"what you got, it's already gone" - "We Rise & Fall As One Nation"

[WhiskeyGirl]

Obama said something the other day that sticks in my mind, it went something like this "We rise and fall as one nation..."

It reminds me of another saying something about the nation's fortunes follow those of GM. 

THE NATION IS ALREADY GONE.

The Exit

what you got, it's already gone,

Ask a lot of questions, people are so scared,
given all the reasons we don't care to hear,
around the whole wide world, it's happening every day,

I speak with conviction, this is a lesson in fear,
fear for tomorrow, tomorrow's come today,
and with the drag of addiction,
see this is how we were raised.

yeah, don't get lost what you got is already gone.
People telling me how far the fruit falls from the tree,
and wouldn't it be nice if we just press "restart" in life?

GM is lost, foundering without leadership...looking to cashout with taxpayer money...a debt inflicted on future generations...taxation without representation.

The US is lost, foundering without leadership...new administraton looking to cashout with taxpayer money...a debt inflicted on future generations...taxation without representation.

The Obama administration has $350 billion from TARP, and they are asking for more?  Why?  To continue feeding special interest groups?  State pork?   

Somehow I doubt that this debt spending will be done a frugal manner.  If projects are ready to go, why aren't they using state and local money?  The porkfest/special interest largesse continues with the Obama administration.  Where are the people advising that the country should scale back?  Spend money wisely?

I remember many folks, now dead, that learned something during the depression.  They took advantage of NEW jobs and training programs, NEW construction.  All that the administration seems to be offering for the new 2 - 3 trillion dollars in spending is PORK BARREL spending as usual, with turbo charger. 

How will success be measured to make sure we're spending money on programs that work?Maybe it will be based on how fast special interest groups spend this money, and come back and ask for more?  Maybe the ones that spend the most money changing light bulbs in federal buildings will get a special bonuses?

If we rise and fall as one nation, WHERE IS MY $1 BILLION DOLLAR BAILOUT CHECK?   I could use singles so that I have enought toilet paper for the next 20 - 30 years of economic devastation.

The Obama Administration and Capitol Hill are filled with good people that wanted to reform the markets, Fannie/Freddie, and other bailout recipients going many years back.

The Obama Administration and Capitol Hill are also filled with other people that for some reason, weren't paying attention, spewed catch phrases about the poor, or voted "present".   They chose to do nothing while the nation's fortunes disappeared.  If you lost money in your investments, people need to start asking why those on Capitol Hill and in the NEW Obama administration didn't joint the common efforts to fix things.

The pork fest continues...scavengers on the Hill for special interest groups and people.  I'm sure people like Ferdinand Marcos would be proud of how democracy works in America.

It's already gone...cleanup of any asset remaining & legacy money courtesy of the Obama Administration.

The new deal from the first Great Depression left the nation better.  The new administration is spending volumes of dollars like a Great Depression.  A Great Depression  that no one want's to admit exists.  The potential returns are questionable - more pork and special interest group spending. 

The nation fell years ago, helped along by Capitol Hill and special interest groups.  Both are still with us.  Has anything changed?  Will America fail to rise due to the burden placed on the backs of future generations? 

What happened to making every dollar do the work of two or three dollars?

Prosperity is already gone and it looks to me like some want to make sure it doesn't come back for generations.

just my humble opinions

[WhiskeyGirl]

A COLUMN BY PETER MORICI
Huge trade deficit has negative effect on any economic stimulus

Simply, money spent on Middle East oil, Chinese televisions and coffee makers and Japanese and Korean cars can’t be spent on U.S.-made goods and services unless offset by a comparable amount of exports. Since U.S. imports exceed exports by almost 5 percent of GDP, the trade deficit creates an enormous drag on demand for U.S.-made goods and services. Along with the credit crisis and resulting slowdown in new housing and commercial construction, the banking crisis and trade deficit could push unemployment above 10 percent.

Are the stimulus plans meant to burden American taxpayers for generations so Americans can stimulate other economies?   Continue the hemorage of money?

IIRC, the first stimulus plan was labeled a failure by some in government because people paid down their debt.  Why isn't the new administration bringing real change?  Paying down and decreasing spending at the federal level would be a good start.  Live within the mean of the nation.  Do not take/tax money from hardworking people. 

jmho

A fiscal stimulus package that increases the federal budget deficit by 2 or 3 percent of GDP will make things much better for a period of time. However, successive stimulus spending and permanently larger federal budget deficits will be needed to sustain the GDP and employment gains. But cutting the trade deficit in half would yield lasting benefits for U.S. GDP and employment growth, far transcending any fiscal stimulus in its permanent effects. Cutting the trade deficit would substantially increase tax revenues and reduce the federal budget deficit.

Each dollar spent on imports that is not matched by a dollar of exports reduces domestic demand and employment and shifts workers into activities where productivity is lower. Productivity is at least 50 percent higher in industries that export and compete with imports, and reducing the trade deficit and moving workers into these industries would increase GDP.

Were the trade deficit cut in half, the movement of workers and capital into more productive export- and import-competing industries would increase by at least $400 billion or about $2,500 for every working American. Wages would not be lagging inflation, and ordinary working Americans would more easily find jobs paying higher wages and offering decent benefits.

Wow, what a novel way to build a nation - put people to work making things.   

Manufacturers are particularly hard hit by this subsidized competition. Through recession and recovery, the manufacturing sector has lost more than 4 million jobs since 2000. Following the pattern of past economic recoveries, the manufacturing sector should have regained at least 2 million of those jobs, especially given the very strong productivity growth accomplished in durable goods and throughout manufacturing.

I think that's more than the Big 3 and no one is crying about those lost jobs.  For some reason, it seems like only the highest paid manufacturing employees are important to the nation.   

Cutting the trade deficit in half would boost U.S. GDP growth by one percentage point a year, and the trade deficits of the last two decades have reduced U.S. growth by one percentage point a year.

Lost growth is cumulative. Thanks to the record trade deficits accumulated over the last 10 years, the U.S. economy is about $1.5 trillion smaller. This comes to about $10,000 per worker.

Had the administration and the Congress acted responsibly to reduce the deficit, American workers would be much better off, tax revenues would be much larger and the federal deficit could be eliminated without cutting spending. The damage grows larger each month, as the administration and Congress dally and ignore the corrosive consequences of the trade deficit.

Seems like squandering wastrels only know how to spend and spend and spend.  What happens when the national debt topples the nation?  Who will pick up the pieces?  Mexico?  China?  Canada?

Peter Morici is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission. He recently spoke in Fort Wayne.

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081219/EDITORIAL/812190339

just my humble opinions

[WhiskeyGirl]

Obama's Ponzi Intellectualism

By Thomas F. Roeser, Chicago Daily *******
Posted in Our Columns on December 19, 2008

Not Barack. He doesn’t say one thing in Chicago and the opposite in Omaha. He links diametrically opposed arguments together with the conjunction “but.” As on gun control. “Of course the 2nd amendment as part of the Constitution should be preserved,” he said, “but—.” But what? “The death toll on the streets can only be reduced by a combination of steps including responsible gun control.” What is “responsible gun control?” Well, he supported the Washington, D. C. gun confiscation law and later the Supreme Court decision outlawing it. The supine media, which has been an auxiliary to his strategy, never probes.

In a very real sense, it’s like an intellectual Ponzi scheme-endorsing both sides with smooth rhetoric and moving on. Likewise in his eloquent concern to overcome the recession, he stresses stimulus spending and infrastructure. Now construction jobs pay on an average $22 an hour contrasted with the national average of $18 but everybody knows…or should know-certainly the media ought to realize-that infrastructure up-building doesn’t work well with a globally-based competitive service economy. Do you think that 25,000 workers losing their jobs in financial services on Wall Street last week will regain them as construction workers repairing the Interstate highway system? I think not. No mention whatsoever of tax cuts-because that is foreign to Obama’s thinking…or at least has been thus far.

But still he goes on…and whenever I see him on the tube I remember his first interview with me…stitching together impossibilities and moving on. I tell you it’s Ponzi only in the realm of ideas. Contradictions mean nothing to him. Once it was thought that he would move into power and steer the country hard-left. Not so, evidently. He is going to depend on the swooning media to reconcile his contradictions while he proceeds to make it up as he goes along. Small wonder the Left is angered. I’d be angered too if I had invested so much time and energy. What we have here appears to be a flim-flam man enabled by the adulatory media.

**
Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily *******

http://cdobs.com/archive/our-columns/obamas-ponzi-intellectualism%2C2225/

Good points.  How do infrastructure jobs build long term prosperity?  Why throw money at projects that should already be in the budget and good to go?  Why not focus on prosperity?  Making new jobs? 

Why not start talking about how to level the global playing field?  $22 an hour/with benefits jobs cannot compete with people making $5 a day/no benefits.

What is the new administration doing to address the trade imbalance?   Why doesn't Mainstreet come first in all these ponzi schemes?  Why cater to special interest groups?

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

Obama Expands Economic Goals as Outlook Dims

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, December 20, 2008; 4:56 PM

Faced with an increasingly dire economic outlook, President-elect Barack Obama has expanded his goals for a massive federal stimulus package and now hopes to create or preserve 3 million jobs over the next two years, up from a goal of 2.5 million one month ago.

How can anyone create, save, or preserve jobs that are part the quick-sand US economy?  Who'd going to throw the rope? 

It seems like all these pork spending programs are designed to add weight to the drowning American worker/taxpayer.  Where's the rope?  Where's my $1 billion dollar check?  Is it in the mail yet?

With a range of economists, both liberals and conservatives, calling on the government to spend between $800 billion and $1.3 trillion to staunch the bleeding, Obama was told that the danger lies in doing too little rather than too much...

How is the nation going to pay for that?  Are their corresponding slashes in spending?  Programs that don't work?  Maybe his team is paying for that by trimming away at existing spending?

Will that $800 billion to $1.3 trillion start with the $350 billion left over from TARP?  What does Obama have planned for the remaining TARP funds?  More bonuses?  Resort spending?  Pork?

I think the largest bleeding is from the treasury - all those printing presses working themselves to death, no relief in sight for taxpayers.

Amazon has an interesting book - The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression (Paperback)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
This breezy narrative comes from the pen of a veteran journalist and economics reporter. Rather than telling a new story, she tells an old one (scarcely lacking for historians) in a fresh way. Shlaes brings to the tale an emphasis on economic realities and consequences, especially when seen from the perspective of monetarist theory, and a focus on particular individuals and events, both celebrated and forgotten (at least relatively so). Thus the spotlight plays not only on Andrew Mellon, Wendell Wilkie and Rexford Tugwell but also on Father Divine and the Schechter brothers—kosher butcher wholesalers prosecuted by the federal National Recovery Administration for selling "sick chickens." As befits a former writer for the Wall Street Journal, Shlaes is sensitive to the dangers of government intervention in the economy—but also to the danger of the government's not intervening. In her telling, policymakers of the 1920s weren't so incompetent as they're often made out to be—everyone in the 1930s was floundering and all made errors—and WWII, not the New Deal, ended the Depression. This is plausible history, if not authoritative, novel or deeply analytical. It's also a thoughtful, even-tempered corrective to too often unbalanced celebrations of FDR and his administration's pathbreaking policies. 16 pages of b&w photos. (June 12)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

From Booklist
Its duration and depth made the Depression "Great," and Shlaes, a prominent conservative economics journalist, considers why a decade of government intervention ameliorated but never tamed it. With vitality uncommon for an economics history, Shlaes chronicles the projects of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt as well as these projects' effect on those who paid for them. Reminding readers that the reputedly do-nothing Hoover pulled hard on the fiscal levers (raising tariffs, increasing government spending), Shlaes nevertheless emphasizes that his enthusiasm for intervention paled against the ebullient FDR's glee in experimentation. She focuses closely on the influence of his fabled Brain Trust, her narrative shifting among Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and other prominent New Dealers. Businesses that litigated their resistance to New Deal regulations attract Shlaes' attention, as do individuals who coped with the despair of the 1930s through self-help, such as Alcoholics Anonymous cofounder Bill Wilson. The book culminates in the rise of Wendell Willkie, and Shlaes' accent on personalities is an appealing avenue into her skeptical critique of the New Deal. Gilbert Taylor

Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Where is the Obama program does creating wealth fall?  New American businesses?  Building a new manufacturing base?  Creating and building businesses for the new America?  Making wealth, and not just spending money the nation does not have?


http://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0060936428/ref=pd_ts_zbw_b_3_9?pf_rd_p=400504501&pf_rd_s=right-3&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_i=3&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=17QVEZ08289HBRZJQJKK

...With the rapid expansion of the proposal have come fears that any spending plan could turn into a "Christmas tree" strung with "a large number of unrelated ornaments" as it wends its way through Congress, Summers said.

Because they are intended to pump cash quickly into the economy, stimulus measures are released from the usual budgetary constraints that require the cost of new programs and tax cuts to be covered by cutting spending or raising taxes elsewhere. Given a free pass to spend more than the nation spends on the Pentagon each year, the temptation to tack on favorite projects could be high.

It doesn't sound like a Christmas tree to me - it sounds like they've opened the express lanes to everyone, removed the speed limits, and eliminated the traffic merge/flow signals  on the highway on ramps.  Doesn't matter who or how many you've got in the vehicle, or how fast you're going, or what happens when you get to the end of the ramp.  Makes no sense, but probably some can see that there will be some problems.  A friendly reminder that there is "no free ride" and no "freeway".  The money has to come from somewhere.

A simpler vision of the new administration pork spending may be taken from the pages of the Dr. Seuss book "How The Grinch Stole Christmas!".   Max the dog, struggles to pull the Grinch sled.  The Grinch Sled is overloaded with holiday loot taken from Whoville.  At the last moment, Grinch has a change of heart. 

Unfortunatly for American taxpayers, the American Grinch Sled is on the fast track to falling off the mountain.  No heart here.  Future generations will only look at the waste in the valley below.  

...The team is also developing ideas to make the expenditure of the money transparent to the public, through regular progress reports or even Internet sites where "people could monitor the fraction of each project that had been spent out," Summers said.

Of what value is that?  Why not an online database to show WHAT the money is spent on?  Let everyone see that taxpayers are paying for special interest pork programs.  Maybe taxpayers might want to know why a fountain in Iowa is so important?  Why aren't local taxpayers paying for that?  Why is the federal government paying for road resurfacing?  Why aren't local communities paying for that? 

What about results?  Maybe taxpayers would want to know something like...how many person hours were used to change lightbulbs in a certain project and how long it took.  How many light bulbs were actually changed?  Some may want to determine how much money was spent per bulb?  How many people does it take to change a lightbulb in a federal building?

How many contractors does it take to repave a road?  How many sub-contractors?  How many hours of actual road building labor?  What did the original bid look like?  Itemized?  Cost overruns?  Did they actually pay all their subs?  Who are the businesses benefiting from all this taxpayer money?  How is government paying for these programs?  Who approved this program?  What programs were rejected?

Obama advisers said the team also plans to include a mandate that states use any money they receive within a definite period of time or sacrifice it to other states better able to make use of the money. They're also looking into the possibility of creating public-private partnerships to make the money stretch further.

How is the money being allocated to each state from day one?  Aren't their enough FEDERAL projects that need funding?  Rebuilding the interstate?  Railways?  Toxic waste cleanup?  Waterway projects?  Federal land projects?  National Park Systems?  Rebuilding military hospitals?  Veterans healthcare centers?  Cities for the homeless in the coming years?   Medical clinics for the poor and homeless?  Soup kitchens?  Surplus agricultural programs like in the past - American cheese, butter, and other production surplus?  Waste management?  This are just a few ideas.  There have to be more FEDERAL projects out there that benefit everyone.  Why shouldn't states and local communities spend local money? 

Why not just give taxpayers a break and NOT spend money states don't spend on time?  Where is the presidential elect budget review?  Cutting programs that don't work?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/20/AR2008122001395.html?hpid=topnews

[WhiskeyGirl]

Page GardnerPosted December 26, 2008 | 09:23 AM (EST)

...Save existing jobs and create new jobs. And help those in greatest need.

All three of these signposts point to a large, fast-growing, but long-forgotten group of Americans who should be a major focus of emergency economic measures: the nation's 53 million single, separated, divorced and widowed women.

Unfortunately, the first round of proposals for an economic stimulus seemed to concentrate almost exclusively on projects to rebuild the nation's physical infrastructure and jobs that mostly employ men. While these are worthwhile goals, the stimulus should also include services that maintain the nation's social infrastructure and jobs that mostly employ women. These services and these jobs are especially important for women who are striving to hold their households together on their own.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/page-gardner/not-your-granddads-new-de_b_153471.html

I have to wonder how many of the new infrastructure jobs will go to communities that have prospered during the past twenty years?  Will the money and jobs go to communities that have subsidized sports teams?  Spending for entertainment, while roads their schools crumbled? 

Or, will the money go for the common good?  Bring electric or phone services to those that remain without?  Fix the interstate system?  Really make federal buildings more energy efficient?  Or, will it go to programs that change lightbulbs at $10,000 apiece?  I know a lot of people who would love to get $10,000 a piece to change lightbulbs?

Will a global wage of about say $5 a day be the going rate for all these contracts?  Make those dollars stretch?  Maybe the actual work will be outsourced to save some money?  Maybe the back office jobs?  The accounting?  The legal resources?

Will the pork spending be concentrated in communities and places that have lived the the high life for the past twenty years?  Building monuments to themselves at the expense of roads and schools for everyone?

Will the pork spending just replace local dollars?  Not new spending, but new entitlement programs for Obama special interest groups?  Anything for the Federal Park System?  Border Control?  NASA?

Anything for businesses that innovate, make money, create new jobs?  Just more special interests pork?

just my humble opinions

[WhiskeyGirl]

Some of these projects are being touted as "shovel ready," meaning approved plans are on the books and could be started quickly. But "ready" may not be the same thing as "worthy." The stimulus package must get the economy moving, not repackage pork.

If these "shovel ready" projects were worthy, why would they be ready to go without funding?  Waiting for "pork" dollars paid for by future generations?  Is this pork that is being foisted on responsible state and communities?  Those that already pay stiff taxes to maintain roads, schools, and other projects on behalf of the public?  Should communities that choose entertainment and other projects over funding their roads, schools, and community projects be rewarded with pork?  Pork from the federal community barrel? 

Pork dollars building/maintaining public hospitals, schools, and roads for example, and no community will or effort to maintain them into the future?  Will the pork dollars go to those with the biggest 'needs' because they choose not to raise their local taxes?  Where are the cities for the future homeless in America?  Food pantries for the hungry?  Doesn't Capitol Hill and the incoming administration care about them? 

Although details are not yet clear, it appears that the new administration may propose funneling much of the stimulus money through state governments. States surely need the help, but without careful controls, the result could be a boondoggle of mythic proportions, a disgraceful waste of scarce resources that looks like earmarks on steroids.

Is the new administration pushing responsibility for spending and waste onto the states?  Why not let the states go into debt for this spending?  Why waste Federal tax dollars?  Maybe they should find ways to save federal dollars?  Eliminate programs that aren't workings and focus on those that provide innovation?  Gateways to the future?

Is the new administration ALREADY passing the buck (IN ADVANCE) for the waste, corruption, and debt?  "We didn't know-can't touch us."  Another less learned from corporate America?  People being paid millions and not a single one knew about what was going on in the company?  Why stockholders got screwed?

Simply put, states that fail to present a solid plan, that don't meet a stiff burden of proving they will make good use of stimulus funds, that cling to rural-urban divides and that abdicate public responsibilities in favor of powerful lobbies should be denied access to stimulus funding.  We don't really need the special interest groups. 

I wonder what the "rural-urban" divides are?

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/1EF74EEE948C30B6862575290071D068?OpenDocument

just my humble opinons

[WhiskeyGirl]

Is there any responsible person to manage the bailout and economy?  Why is it that some of the loudest voices on Capitol Hill today, are the same loud voices that refused to act to repair Fannie/Freddie and others years ago?

Alan Abelson, the perennial senior columnist in Barrons, Dow Jones’ Sunday magazine, points out on December 21 that Dr. Bernanke's latest nostrum for the ailing economy: or the Federal Reserve's approach to resuscitating the economy and the financial system is not doing well. The US economy is laid low “by a serious malady brought on essentially by a huge accumulation of debt accompanied by mindless consumption.”

Sadly, it seems the new incoming Obama administration wants people to start spending...spark the economy.  An economy that is already in flames.  Now, the government printing presses are intended to fuel the fire, ensure total destruction.  Just keep rolling out the pork spending, send the money machine into overdrive, and put millions on Americans on the road to debt slavery for generations into the future.  imho

Blinder points out that Paulson is opposing Sheila C. Bair, chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, who wants to use a little of the TARP money to refinance millions of mortgages. “Her plan may not be perfect — whose is? — But she’s pushing in the right direction.”  Paulson disagrees and refuses to devote any money to this purpose.

“Regarding mortgage-related securities — the “troubled assets” themselves — Mr. Paulson stunned markets on Nov. 12 by announcing that he wouldn’t spend a dime on that purpose, either. Oh? As one of my students asked me the next morning, shouldn’t they at least change the name?”

Change the name from TARP to "Ripoff, ripoff, ripoff..."

Where is all that money going?  To needy people?

Nobel laureate Paul Krugman on December 19, 2008 in the New York Times comes close in his description of what is happening to my understanding, discussed in my new book, Pseudo-Capitalism: Socialism for the Rich. [Full disclosure: TPR reporter and editor Jason Leopold wrote the introduction to Pseudo-Capitalism].

Writing of the Ponzi scheme of Bernard Madoff Krugman says, “How different is what Wall Street in general did from the Madoff affair? Well, Mr. Madoff allegedly skipped a few steps, simply stealing his clients’ money rather than collecting big fees while exposing investors to risks they didn’t understand. And while Mr. Madoff was apparently a self-conscious fraud, many people on Wall Street believed their own hype. Still, the end result was the same (except for the house arrest): the money managers got rich; the investors saw their money disappear.”

Who is TARP really helping?

...now the Bush government wants to engage in other maneuvers that amount to printing money. Who are they going to give this money to?  Why the very people, the bankers who destroyed the economy. Who is in charge of this?  Why Henry Paulson who was one of the leading members of the elite that profited enormously from the system, which turns out to be totally hollow. His partner Ben Bernanke who believed that there was nothing wrong with the free market system of 19th-century capitalism when it collapsed in the great depression bringing us Nazism, the Popular Front, Japanese Militarism, and Stalin’s total domination of Russian communism. A few cleverer moves by the central bank could have stopped it all according to these academics. ...

Will any of the management of these companies go to jail or the poorhouse due to all this lost money and investments?  I'm guessing they won't.  In China, from my reading, those disgraced in scandals take responsibility for their company's failures.  In the US, the government throws more money at corporate failures.  When does it stop?  The Chinese are rolling in money and probably having a good laugh too.

The new Obama administration changes this a bit and will be throwing money at states.   What happened to local communities being responsible for infrastructure?  Schools?  Hospitals?  Where did all the tax dollars go?  Any forensic accountants in the house?

Anyone see a problem with the high-roller lifestyle?

Enron, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Madoff, the Russian Oligarchs, the Chinese bureaucrats, have used their freedoms to enrich themselves while claiming to serve Capitalist corporations.  They have enriched themselves beyond previous criminals wildest dreams.

...Congress should not approve the next installment of TARP unless Paulson agrees to fulfill its stated purposes.

Congress will probably do one better and add on trillions of new pork spending for the
Obama administration.

"Financial engineering" based on statistics and using advanced mathematics and massive computing power could produce what medieval alchemists could not: Turn lead into gold.           

What distinguished both the sellers and buyers of these complex instruments is that, in most cases, they all shared the same advanced degrees from top universities, where they all were indoctrinated with the same theories.

A top university?  Maybe like Obama?  Continue the same destructive path? 

...That’s why other institutions, essentially national governments had taken over much of the risk aspect of investment, underwriting basic and applied research, encouraging economically stimulative activities like the arms race, the space race, the war against cancer, the industrialization of China against Russia, etc. Now, private investment is more timid than ever.  The government must set the goals, and the people must continually supervise their choices closely, with an intellectual discipline that the public has rarely shown. Or else, sadly, things seem destined to get worse.

And, from my reading, I believe Obama wants to kill research and development in programs like NASA.  A program that has provided new technology, innovation, and benefits to all of  mankind for many years.  NASA sparked the imagination of a nation and several generations of young people.  NASA is one of the few things left that provides hope for the future.  One of the few destinations for highly educated young people in the US and elsewhere. 

Where will Obama's highly educated young people work?  Any investment in the future from that administration?   Any investment in future engineers?  Future IT professionals?  Future actuaries?  Financial people with integrity?

Anything other than continuing to build roads to no where?   Houses with no one home?  Build schools without addressing the poverty of the mind?  Students and teachers and parents that just fill their days and never really learn?  Poverty of the mind?  A future that ensures entitlement program growth and national poverty?

http://pubrecord.org/commentary/584-who-must-manage-the-bailouts.html

Just my humble opinions.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Some banks are already gone, and Capitol Hill is paying them to get even bigger and take a bigger piece of taxpayer money -

If any doubt remained, it was put to rest by the minor scandal that has emerged over a quiet change to the tax code made by the Treasury Department. This change allows banks to apply the losses of other banks they buy against their own taxes. In other words, when a bank buys a struggling smaller bank, the buyer can deduct the money lost by the struggling bank against its own tax bill. This is clearly meant to further encourage merger activity—for example, when Wells Fargo bought Wachovia, it paid $15 billion. But Wachovia’s losses total over $19 billion. Meaning, Wells Fargo was paid by the government for buying a highly valuable bank, for a profit of $4 billion, at our expense.

By way of comparison, the SCHIP program granting health insurance to children in low-income families cost about $5 billion in 2007.

Money spent on banks is not available for other purposes.

Why it ain't coming back any time soon -

...The American situation was described by David Walker, former U.S. comptroller: “It is the government’s responsibility to set the terms and conditions on this money…They’re giving it out with no rules.”

So to summarize, after creating a national economic crisis by wildly overinvesting in securities representing bad loans, the banks are being paid, by us, to become even larger. In spite of their being too big to fail in the first place, and even if that means the government has to do the banks’ job for them. Of course, with one in ten mortgages in delinquency and job losses mounting, it’s easy to come up with some better uses of our tax money. But it would take a whole lot of us putting down the snack chips, turning off When Celebrities Attack and organizing ourselves to put pressure on the government and change the economic system. The “megabanks” of our “oligopoly of giant national institutions” aren’t going to overthrow themselves.

I wonder how much money it would take to pay off all mortgages under $250,000 for primary residences?  Some how, I imagine someone in the future will do a little analysis and determine that the nation could have ignored Wall St. and paid off everyone's mortage with all the money going down the TARP (and other bailout) toilets.  Next, they may conclude you could have paid every American to stay home for 5-10 years at say $50,000 with healthcare and provided a better jump start to the economy. 

The third conclusion?  Maybe any economy has to live through a depression...tinkering doesn't really help.  Feeding and housing the poor/unemployed/homeless--what is the plan for these folks?

Something I've learned over the past year - "Congressional and White House pork" lines pockets, it does not create REAL jobs.  REAL jobs promote prosperity.

JMHO

[WhiskeyGirl]

Every internet email gets a vote, gets entitlement benefits, but doesn't need a real job...

Obama May Let Real ID Act Just Fade Away

Friday January 2, 2009

...Obama administration to inherit a real mess on Real ID is spot on, not to mention the even more expensive messes faced by the states in dealing with the...high-tech drivers license program intended to somehow fight terror. ...remember that before she became President-elect Obama’s nominee to run the Department of Homeland Security, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, signed a bill barring her state from implementing the Real ID Act.

...the Department of Homeland Security is the federal agency responsible for seeing to it that all states, including Arizona, make the Real ID Act happen...citizens of states that fail to comply with Real ID could be barred from boarding commercial airliners, entering federal buildings or receiving federal benefits, including Social Security payments. Yes, they will still be "allowed" to pay federal income tax.

Under current regulations, the states have until Dec. 31, 2009 to prove that their driver’s license or ID card issuance systems are capable of verifying the lawful status of all applicants to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining REAL ID-compliant licenses. Full implementation of Real ID for all persons under 50 years of age is to be completed by Dec. 1, 2014, with all people “enrolled” by Dec. 1, 2017.

In his one-and-only chance while in the Senate to vote on an issue related to the Real ID Act, Napolitano’s new boss, President-elect Obama, chose not to cast his ballot.

...Real ID could cost the states from $11 billion to as much as $17 billion...perhaps the Obama administration will find a way to allow the Real ID Act to quietly fade away.

I wonder what progress the Obama administration will make to ensure the nations security?  Financial future?  Maybe it will just be one extension after another like with auto fuel economy?  Just like some do not want to look for voter fraud?  No one wants to eliminate all questionable voters that have been on rolls for years?

What is $17 billion?  Just a drop in the bucket for security.  Just a drop in the bucket for "recovery and restructuring".

Is this why the incoming Obama administration refers to "workers" in their publications and not "citizens" or in some other language that limits participation in entitlement programs.  "Workers" probably includes anyone that gets to this country legally or illegally and claims benefits.  No national ID, so the US is positioned to become the destination for anyone looking for a hand out or entitlement - it won't be based on actual contributions.  If they were smart enough to buy lots of stuff on credit or with a mortgage, they gets lots of value without have to pay for it.

Those that have been frugal and lived withing their means will be taken to the cleaners.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2009/01/02/obama-may-let-real-id-act-just-fade-away.htm

Vote early and often, a vote for every email address regardless of location or citizenship, vote multiple times, use your photoshopped utility bills or friend voucher for proof of citizenship...isn't America great?

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

I keep telling myself I need to step away from the Political thread here at ScaredMonkeys and THEN I find one more gripping web page.    

Annus horribilis... and you are pretty cute yourself

January 5, 2009, 4:17PM

(picture at site) 

"My bucket's got a hole in it, and I can't buy no beer"
Hank Williams

I am getting the feeling that we are entering the most fascinating period since the Second World War, and we are entering it without a road map... if there ever was a road map. Part of me is excited by the idea of finally seeing some meaningful political thought and action and the rest of me is just plain scared.

Nobody seems to know what's going on or when the waves of the tsunami are going to sweep over us. We know how the crisis reads, but we have yet to really see how it plays.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/david_seaton/2009/01/annus-horribilis-and-you-are-p.php

I did encourage someone to take advantage of all those vacation bargains that are being offered for January...despite their concerns about the economy.  I explained the theory of hyper-inflation and why, if you have two nickles to rub together you may be better off spending them today..and why what didn't disappear from their 401k may be gone anyway. 

"When?"  they asked "I need to plan for this."   

[WhiskeyGirl]

Discerning Light and Truth in ‘The Voice’

By Dr. Bruce R. Porter   Thursday, January 8, 2009

Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them.  Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves.  When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. - Narrative regarding Saruman, the evil wizard of Orthanc - J.R.R. Tolkien: The Two Towers

I have observed during the past election cycle a marked increase in angry and intolerant public dialogue. This is especially evident among those who loudly decry intolerance, champion “peace,” and protest “social injustice.” Many of these same people then engage in a clear double-standard by becoming vitriolic, intolerant, and resentful when they encounter Christians or Jews with a biblical world-view. Their rage is particularly vented toward constitutional patriots...

Perhaps you have noticed the angry reactions by some people when Barack Hussein Obama is questioned or criticized...

It’s easier to understand when such reactions come from those who regularly warm their attitudes at the fires of liberalism. Such fires burn hot at National Public Radio, the alphabet soup media outlets, or most print media like Time or Newsweek. These folk are manifestly “in the tank” for Obama, and the “spin” is almost always favorable toward “the one.”

However, from my (admittedly biased) perspective, there seems to be some sort of mesmerizing influence associated with this man that transcends the national pride we all feel that at least a half-black man was elected to the White House. This is an historical moment, but for many of us it is not the amount of melanin in B.H. Obama’s skin that troubles us. Rather, it is the extreme leftist worldview he espouses, and his highly questionable and radical associations that keep coming to light...Mr. Obama has not produced a certified copy of his birth certificate.   

I am reading Tolkien’s classic books lately, and my eyes fell on the quotation from The Two Towers (shared at the beginning of this blog). I couldn’t help thinking of the many Obama speeches I’ve watched, and how the crowds seemed almost in a euphoric state, hanging on his every word. A state of religious ecstasy comes to mind. However, as I listened to his words, I found it difficult to discern any particularly coherent idea or proposal. I mostly heard lofty platitudes, and catch-phrases, that evoked good feelings and emotions.

When I did hear him say truly alarming things, such as his July 2, 2008 speech calling for; “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military, his audience hardly seemed to notice the ominous implications. Only later did the blogosphere begin to say, “Hey, wait a minute! What exactly did he mean by that?” Obama supporters usually become rather annoyed when asked about this, I’ve noticed. 

(snip 3 paragraphs)

Over the holidays I was rebuked by a Christian friend that my trepidation about an Obama presidency was “disrespectful.” (I have to partially own-up to this, in that I referred to him as “Chairman Obama” in an unguarded moment and in mixed company.) Let me be clear that I DO highly respect the Office of the President, but that doesn’t necessarily require that I respect each and every office holder. I sometimes hear other conservative pundits bleat that we must “give him a chance” and “make sure he succeeds as our President.”

I beg to differ. I do not respect him. I don’t trust him, and if success as our President means that he will be able to implement his stated Socialist agendas, I don’t want him to succeed.

Further, I suspect he is unqualified for the Presidency under the U.S. Constitution, and unless he presents verifiable credentials that he is a natural-born citizen, we may be headed for an unprecedented Constitutional crisis that could do grave damage to our Republic.

I cannot support his plans regarding unrestrained abortion, appeasement to our nation’s enemies, or his antipathy toward “bible and gun clingers” (a group I identify with under the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution). The radical-leftist cabinet he is assembling is scary. I’m also concerned that his commitment to government “education” will translate into a devastating attack on home or private education.

Personally, I think Tolkien nailed it. Let’s all be extremely cautious about listening “unwarily to that voice.”

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7427

I am less afraid of a 'Socialist Agenda' than of an 'Agenda of Destruction'.

“a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military" - what is the point of that?  Where is the money to pay for this new "civilian national security force"?  What about our existing military? 

Is he planning to disband the military, send them home, and leave the nation defenseless while he builds the new civilian national security force under his direction?

just my humble opinions