Subject: A Must Read for Grandparents... and everyone
---
Seems it is boiling down to tea versus kool aid and much as I like tea I suspect kool aid will win.
As we know, Obama is king, the media is on his side though they have been mouthing about being perturbed by his tyrannical behaviour of late.
When push comes to shove, Democrats will berate Republicans for their witch hunts and the public will buy it, the Tea Partyers will be classified as cranks and mal-contents and the public will agree and finally, the press will rally to Obama's cause and the public will be swayed.
Obama has been given a great deal of latitude by virtue of the fact that he is our first black president.
No, most who voted for him did not expect he would go as far as he has in ignoring the rule of law in his zeal to impose his brand of hope and change but they are reluctant to challenge him because that would put them out of step and being the sheep they are they will not stray from the ideological flock.
Congress can investigate away and Obama and his lap dogs will delay, obstruct and ignore. They believe they have the upper hand and they probably do; not because they are right or their positions are defendable. It is simply a matter of inertia, indifference and uncaring by those who cannot connect dots and do not see Obama, his thuggish appointments and lackeys as a threat to our freedoms.
After all, Obama has taken the high ground with his claim of fairness, being for the little guy and fighting against special interests while he traipses off to Hollywood gathering coins from the elite etc..
His is a bait and switch act par excellence and far too many are hooked. His actions are comparable to tin horn dictators but most are blinded by his smile and still swoon over his soothing wordsmanship.
No, Chris Matthews no longer gets those leg tingles but he is still on Obama's team because home is where your heart is and Republicans and Conservatives are heartless uncaring souls.
When Obama's term ends it may be too late to undo much of the damage he has done to our Constitution, freedoms, our foreign policy and prestige. The heavy lifting will be there for his successor and whomever follows will have a weighty challenge.
Far too many thought they were doing right by going far left. Those who supported the ideas of the Tea Partyers were castigated and vilified for warning about the attacks on our civil rights, our freedoms and for reminding us that government bureaucrats should serve and be subservient not defy and be arrogant. The Tea Partyers sought to remind us what our Founders feared but far too many have turned a deaf ear.
Nothing was evident, nothing was clear enough. We had to look behind the facade, we had to think and reason for ourselves. Alas, our schools no longer challenge our minds as they should. Rather they seek to make us feel secure in our intellectual state of vapidness.
As long as the stock market, homes prices and consumer confidence index are soaring why worry? Are they not the true determinants of how well off we are? Meanwhile, the economic termites are there eating away at the fabric of our society and currency in silence. The consequences of buying 'feel good' with debt are not yet detectable so why worry? The future always takes care of itself, right? Naysayer warnings are distasteful and therefore, not good for the punch bowl so best ignore them. Like college students, we find binge drinking is better than the sobriety that is identified with reality.
Well I am not clairvoyant enough to know when it will hit the fan, surely it will if history is reliable. Preparing for that inevitable day is where I am focused but I find it a lonely and challenging vigil.
Japan's debt to GDP is 250% whereas our is approaching only 100%. Aren't we lucky! (See 1 below.)
---
Economics vs needs - Sowell. (See 2 below.)
---
Bill Gross believes Fed will ease later in the year. (See 3 below.)
---
Gerald Seib finds most presidents are paradoxes! Not if you do not believe what they say! (See 4 below.)
---
---
Bill Gross believes Fed will ease later in the year. (See 3 below.)
---
Gerald Seib finds most presidents are paradoxes! Not if you do not believe what they say! (See 4 below.)
---
HAPPY FATHERS DAY to those who are and humbug to those who fathered and abdicated their responsibility and are listed as deadbeats in the local paper.
---
Dick.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Former GOP Senator Judd Gregg to Moneynews: US Debt-to-GDP Ratio Is Exploding
The debt-to-GDP ratio in the U.S. is moving to dangerous levels seen in Europe, said former Republican Senator Judd Gregg.
"We know that once a country's cost is at 60 percent debt-to-GDP level they're in trouble," he told Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview.
"Historically our debt-to-GDP level is 35 percent up until three, four years ago. Then it's bounced," said the veteran politician, who also was governor of New Hampshire and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives,
"Now it's up to around 70 percent. It's headed toward over 100 percent. You look at Greece, you look at Spain, you look at Italy, you look at France. Their debt-to-GDP ratios exceed 100 percent and they're essentially in bankruptcy or headed in that direction. Unfortunately, our debt-to-GDP ratio is heading in that direction, too."
The Republican discussed his service on the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which he said came to the conclusion that "we could stabilize [at] 70 percent and we'd be doing a good job." Gregg said that would require a reduction in spending by, "at that time, that was two years ago," $4 trillion over 10 years.
"Now we need to reduce spending by approximately $5 trillion over 10 years in order to hit that same number." Gregg said.
Putting politics before people was another topic Gregg covered when discussing his time on Capitol Hill.
"There's a natural tendency in Congress to want to get re-elected first and not worry too much about anything else," he said. "It's a difficult issue because these are complex questions. They involve very important issues that affect all Americans — Medicare, Social Security, tax reform," he said.
"When you step on to that ground, you're stepping on to a very volatile area of politics. But at its core is a question of whether or not we have a solid country, and if you don't have a solid country, then you're not doing your job as a member of government."
Gregg also discussed his recent appointment as CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
"One of the great advantages that America's always had is we've had a very strong capital market," he said.
"If you … want to take a risk, put sweat equity into your activities, and, as a result, are successful and start to create jobs, you're probably going to have [to] find some money to support you even doing that," he said
"And what America has is a capital market which allows you to get those types of funds, either through borrowing or through direct capital investment. It's a very integrated system and it basically has worked fairly well making us the most prosperous country in the world, in history. It's a critical element of maintaining our prosperity on Main Street."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Economics vs. 'Need'
Thomas Sowell
One of the most common arguments for allowing more immigration is that there is a "need" for foreign workers to do "jobs that Americans won't do," especially in agriculture.
The Fed is currently buying $85 billion of Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities a month.
"I have a sense that at some point later in the year they will have to taper, if only because the budget deficit isn't what it was," Gross tells Yahoo.
Editor's Note: Economist Unapologetically Calls Out Bernanke, Obama for Mishandling Economy. See What They Did
"Depending on the number, a $600 billion deficit does not allow for $85 billion a month in check writing." In other words, there won't be enough Treasury supply going around to enable the Fed to keep buying at its present pace, Gross explains.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the deficit will total $642 billion in fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30.
"If the Fed owns all of the Treasurys, then there is no market. At some point they taper if only to permit the rest of us to have a few."
But Gross believes the economy's sluggishness will keep the Fed from curbing QE much.
"I simply don't think economic conditions, whether it be this trek toward unemployment at 6.5 percent or almost desperately low inflation close to 1 percent, would justify significant tapering," he notes.
Excessive tapering could cause problems abroad too, economists say.
"The implications for China may potentially give cause for concern," Wei Yao, China economist at Societe Generale, writes in a commentary obtained by CNBC.
Already "we see a good chance of capital outflows and yuan depreciation in the second half," she predicts. Fed tapering could spark another large-scale capital outflow, "which could materially squeeze onshore liquidity conditions," Wei states.
The Republican discussed his service on the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which he said came to the conclusion that "we could stabilize [at] 70 percent and we'd be doing a good job." Gregg said that would require a reduction in spending by, "at that time, that was two years ago," $4 trillion over 10 years.
"Now we need to reduce spending by approximately $5 trillion over 10 years in order to hit that same number." Gregg said.
Putting politics before people was another topic Gregg covered when discussing his time on Capitol Hill.
"There's a natural tendency in Congress to want to get re-elected first and not worry too much about anything else," he said. "It's a difficult issue because these are complex questions. They involve very important issues that affect all Americans — Medicare, Social Security, tax reform," he said.
"When you step on to that ground, you're stepping on to a very volatile area of politics. But at its core is a question of whether or not we have a solid country, and if you don't have a solid country, then you're not doing your job as a member of government."
Gregg also discussed his recent appointment as CEO of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
"One of the great advantages that America's always had is we've had a very strong capital market," he said.
"If you … want to take a risk, put sweat equity into your activities, and, as a result, are successful and start to create jobs, you're probably going to have [to] find some money to support you even doing that," he said
"And what America has is a capital market which allows you to get those types of funds, either through borrowing or through direct capital investment. It's a very integrated system and it basically has worked fairly well making us the most prosperous country in the world, in history. It's a critical element of maintaining our prosperity on Main Street."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Economics vs. 'Need'
Thomas Sowell
One of the most common arguments for allowing more immigration is that there is a "need" for foreign workers to do "jobs that Americans won't do," especially in agriculture.
One of my most vivid memories of the late Armen Alchian, an internationally renowned economist at UCLA, involved a lunch at which one of the younger members of the economics department got up to go get some more coffee. Being a considerate sort, the young man asked, "Does anyone else need more coffee?"
"Need?" Alchian said loudly, in a cutting tone that clearly conveyed his dismay and disgust at hearing an economist using such a word.
A recent editorial on immigration in the Wall Street Journal brought back the memory of Alchian's response, when I read the editorial's statement about "the needs of an industry in which labor shortages can run as high as 20 percent" -- namely agriculture.
Although "need" is a word often used in politics and in the media, from an economic standpoint there is no such thing as an objective and quantifiable "need."
You might think that we all obviously need food to live. But however urgent it may be to have some food, nevertheless beyond some point food becomes not only unnecessary but even counterproductive and dangerous. Widespread obesity among Americans shows that many have already gone too far with food.
This is not just a matter of semantics, but of economics. In the real world, employers compete for workers, just as they compete for customers for their output. And workers go where there is more demand for them, as expressed by what employers offer to pay.
Farmers may wish for more farm workers, just as any of us may wish for anything we would like to have. But that is wholly different from thinking that some third party should define what we desire as a "need," much less expect government policy to meet that "need."
In a market economy, when farmers are seeking more farm workers, the most obvious way to get them is to raise the wage rate until they attract enough people away from alternative occupations -- or from unemployment.
With the higher labor costs that this would entail, the number of workers that farmers "need" would undoubtedly be less than what it would have been if there were more workers available at lower wage rates, such as immigrants from Mexico.
It is no doubt more convenient and profitable to the farmers to import workers at lower pay than to pay American workers more. But bringing in more immigrants is not without costs to other Americans, including both financial costs in a welfare state and social costs, of which increased crime rates are just one.
Some advocates of increased immigration have raised the specter of higher food prices without foreign farm workers. But the price that farmers receive for their produce is usually a fraction of what the consumers pay at the supermarket. And what the farmers pay the farm workers is a fraction of what the farmer gets for the produce.
In other words, even if labor costs doubled, the rise in prices at the supermarket might be barely noticeable.
What are called "jobs that Americans will not do" are in fact jobs at which not enough Americans will work at the current wage rate that some employers are offering. This is not an uncommon situation. That is why labor "shortages" lead to higher wage rates. A "shortage" is no more quantifiable than a "need," when you ignore prices, which are crucial in a market economy. To discuss "need" and "shortage" while ignoring prices -- in this case, wages -- is especially remarkable in a usually market-savvy publication like the Wall Street Journal.
Often shortages have been predicted in various occupations -- and yet never materialized. Why? Because the pay in those occupations rose, causing more people to go into those occupations and causing employers to reduce how many people they "need" at the higher pay rates.
Virtually every kind of "work that Americans will not do" is in fact work that Americans have done for generations. In many cases, most of the people doing that work today are Americans. And there are certainly many unemployed Americans available today, without bringing in more foreign workers to meet farmers' "needs."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Federal Reserve will begin pulling back on its quantitative easing (QE) before year-end, predicts Bill Gross, co-chief investment officer of fund giant Pimco.
The Fed is currently buying $85 billion of Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities a month.
"I have a sense that at some point later in the year they will have to taper, if only because the budget deficit isn't what it was," Gross tells Yahoo.
Editor's Note: Economist Unapologetically Calls Out Bernanke, Obama for Mishandling Economy. See What They Did
"Depending on the number, a $600 billion deficit does not allow for $85 billion a month in check writing." In other words, there won't be enough Treasury supply going around to enable the Fed to keep buying at its present pace, Gross explains.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the deficit will total $642 billion in fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30.
"If the Fed owns all of the Treasurys, then there is no market. At some point they taper if only to permit the rest of us to have a few."
But Gross believes the economy's sluggishness will keep the Fed from curbing QE much.
"I simply don't think economic conditions, whether it be this trek toward unemployment at 6.5 percent or almost desperately low inflation close to 1 percent, would justify significant tapering," he notes.
Excessive tapering could cause problems abroad too, economists say.
"The implications for China may potentially give cause for concern," Wei Yao, China economist at Societe Generale, writes in a commentary obtained by CNBC.
Already "we see a good chance of capital outflows and yuan depreciation in the second half," she predicts. Fed tapering could spark another large-scale capital outflow, "which could materially squeeze onshore liquidity conditions," Wei states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)NSA Flap Shows Obama's Many Paradoxes
By Gerald F Seib
4)NSA Flap Shows Obama's Many Paradoxes
By Gerald F Seib
Simple people aren't often elected president. Instead, presidents tend come in complicated packages. So it is with Barack Obama. He is a man of many paradoxes, something that has never been more apparent than in recent days.
He is the constitutional-law professor and civil libertarian who, it's now become clearer, has overseen expanded intelligence surveillance programs that he acknowledges shade civil liberties. He is the supposed darling of the press whose administration has overseen more aggressive pursuit of journalists' sources than any of his predecessors. He is the critic of George W. Bush's national-security policies who has maintained many of them, even expanded some.
He is a man skeptical of many political conventions who is, arguably, the most successful Democratic politician of his generation. There are more examples, but you get the idea. It can seem baffling.
Yet it shouldn't be. Presidents rarely move in straight lines, and Mr. Obama has never really matched the caricatures of either friend or foe. Moreover, running a vast country in a dangerous world often compels changes in positions presidential candidates thought they knew for sure.
So paradoxes and seeming inconsistencies become the historical norm rather than the exception. Thus did Richard Nixon, one of the premier anti-Communist crusaders of his time, become the leader in opening the door to Communist China. Bill Clinton, owner of a brilliant mind, became tripped up by foolish mistakes. Franklin Roosevelt, scion of privilege and the upper class, excoriated the upper class.
As part of his crusade to cut government, Ronald Reagan promised to eliminate entire cabinet departments—Education and Energy—but did neither, and George H.W. Bush's read-my-lips pledge to avoid tax increases was followed by a tax hike.
Time and again, presidents bend to the hard realities they discover in office rather than the other way around. John Kennedy ran pledging to close a "missile gap" with the Soviet Union, only to discover once in office the gap didn't really exist. George W. Bush ran as a skeptic of the idea that the U.S. should engage in "nation building," yet embarked on two of the most ambitious nation-building exercises in its history, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Clinton's promise of a middle-class tax cut went out the window even before he was inaugurated, in the face of a worsening deficit.
In the case of Mr. Obama, such trends are compounded by the tendency of friend and foe alike to see in him characteristics that aren't quite there, and to project onto him positions they think he's embraced, even if he never really has. "A lot of people who voted for Obama weren't listening very carefully to what he was saying," says William Galston, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution and alumnus of the Clinton White House. "A lot of people are surprised because they had projected onto Obama their own desires."
Many who agreed with the Barack Obama who put the Iraq conflict into a category he called "dumb wars" were happy when he wound it down fairly rapidly—yet stunned when he actually ordered a troop surge in Afghanistan, site of the conflict he had always said he could support. Many who heard him rail against the conflict in Iraq also assumed he would take a softer line in the broader war on terrorism but now are surprised to discover that almost the opposite has been true, in the form of expanded use of drones against terror targets. Some of his friends have been appalled, some of his enemies pleasantly surprised.
Some of those thrilled that the country had in Mr. Obama the nation's first African-American president have been disappointed he doesn't draw more attention to it. Liberals who considered him one of their own were surprised it took him almost four years to back gay marriage.
Beyond this tendency to project views onto the president, Mr. Galston sees a larger misunderstanding of Mr. Obama at work on some fronts. "I think that Obama is a progressive with a capital P," he says. "He reminds me a little bit of Woodrow Wilson…And progressives have never been terribly moved by rights-based arguments. They're always more interested in arguments about solidarity, the common good and moving forward together."
Mr. Obama, he adds, "really does believe in government as an instrument of common purpose."
Thus has Mr. Obama invested much political capital in a health plan based on the belief that government experts can help both expand coverage and produce policies that bend down costs—classic progressive ideas. Meanwhile, he's invested nothing in the idea that more pure liberals really love, which is a government-run, single-payer national health system.
In sum, we've learned that stereotypes on left and right really aren't sufficient. Like his predecessors, President Barack Obama is more complex than that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment