Restore trust to restore economy

[WhiskeyGirl]

Restore trust to restore economy

Published: January 30, 2009 

Before we can restore this economy we'll need to restore trust. All of the burglaries, car thefts, and larceny reported in 2007, 9.8 million crimes, added up to $17.6 billion in losses. If you are going to steal, think larger. All of the honest and hard-working thieves in America would need three years labor to match Bernie Madoff. Mr. Madoff stole $50 billion in fraudulent trading schemes. This bonanza went unnoticed until collapsing under its own weight.

At its 2008 meeting the Securities and Exchange Commission proudly announced the recovery of a billion dollars in the return of illegal profits and levied fines. That's a return of two cents on the dollar of Bernie Madoff's theft, without counting any other miscreants in that year. Let's take 15 or 20 officers off the stolen car detail to look for the missing $50 billion.

President Obama's chief assigned miracle, among the expected many, is to fix the economy. It cannot be done without trust. Politicians, businessmen, financiers, government agencies, and private institutions were all satisfied with the workings of a market that didn't prevent this mess. Do you trust those parties to now make everything right?...

And now there is http://www.recovery.gov/ ... 

Check back after the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to see how and where your tax dollars are spent.

An oversight board will routinely update this site as part of an unprecedented effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government.

Hmmm...

I'd like to see when and how the "tax dollars" are expected to be collected tracked too.  How many years of taxpayer misery?  100 years?  Six or perhaps seven generations?  Maybe an admission that someone has to actually pay taxes for all this spending?

Why not root out that waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending first?  Reallocate all this 'new found' money to the recovery efforts?

Restore faith in Americans like myself, that government is more than just empty words, promises, and hot air? 

Show the efforts to reform first, stop spending money without giving taxpayers a realistic view of how the money will be repaid.

Maybe it's just another online ponzi scheme?  Online viewing meant to provide a false sense of security?

The nation is bankrupt.  How does Obama intend for the nation to pay back all these loans?

I see and hear nothing but empty words.  If Main Street wanted to spend all this money to stimulate the economy and make things better, they only need to contact their STATE representitives and INSIST on STATE spending and TAX INCREASES/DEBT. 

Why burden future generations?  Why not make any DEBT MISERY a grass roots movement in every STATE. 

It takes a village with responsible parents, not a nation, to raise children...

imho

[WhiskeyGirl]

LAMBRO: Rescue plan that won't

Donald Lambro (Contact)
Monday, February 2, 2009

Economists who have crunched the numbers tell me this part of the stimulus bill will put about $10 (for single taxpayers) to $20 (for couples) more in their weekly paychecks over the course of a year.

Few economists think $10 more a week will send cash-strapped consumers flocking to the stores on a spending spree, but this is what the Obama administration thinks will help low- to middle-income Americans cope with a fierce recession that will get worse before it gets better. "It has virtually no bang for the buck because it doesn't affect incentives for working, investing and things that actually make the economy go," said economist J.D. Foster at the Heritage Foundation.

"Even if you get all of the money at once in a government check or over a quarter of the year, it will have the same effect on the economy - zero," Mr. Foster told me.

Hmmm...some say the Bush stimulus check didn't do any good - no effect.  What good is $10 a week going to do?  Maybe two latte's at Starbucks?

...hundreds of billions of dollars will go out to dozens of federal agencies to further fatten their budgets and to bail out debt-ridden state governments that in the good times overspent like there was no tomorrow.

Why would anyone continue to spend money?  Are they planning the ruin or collapse of the nation?  National bankruptcy?  Debt bondage for the next 10 generations?

Some $300 billion goes out in just aid to the states that have a long laundry list of public-works programs that have been on the back burner for years until Mr. Obama came along and offered them a deal they could not refuse.

Why aren't these states paying for their laundry list of projects?  Keep the cost of these projects near and dear to the hearts of those that benefit?  The Fed is broke and deeply in debt.

...budget analysts tell me the really big money will go into "a black hole" of government largess that won't deliver the nearly 4 million jobs Mr. Obama says it will.

Why aren't they looking into saving money first?  Finding all that waste?  Recovering money already in the budget and spending that money first?

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad, the Budget Committee chairman, says at best it may create half that, and even that is questionable.

The Congressional Budget Office issued a stinging data analysis of the spending plan during Inauguration week that raised troubling unanswered questions about Mr. Obama's retro-New Deal infrastructure-spending scheme. It showed that just a very small fraction of the money being dished out will get into the economy by the end of this year. Less than half will get out by late 2010.

"The problem is, it won't work, and the American people will be watching at some point in the future to say, 'Well, what happened?' " Rep. Tom Price of Georgia told me.

One wonders if any White House reporter at the president's next news conference will ask Mr. Obama to point to another spending stimulus program that pulled the economy out of a recession. When I have put that question to economists, they can't come up with one example where infrastructure spending has worked.

I couldn't find anything that suggested spending your way out of a depression or recession or bankruptcy was possible.  Where is the evidence that this works?  Any hints somewhere I missed?

So Mr. Obama and the Democrats have a lot of political capital riding on the hope of his plan's success in the face of a deep recession, worsened by a shaky financial system. But its prospects in the short term do not look good.

Doesn't seem like they are the least bit concerned with repairing the 'shaky financial system' before it collapses.  Didn't seem like Democrats wanted to attempt fixes over the past two years when they controlled Congress.  Where'e all that money go?  Who waved it on it's way?

I think they need to fix the leaky financial bucket before spending more money.  Same with healthcare.  Fix the sucking cesspool soaking up more and more money and giving Americans less and less healthcare as compared to other nations. 

That debt is going to grow exponentially under the Obama regime as it tries to prove you can have a much bigger, costlier government and a stronger economy all at the same time. ... But Mr. Obama's big government requires a lot of money and that is going to be obtained through increased borrowing and higher taxation, making an undernourished economy even weaker.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/02/rescue-plan-that-wont/

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

A Flood of Money...

Stimulus is Too Heavy on Spending, Says Growing Number of Senators
Some Senate Democrats are joining the Republican chorus in opposition to the $900 billion economic stimulus package.

FOXNews.com

Sunday, February 01, 2009

If it's going to get bipartisan support in the Senate, "you have to change some of the provisions that are in there," said Nelson, who noted he has spoken with colleagues on both sides of the aisle who are concerned with several of the spending provisions. He said many of the spending programs are valuable, "they just don't belong in the stimulus package."

The stimulus package may also run into problems being implemented. A Congressional Budget Office analysis says some agencies may not be equipped to handle that flood of money and will have to put off spending it for a year or two.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/01/stimulus-heavy-spending-say-growing-number-senators/

Wow   

A flood of money...

I was thinking it was a pair of cement boots for Uncle Sam.  Maybe he'll be sleeping with Jimmy Hoffa.

What happens next year when states and local communities have even bigger holes in their budgets and Uncle Sam is still broke and bankrupt?

Why shouldn't everyone learn to live within their means?  There is no such thing as a real life money machine or money tree.  Someone has to pay for all this pork - not stimulus, just plain old pork.

Why not look for wasted money already in the budget?  Make every dollar do the work of two or three dollars?

imho

[WhiskeyGirl]

I like to think that I have a better understanding of the intention of the constitution in limiting the power of any Federal government - FIREWALLS between states.

Perhaps it was to help everyone get along on an even footing.  Ensure that any corruption, fiscal irresponsibility, or other catastrophe in one state does not ruin other states or the nation.

I wonder how much of any of the planned stimulus will go to states and counties that are among the richest?  The richest, the rallying cry suggest, with the most ability to pay for all these projects and entitlement programs?

From Fox news -

National Journal reported in April that D.C. firms spent $2.79 billion lobbying the federal government in 2007, up 7.7 percent from 2006 — in a down economy. Companies spend money only when they're relatively certain they'll get a good return on their investment. I can only speculate what that $2.79 billion bought, but rest assured, its worth a lot more than $2.79 billion.

The outlook from here is grim. As bad as the Bush administration has been about expanding the size and scope of government, President-elect Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress aren't exactly promising cutbacks. They've promised to expand the federal budget, the federal payroll, and the federal government's influence over the private sector. Obama's stimulus package calls for 600,000 new government employees.

And then there's all of that bailout money. At its core, the concept of a bailout is for the government to take money from people and businesses that didn't make mistakes, and give it to businesses that made lots of them. The waste comes not just from the initial cost to taxpayers, but also in all the money companies will then pay high-dollar lobbyists in Washington to procure a part of it.

America's wealthiest counties ring a city where the chief industry is government — and the entire region's only getting richer. That doesn't seem like a trend that bodes well for the health of a market-based economy.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479424,00.html

And, I will add, there doesn't seem to be any reform in sight - nothing to stop the people and problems that created the need for bailouts.  For some reason, the new administration doesn't seem to be interested in getting to the root of the problem.  Why?

Who are the people who made all the money while creating a financial black hole?  Who profited from campaign contributions, lobby money, and money from special interest groups and their employees?

Do the bailout recipients still enjoy good paying jobs?  Nice homes?  Do they worry about how they are going to feed their family or how they are going to pay the mortgage?   Or, are they just standing in line looking for more bailout money?  Maybe they've taken in their hats and are just content to let this burp in the economy pass them by...

The world should revolve around Main Streets everywhere, not around Washington D.C., and other places that seem to exist to suck up opportunity and prosperity from everyone and produce poverty for the masses.

imho

[WhiskeyGirl]

Op-Ed Columnist

Bailouts for Bunglers

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: February 1, 2009

“We have a financial system that is run by private shareholders, managed by private institutions, and we’d like to do our best to preserve that system,” says Timothy Geithner, the Treasury secretary — as he prepares to put taxpayers on the hook for that system’s immense losses.

Meanwhile, a Washington Post report based on administration sources says that Mr. Geithner and Lawrence Summers, President Obama’s top economic adviser, “think governments make poor bank managers” — as opposed, presumably, to the private-sector geniuses who managed to lose more than a trillion dollars in the space of a few years.

...If taxpayers are footing the bill for rescuing the banks, why shouldn’t they get ownership, at least until private buyers can be found? But the Obama administration appears to be tying itself in knots to avoid this outcome.

If news reports are right, the bank rescue plan will contain two main elements: government purchases of some troubled bank assets and guarantees against losses on other assets. The guarantees would represent a big gift to bank stockholders; the purchases might not, if the price was fair — but prices would, The Financial Times reports, probably be based on “valuation models” rather than market prices, suggesting that the government would be making a big gift here, too.

And in return for what is likely to be a huge subsidy to stockholders, taxpayers will get, well, nothing.

...President Obama denounced Wall Street bonuses in his latest weekly address — but according to The Washington Post, “the administration is likely to refrain from imposing tougher restrictions on executive compensation at most firms receiving government aid” because “harsh limits could discourage some firms from asking for aid.” This suggests that Mr. Obama’s tough talk is just for show.

Meanwhile, Wall Street’s culture of excess seems to have been barely dented by the crisis. “Say I’m a banker and I created $30 million. I should get a part of that,” one banker told The New York Times. And if you’re a banker and you destroyed $30 billion? Uncle Sam to the rescue!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1

Why isn't there some reform to keep the collapse from happening again?  Just keep bashing the poor taxpayers again and again?

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

Steele said the economy would likely recover within a couple years anyway, and government actions like the first stimulus package last year and the $700 billion financial bailout have produced, "In a word, nothing."

"I think if the government were to get out of the way and let the small business community and corporations of America weed themselves through this process, it's survival of the fittest," Steele said.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that banks have generally not used the money they received through the financial rescue package to increase lending as was intended. The article reported that banks receiving government money on average cut back on lending more sharply than those that did not receive funding. However, Citigroup announced Tuesday it will make $36.5 billion available for credit cards and home loans.

The Gallup poll also found that even with a stimulus package, only 10 percent of people think the economy will improve this year as a result of the plan. Fifty-three percent said the plan will either have no effect on their families or make their financial situations worse.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/03/americans-reject-want-major-changes-stimulus-poll-finds/

[WhiskeyGirl]

I don't think the pork package is a liberals dream, I think it is the fruition of dreams by those that want to destroy the county - mo.

The stimulus package written by congressional liberals is truly a liberal's dream, but if it's passed, it will be a nightmare for our country.

Not content with reaching into the pockets of present-day workers and businesses, this welfare package will still be emptying taxpayers' pockets 100 years from now. They're printing money as fast as the presses will run, making every dollar in your pocket worth less.

How many legislators do you think have read all 600 pages before voting on it? Even just a hurried glance at this thing is enough to give one goose bumps;


- $4 billion for ACORN (a group under investigation for voter fraud).

- $600 million for new cars for federal employees (Don't the buses run in D.C.?).

- $50 million for the Endowment for the Arts (Which religious statue will they put in the bottle this year?).

- $335 million for HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevention (I could tell them how for free).

- $650 million for digital TV converter coupons (Why did they stick their noses into this in the first place?).

This kind of governing makes me wonder whose side they're on. It certainly isn't the taxpayers'.

- Jack Banghart, Des Moines

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090207/OPINION04/902070311/-1/NEWS04

This gentleperson makes some good points.  It seems to me that society frowns of mocking race, religion, and any number of things.  For some reason, mocking religion seems to be acceptable.  Would the same art mocking (or choose your own word, maybe 'glorifying') religion be acceptable if it mocked race, sex, or any other protected characteristic in the same manner? 

Maybe there is no freedom of religion in this country?  

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

The stimulus may not stem the rot

Martin Baker

The US is falling apart in terms of infrastructure, service and customer care. Asia and the 'Third World' lead the way.

read more here -

http://www.business24-7.ae/Articles/2009/2/Pages/02082009_19f6a82bc6a94672947963fc6663b969.aspx

Without real jobs and a real economy, where is the future?  When will the new administration do something to stop the flow of money out of the country?  When will they create a sustainable economy?

This looks like an interesting article, but for some reason, the article cannot be found.  The web page opens fine, but the article does not.  Is this censorship?

[WhiskeyGirl]

The controversial amendment would prohibit most purchases of foreign iron and steel used in the infrastructure projects to be funded by the 819 billion dollar stimulus.

The US provision bars spending of the funds made available by the legislation on any infrastructure project "unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is produced in the United States."

Exceptions would be made if the head of the federal department or agency determines that applying the provision "would be inconsistent with the public interest"; there was an insufficient quantity US iron and steel of satisfactory quality; and inclusion of US iron and steel would increase the cost of the overall project by more than 25 percent.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1233240422.13

What is the point of spending money on a project to stimulate recovery and reinvestment if the U.S. buys good and services from abroad that are available locally?

Why not reinvest in America?  Isn't that one of the points?  Help our own economy recover?  Create jobs, even temporary ones for Americans?

What happened to free trade?  Trade with nations that place similar burdens on their business community?  Nations that encourage living wages?  How can anyone compete with slave wages?

jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

German Chancellor Angela Merkel would likely welcome any shift in American thinking. She has warned against national subsidies and protectionism in the wake of the global economic and financial crisis. "I am very wary of seeing subsidies injected into the US auto industry," Merkel said last week. "Such periods must not last too long because they inevitably lead to a certain degree of distortion and, quite frankly, constitute protectionism."

Merkel was also speaking out against comments made by the French government. On Friday, French Economics Minister Christine Lagarde described a little bit of protectionism during times of crisis as a "necessary evil."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,605185,00.html

Balance of trade?  How much is left for the U.S. to export?  Debt payments?

[WhiskeyGirl]

New era of irresponsibility

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Last October, while campaigning in Toledo, Ohio, Barack Obama called for "a new ethic of responsibility." The nation's economic troubles, he said, occurred partly because "everyone was living beyond their means," including politicians who "spent money they didn't have."

In his inaugural address last month, Mr. Obama regretted "our collective failure to make hard choices" and heralded "a new era of responsibility."

Now President Obama, as one of his first priorities, is pushing a gargantuan "stimulus" plan that will add around $1 trillion to the national debt and cannot possibly work as advertised. Welcome to the new era of responsibility.

Remember when the problem was that Americans saved too little, preferring instant gratification even when we couldn't afford it? As Mr. Obama put it in October, "we were allowed and even encouraged to spend without limits, to borrow instead of save."

Never mind the disappointing history of using government spending to jump-start the economy. Although it didn't work in the United States during the 1930s or in Japan during the 1990s, Mr. Obama is eager to try again, like Bullwinkle reaching into his hat for a rabbit after getting a lion and a rhinoceros, exclaiming, "This time for sure!"

..."When it comes to rebuilding our economy," Mr. Obama warned just before the House approved the pseudo-stimulus bill, "we don't have a moment to spare."

Acting responsibly, in other words, would be irresponsible.

Jacob Sullum is a nationally syndicated columnist.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/08/new-era-of-irresponsibility/

I should probably take three breaths and think of something positive, FMR...

[WhiskeyGirl]

I read on the internet that some are calling this stimulus bill "The Generational Theft Act of 2009". 

It was ironically Karl Marx that said, “Crack-brained meddling by authorities can aggravate an existing crisis.” That’s pretty fitting for Congress, I’d say.

The reality of this situation is that the same people that caused this financial mess are the people that we want to solve it for us.

All the same, it also doesn’t seem like President Obama and Congress are actually that concerned about an actual “stimulus.” It seems they are more concerned about getting their lengthy document with 11,391 pet projects passed, including: $726 million for an after school snack program, $650 million for individuals to buy a $40 converter box for their TV, $4.8 million for a polar bear exhibit, $20 million for a Major League Baseball museum, $20 million for zoo renovations in Philadelphia, and other million dollar projects such as a water ride in Miami, reducing prostitution in Dayton, and corporate jet hangars in Arkansas.

Stimulus? No, this is a spending bill for all of the Democrats’ wish list of pork barrel projects.

This economic crisis is a superb opportunity for the Democrats to expand the size of government, while the people are scared, looking for answers and don’t have time to organize.

Freddie and Fannie were government-sponsored enterprises that acted as a private business but were funded by the government and thus, were corrupted just like anything the government touches.

Republicans and economists warned of Freddie and Fannie’s future.

In 2003, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors to Bush Gregory Mankiw went to The House and was harassed by Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.). They claimed there was no crisis; Freddie and Fannie were fine and Frank Raines was displaying outstanding leadership.

In 2007, Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) actually wanted to increase the role of Freddie and Fannie, which already was responsible for half the mortgages in America.

They privatized the wealth and socialized the risk and failure.

You don’t deregulate the government because it has the mentality of a 5-year-old and is not responsible. You don’t bailout the failed banks (who are now lending less than before they were bailed out) so that they hopefully distribute the money to the people. You go directly to the source for an immediate “stimulus.” If Congress passes a tax cut today, citizens will see it in their next paycheck. You do what Ronald Reagan did when he was confronted with a similar crisis in 1987. Instead of bailing anyone out, he cut taxes and opened the door for 22 years of prosperity.

http://kykernel.com/2009/02/09/republicans-must-not-be-blamed-for-nation%E2%80%99s-woes-bailout-misguided/

Please note - I don't want the same people who created this mess to solve it.  I believe there solution will lead to the downfall of this nation.  Such a sad situation after 200 years of forward movement.   

If your brother took your credit cards and ran them up over $800 billion, I would expect most people to go to the police with a complaint.

jmho