide standard mandated in just five years.
Yes friends, just like the story I covered the other day, we have an administration which is more agenda driven than reality driven. We’re in the middle of a horrible recession, unemployment hasn’t really moved in over a year, the future doesn’t look much better, but the agenda to raise the price of energy (at the cost of jobs) and CAFE standards (at the cost of even more jobs) continues apace.
If you’ve ever wondered what market distortion and intrusion by government looks like, this is a good example. And this intrusion will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and price many consumers out of the new car market (again, this administration sees that as a feature, not a bug).
Another in a litany of reasons Mr. Obama needs to be retired in 2012.
~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on Jun 17, 2011 14:09:21 GMT -5
65 mpg? That strikes me as akin to King Canute trying to sweep back the sea. Just because a megalomaniac decrees something doesn't make it desirable, feasible, or even possible within the physical laws of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 17, 2011 15:23:48 GMT -5
It’s possible for those that live in the land of Krugman, unicorns and moon ponies. After all their reality is limited to what’s in their head.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jun 17, 2011 15:55:14 GMT -5
What right does the government have to tell automakers how much gas their products should use?
Build the roads, protect the borders, shores, and airspace, make laws to punish those who harm others physically and financially, then enforce those laws. Otherwise, mind your business.
They're making it harder than it has to be.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jun 24, 2011 7:00:26 GMT -5
Just When You Thought Our Fiscal Nightmare Couldn't Get Any Worse By David Limbaugh www.JewishWorldReview.com | I'll make you a deal: I'll quit accusing Democrats of obstructing spending and entitlement reform when they quit obstructing spending and entitlement reform. Now we even have the nonpartisan, sterile, unflappable Congressional Budget Office virtually predicting a "fiscal crisis," yet the Democratic Senate hasn't passed a budget for 785 days. There ought to be a law. At what point will we go into panic mode? Frankly, I can't comprehend how people are so calm now. The major components of this fiscal doomsday outlook are entitlements — the unfunded promises approaching $100 trillion. We need to restructure those — radically — so that we don't lose everything. Sure, we know we have the capacity to turn this situation around. But it can't happen before 2012 without Democratic good faith and participation. The Democrats talk and behave as though there were no urgency. Instead, they just accuse Rep. Paul Ryan of robbing seniors of Medicare. But the facts are that his plan would preserve benefits for those who are 55 or older and phase in benefit reductions for others. If we fail to restructure the system, we'll all end up — within a generation — not only without Medicare benefits but also with a fallen nation. Nor are entitlements our only problem. Our annual budget deficits are also gargantuan, and the administration evidences no interest in getting them under control. President Obama not only has stubbornly refused to be serious about discretionary spending cuts but also continues to pursue failed policies guaranteed to impede economic growth, without which we simply cannot bring our budgets into balance. For an indication of the bleakness of the economic picture, just look at today's news-delivered gut punches. This week's jobless claims of 429,000 are even worse than last week's dismal numbers, making it 11 weeks in a row that we've been above 400,000, the number economists associate with a stable labor market. Under President George W. Bush, Democrats complained that 4.7 percent unemployment was dreadful. Now their president's perpetual 9-plus percent is barely remarkable. According to The Associated Press, new-home sales fell 2.1 percent in May, "to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 319,000," which is "far below the 700,000 homes per year that economists say must be sold to sustain a healthy housing market." All the while, the median price for new houses rose. Worst of both worlds. Now, back to the budget and entitlements. Based on the CBO's just-released long-term budget report, it is nearly impossible to overstate the gravity of our national financial emergency. On our present course, our national debt is in the process of swallowing whole our economy. Projections of the nation's impending doom have worsened: We face destruction if we don't act, and the crisis is accelerating. Last year, the CBO predicted our national debt would be 91 percent of gross domestic product in 2021. Now, just a year later, it is projected to be 101 percent in 2021. It gets worse. The debt is forecasted to be 150 percent of GDP by 2030 and 200 percent by 2037. And, if you can even imagine this, it will proliferate more rapidly thereafter. On our present course, by 2035, federal interest payments will be 9 percent of our entire economy, compared with 1 percent today. Adding insult to injury, Obamacare, which Obama fraudulently sold as an indispensable component of balancing the budget, will greatly drive up health care costs. The CBO says that mandatory federal spending on health care will increase by 86 percent, from 5.6 percent of GDP presently to 10.4 percent over the next 24 years. Don't say we didn't warn you. Adding aggravation to insult is the recently discovered "glitch" in Obamacare that allows for more than 3 million middle-class Americans to qualify for Medicaid. Can you believe this socialist scandal? Yet the Democrats' only action plan is to play the class warfare card and peddle fear about the horrors of not raising the debt ceiling. They demand that Republicans agree to raise the debt ceiling when they won't agree to implement any budgetary plans to restore fiscal sanity. No wonder the markets are plummeting. Who could possibly have confidence in our financial future under these circumstances? Meanwhile, President Obama is hiding behind Vice President Joe Biden, who is handling the budget negotiations with congressional Republicans. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, hardly a radical, has backed out of these talks because of an impasse over taxes, and Sen. Jon Kyl is expected to follow suit. Finally! Bravo. Desperate times, desperate measures. Hardball. No turning back.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jul 11, 2011 6:56:14 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?cat=15NY Times still clueless about economic woes July 10th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain Cluelessness seems to be a fairly rampant disease among those who seem unable to peer objectively at reality and analyze it. They prefer to pretend they know what they’re talking about and unhelpfully prescribe exactly the wrong antidote every single time (in this case, more of what we’ve watched fail for two plus years). And, as it turns out, the New York Times editorial board is peerless among that group: It was not surprising to hear the Republican presidential candidates repeat their tiresome claim that excessive government spending and borrowing were behind Friday’s terrible unemployment report. It was depressing to hear President Obama sound as if he agreed with them. And the NYT’s claim as to why that’s not the case? There has never been any evidence that the federal debt is primarily responsible for the persistent joblessness that began with the 2008 recession. The numbers have remained high because of weak consumer demand and stagnant wage growth, along with an imbalance between jobs and job skills. Who has ever argued that “federal debt is primarily responsible for the persistent joblessness?” Certainly there are other factors. However, there’s no question that excessive government spending – i.e. borrowing to spend – has had a hand in the stagnation we’re now undergoing. In fact, increased and excessive government spending has had no effect and, given the promises made, could be argued to have had a negative effect. The debt is the indicator of the problem – excessive and unaffordable spending. As we’ve been pointing out for months, revenue isn’t the problem – spending is. So pointing to this strawman, as the NY Times does, is just more politics from the side who thinks it prudent to penalize those who produce in order to bail out those who spend what they produce (and the reason the Democrats insist on calling the present income tax levels “Bush tax cuts”). What doesn’t seem to penetrate the thinking of those who continue to push this line is one of the reasons we’ve had weak consumer demand and stagnant wage growth is the unsettled business and regulatory atmosphere this administration has created in its 2 plus years. That, of course is pushed aside by the NYT in favor of this argument: The president may have a nebulous approach to unemployment, but he is hardly indifferent to it. His re-election hinges on reducing it. It is hard to understand, though, why Mr. Obama has adopted the language of his opponents in connecting the economy to the debt. To his credit, he talked about the one step that would work — investing money in rebuilding the country. But the debt-ceiling ideas he is now considering would make that investment much less likely by pulling hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy at precisely the moment when the spending is needed most. Yeah, there’s absolutely no connection between the “economy” and the “debt” is there? Of course there is? And pretending that borrowing money we don’t have to push it out in the economy and calling it an ‘investment’ doesn’t fool most rational folks. The NYT even points out that the last time the money was thrown out there is it mostly went to service state debt which only delayed the inevitable. Now, apparently, that will somehow be different in the face of “weak consumer demand”. Really? And, of course, the jobs the NYT laments about aren’t private sector jobs but government jobs (state and local) which we all know are the engine of our economy (/sarc). The types of increases in revenue that government should be encouraging are those that come from private sector jobs. They provide tax revenue from created wealth. They don’t require the government to borrow money to “invest” (i.e. borrow money, create jobs and then tax the jobs created with the borrowed money and claim “increased revenue”. Make sense to you?). So while I don’t disagree with the Times when it says “his re-election hinges on reducing” unemployment, it appears the Times would opt for the easy and wrong way to do it – borrow more money, pump it into creating make-work jobs just long enough to get Obama past the 2012 election. Then, who care? Debt ceiling, increased drag on the economy’s GDP and all that stuff, forgetaboutit. Well, at least till they get this guy re-elected. Then, of course, I expect a clarion call by the Times wondering how this could have all be so mismanaged and spinning and twisting it, as they have in this editorial, so it all ends up being the fault of the Republicans. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jul 14, 2011 10:50:27 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?cat=778Obama and the debt ceiling July 14th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain I was gobsmacked by this quote in a POLITICO story about Obama’s walkout from a debt ceiling negotiation: On exiting the room, Obama said that “this confirms the totality of what the American people already believe” about Washington, according to a Democratic official familiar with the negotiations, and that officials are “too focused on positioning and political posturing” to make difficult choices. That line could be the summary of the Obama presidency to this point. Think Afghanistan for instance. Remember this: The withdrawal has created deep divisions in Washington. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued for a modest reduction – at one point as low as 2,000 – citing the advice of US commanders in Afghanistan that they need to protect gains made during the winter against the Taliban. But senior White House staff, conscious that the president has an election to fight next year, argued in favour of a reduction that would send a signal to the US public that an end to the war is in sight. The “difficult choice” would have been to keep the troops in place and reinforce the success they’ve been having. Instead, we got the “positioning and political posturing” decision made to hopefully enhance Obama’s re-election chances. Certainly, there is political posturing going on all over the place by both parties, but when the GOP actually sticks to its guns (no new tax increases) while playing hardball, how does that “confirms the totality of what the American people already believe?” I don’t think he understands which side of that statement he’s actually on. Ed Morrissey makes another point: One of the easiest ways to identify an amateurish negotiator is the issuance of obviously empty threats. Yesterday, Barack Obama issued one of the emptiest political threat in modern American history when he stomped out of the debt-ceiling negotiations yesterday in a fit of pique: “Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.” Really? Then Obama will be in for a very rude awakening when he finally meets the American people: Gallup: Americans paying attention oppose debt-ceiling increase almost 2-1 CBS poll shows 69% opposed to a debt-ceiling increase Poll: Majority support a balanced budget amendment Poll shows more people concerned about national debt than national default Poll shows Americans getting more pessimistic on economy, want spending cuts Americans oppose raising debt ceiling by more than 2-1 in Gallup survey CBS poll shows Americans oppose debt-ceiling hike 2-1 Hill poll shows 62% opposed to raising the debt ceiling The people have been taking it to Barack Obama since the midterm elections. Maybe he should do less stomping and a lot more listening. But listening isn’t one of his forte’s. Instead he likes to play games like this. I’m sure some sycophant will soon call what he did “gutsy”. Bottom line, the GOP has to hope he actually follows thorough on his threat because he is obviously not at all tuned into the American people who, as the links point out, have been stating their opinion for quite some time. Obviously Obama thinks he can pull his campaign trail wool over the American public’s eyes one more time. But my reading is that public is in no mood for his oratorical mendacity. The swooning crowds of yore are no more. For 2 plus years Americans have been able to watch and assess this guy based on his actions, not his words. And if the “generic Republican” poll is any indication, they’re wanting change as badly now as they did when Obama was swept into office. So – hang tough GOP, the polls say the American people are with you. Don’t fall for the political theater and cave to non-existent pressure. He’s the one the with problem. Make sure you remember that. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on Jul 21, 2011 15:31:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Jul 22, 2011 8:32:29 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?cat=12Chrysler cost taxpayers much more than the reported 1.3 billion loss Published July 22, 2011 | By Bruce McQuain CNN Money headlines an article “US loses 1.3 billion exiting Chrysler” and then says: U.S. taxpayers likely lost $1.3 billion in the government bailout of Chrysler, the Treasury Department announced Thursday. The government recently sold its remaining 6% stake in the company to Italian automaker Fiat. It wrapped up the 2009 bailout that was part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program six years early. "The fact that the company has done so well — that they were able to go out and raise private capital to repay us the loan so quickly, is really the big story," said Tim Massad, Treasury assistant secretary for financial stability. If the company has done so well, why are taxpayers out $1.3 billion? Well apparently because the government couldn’t wait to sell their shares to a foreign company, Fiat, giving the Italian automaker a majority share in Chrysler: Fiat paid the Treasury a total of $560 million for the remaining shares, as well as rights to shares held by the United Auto Workers retiree trust. Fiat now owns a 53.5% stake in the company. And CNN continues to propagate the myth that Chrysler paid back its loans early: Originally, the government committed a total of $12.5 billion to the struggling automaker, Old Chrysler, and the company’s newly formed Chrysler Group. Of those funds, $11.2 billion have been returned through principal repayments, interest and cancelled commitments, the Treasury said. The new Chrysler Group paid back $5.1 billion in loans in May. Actually that’s not at all the case: The Obama administration already forgave more than $4 billion of that debt when the company filed for bankruptcy in 2009. Taxpayers are never getting that money back. […] The Obama administration’s bailout agreement with Fiat gave the Italian car company a “Incremental Call Option” that allows it to buy up to 16% of Chrysler stock at a reduced price. But in order to exercise the option, Fiat had to first pay back at least $3.5 billion of its loan to the Treasury Department. But Fiat was having trouble getting private banks to lend it the money. Enter Obama Energy Secretary Steven Chu who has signaled that he will approve a fuel-efficient vehicle loan to Chrysler for … wait for it … $3.5 billion. […] So, to recap, the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion. There’s your story. Taxpayers mugged again by the Obama administration. Film at 11. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on Aug 7, 2011 8:06:39 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?cat=8Mark Steyn is brilliant—and grim Published August 6, 2011 | By Dale Franks Mark Steyn, writing in Investors Business Daily, isn’t pulling any punches about what the near future holds for us if the Federal government keeps spending like there is no tomorrow. There won’t be. y 2020 just the interest payments on the debt will be larger than the U.S. military budget. That’s not paying down the debt, but merely staying current on the servicing — like when you get your MasterCard statement and you can’t afford to pay off any of what you borrowed but you can just about cover the monthly interest charge. Except in this case the interest charge for U.S. taxpayers will be greater than the military budgets of China, Britain, France, Russia, Japan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India, Italy, South Korea, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Spain, Turkey and Israel combined. When interest payments consume about 20% of federal revenues, that means a fifth of your taxes are entirely wasted. Pious celebrities often simper that they’d be willing to pay more in taxes for better government services. But a fifth of what you pay won’t be going to government services at all, unless by "government services" you mean the People’s Liberation Army of China, which will be entirely funded by U.S. taxpayers by about 2015… And even those numbers presuppose interest rates will remain at their present historic low. Last week, the firm of Macroeconomic Advisors, one of the Obama administration’s favorite economic analysts, predicted that interest rates on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes would be just shy of 9% by 2021. If that number is right, there are two possibilities: The Chinese will be able to quintuple the size of their armed forces and stick us with the tab. Or we’ll be living in a Mad Max theme park. I’d bet on the latter myself. And we all know who’ll be running Bartertown. Look, there’s no way to sugar-coat this. What’s coming isn’t gonna be pretty. Too many politically powerful groups have their fingers stuck too deeply into the DC pie to let it all just slip away without fighting tooth and nail. There are too many people who believe the gravy train of benefits coming out of DC should be endless to kiss that goodbye without a fight. Look at what has been happening in Greece. They’ve built up two generations of people who cannot and will not accept that they’re simply out of money. Despite the fact that system has been thoroughly looted, they are adamant that the looting should continue. If we don’t cut spending—and I mean real cuts, not cuts to some imaginary baseline that has $9 trillion is spending increases baked in—and some sort of serious tax reform that widens the tax base to raise more revenue, we’re done. And don’t come back at me with some lame "Our GDP:Debt ratio was 120% at the end of WWII" silliness. Yes it was. And you know how we fixed it? We cut Federal spending from $92 billion in 1945 to $38 billion in 1949. For 2011, 40% of the federal budget was financed with borrowed money: We’ll spend $3.818 trillion, of which $1.645 is borrowed. If we funded only defense, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security, and interest on the debt, we’d still have a deficit of $673 billion. Just to balance the budget this year –forget paying off any debt—we’d have to cut an additional ~25% from Health, Defense, and Pensions. Follow the link and download the CSV file, open it up in Excel, and run the numbers yourself. The magic number to balance the budget this year is the revenue of $2.174 trillion. There’s no big mystery as to why we got a downgrade from S&P. The mystery is why Fitch and Moody’s haven’t downgraded US debt yet. To begin paying down the debt will require massive cuts in government spending, substantially widening the tax base, and some healthy economic growth—and good luck with that as we add another couple hundred k government workers to the unemployment roles, lay off 1/3 of government contractors to boot, and start asking the bottom 50% of taxpayers to actually, you know, pay taxes, along with everyone else. If you’re under 50, and reach retirement age with any modicum of personal wealth, you can forget seeing a dime in Social Security or Medicare benefits when you retire. You’ll be means-tested right out of all that. You think the debt ceiling battle was disruptive? Well, hold on to your hats, folks. ~ Dale Franks
|
|