Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Obama's Attack on Charitable Giving

Charities Skeptical About Obama's Proposed Tax Change - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com:

"Ironically, Obama's proposal to change tax policy is intended to help raise hundreds of billions of dollars for expanding health care -- but Hillman said in the near-term, the tweak to charitable donations policy could put more strain on hospitals that rely heavily on philanthropy."

This is incredible stupid. Someone willing gives money to an objective "good cause" (ie an approved charity) and in the past the Government gives a tax break to the person giving the money. The tax break isn't extra money, or less taxes on the rest of their money, it just a simple deal - If you give money away to help others, the government won't make you pay taxes on that money.

Example:
Now,
You give $100 to a worthy charity of you choice
You don't pay taxes on that money.

New plan (with correct math - it's very complecaited!)
You give $100 to a worthy charity of your choice
You also give $7 to the government (to fund some atrocity like medical experiments on human embryos)
for a total of $107

or more likely...
You pay $7 in taxes on the $100 of income if you give it away
If you keep it, you pay $35 (and only "keep" $65)
So for every $100 you make, you can keep $65 or give $93 away
Where as before, you could give away the whole $100


This is a stupid plan, and it's SO Stupid I think it's a distraction and I question the real reason behind it... which I think will be to re-categorize what is and isn't an "approved charity"....more on that later. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Sunday, February 15, 2009

The Illustrated Road to Serfdom

WOW..

I hope everyone reads this.
I'm not saying it IS happening, just that it honestly COULD happen.
The emotion, rather than logic, that got Obama elected is troubling to me, and could be the beginning of something like this. The power of the government over the economy is certainly increasing now, and rather illogically and quickly. And don't forget the speed in which is "must" be done.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
-- Thomas Jefferson (Attributed)


The Illustrated Road to Serfdom [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Obama's So-Called Stimulus: Good For Government, Bad For the Economy

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Thursday, January 22, 2009

The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism

Buckle up!! We're in for a rough ride...

TheHill.com - The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism

The Obama presidency: Here comes socialism
By Dick Morris
Posted: 01/20/09 06:12 PM [ET]

2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65 and 1981-82 as years that will permanently change our government, politics and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama. Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We will shortly become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, or Sweden — a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn — although they will make it less painful — but they will do a great deal to change our nation.

In implementing his agenda, Barack Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal, but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures only succeeded in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower. And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes, copyright 2007.)

But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage and a host of other fundamental changes.

Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years. But freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.

But it is not his spending that will transform our political system, it is his tax and welfare policies. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will so sharply cut taxes on the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from the current one-third of all households to more than half. In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.

Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression. Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.

In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will only be able to afford dividends for preferred stockholders — the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock? And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.

Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have already done with Citibank).

Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.

But it is the healthcare system that will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The current debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million will now have to serve everyone. And, as government imposes ever more Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)

And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can in order to make red states like Texas into blue states like California. By the time he is finished, Latinos and African-Americans will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).

And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the current level of about 12 percent.

Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.

But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.

So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012 and probably by 2010 as well. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization and the crippling of talk radio.


Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage. To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com. To order a signed copy of their new best-selling book, Fleeced, go to dickmorris.com.
[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Friday, December 19, 2008

The "One in 10 Jobs Tied to Autos" Lie

This has been soundly discredited, but people keep using it.

It proves the old saying that if you keep saying a lie enough times, people will start to believe it.


ABC News: One in 10 Jobs Tied to Autos? Not so Fast [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Distributism and Socialism:

Distributism and Socialism: Part Two:

"Why must there be institutions so large that they cannot be permitted to fail, and must be rescued by the common purse?"
This has been my point all alone. I don't think we need much detailed oriented regulation. Big we do need "size" regulation. Not just size limits on monopolies like Standard Oil or AT&T but size limits on single companies within a sector. If a company gets "Too Big" to be "allowed to fail" then it must be broken up into smaller companies at CAN be allowed to fail. If it's a bank or investment firm, there needs to be some protection to the money in the accounts, but the organization that runs the company should be allowed to totally fail.

The real fear of that real possibility of failure will do more to control the market and the risk the company takes than any regulation could hope to do. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Plenty of rich people that we can tax



UNBELIEVABLE...

YouTube - Barney Frank: Plenty of rich people that we can tax [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Trillions Disappear - But Where Did Money Go?

If the company is still in business, then their stock still has some "real" value. But if the company goes bust, then their stock is indeed worthless and the money is really gone.

The whole stock market could be trading "baseball" cards and I think people would understand the risk they are taking by buying stock. It's only worth what the company pays in dividends (if anything) or what someone else is willing to pay for it. Like a baseball card is only worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it, it has not real value itself.

Stocks do have some real values, and I think ALL stocks should pay dividends. If owning stock is ownership in the company, then you should get a part of the profits the company makes. But I don't think it really works like that anymore, if it ever did.

FOXNews.com - Trillions Disappear in Stock Market, but Where Did Money Go? - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

What Obama and McCain won’t tell you

Very interesting...

It's going to get harder
It's going to take longer
Not everyone should own a home
Borrowers share some of the blame (not just the predatory lenders)
Your home isn't worth what you think it is
Taxes will eventually go up
Learn about how money works before you complain
.. and more

The Truth: What Obama and McCain won’t tell you about your money | I Will Teach You To Be Rich [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

FDR's Policies Prolonged Depression by 7 Years

I hope someone is Washington is reading this...

FDR's Policies Prolonged Depression by 7 Years, UCLA Economists Calculate / UCLA Newsroom:

"In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933." [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Monday, October 06, 2008

How much is that in Apollos?

How much is that in Apollos? - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com: "How much will $700 billion get you? Roughly speaking, the widely publicized cost of the financial bailout … er, rescue package … is equal to seven Apollo programs,"

Note that the Sweeteners alone equal ONE Apollo program (in today's dollars). [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Flawed but Necessary?

I still don't buy it...
.. but like I said, we'll never know if this is better or worse than doing nothing would have been.. but waiting for a better bill.

I still think this is TOO flawed....TOO complex... and TOO expensive to be a good thing.

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Bailout bill includes unrelated things

arrrrggghhhh!!

I hate this bill and anyone that voted for it...
I guess I'll never know if it was really needed or not.
Kinda like the Iraq war, we'll never know if Saddam would have eventually given WMD to terrorist or not.
And like Global warming, we'll never know what would have really happened if we did nothing.

Bailout bill loops in green tech, IRS snooping | Politics and Law - CNET News [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Monday, September 29, 2008

Pelosi Attacks Bush, Praises Clinton

This is INCREDIBLE. Pelosi can't resist blaming the "Bush" policy's for something he didn't cause. Federal spending didn't cause this, and the recession actually started when Clinton was sill in the Whitehouse, Bush didn't inherit surpluses, he inherited a burst "dot com" bubble. Clinton did NOT cause the dot-com bust, and Bush did not cause this one. This was cause by the "sub-prime" mortgage lending, and it was liberals in Washington that insisted on lending to people that couldn't afford houses, and they told Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to do just that. Then the real estate bubble hit (again not caused by anyone in DC) and home values got unreasonable. However there was still a "lend to anyone" mentality. So now we have a lot of foreclosures on loans given to people that shouldn't have had one, on a home that was unrealistically overpriced. This led to a lot of bad debt being traded and whoever got stuck holding the "hot-potato" when the music stopped is in serious trouble. And just how did Bush cause all of this?

I agree then needs to be some more regulation in how mortgage backed securities are packaged and bought and sold. But that doesn't need to be in this bill. This bill just needs someway for the federal government to buy these assets and then deal with them.

Regardless, this speech is poor leadership right before a "must pass" bill.

[This Post Continues after the jump...]

Sunday, September 28, 2008

How The U.S. Government Engineered The Current Economic Crisis

This is what I was thinking... these loans were called "sub-prime" for a REASON.. and it wasn't Wall Street that wanted to make these loans, it was Washington!! No, once it got rolling, Wall Street ran with it while the times were good... so they aren't innocent by any means..


How The U.S. Government Engineered The Current Economic Crisis [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Friday, September 26, 2008

The Key to Passing the $700 Billion Bailout Is Insurance

Note to Paulson: The Key to Passing the $700 Billion Bailout Is Insurance - Michael Barone usnews.com

Wow, this explains it better than anything else I've seen. I heard this morning on the news that the republicans wanted to use "loan garuntees" instead of purchases, but that didn't mean anything to me then (just financial gobbly-goop) but now the term means something.. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Republican anger at ‘financial socialism’

FT.com / In depth - Republican anger at ‘financial socialism’

I too don't like this idea... I don't know the details, but the idea stinks..

If these are bad loans, then they need to be sold at significantly less than face value... the people that gave out these loans need to be taught a lesson, the same with the people that bought them. I know the 2nd part is harder, these loans were hidden in bundles with "A+" credit ratings. The system failed and no government regulation is going to fix it. The companies that rated these loans too highly NEED to go out of business. The NEW companies that take their place will have stronger rules... other investment companies that survive will have stricter rules on what they buy.

In other words ALLOWING these companies to fail will correct the market more and anything congress can do. Primarily the mortgage compies that gave out these bad loans should be allowed to FAIL, anyone that invested in them should loose their money. Also the credit rating companies and their stock owners should be allowed to fail.

Finally, people and compianies that bought over rated bad loans should be helped out, buy the loans back for 80% of its value or something like that... then the government can work with the borrowers to pay back only 75% or something like that. (some people would still pay 100% of their loan back, maybe that's unfair, but I'm paying 100% of my loan, so others can too, there are no real "innocent" victums here)

Most People get to keep their houses, the broader market gets most of it's money back (enough to keep them afloat) and the government only pays the different (what they by the loans for plus whatever they can get from the homeowners).

This can be done without costing 700 Billion if it's done right... [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

USA Attitudes are changing

and we're doomed...

Three Questions:
• What should be the role of government?
• Should moral absolutism or moral relativism guide our actions?
• Should our foreign policy primarily pursue unilateral interest through military power or a multilateral approach grounded in diplomacy?

The answers seem to be changing...

For the record, I think the 3rd question is biased and worded in a very liberal way (of course this is an Op-Ed so it is allowed). The question shouldn't be military vs diplomacy. It's not like conservative want to close the State Department and liberals want to close the Defense Department. And it's not even about a balance between the two. It's really about the UN and how much it should effect us. Opinions of allied democracy should effect our foreign policy, but the UN is neither an ally nor a democracy and should not drive or limit US foreign policy.

Op-Ed Contributor - Another Country - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com [This Post Continues after the jump...]

In capitalism, failure is not a dirty word

Private companies make enormous profits and justify it saying they are taking the risk, they should reap the benefits when things work out. But are they really taking any "risk"? The fact is some of the companies are just "too big" to be allowed to fail. If that's the case, then they should be split up like monopolies are split up. Monopolies are "too big" to allow for competition and they can legally be split up.

Likewise companies that get so large that their failure would hurt too many people must be split up somehow. If that can't be done, then we need to be willing to allow these large companies to actually fail. If a company gets too large that we are unwilling to let it fail, then there is no longer any "risk" for that company and therefore there is no justification of private ownership and huge profits. If the government/people guarantee the company, then the govt/people should reap the benefits/profits.

But I don't like government/public ownership of private companies. I prefer limiting company size (as we already do in some cases of media ownership, monoplies, utilities, etc) rather than some kind of public ownership.

OpenMarket.org » Archive » Lehman bankruptcy: In capitalism, failure is not a dirty word [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

David Walker - Big Numbers and they're all Bad.

Some great videos from David Walker - Until last month, he was the Comptroller General of the US.

This guy knows (or should know) his stuff and he's concerned about our financial future. We simply CANNOT keep going at this. Social security and Medicare are going to swamp us if we don't change something.

By something, I mean ANYTHING but what we are doing. If we want socicial security and social health insurance, that's an option, but we have to actually PAY for it. We must stop borrowing and deficit spending. If it's the "right thing to do" as some claim, then they must support raising the taxes to pay for it. You can't have it both ways like we've been doing.





Here's a 60-Minutes video of Mr. Walker
[This Post Continues after the jump...]