Posts Tagged ‘Economy’

Dec
05

Are the American people tired of Obama’s big government?

0 Comments
Posted by Kim in Barack Obama, Economy, government

Nina Easton says yes:

When Obama took office, conventional wisdom held that the American people, jarred by a financial crisis they were routinely told was “the worst since the Great Depression,” would race into the protective arms of Washington. After all, the Federal Government had given us the New Deal in the worst of times and a patchwork of economic safety nets since. The idea is that we instinctively turn to its beneficent hand to ease the pain of hurricanes, floods, tornadoes–and recessions.

Yet in today’s hard economic times, something startling began showing up in public-opinion polls: fewer people than in the past wanted Washington to step in. In the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only 23% of respondents said they trust the government “always or most of the time”–the smallest proportion in 12 years. The percentage of voters who think government should “do more to solve problems and meet the needs of people” has dropped 5 points since Obama’s first weeks in office, while that of those who think government should leave more things “to businesses” rose 8 points. The shift is especially noticeable among independent voters, a small plurality of whom wanted government to “do more” after Obama took office; now–by a margin of 17–they think government does “too much.”

If these polls are accurate, it tells me that more and more Americans are reacquainting themselves with what it means to be American.

Oct
29

Is Barack Obama’s Domestic Agenda a National Security Threat?

0 Comments
Posted by Kim in Barack Obama, Economy, Military, National Security

That’s what I argue in this week’s American Issues Project column. Here’s a portion:

The health care reform bills circulating through Congress are job killers because many of their provisions include billions of dollars of fees and taxes that will hit the American people both directly and indirectly. The Baucus bill in particular is loaded with tax increases not just on individuals but also on insurance companies, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and clinical laboratories. All of these taxes will be passed on to and will be paid for by the American people through increased medical costs. These de facto tax hikes on the American taxpayer would be a bad idea in a good economy. In a bad economy, they are instant poison. They will add up to large increases in insurance premiums. According to the Wall street Journal, a study by WellPoint shows that premiums could triple under ObamaCare. This rise doesn’t even include the increases in health care costs that will occur naturally as technologies improve. Again, that’s more money ripped out of the American people’s pocket books.

We can expect similar increases in energy costs should the president’s Cap and Trade plan become law. The legislation in the House would limit energy producers to a ceiling of CO2 production via the issuance of CO2 credits. If these companies need additional credits to burn more CO2, they will have to purchase them from other energy producers who are producing less CO2. If a company goes over its credit limit, however, the government will slap it with a hefty fine. Experts in the energy industry fully expect this plan to drive up the cost of energy production dramatically, inflating energy prices for already cash strapped consumers. Energy consumers can also expect to spend more money on everyday goods and services as increasing energy costs impact all areas of the economy.

Inevitably, all of this governmental meddling will lead to even more Americans losing jobs. Significantly fewer taxpayers mean less revenue for the Treasury. It also means a lot more money will go out because of millions of long term unemployed Americans will require unemployment benefits, food stamps and other social programs, including subsidies for access to a government run health care system. Money will also be required to pay the salaries of the additional government employees who will staff these two new massive health care and cap and trade bureaucracies.

Something in the budget will have to give and you can be assured it won’t be either of the two new programs because once they are up and running, they will be as impossible to reverse as Medicare and Medicaid. So what part of the budget will have to be sacrificed in order to pay for these massive new government expenditures and entitlement programs? The same part that European countries sacrificed as a result of their ballooning social programs: the defense budget.

This massive government meddling will not bring down the deficit. It will only drive it up. It won’t bring down the cost of health care or energy. They will only go up even further, ripping money out of the American people’s pockets. Taxes will go up, more people will lose their jobs if these two huge government programs are implemented.

All this will lead to an inevitable conclusion: President Obama will have to cut the defense budget in order to continue funding his ever expanding array of entitlement programs and subsidies.

What do you think? Agree or disagree? You can leave a comment here or at the AIP column itself.

Aug
22

Barack Obama finally admits: Ten year deficits will explode to $9 trillion

0 Comments
Posted by Kim in Barack Obama, Economy

In an act of sheer cowardice, Barack Obama dropped this little nugget on the American people just as he headed off to a ten day vacation:

The Obama administration will raise its forecast for the 10-year federal budget deficit to about $9 trillion from $7.1 trillion, a senior administration official said.

The White House will try to use the new estimate as extra ammunition as it seeks a health-care overhaul in Congress. The administration says its policies are aimed at driving down long-term medical costs. The estimate reflects the grim long-term U.S. fiscal outlook, as baby boomers retire in increasing numbers and costs continue to soar for federal entitlements, particularly health-care programs such as Medicare.

The latest measurement puts the White House in line with previous updates from the Congressional Budget Office. The change stems in part from downward revisions of projected economic activity since late 2008, when the administration began putting together its latest forecast.

Can it be any clearer that the Obama administration is living in an alternate universe where inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit means he can’t help but drive up those deficits to $9 trillion in ten years? If that doesn’t convince you, how else can you explain Obama’s argument that those titanic $9 trillion deficits mean that we must spend a trillion dollars more on a national health care system?

I guess the president and his intellectual midgets had to admit that the CBO was actually correct in its analysis of Obama’s deficit spending. The question now is, will the Obama administration still try to deny with a straight face that the CBO is wrong when it argues that the Democrats’ health care bills will add even more to the deficits? I think we all know that answer to that one.

Gerald Celente, forecaster extraordinaire, put these $9 trillion deficits into context, and what he had to say should terrify you:

Jul
30

Michigan’s disastrous economy is…Engler’s fault?

1 Comment
Posted by Kim in Economy, Michigan

Each week a physical therapist from our school system comes to our house to provide physical therapy assistance to my four year daughter. She’s a very nice lady and I appreciate her help, but I have to say she has drunk way too much liberal kool-aid. We entered into a brief discussion about the mass exodus of high earning, educated people from the state who can’t find jobs. I expressed dismay that the governor and legislature weren’t doing more to help what small businesses were left in the state but were instead trying to enact more policies that would squeeze them even further. The physical therapist also expressed dismay at what is going on, too, but rather than acknowledging the failures of the current administration, she actually said, “well, you know, Engler laid the ground work for this because when he was governor he slashed all kinds of programs.” Her comments were convoluted but I got her message: it’s John Engler’s fault.

It’s 2009. Engler left office in 2003, over six years ago. Sadly, the physical therapist can’t accept that any of the problems facing Michigan today could possibly be the fault of Granholm’s and her liberal allies’ anti-business policies. No way. They had to be the Republican’s fault, even if he hasn’t been in office for more than six years.

This shift the blame mentality is common among liberals because Barack Obama is blaming Bush for his economy.

Jun
15

Obama’s house of cards is collapsing

0 Comments
Posted by Kim in Barack Obama, Capitalism, Economy, Politics

My most recent American Issues Project column was posted on Friday. In it I describe how Obama’s economic house of cards is collapsing down around him and us. Here’s a portion:

The Obama Administration’s economic house of cards is trembling and on the verge of collapse. This is not a surprise to those who paid attention to the sloppy workmanship that went into it. Nonetheless, the American people fell in love and bought the house sight unseen. Now, however, it has become apparent that it is a disappointment. Rather than purchasing a structure based upon sound design and construction, Americans got one that was thrown together without any regard to safety, detail, or craftsmanship. In spite of all this, President Obama told us we needed the house immediately and that there was no time to inspect its construction or verify that the foundation was sound or that its electrical and plumbing systems were in good working order. Instead, he insisted we had to move in immediately or dire consequences would follow. Five months later, it is clear that our house is falling apart. Obama and his administration, however, are going to great lengths to convince the American people that the problems with his economic house of cards are just cosmetic and easily remedied with a new coat of paint and a few extra nails. But the shoddy construction and design flaws have become obvious to everyone who is paying attention.

Barack Obama’s $787 billion stimulus plan is failing. The bill the president said would stimulate economic growth is actually decelerating the economy because there very little stimulus in the stimulus bill. Instead, the majority of the spending in the bill is directed toward accountability, education, aid to state and local governments, health care, energy programs, and food banks and other community organizations. As a result, 1.6 million jobs have been lost since president Obama’s stimulus bill passed. Oddly, though, he keeps repeating the claim that he “saved or created” 150,000 jobs, a number that is unconfirmed and unconfirmable because the US Department of Labor does not keep records of “saved” jobs. So where is Obama getting this number? Jared Bernstein, economic advisor to Vice President Biden, said he the figure was an estimate based upon what jobs would have been lost if the bill was not passed. In other words, the number was made up out of whole cloth. The lack of factual support, however, does not stop the president from continuing to repeat his claim. In fact, he is doubling down and saying he will “ramp up” the stimulus so as to save another 600,000 jobs this summer. Again, these numbers will be impossible to confirm.

The president told the American people that his stimulus bill would hold the unemployment rate at 8 percent. Without the bill, he said the unemployment rate would top out at 9 percent. Today our unemployment rate is at 9.4 percent, which is a significantly steeper rate than originally projected. Many economists and analysts are now predicting it will hit double digits by the end of the year. Mr. Bernstein is trying to shift the blame for the 9.4 percent unemployment rate on former president Bush, saying the unexpectedly high rate is due to the economic figures from last year’s 4th quarter. As the saying goes, only a poor carpenter blames his tools.

Read the rest. And if you have any thoughts, feel free to leave a comment either here or at AIP.

Mar
19

Coach K to Obama: focus on the economy not the brackets

0 Comments
Posted by Kim in Barack Obama, Economy, Media

Duke’s coach Mike Krzyzewski has a little advice for President Obama, a big basketball fan, that perhaps the economy is a bit more important than the NCAA brackets:

Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski isn’t thrilled his team got snubbed by the leader of the free world.

“Somebody said that we’re not in President Obama’s Final Four, and as much as I respect what he’s doing, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably more than the brackets,” Krzyzewski told a reporter from the Associated Press on Wednesday.

That’s advice Obama would be smart to take, but I guess when your job exceeds your capabilities, you will take any escape you can. Meanwhile, the media is in full leg tingle mode on Obama’s ability to fill out his brackets. No word on whether he used a teleprompter.

Hat tip to Gateway Pundit.

Feb
10

A better stimulus bill

0 Comments
Posted by Kim in Barack Obama, Democrats, Economy, Politics

Leave it up to a Blue Dog Democrat to come up with a better stimulus bill than the Porkulus bill Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have created. Will it get the attention it deserves? With the partisan media, of course not, but it should. The Examiner has the details:

Rep. Walt Minnick, a freshman Democrat from Idaho, is pushing a better idea: The Strategic Targeted American Recovery and Transition Act (START).

Minnick is a member of the Blue Dog caucus of occasionally conservative Democcrats. His START plan is a $170 billion “bare bones” pure stimulus approach that would put $100 billion immediately into the pockets of low- and middle-income Americans, then use the other $70 billion for basic infrastructure projects that create jobs. START requires that all funds not spent by 2010 be returned to the Treasury. START also stops stimulus spending when the nation’s Gross Domestic Product increases in two of three previous quarters, and all START payments are required to be posted on a public website.

Minnick introduced START as an alternative – just in case the legislative process stalls out, says press secretary John Foster. As one of the brave 11 Democrats who voted against Pelosi’s stimulus bill, Minnick explained to folks back home that he opposed the speaker’s version because it was so “Christmas-treed up” with wasteful spending, like $300 million for golf carts. Foster told The Examiner that the House leadership encourages members to do what’s best for their districts, so there has been no backlash. We’ll see how long that lasts.

Ed Morrissey remarks that this bill should change the debate. Unfortunately it won’t because the narrative has been written and disseminated: Obama’s bill is the only bill that can save us, even though it’s a monstrosity. Robert Barro, a Harvard economist, doesn’t mince words:

This is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s. I don’t know what to say. I mean it’s wasting a tremendous amount of money. It has some simplistic theory that I don’t think will work, so I don’t think the expenditure stuff is going to have the intended effect. I don’t think it will expand the economy. And the tax cutting isn’t really geared toward incentives. It’s not really geared to lowering tax rates; it’s more along the lines of throwing money at people. On both sides I think it’s garbage. So in terms of balance between the two it doesn’t really matter that much.

No kidding.

Jan
08

Democrats suddenly love deficit spending

0 Comments
Posted by Kim in Barack Obama, Economy, Media, Society

The Wall Street Journal points out the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrats as they support Barack Obama’s plans to massively increase spending in order to stimulate the economy.

Remember when Dick Cheney was pilloried for reportedly saying, earlier this decade, that “deficits don’t matter”? We recall reading any number of press releases denouncing the Vice President for supporting tax cuts that contributed to short-term deficits but also helped the economy grow until the deficits shrank nearly away. Yet somehow none of those same voices are objecting now that the government is spending its way into deficits that are so large they dwarf any during peacetime in U.S. history.

The Congressional Budget Office released its latest budget forecast yesterday, and we now really do have red ink as far as the eye can see. Thanks to a 6.6% decline in revenues due to recession, a spending increase of some $500 billion or 19%, and assorted federal bailouts, the U.S. deficit for fiscal 2009 (ending September 30) will nearly triple to $1.19 trillion. That’s 8.3% of GDP, which CBO says “will most likely shatter the previous post-World War II record high of 6.0 percent posted in 1983.” It certainly blows away any deficit this decade, not to mention the Reagan years when smaller deficits were the media cause celebre.

But there’s more. None of that includes the new fiscal “stimulus” that President-elect Obama has promised to introduce upon taking office in two weeks. The details aren’t known, but Mr. Obama and Democrats have been talking about at least $800 billion, and probably $1 trillion, in new spending or various tax credits and reductions over two years. Toss that in and add more expected bailout cash, and if the economy stays slow the deficit could reach $1.8 trillion, or a gargantuan 12.5% of GDP. That 2006 Democratic vow to pass “pay as you go” budgets seems like a lifetime ago, which in political terms it was.

Ed Morrissey commented on the Journal’s reports and reminds us of Alan Greenspan’s “irrational exuberance” comment regarding a massive growth in consumer spending and notes that now we seem to have an “irrational despair.” He also notes that the Democrats have a vested interest in pushing this panic because they can get the expanse of government that they want to keep themselves in power for quite some time:

All of this hysteria goes to one purpose: to create a sense of panic that will make any government intervention seem rational and reasonable.  Instead of taking policy one step at a time, schemes and plans get made only to be eclipsed by even more grandiose schemes and plans without ever having tried anything else first.  The TARP plan was never even given the chance to work, thanks to a panicked Secretary of the Treasury who literally begged for its funding and then used the money to start nationalizing private enterprises.

What gets built in a panic will not get dismantled when the hysteria ends.  We are creating a baseline of expected government costs that the Wall Street Journal warns will endure as an expectation.  America saw this after FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society.  Once Congress establishes a new level of confiscation and spending, it never reduces it — and only on occasion has kept it from growing.

He also opines that we’ve had it so good for so long because of Bush’s ability to keep us out of a long term recession after 9/11 that we don’t know how to behave when tough times descend upon us as they did in the 1970’s.  I think he’s right. Instead of hunkering down, saving what we can, finding ways to cut our own household spending, and waiting it out, we are now in a state of panic. We, with the media’s gleeful prodding, are convinced we’re facing an economy in dire straits unlike America has seen since the Great Depression.

Yes, it’s a great story to report for the mainstream media. They’re facing loss of profits, layoffs, and a dwindling market share, so if they can attract viewers and readers by reporting that the American economy is collapsing around our ears even if it may not be, they will. It doesn’t help that we, the American people, have completely lost touch with our sense of independence and rugged individualism that pulled us out of real economic hardships in the past.

Jan
04

A profile of the subprime mortgage mess

6 Comments
Posted by Kim in Democrats, Economy, Politics

The Wall Street Journal had a piece yesterday that offers a glimpse into the life and profile of a person who received a sub prime mortgage. She had no business receiving one. Her credit was a disaster. She already had creditors coming after her. Yet, a lender gave this woman a mortgage for $103,000.

Democrats like Barney Frank and Maxine Waters pull at the heartstrings and argue that everyone deserves a home. Apartments are homes, too, and I would argue that some people should be living there and paying  rent instead of a mortgage. Not everyone is capable of handling the responsibility of a mortgage. The Democrats don’t see it that way, however. To them a mortgage is a right, even if the consumer can’t pay it back and the thousands of defaults and forclosures created as a result send our economy into a tailspin the likes of which we haven’t seen in our lifetimes.

Here’s a portion of the WSJ article. I recommend you read all of it.

The story of the two-bedroom, one-bath shack on West Hopi Street, is the story of this year’s financial panic, told in 576 square feet. It helps explain how a series of bad decisions can add up to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Less than two years ago, Integrity Funding LLC, a local lender, gave a $103,000 mortgage to the owner, Marvene Halterman, an unemployed woman with a long list of creditors and, by her own account, a long history of drug and alcohol abuse. By the time the house went into foreclosure in August, Integrity had sold that loan to Wells Fargo & Co., which had sold it to a U.S. unit of HSBC Holdings PLC, which had packaged it with thousands of other risky mortgages and sold it in pieces to scores of investors.

Today, those investors will be lucky to get $15,000 back. That’s only because the neighbors bought the house a few days ago, just to tear it down.

At the center of the saga is the 61-year-old Ms. Halterman, who has chaotic blond-gray hair, a smoky voice and an open manner both gruff and sweet. She grew up here, working at times as a farm hand, secretary, long-haul truck driver and nurse’s aide.

In time, the container of vodka-and-grapefruit she long carried in her purse got the better of her. “Hard liquor was my downfall,” she says.

Hat tip @betancourtc

About me

NewTwitterTurnberry 003_2

I am a conservative. I believe in the greatness of America. I also believe that she is this world's last best hope for freedom, liberty, individualism, and self-reliance.

Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blogroll

Follow My Blog