Third Party & Independents Archives

It's About Time We Address the Problem

I’ve heard from seemingly every talking economist that the root of the financial crisis is sub-prime mortgages that are now too expensive and people are defaulting. I first heard this back in March 2008. Since then the United States government has taken strong, decisive action to do what? Well, nothing.

We gave Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson money to buy these mortgages but he turns around and bails out banks instead. We bailed out AIG and Bear Stearns among others. We even gave a handout to GM and Chrysler - as if putting money in their hands would help. None of this $2T went to salvage what was allegedly the epicenter of the current crisis. Just like Congress to fix everything but the problem.

Now, Republican lawmakers have decided to push for the one thing we needed back in March 2008 - assistance with these mortgages by way of reduced interest rate down to 4%. Not to say I favor bailing out the homeowner who bought more home than they could afford, but to say that if the problem truly is mortgages, then it is mortgages we should address - not insurance companies, investment banks, automakers, or parts suppliers. They all need to suffer along with the rest of us - especially the banks.

Unfortunately, the GOP waited until now to come up with this brilliant idea. But, in President Obama, they may very well have an ally in the White House and this may actually get done. Like most of America -I'll be watching carefully.

Source: NPR - Housing Fix? Republicans Push for 4% Loans

Posted by Christopher Tracy at February 8, 2009 12:17 PM
Comments
Comment #275222

One problem: the fix is for those who have good credit.

Or put another way, the people who have little debt, who aren’t behind on anything, and who have likely kept their mortgage payments up.

Or yet another way, precisely those people who the government doesn’t need to help.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2009 12:47 PM
Comment #275226

Just taxpayer money whizzed away. Scare the people. Make them beg for government to come and save them. Show big gov in action by throwing wads of green around the world. And without a ‘buy Amereican’ clause in the bill that’s exactly what you will get, throwing it around the world. How quickly it was to mass all the pork and ear marks they have ever dreamed of into several big spending bills. And, look how long it took, behind closed doors, to cut just a few bil from the package. I would like to have been the fly on the wall in those meetings. I recall the Republicans did it openly, putting up $150B of pure pork to ‘buy’ votes for the first bailout package. Wouldn’t it be nice to follow the money? Chinese and Saudi dollars that your kids and grandkids will be paying back over their entire lives. How much of this money will be used to purchase foreign products? How much will go into savings accounts in foreign banks?
Instead of spending to save ourselves, why not start saving some bucks.
Like, shutting down support for illegal immigration. How many jobs would that create? Calif’s debt could be relieved by 1/3 by stopping support for the illegal population. Why not close down the drug trade? Some $40-100B flows South every year, not to mention the expense of all the security and enforcement associated with drugs. Does Israel really need $10B in aid yearly? We should ask watchbloggers to come in with a list of programs/projects that could be cut or reduced to save money. We surely must be the laughing stock of the world.
This most recent stimulus package won’t be the last. These closed door debates will be going on for a couple of years.
Last year Lou Dobb’s noted that the gov should spend $2B to buy up ALL the defaults in the US but, they chose not to.
(include in here my usual spiel about the gov working to break the back of the middle class in getting us ready for globalization)

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 8, 2009 2:11 PM
Comment #275227

To put it into perspective, $825 billion is worth approximately $10,520 for each family in the United States, or $22,445 for each family with children under the age of 18.

Average spending for all family groups in the United States is similar to that of families with children. On average, families annually spend:

$2,330 on apparel and services,
$3,595 on health care,
$4,322 on food at home, and
$11,657 annually on shelter.
While I agree with a good part of this stimulus I’d sure Also Like to thank The Tax payers !

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 8, 2009 2:58 PM
Comment #275229

Rodney Brown, the 825 billion stimulus bill, now, 780 billion going to Conference Committee, has NOTHING to do with the mortgage crisis which was the match that started the fire.

The mortgage crisis was not brought on by a single cause, and cannot be addressed by a simple answer like 4% interest rates.

The Recession is an entirely different matter today, a consequence of the deleveraging of balance sheets by investor companies around the globe, but, now with its own sustaining factors having little to do with the real estate sector anymore.

The study of economics is a study in myriad variables, deciphering which are relevant and significant and which are not, and then prescribing appropriate responses whether they be corporate board room responses, consumer and labor responses, or government responses.

4% mortgage interest rates doesn’t begin to address the trillions in devalued assets held on corporate balance sheets and what to do with those. In addition to missing the mark regarding stimulating non-home owners to buy homes, overall.

Artificially low interest rates to marginal income buyers via adjustable rate mortgages is a big part of what created the cascade in defaults on mortgages in the first place. Sure Republicans would like to see new millionaires get their 4 million dollar housing upgrade financed at 4%. But, would that address America’s problems?

Answer: NO!

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2009 3:55 PM
Comment #275230

Roy, fear is a survival mechanism and a damned appropriate one. If the source of the fear is both real, and a threat, people should be motivated to act preemeptively or correctively to alleviate the fear by mitigating or removing the source of that fear.

In this case, with a recession accelerating, having now laid off 4 million workers, and most of those in just the last 3 months, the people should be afraid, and our government representatives are absolutely appropriate in raising the alarm.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2009 4:18 PM
Comment #275231

Rodney Brown-
Even if taxpayers had to pay for it today, the distribution would not be so even as your averaged figure.

The money is being borrowed by an act of Congress. If it passes, it will pass by the votes of significant majorities of both houses, after a very public debate that has done little to persuade the Average American that some kind of stimulus is not needed.

The need is very real, we are already on a steep and slippery slope as far as demand and prices are concerned. If we’re not careful, a recession already bound to be long and harsh will be longer and harsher. That’s not just liberals talking, that’s even conservative economists.

The money, when it goes out, will effectively be a loan from ourselves, to ourselves. Maybe in your heart, you’ll believe that this spirit of this bill is a felony theft, in and of itself, but that will merely be your opinion as this bill will have cleared the hurdles imposed on it by the law, on its way to becoming law itself.

The money will go directly to those looking for jobs, and those getting it will have the chance to work and contribute to the economy where they would ordinarily be doing the former not at all, and the latter a lot less. Keeping people employed also means the states will need to dole out fewer resources to cover those who aren’t working. In that fashion, we’ll be able to bootstrap our way out of further decline. If our economy recovers, we’ll have greater economic strength to pay off the debt from.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2009 4:24 PM
Comment #275232

So a 4% fixed loan would not help the average Jane /Joe who Didn’t sell on the high end and move to some cheap country or they used some sort of constraint of buying on the very high end or going to a ARM and there still upside down because of falling values,These folks have good credit and a 4% fixed loan is a hell of a lot better than a 7% fixed Loan.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 8, 2009 4:25 PM
Comment #275233

””“”While I agree with a good part of this stimulus I’d sure Also Like to thank The Tax payers “”“” What was wrong with this statement that it deserved such psychoanlyzing? I wanted to see a little more go towards Jobs!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 8, 2009 4:34 PM
Comment #275234

Rodney asked: “So a 4% fixed loan would not help the average Jane /Joe “

Sure it would. But, what you have to ask yourself is how many marginal Janes and Joes would be enabled to buy a lower to middle class home if the interest rate dropped from 5% to 4%. Hint, a very small number of buyers compared to the whole market and inventory.

Besides, we just witnessed an upturn in home sales last month, with interest rates where they are. The biggest hindrances to home buying today are price, and credit worthiness. The interest rate is not what is holding most potential buyers back from buying. Interest rates on fixed 30 year are very low by historical standards. Hence, not the obstacle to be hurdled, especially with government borrowing and more debt, which should be reserved for essential economic stimulus which creates jobs, keeps jobs, or assists those who have lost their jobs. Much bigger bang for the buck in that stimulative spending.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2009 4:44 PM
Comment #275235

well i know a lot of places right now that they can buy at 2003 prices! I could have sold my 2 houses in ca to investors back in 2006 I just Didn’t like there sneaky ways they were approved for a $700,000 loan and they wanted me to give them back $200,000 no way.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 8, 2009 4:50 PM
Comment #275236

That was for one house!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 8, 2009 4:53 PM
Comment #275237

Rodney Brown said: “To put it into perspective, $825 billion is worth approximately $10,520 for each family in the United States, or $22,445 for each family with children under the age of 18.”

That is NOT putting it in perspective, that is a talking point piece of sophistry.

To put it in perspective, you must also acknowledge that the 10,520 you speak of would be paid in taxes over a lifetime of wages, and that it is not most current tax payers who would have to pay it but their children and grandchildren during their working lifetimes.

Let’s assume a 60 year work life for a family. That amounts to $175.33 per year in additional taxes per family, and with 2 breadwinners in the family, $87 per breadwinner per year in additional taxes.

That puts the amount into proper and truthful perspective. Now, one can argue whether that additional $175.33 per year in additional future taxes on future generations is worth saving today’s economy from a protracted depression, and that would be a most appropriate debate to have.

I say it is. For one simple reason. If our current economy is permitted to slip into a protracted depression, future wage earners will experience vastly higher costs than the $175.33 per year proposed by the stimulus/recovery bill.

Remember, we don’t have a vast untapped creative and innovative labor force waiting to generate economic activity like we experienced after WWII, and we don’t have a vast third world globe waiting to buy products from the U.S. of A, as in the post-WWII era. Those 3rd world nations are today, our biggest competitors, exporting far more to us than we export to them.

Therefore, the cost of keeping our current economy moving forward is vastly cheaper on a host of measures than allowing it to fail and trying to rebuild in the current global marketplace which is radically different than that of the 1950’s.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2009 4:56 PM
Comment #275238

Rodney Brown said: “well i know a lot of places right now that they can buy at 2003 prices!”

Right. Which accounts for the uptick in home sales last month. Buyers are coming back into the market because prices in select areas of the country have become true bargains.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 8, 2009 5:00 PM
Comment #275239

””“Right. Which accounts for the uptick in home sales last month. Buyers are coming back into the market because prices in select areas of the country have become true bargains. “”” And I believe that’s a big way out they have to sell and start over hit bottom and recover.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 8, 2009 5:09 PM
Comment #275240

David,

“Which accounts for the uptick in home sales last month. Buyers are coming back into the market because prices in select areas of the country have become true bargains.”

Buyers are coming back into the market to snap up all of the houses that have gone into foreclosure.
Now we’re going to find out what those houses are really worth

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 8, 2009 5:18 PM
Comment #275241

“”Buyers are coming back into the market to snap up all of the houses that have gone into foreclosure.
Now we’re going to find out what those houses are really worth

Rocky”” were finding out what all the houses are worth Rock in those areas!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 8, 2009 5:21 PM
Comment #275243

Rodney Brown-
Like I said before, the person with good credit is the person who needs the least help.

Problem here is that you’re making the assumption that the only credit unworthy people in the market are folks who played the speculation game, or who got those predatory loans knowing what they were getting themselves into.

I don’t trust standards that require everybody to be an expert to avoid being cheated. That’s inviting trouble. It’s how we got into trouble on Wall Street.

Do you want to know what the strongest risk factor for bankruptcy with women is? It’s not being a shopaholic. It’s having kids.

Medical bills, keeping the kids fed, clothed and sheltered. We’ve made these things so difficult that people have no choice but to go that far into debt.

Additionally, I can tell you from experience that experiencing a major illness is also a great contributor to indebtedness.

We’ve created a system where one cannot live a regular standard living without recourse either to high amounts of debt-financing or stringent spending practices. Neither of these is good for the economy in the long run.

But either way, the point is this: high indebtness in this country is no longer a sign of undependability, it’s practically the only way people live a middle class life.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2009 6:32 PM
Comment #275247

Stephen wrote: “We’ve created a system where one cannot live a regular standard living without recourse either to high amounts of debt-financing or stringent spending practices. Neither of these is good for the economy in the long run.”

Minor issue perhaps, but I don’t want to be included under the ‘we’ umbrella. I voted for Carter and Gore. Otherwise, I’ve voted for 3rd parties.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 8, 2009 8:17 PM
Comment #275248

“I voted for Carter and Gore” Me too Roy, and that third party is looking Mighty Good, And you say it hears and Listens to we the people I never denied anyone anything and I’m Liberal on social issues.Good Night.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 8, 2009 8:34 PM
Comment #275250


The politicians of both political parties and their corporate sponsors have created a system where one cannot live a regular standard of living without recourse either to high amounts of debt-financing or stringent spending practices.

Tell us all again how Obama is the agent of change. He has the bully pulpit and I have been listening but, all I am hearing is, we must maintain the statis quo no matter what it costs.

Posted by: jlw at February 8, 2009 9:24 PM
Comment #275252

Roy Ellis-
Not to be rude, but do you want me to make a special exception for you when I’m talking about the American people in general?

It’s not a minor issue.

Here’s the way I’d put it. First, we created a situation where use of credit, in personal purchases, bill paying, and paying for your car and your housing has become the norm.

Second, we kept wages stagnant, and pulled all kinds of crap to minimize cash outlays on pay and benefits.

Third, we essentially wrung out whatever relative utility there was from tax cuts and interest rate cuts.

Fourth, to keep things going at full steam as the stagnation in pay and benefits forced people to load themselves up with debt, the powers that be decided to free up speculative markets and allow tons more leeway to the folks on Wall Street so they could essentially fictionalize their way to an economy that worked.

It worked sometimes, when people weren’t looking, but any time scrutiny came along, there was always some bubble to burst, some time bomb of financial fraud to cause some sort of collapse.

Bush had the misfortune to have this drop right on his doorstep. He could have taken the opportunity to tighten things up, but he wasn’t going to do that. In fact, he just loosened things up all over the place. Housing Market especially. Housing starts became the one constant you would here about when the economy did well, or if there wasn’t anything else going right.

But that, too was a fiction, but it was one so convoluted, so tangled up in the mechanics of the market that it’s effect has been like stick stuck in a bike’s spokes. The economy basically flipped out like that motorcycle in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

But what I’d say happened here was that for the past few decades, Wall Street has been doing its damnedest to run an economy simply on the dealings of the Wall Street elite, to make everything else in the process a formality of enriching themselves. I mean, seriously, you have people complaining about living on half a million dollars a year. I can’t imagine even in New York that being an uncomfortable sum to live on.

The market is broken. What broke it was trying to run this country on fictional money so you wouldn’t have to share so much with very non-fictional workers. The last thirty years have been about shifting more costs to the consumer, and more money away from the average person towards the top. They succeeded, and the ultimate complications of that success have wrecked the market.

There is a reason that every price indext we have is feeling pressure downwards. We’ve fixed the economy so that people needed, prioritized for credit financed purchases. Rather than save, or spend out of pocket, we tuned the prices to reflect the fact that people had easy access to credit. Naturally, that means they have a tendency to go up. And of course, under the Bush administration, they felt free to just pile it on.

But the system broke, and all the weight on top of what broke is weighing down on prices.

Now, I’d be the first to say that lower prices are wonderful! I’d love to have bread at the pricess I was paying for it in 2005. I remember when most apples were under a $1.50.

Unfortunately, if prices fall too quickly, under heavy pressure from above, we could see a compounding effect of lost revenue, lost jobs and lost spending power. The Congressional Budget office estimates that the current plan could shave about two percentage points from the expected unemployment numbers.

Folks can carp about political slogans, but I think that’s rather small of a focus. Yes, we want Obama to bring change. He already has. But first and foremost, he has to put America’s house in order, and do this despite the desperate efforts of interest groups rooted deeply in denial, folks who don’t want to admit that they’ve dropped the ball completely.

Undoubtedly, there will be quite a few who want to keep things the way they are, and they’ll fight tooth and nail. But keeping things the way they are at this point will have quite the opposite effect, because the economy is in dynamic regression.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2009 10:34 PM
Comment #275256

Christopher Tracy,
Excellent post and great conversation piece!

Ladies and Gentleman,
Why we could spend the next 20 years discussing and debating all that is bad in the bill. Provided that we respect the limits President Obama and Congress to Change the World let me ask you what is in Americas’ Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that you believe will help Americas’ Economy Recovery (gain back the $10,500.00 per Taxpayer) and what Businesses need reinvested in so that Americas’ Democratic and Republican Elected Officials have the Societal Tools to build the Infrastructure of the 21st Century?

For why the Housing Issue could be solved in one easy argument, I do believe that some of the Republicans are trying to mix apples and pears when they make the argument of using the stimulus bill limited funds to provide a 4% loan to home owners. Because why not just the banks the difference between the loans and what the Consumer can pay. Since one ballon payment is cheaper than paying interest for years.

However, in making an observation if I may inquire why is the Republican Leadership in the House and Senate talking about tax cuts and other things when Mr. T. Boone Pickens (a Conservative) has a business plan that can make America independent from foreign oil and President Obama has already said that he would support making America Energy Independent in 5-10 years.

For why I may know nothing about Wealth Building, when it comes to making profit I do believe that My Peers and Their Children can do a better job coming up with a stimulus bill than the bill making its journey through Congress. So how far is to far, ask those Civil Leaders of the 60’s and 70’s who now seat in the Chairs of their Fathers and Grandfathers.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2009 3:09 AM
Comment #275265

Stephen, it is a serious matter with me. I was just being polite in my response. Yes, I do want a special exception. I explained how I’ve voted. Except for a recent incident involving the rewards balance, I’ve never paid a dime on credit card balances. I’ve owned two new cars in my life. Paid my house and 40 acres off 12 years early. Never borrowed a dime except to do a realestate deal or two. Put 3 kids thru college with no loans. I buy groceries at Wall Mart most of the time because of the wide selection. But, I make it a point to not buy anything made outside the US where possible. And, I may as well embarrass myself good - my electric bill runs around $70-80/mo. I use a wood fireplace (electric baseboard throughout and gas furnace) and we turn the water heater off when not needed. I prefer a good hot heat sink rather than a blown heat. I hit the restaurants 3-5 times a week. Just bought 5 new pair of jeans, etc. Just put together a pretty good woodworking shop; table saw, jointer, router/table, etc. Don’t reckin I’m liking for nothing..
What you described in you post is what I refer to as ‘breaking the back of the middle class.’ And, it didn’t happen by some accident. Started with Regan, and the era of ‘greed is good’, anti-anti-trust, and the beginning of globalization spurred by the likes of R. Pastor. Every admin since has followed suite by pushing free trade (52 deficits in a row) and dumping M’s of illegals into the US workforce, as d.a.n. so correctly explains pitting American workers against the cheapest labor in the world. This so-called recession is just a part of the big picture. Piis away T’s and put the working folks and future generations in debt to the company store, forever. Praise the transnationals and to hell with the working folks.

This government, finest government money can buy, has turned against the people. Driven solely by business interest, not so much for We The People. I’m getting sore fingers.

Henry, all good points, ban the bill!


Interested in a 3rd party with a different attitude. Visit www.demreps.com and/or contact the party at www.stronghand@politics101.startlogic.com or hardcore@politics101.startlogic.com, or contact me at ellis999@peoplepc.com. The welcome mat is out- - -

Otherwise, we (all inclusive) have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 9, 2009 10:43 AM
Comment #275266

Henry said , “” Since one ballon payment is cheaper than paying interest for years.”“”
How many folks out there can come up with $75,000 at once? Remember the 1950s? when the rates were 2% my dad Got a Gi loan for 1%, And instead of paying all that interest if a person can send in another $300-$500 a month towards the Principle using $400 a month = $72,000 in 15 years and it’s yours. I’m with you on T Boone.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 9, 2009 11:24 AM
Comment #275273

Mr. Remer writes; “Let’s assume a 60 year work life for a family. That amounts to $175.33 per year in additional taxes per family, and with 2 breadwinners in the family, $87 per breadwinner per year in additional taxes.

That puts the amount into proper and truthful perspective. Now, one can argue whether that additional $175.33 per year in additional future taxes on future generations is worth saving today’s economy from a protracted depression, and that would be a most appropriate debate to have.”

Amortizing debt incurred today over a period of 60 years is simply not sensible. Is Mr. Remer including the interest on the debt in his repayment schedule?

Really folks, American’s overextended themselves precisely for one of the reasons Mr. Remer advocates. That is, don’t stop buying and spending, just extend the length of repayment. Now, Mr. Remer advocates this same kind of folly for our federal government.

Not long ago car loans, with 20% down payments, were traditionally repaid within two or three years. Considering how quickly cars depreciate, these buyers would only be up-side-down for 6 month to a year. At that point, they would actually begin to have equity in their purchase. To sell more cars, the auto maker finance arms (GMAC, CCC, FMCC and others) extended repayments terms to 4, 5, 6, and then seven years and zero down payments. Some came up with shorter terms with a balloon at the end which would then be refinanced for 2 or 3 more years. Then, leasing became all the rage.

As a result, the banks followed suit not wanting to loose this profitable market to the car company finance arms. Without bothering to search for the statistical backup, I would venture to say that half, or more, of the current car loans leave the owners up-side-down. With tightened credit, and lacking any equity in their cars, half of our car owners can’t, even if they wanted to, purchase a new car.

Now comes our government, already up-side-down in its balance sheet (more debt than revenue) and wishes to borrow more from taxpayers. And rather than paying off the loan in two or three years, proposes to extend the terms of repayment to, if we use Mr. Remer’s example, 60 years.

Once again American’s are being sucked into believing we can have everything today and put off payment into some distant unknown future in which it is believed everything will be better and the repayment will be eased with tomorrow’s dollars.

Mr. Remer often proclaims to be a prudent student of economics. His attempt to justify this huge loan today with repyament terms of 60 years is not prudent or justified. The argument that doing nothing spells doom and catastrophe is simply one argument among many.

As with the up-side-down car buyer who must continue to make payments on purchases already made until such time that some equity exists, our government should follow suit. Government can and should immediately cut all the wasteful and non-essential spending, continue to help those unemployed with basic necessities, raise taxes across the board to place some of the recovery pain on everyone, and then demand that congress propose no new non-emergency spending. In fact, I would call for congress to adjourn and go home to await, if needed, a call to reassemble if a new national emergency presented itself. If these actions were taken, the financial crisis would have been addressed and the country would then be free to work our of this mess.

As long as we have politicians filled with greed and power working on the problem, the problem will continue to exist and worsen.

Posted by: Jim M at February 9, 2009 1:13 PM
Comment #275278


Stephen, I completely agree with the 4 points and resultant effects you cited in an earlier post. I just have a different way of looking at the situation. It’s like folks have just opened up wide while the government shoves Great Green Gobs of Grimy Greasy Gopher Guts down their Gullet.
I have a hard time trying to discern the big picture but you can’t solve these many problems with some idea of the overlying issues. You can lower taxes, bailout out the auto’s, and plant grass in the parks til the cows come home and you won’t accomplish much. Just prolonging the inevitable for a while.

Let me try again,

Up until the Regan era the middle class thrived and prospered. Every next-generation fared better than the previous. His administration, including the likes of Friedman and Pastor, overturned much of what Carter had set in motion and started us on a course of globalization. Anti-trust law was ignored in favor of mergers. Usury law was set to a level of twice whatever the state law was set at, rendering it a no-usury law. Every administration since has pursued globalization as THE primary objective of government. Regan gave citizenship to 3-4M illegals putting pressure of US wages. We got the WTO and the IMF. Congress, in abrogating their oversight responsibility and in fear of voter, gave fast track trade authority to the Executive. We got NAFTA and all the other AFTA’s. The government has created a regional trading zone and is hard at work removing the southern and northern US borders to facilitate the free flow of people and commerce between the US, Mex, and Can. The gov subsidized the relocation of US manufacturing to foreign countries. They gave us 52 consecutive years of trade deficits and about as many years of budget deficits. This was necessary to bring US workers wages to parity with the developing countries. Iraq was invaded to corner Iraqi oil for US markets before the Chinese could latch on to it. Further depleting the US treasury. Pensions were annihilated. Company loyalty to the employee was terminated. Wages have fallen in all middle class sectors. The middle class has been weakened to where many can no longer afford healthcare, maintain homes and families or educate their children. Still, wages have a long way to go to reach parity with the developing world. But, that’s where we are being taken. Incrementally but ever moving toward that goal. At this point all the equity is sucked out of homes. We have witnessed the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. Everything imaginable has been done to place all the risk on the consumer/middle class. This so-called recovery bailout is just another ploy in getting us ready for globalization. Not a problem if you are company ‘flexible’. I hear IBM is offering jobs - - in India.


Don’t you get it? We didn’t just arrive at this point. We were delivered to this point. By the best government money can buy. Bailing out a bank or an automaker won’t solve anything. That’s not the real problem. Obama’s new transparency and promise of change – won’t solve anything, as it doesn’t go to the real problem. You must realize that Obama and Congress are still pursuing globalization as the main goal. The Southern border is still open to illegals, drugs and terrorists. Amnesty is still on the agenda for some 40M illegals. Had the people not stopped amnesty a year or so back, can you imagine the effect 40M additional unemployed would have on our recession? The Davos crew just returned after promising to stay the course with globalization. You can bet a ‘buy American’ clause will be deleted or denuded in the bailout bill.

That’s the source of our real problem. How to fix it? Won’t be done through the duopoly. Change maybe, reform no. There has to be major reform if we are to maintain a sovereign nation with a strong and progressive middle class. You can’t sustain an upwardly mobile nation without a strong manufacturing base and a thriving middle class labor force. Only possible way is to one, vote from office a majority of career politicians much as was done in 1933, or two, support one or more new third parties with a different political attitude or three, a combination of the two.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 9, 2009 2:04 PM
Comment #275279

Raise taxes during a recession? Are you sure Jim M.? History says no don’t do that or the recovery will turn into another depression. History also says do not wait for the market to do something. What am I missing here?

Politicians with nothing to do but sit at home? That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 9, 2009 2:21 PM
Comment #275284

j2t2 please understand that I combine across the board tax increases with huge cuts in discretionary and wasteful spending. One without the other is not change and merely delays and enlarges the problem.

Congressional liberals want more spending with targeted tax cuts to mollify their constituents and to be seen as doing something.

You should also realize that the word “tax” applies not only to income and payroll taxes, but a myriad of other taxes. Is a reduction of a corporate or individual subsidy not a tax in its intended purpose…that of increasing government revenue?

I find it strange, and somewhat unnerving that I, as a conservative, am arguing for increased taxes, while liberals are arguing for reduced taxes. Critical times call for critical thinking. Regardless of the method employed, a way must be found to balance our federal and states budgets. This, and only this will instill confidence in American individuals and corporations. Should America lead the way would not the world flock to our shores with their money for sound investment in a country that is balancing its books? Private Investment, not government borrowing, brings real jobs and real growth. As for increasing taxes j2t2, have I not heard calls from a majority of dems to not renew the PB tax cuts?

I ask you j2t2, does it require discipline and shared pain and resolve to increase federal and state spending? If the democrat congress and PO really believe they have the correct prescription for the nation with huge increases in spending do they really need the republicans to go along to share the assured glory of accomplishment?

Think about that very seriously please. Can you think of any reason for one political party desiring the other party to share in the glory of their accomplishment? Democrats own congress and the WH and can do almost as they please. Why don’t they just go ahead and do it? Why drag along republicans only to see their spending plans deflated to obtain unneeded votes?

If you dare to be as honest as I am trying to be, you must come to the conclusion that the dems and PO are trying to cover their ass with the very real likelihood that this plan will fail. By having a majority of repubs on board they can share the blame. By allowing the repubs to water down their spending they accomplish the same thing. Should the watered down spending plan not work they can blame the repubs as responsible because the spending was not large enough.

This may be politically smart for the dems, but is it really the best for the nation? Tough call I know, and it is a tough call for me to ask for more taxes. If my plan works we would have a balanced budget very quickly. Think about the message that would send.

There is not a lack of private money in this country, waiting for some reason of confidence, to be invested and spent. More government spending will not raise confidence, but rather, instill even more doubt when it fails to work. What then…

Posted by: Jim M at February 9, 2009 3:09 PM
Comment #275291

Jim M, your comment is so full of crap and your intent to deceive, apparently even yourself, when it comes to what I advocate, is truly noteworthy.

You said: “Really folks, American’s overextended themselves precisely for one of the reasons Mr. Remer advocates.”

Please quote where I advocate this on general principle. Your comment is full of it. Someone else made a comment as to what it was going to cost using some figures, whose source I am not aware of. I simply pointed out that the aggregate figure they quoted would NOT hit taxpayers in one fell swoop, but, spread out over time, WHICH IS VALID BECAUSE we won’t be paying off our national debt on one fell swoop.

Then you said “That is, don’t stop buying and spending, just extend the length of repayment. Now, Mr. Remer advocates this same kind of folly for our federal government.”

Again, please quote where I advocate this as a methodology for operating government. You can’t, Jim M, because I don’t.

What I do argue, and the majority of America agrees as well as economists, that it is important that America arrest this vicious cycle of constricting consumption causing job layoffs causing more constricted consumption. The only entity capable of injecting the money need to arrest that decline into a Depression is the Federal Government.

The fact that WE MUST deficit spend to accomplish this is a reality previous administrations and Congress have put our nation in. There is no altering that reality. A stimulus is needed now, the great majority of Republicans and all Democrats agree on this point, and raising taxes during a recession is not plausible (except on the very wealhty, where the amount of revenue additionally generated would be small), and cutting spending which supports jobs, medical care, health and food or housing during a recession would only exacerbate the recession.

And just how is it you manage to ignore my comment, WHICH YOU QUOTED: “Now, one can argue whether that additional $175.33 per year in additional future taxes on future generations is worth saving today’s economy from a protracted depression, and that would be a most appropriate debate to have.”

I said it would be a most appropriate debate to have as to whether raising future taxes is worth saving today’s economy? Do you have a reading deficit, or just an understanding deficit, that would cause you to make untrue comments about what I said, in direct contradiction to what I did say, which you quote?

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2009 4:58 PM
Comment #275294

Jim M-
The last thing you want to do in a situation like this is raise taxes across the board. It’s already been tried, back in the Hoover administration, and it’s part of what killed us with the Great Depression.

Our problem is one of demand dropping. Why is that happening? Because people don’t have enough money. What does raising taxes and cutting spending do? Well, it takes money out of the economy and doesn’t put it back in, and does it pretty much at the exact point we need more money in the system.

The painful reality is, your people have been insisting on replaying every decision that did not go your way for the past three-quarters of a century, from how we fought Vietnam, to how we regulate on the environment and on finance, to what to do in case of a strong deflationary recession.

You folks have failed to make the case to the American people that the Democrats ultimately got it wrong on these things.

Our problem is that investment banks, which technically no longer exist (though we have a ton of former investment banks) and other institutions are no longer lending like they should be. In a debt-financed economy, it is as if there’s a lack of private money, waiting for confidence to return. However, what complicates this is the fact that this lack of confidence is based on a serious problem with figuring out the value on the bad mortgages, or more accurately, the securities they were bundled anonymously into.

But that’s not what this bill is about. This bill is about directly making up for demand lost that we can make up in no other place. We’re not getting our hopes up too far. We’re keeping our hopes modest here. But it’s a necessary thing to do, and its likely greater unemployment and the deflation to follow would be worse.

Roy Ellis-
Globalization isn’t at fault. Technology and telecommunications were pushing us in that direction already. What we must realize is that there’s more than one way of doing these, and just laying back and thinking of England doesn’t have to be just one of them.

We do not have 40 million illegals in the country, we would notice if we did. And even those who are here drive a certain amount of the demand. After all, they do have to pay for goods and services here.

This country would be doing fine if the economy had not been overleveraged and overcomplicated at the same time.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2009 5:49 PM
Comment #275296

Let’s examine Mr. Remer’s excuse for outrage. He wrote;

“That puts the amount into proper and truthful perspective. Now, one can argue whether that additional $175.33 per year in additional future taxes on future generations is worth saving today’s economy from a protracted depression, and that would be a most appropriate debate to have.

I say it is. For one simple reason. If our current economy is permitted to slip into a protracted depression, future wage earners will experience vastly higher costs than the $175.33 per year proposed by the stimulus/recovery bill.”

If I have a problem reading, it is because Mr. Remer can’t express his thoughts coherently. First, he makes an assumption to reduce to spending cost to a yearly amount paid by taxpayers over a period of 60 years.

He then follows by saying that doing so puts the burden of the spending into “proper and truthful” perspective. Implying here that looking at today’s cost of $10,500 for every American family is NOT a truthful and proper way of looking at the cost.

Then, once he has reduced the spending impact on the taxpayer to an insignificant (so he thinks) sum of $175, he then puts up the $175 cost against saving us from doom and protracted depression.

Take $175 per year X 60 years and you have $10,500. Is Mr. Remer so anxious to sell his argument that he fails to add interest to this debt? Borrow $10,500 from your bank at a fixed rate of 6% and repay at $175 per year ($15 per month). Using a financial calculator you will find the period of repayment.

Payments are not sufficient enough to cover the interest, the loan will never be paid off.

Increase the payment to $50 per month ($600 per year) and you have the same result, the loan will never be repaid. For the arithmetic challenged…$600 per year X 60 years = $36,000.

Mr. Remer is very skilled in manipulation and not so skilled in parsing his words.

How could one possibly ascribe any validity to Mr. Remer’s argument when it is so flawed? Just as ridiculous as his portrayal of paying back a $10,500 loan in 60 years at $175 per year that can’t possibly happen in the real world where interest is charged, even on government borrowing, so is the theory that we can grow our way out of this crisis by spending more borrowed money.

I invite the reader to determine who is “full of crap” and practicing “deception”.

Posted by: Jim M at February 9, 2009 6:03 PM
Comment #275303

Don’t have time Jim W. I’m busy trying to restore the union, our Constitution and the democratic principles we used to live by. Trying to convert from free trade to fair trade, get the Southern border under control and stop the violence and drugs. Working to get 40M illegals out of the country, put the brakes on globalization and snap the streak of 52 trade deficits in a row. Working to abolish Corporate Personhood and Money is Free Speech thereby defeating the moneyed influence in government. Forging the way for federal funding of campaign elections. Etc.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 9, 2009 7:48 PM
Comment #275305

The very least Congress could do is pass and enforce some laws against usury.

Many people buying homes never really believed that their monthly mortgage payments would double or triple. While many people should never underestimated the greed of the banks, there should be some limits on usury.

The tricky part is by the time someone wants to refinance to a lower interest rate, many can’t find any bank to refinance their loan.

Add $4 gasoline, rising unemployment, rising healthcare costs, etc., and it’s no wonder we have thousands of foreclosures per day.

Then there’s the credit cards. Some banks charge truly outrageous interest rates (e.g. 34%), and use a myriad of techniques to hike interest rates to the highest rates possible.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 9, 2009 8:38 PM
Comment #275306

They should have outlawed those adjustable rate mortgages, Didn’t we go down that road in the late 1970s early 1980s.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 9, 2009 9:25 PM
Comment #275308

Jim M, said: “If I have a problem reading, it is because Mr. Remer can’t express his thoughts coherently. First, he makes an assumption to reduce to spending cost to a yearly amount paid by taxpayers over a period of 60 years.”

Now here, it is a math deficit showing in your comment. You have a work force of 145 million. We have an 11 trillion dollar national debt BEFORE the stimulus package. Now, lets take 11 trillion and divide it by 60 years and then again by 145 million. That equals $1264.37 per worker per year for 60 years to pay off that debt, in addition to the taxes they now pay to keep the U.S. government operating.

So, as you can see, given that our government IS NOT going to raise our taxes today by AN ADDITIONAL 1,264 per year for the next 60 years, it will be even LONGER than 60 years before tax payers get around to paying off the Stimulus addition to the national debt.

It is NOT an assumption, Jim M, it is simple arithmetic. If you would engage brain and calculator before running off at the keyboard in ignorance, you wouldn’t get such redress from me in my replies. You say you know something about investing and finance, yet, your comments demonstrate NO PROFICIENCY with math at all, or any inclination to employ it to test and grasp what others are talking about.

Jim said: “Implying here that looking at today’s cost of $10,500 for every American family is NOT a truthful and proper way of looking at the cost.”

I didn’t IMPLY. I said it was not an honest and straight forward way to represent the figure because stating it was stated as a lump sum for an American family, and COMPLETELY failed to define which American family (present, or an American family 60 years from now), as time to repay debt is inextricable in the definition of all debt.

And thank you for the interest factor, which only makes my argument that much stronger, delaying the payment of the current national debt even further into the future as the money we spend on interest won’t be paid on principal.

Care to dig your illogical hole any deeper Jim M?

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2009 9:57 PM
Comment #275309

BTW, Jim M, it was Rodney Brown who introduced the 10,500 per family figure, NOT I.

But, let’s take a look at it. Rodney states 825 billion breaks out to about $10,500 per American family. First, I would like to know how many American families he thinks there are, and whether he is talking nuclear families, extended families, one breadwinner per family or two, or more, or an average number of estimated families over the life of the debt in repayment? But, that is a whole other issue.

Since I didn’t know how many American families exist today and Rodney does not provide a number, I could not know whether his figure is at all accurate or not. Assuming it was, I broke that figure down per worker, which is a number I have readily available from the U.S. Government.

And like I said, it would take 60 years or more to pay off the current debt. So, it would be even longer before tax payers got around to paying off the 825 billion stimulus addition to current debt.

The simple truth is, additions to current debt levels won’t affect current working families (unless massive additional debt brings our government into default during their worklives).

It will affect their children and grandchilden’s families. Current families are going to have to wrestle with paying down previous debt and holding the line at some point on creating even more, since the convergence of current national debt and the unfunded entitlement mandates create a debt load which the economy of current working American families won’t survive 20 to 25 years from now, when our debt reaches more than 20 trillion (absent dramatic entitlement reforms).

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2009 10:20 PM
Comment #275314

Rodney, there was never anything inherently bad about Adjustable Rate Mortgages. What went wrong is offering them indiscriminately to people whose incomes were not clearly going to rise commensurately with their mortgage payments.

The wife and I took out an ARM on our first VA Loan home, which gave us a 4 year period in which the interest rate went from 4.5% to 8.25% by the 4th year. We were both employed at a solid growing insurance company, both college degreed, and both entry level workers at the company.

The mortgager and VA assessed correctly that our salaries would rise, and that the amount of the mortgage on the house we selected was significantly less than our current salaries could carry at the first year rate. Hence, the A.R.M. allowed us to purchase furnishings at the lower interest rates, and the risk we posed to the VA was very small in their guaranteeing our loan to the mortgager, Mellon Bank.

We sold the house 10 years later at a modest profit of $5000, paid off the note, and used the proceeds to buy 5 acres upon which we built our own home with our own hands and skills. It was a great deal for all concerned.

ARM’s are appropriate for certain people in certain defined circumstances. The wholesale marketing of them indiscriminately and combined with $0 down payment eliminating any up front equity, made A.R.M.’s a very, very high risk sales method to quick profits, and the risks were realized.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 9, 2009 10:59 PM
Comment #275319

David and Jim M.,
You both seem to want to force the average Young American to pay $10,500.00 for the mistakes of their Elders who has reaped the rewards over the last 30 years. However, speaking for those Children to young to have a Voice that is Pure BS. For why should any citizen under the age of 18 pay for the Ignorance of their Parents to go so far in debt, Especially when given the Knowledge and Wisdom of Man to solve the issues that will make America Economically, Energy, and Enviromentally Independent.

Yes, Congress could listen to those who think that “We the People” should use the Taxpayers’ money to keep the 20th Century Businesses on life support as was done with the Banking System under President Bush. And why the Trillions spent may help soften the landing and free up credit for business, I do believe that the average American Home Owner is no longer seeing the average house price drop like a rock. So why some of My Peers can claim that Bailouts and Tax Cuts work, burdening Their Children with an $11 Trillion Debt and than complaining about Congress wanting to spend less than a $1 Trillion to solve the problem should send off bells, lights, and whistles even in the minds of the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s.

For why I have not read Americas’ Recovery and Reinvestment Plan version of the House or Senate; however, given the Spirit of the Bill making its way on becoming Law and knowing that no job is complete until the trash is took out. Let me show by example of the Landfill and Waste Management Issue what I would have Congress do to ensure the Spending Programs and Tax Cuts move America forward.

Because what if Congress would add a section in the bill that would mandate that in 10 years all packing material bought, sold, and/or used in America would be made from bio-mass material? Sure, those businesses currently engaged in producing fossil fuel based packaging material would be put on notice that they would have to adapt or risk going the way of many before them and in all fairness would raise hell with their Elected Officials.

However, in weighing the benefits against any objection of using Taxpayers’ Money to put added weight on the Scales of the Market. I do believe that making the argument that America needs more Landfills and less Waste Management would die in front of Common Knowledge and Common Sense. For other than offering Local and State Governments funds to modernize their Landfills and rebuild their Waste Management Fleets to run off the methane gas recovered from the collection of organic waste. I do believe that by given the American Small Business Owner and the Consumer a Tax Cut to purchase a Compost Box both the Government and Private Industry could create jobs and save money.

For why a Child of the 21st Century is going to have to explain how bio-mass material can be broken down with a single element. I do believe that the Engineers of the 21st Century can adapt todys technology used by Commerce and Industry and the Freewill of the American Small Business Owner and Consumer to saving money by engaging the problem of waste at the source. Since can you imagine the day when Robo Rats can seperate the organic and non-organic carbom based material “We the People” throw away everyday?

And that My Friends could add up to a whole lot more than $10,500.00 debt being added to those Citizens under the Age of 18 and have no voice speaking out on behalf of Their Inherent Best Interest.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 10, 2009 12:20 AM
Comment #275332

In response to Mr. Remer, I don’t know where Rodney Brown obtained the $10,500 amount, but I took the info from the NY Times. YOu may wish to query them about the figure.

Remer writes: “And like I said, it would take 60 years or more to pay off the current debt. So, it would be even longer before tax payers got around to paying off the 825 billion stimulus addition to current debt. (Please notice the change here. Now Remer is saying something else entirely hoping we won’t notice) And thank you for the interest factor, which only makes my argument that much stronger, delaying the payment of the current national debt even further into the future as the money we spend on interest won’t be paid on principal.” (What a revelation here. Interest isn’t principal. The truth is, at $175 per year all is interest…no principal pay down at all)

I hope other readers are not mislead by your attempt to squirm your way out of an indefensible position. You clearly stated your belief that American’s would pay off the the spending at a rate of $175 per year in 60 years by writing,

“If our current economy is permitted to slip into a protracted depression, future wage earners will experience vastly higher costs than the $175.33 per year proposed by the stimulus/recovery bill.”.

That is a statement that I have proven false. To bring in a fresh set of numbers (ie. 11 trillion of national debt) is merely a sloppy attempt to obscure his mistake.

The real point I wish to make is that at our current and past rate of spending, and the debt amassed, unlike Remer’s claim, government has no plan and no chance of ever paying off our debt.
We are making interest only payments and very shortly, we won’t be able to pay the interest. Congress, PO, and Remer all believe that magically, by spending more we will somehow extend the terms of repayment. At this time, our terms of repayment are INFINITY…how does one lengthen that?

I listened to PO last night at his so-called press conference. More fear mongering and visions of catastrophe if we don’t follow his lead. PO is clearly not knowledgeable in finance, accounting or the economy. He is getting bad advise from his politically motivated handlers. PO is the hoped for “rubber stamp” that Pelosi, Reid and a host of other big spending liberals can use to stay in power despite the real needs of the country.

PO should just provide his electronic signature for those pulling his strings so he won’t have to be bothered personally signing these spending bills. Pay no attention to the person sitting in the oval office, he is just a figure head incapable of thinking for himself. Unlike the straw man, tin man, and lion, PO will never receive a brain, heart or courage from the wizards of congress.

Posted by: Jim M at February 10, 2009 12:14 PM
Comment #275333

I’m sure it was from the NY times, I can’t find a link now from that Article in the times sorry DRR ;) This is from Heritage. http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2242.cfm

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 10, 2009 12:41 PM
Comment #275341

Jim M’s comment demonstrates apparent reading deficits yet again by when you state: “You [me] clearly stated your belief that American’s would pay off the the spending at a rate of $175 per year in 60 years by writing,”

Absolutely Wrong, Jim M., you are entirely misrepresenting what was said, and attempting to state my beliefs which YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT!

Read what was actually said:

Rodney said: “To put it into perspective, $825 billion is worth approximately $10,520 for each family in the United States, or $22,445 for each family with children under the age of 18.”

To which I replied, (now read it close for understanding this time):

To put it in perspective, you must also acknowledge that the 10,520 you speak of would be paid in taxes over a lifetime of wages, and that it is not most current tax payers who would have to pay it but their children and grandchildren during their working lifetimes.

Let’s assume a 60 year work life for a family. That amounts to $175.33 per year in additional taxes per family, and with 2 breadwinners in the family, $87 per breadwinner per year in additional taxes.

That puts the amount into proper and truthful perspective. Now, one can argue whether that additional $175.33 per year in additional future taxes on future generations is worth saving today’s economy from a protracted depression, and that would be a most appropriate debate to have.

No where do I state ANY beliefs as to what should be done? I don’t. Yet your comment refers to my belief. I simply point out the reality that the government, if it chooses to pay down its national debt, would have to do so over a very protracted period of time. For the sake of argument I assumed a 60 year period of time as the length of an American’s work life going forward, in order to demonstrate that the Stimulus costs would become a small additional, per worker, increase in taxation over 60 years IF, and only IF the American people resolved to pay the debt down over a reasonable period of time.

The American people do not have 11 trillion dollars in disposable income to pay in Additional Taxes to what they are already paying, in order to pay down the national debt. 60 years is a conservative estimate of how long such a period would have to be, in order to pay down the national debt and the Stimulus bill with additional taxes and spending cuts.

Thank you for yet another opportunity to highlight the ineptitude in some of your comments to pass as honest and valid debate. I love it when I score logical points which your comments fail to comprehend, which in turn elicit from you rash and unfounded statements and characterizations you could not possibly support, like stating what my beliefs are. Thank you. Your comments make debate easy and fun with your their apparent attempts at faux mind reading.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 10, 2009 3:09 PM
Comment #275342

Henry said: “You both seem to want to force the average Young American to pay $10,500.00”

Henry, now you sound like Jim M. Where do I EVER state that it is my intent to force future tax payers to $10,500.

First, the $10,500 per family figure is from Rodney Brown, not me.

Second, the National Debt will either be paid or not paid. If it is paid, it will have to be paid ON TOP OF current taxes to keep the government operational and solvent. Which means that it will have to be paid over time, in increments. Which in turn means, quite factually, that future taxpayers will be shouldering the repayment of debts accrued thus far.

Now what part of this fact set do you disagree with? I have not offered ANY opinion whatsoever on how soon, or if ever, the national debt should be paid off, or by whom. I have opinions on these topics, but they are nowhere expressed in the comments of this article.

If you DO NOT believe the children and grandchildren of the future should pay off our national debt, do you then believe that taxpayers should pay interest on an 11 trillion dollar national debt in perpetuity, and hence suffer in perpetuity the opportunity costs of those trillions in interest payments on that debt?

Logically, there are no alternatives but the two above I put to you as a question, except partially paying off the debt, which partially incurs the opportunity costs of interest. What is your preference?

The children of the future will either pay off our national debt, or they will for their and their future generations of progeny, pay the interest on that debt, assuming America can remain solvent. There is no way around that, save for America defaulting on its debt and interest payments, and the children of the future suffering life in a third world bankrupt nation called the U.S. of A.

What’s your pleasure?

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 10, 2009 3:17 PM
Comment #275350

More Remer spin, when he writes; “To put it in perspective” whose perspective would we believe he is referring to? His obviously! And is it not logical that one’s perspective is also his opinion?

Further Remer writes; “Let’s assume a 60 year work life…” Isn’t “let’s” a contraction for “Let US” and doesn’t US mean him as well.

Then, he uses his own assumption, not mine or Rodney’s, to simply divide $10,500 by 60 years to come up with his $175 per year totally failing to consider interest.

Finally, when Remer has reduced the falsely stated tax obligation to a pittance he is ready to declare; let’s compare this insignificant amount as opposed to a protracted depression and thus lead the reader to the conclusion that this is a no-brainer.

Remer appears to hope that we, the reader have no brain. Anyhow, Remer’s description of me as “full of crap”, “practicing deception” and “going ballistic” is for the reader to decide.

The field goal has been kicked, the points are on the scoreboard and Remer is still trying to move the goal post. So sad.

Posted by: Jim M at February 10, 2009 4:57 PM
Comment #275363

I just am blown away with the incredulity of it.

Government agrees to a bunch of trade policies. Government sends businesses overseas. Government imports millions of alien workers. Government deregulates financials and terminates usury and anti-trust law. Taxpayers become emancipated trhough job loss, low wages, higher cost for big ticket items, inflation, credit card usury and subprime loans. Taxpayers vote for the DUOPOLY by the millions. Businesses that were mismanaged begin to fail. Government demands that taxpayers pony up $8T to prop up mismanaged firms and State governments. Millions of taxpayers approve as they are looking for a piece of the action. The world approves as they will receive much of the $8T for goods and services. Government provides $32B to cover insurance cost for alien children up to age of 32. Aliens will find enough bailout money to winter over and ride out the recession. Government goes to Davos and laudes praises for continued globalization. IBM comes to the rescue by offering jobs in India. The President travels around greeting the txpayers and they love him.

Will they vote for him in 2012, again? I think so.


Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 10, 2009 10:34 PM
Comment #275376

David,
Sorry if I confused you making the comment about $10,500.00, but there is a better way to deal with the $11 Trillion debt than passing it on to your children and grandchildren. And why I know that My Peers and Elected Officials have only grown up in a Spend and Tax Society, I do believe that by reducing and eliminating future expenses for the American Taxpayer as well as the need for future entitlements of the American Small Business Owner and Consumer that “We the People” can repay the $11 Trillion off in a few years.

For if America breaks its dependence on foreign oil that is $700 Billion a year in savings. Add that figure to the amount saved by a new electric transportation system for local, state, and federal governments and we should easily be able to pay over $1 Trillion a year.

So why the Pundits of Washingtom try to convince you that there are only two ways to deal with the issues facing the Children of the 21st Century. Understanding that Americans can use what we learned from thr Grandparents of the Great Depression to build a Better World that will lead to America becoming Economic, Energy, and Environmentally Independent. I am just saying instead of fighting each other over who will drink the latest kool-aid coming out of Washington that My Democratic and Republican Citizens need to ask themselve why given the vast amount of the tax cuts from 2001-Present why hasn’t the Private Sector been able to bring the Change President Obama and “We the People” are talking about?

Could it be out of Fear or just the Lack of Knowledge that keep My Peers from looking past their own self-interest. Or have they become so comfortable living in the Status Quo that they have forgot the lessons taught to “We the People” in the Late 60’s and Early 70’s. Because why it may take America and Humanity going through another Great Depression before the Children of the 21st Century is allowed to start building a Sustainable Green Civilized Society. I do believe that the Learned and Unlearned of American Society better educate Their Democratic and Republican Elected Officials Right from Wrong.

Posted by: Henry Schatman at February 11, 2009 7:11 AM
Comment #275386

Henry Said, “”For if America breaks its dependence on foreign oil that is $700 Billion a year in savings. Add that figure to the amount saved by a new electric transportation system for local, state, and federal governments and we should easily be able to pay over $1 Trillion a year.”“”
Your figure sounds a little high right now , But your going to be about spot on when the economy picks back up and oil climbs back up to $140 a barrel We’ve talked about that here a few months ago, And our Trade deficit went way down, Energy and trade is the key the rest will come into play.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 11, 2009 10:54 AM
Comment #275396

Perhaps this is some good advice for the Wall Street crowd as well as the rest of us.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/10/AR2009021003583.html

Posted by: j2t2 at February 11, 2009 1:20 PM
Comment #275398

She Did a Incredible Job as many bankers have, Her salary was $456,146 with perks. so if they expand from 15 to 30 banks in the near future and double their assets why should she get Penalized her workload will increase by a large factor and the whole community would benefit Jobs and Taxes and lending and growth.But hey if she’s happy to stay where she is right now it’s her choice.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 11, 2009 1:49 PM
Comment #275417

Rodney,
Why I appologize for the $700 Billion error. Failure of Congress to deal with the Economic and Energy Issues could see that number double within months. For why Drill Baby Drill may have made a good solgan. Care to speculate what a barrel of oil will go for if Congress does nothing?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 12, 2009 3:06 AM
Comment #275429

Henry writes; “Care to speculate what a barrel of oil will go for if Congress does nothing?”

Henry, sometimes I have a little difficulty in understanding your prose, but it is obvious from your writing that you, like all of us, wish to find another way to power our cars and factories and light our homes.

The pursuit of green energy is noble and should be funded and pursued. And, while awaiting the day we can fully convert to this new technology, we must continue to survive and prosper with the technology we have and which works.

I see nothing on the immediate (10-20 years) horizon that would lead me to believe we can throw away, or reduce the production of, fossil fuel today, or anytime soon.

Energy conservation today is a good thing and as many have noticed, it was done voluntarily…not by government regulation or increased taxation. Government does much good for many folks. Private industry does much good for many folks. Neither alone can accomplish much.

Posted by: Jim M at February 12, 2009 12:14 PM
Comment #275430

“”Care to speculate what a barrel of oil will go for if Congress does nothing?”” I don’t care to speculate Henry, Last july many said over $200 and when it hit almost $150 it was the straw that broke the camel’s back, Do we want to repeat History.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at February 12, 2009 12:17 PM
Comment #275462

Jim M.,
Why I know that sometimes I split the gap between the Learned and Unlearned of Society, As one of the Children of the 70’s who told My Community Elders and Peers that they were nuts to say the Sky is the Limit, I’ll let you explain to your children and grandchildren why the Knowledge of Man is incomplete. So I’m sorry if I make harder than what it needs to be in order to protect My Democratic and Republican Citizens Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights to believe their Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders are always right.

However, having grown up learning to look at the same issues and problems a little bit different I can understand why you and others over the age of 30 believe that America and Man must depend on fossil fuel. Because other than Mr. Pickens Plan to provide 20% of Americas’ Electricity by commercial wind frams and power Americas’ Transportation System with natural gas I see no other American Baron or Corporation stepping up to the public pulpit with a viable political solution to make America Energy Independent. So how can “We the People” show Americas’ Democratic and Rewpublican Elected Officials that it is humanly possible to build a Sustainable Society?

Yet, knowing that with a wind tunnel and 4 wind mills Americans can power their cars and homes. Did you know that we could replace our fossil fuel furnances with a few magnifying glasses and the sun? Or replace oil based products with goods made out of bio-mass material grown by a machine that will remove the CO2 out of the atmosphere.

So why America can becoming Energy Independent and build a Sustainable Society in a few years. Knowing that I cannot macth the imagination of today’s 10-year-old I’m glad that I am held to a Personal Political Opinion.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 13, 2009 1:20 AM
Comment #275477

Henry asks me; “Did you know that we could replace our fossil fuel furnances with a few magnifying glasses and the sun? Or replace oil based products with goods made out of bio-mass material grown by a machine that will remove the CO2 out of the atmosphere.”

No Henry, I didn’t. Please explain.

Posted by: Jim M at February 13, 2009 12:12 PM
Comment #275513

Jim M.,
Why simple solar furnances already exist that can match and exceed the temperature of the sun (10,000* F), using simple teaching we all know that a simple magnifying glass will focus a beam of light on a spot resulting in a hotter temp. And why I cannot explain how to make a high intense magnifying lens, imagine what the temperature would be if 10 simple magnifying glasses was aimed at the same spot?

10 times the heat? Or does the spot become hotter than the sum of its total? Now, direct that beam of light to the bottom of a bowl filled with iron ore and watch how fast the inside is turned to molten. And why problems still exist (burning the bowl) in application, seeing the opportunity to advance laser technology I do believe that someday America will use a solar furnance to make steel and other products.

Now as far as CO2 Collectors and Bio-Mass Material Plants. Again simple teachings tells us that Business has argued that CO2 Collecters are to expensive to put on smoke stacks and algea/kelp (as well as all plants) need CO2 in order to grow. However, niether the Business Person or the Environmentalists have figured out that if you collect all the CO2 out of a smoke stack and piped it into a green house that you could under proper conditions force feed the plants which would result in higher yields. Thus, making CO2 worth something.

And why I am not sure if it is being done anywhere, I do know that the Common Knowledge of Man and His Society has advanced that far. In fact, why it will take a Child of the 21st Century to explain how plants can also use other smoke stack waste (NO2 & SO2) to provide us with clean air and water. Looking at it from purely a profit taking entreprise, I get to cause smoke, produce, sell, and use bio-mass material, and get clean air and water out of a simple single system. Now, try and compete with fossil fuel.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 14, 2009 11:48 AM
Comment #275531

Here is the rub Henry. Co’s won’t spend money on R&D. Look how wealthy ExXon is and how little they spend on R&D. Big biz desires the status quo or they want the government to do the heavy lifting and then have the resultant product given to them at taxpayer expense and they will do the marketing. Look how tepid auto mfctrs have been bring prototype products to market. They won’t move until government waves the magic wand with incentitive dollars. We need a research effort, as described in our 3rd party VISIONUSA page, www.demreps.com, to focus dollars and science on alternative energy projects. We all like to let our brain roam around. Here’s one. Why not put your magnifiers in space and focus on a ground collector maybe 2000 acres square. That’ll light yer cigarette!
But, we want see any exciting development coming from the duopoly. The Status Quo is the order of the day.
From ‘The Tyranny of Oil” by Antonia Juhasz, pp 282: The companies 10K (for US firms) and Form 20-F (foreign firms) Sec tax filings and annual reports reveal that, even by generous estimates, every oil company investigated here. with the exception of BP and Chevron, spent less than 1% of it’s total capital expenditures on green energy alternatives that year. BP, the company with the highest percentage, still only spent a pitful 4 percent. Chevron ranked second with 1.8%. Shell ranked 3rd with 0.8% followed by Conoco-Phillips with 0.5%. Marathon spent next to nothing and ExxonMobile appeared to spend virtually nothing at all on green alternatives.”
Henry, I wish the stimulus package had included a provision for databasing every book written to date to permit searching by keyword, phase(s), etc. Still, I wouldn’t have voted for the bill.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 14, 2009 5:33 PM
Comment #275533

Henry, I’m so forgetful. Wanted to mention that the stimulus package calls for power utilities greening up BUT with a provision that they can’t make any less profit than they are making now. Helps to have friends in hi places.
And, you may recall I’ve repeatedly blogged that GM took the bailout to shutter its plants and sail for China. Now, I read they are thinking of filing for bankruptcy and coming up under a smaller and/or different company name. No way possible for a company to compete, where competition is necessary, with products produced by the cheapest labor in the world. End of story.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 14, 2009 5:51 PM
Comment #275546

Roy,
Why having friends in high places help I do believe that Congress put the provision in to keep some people like me from creating an Energy War. For imagine if Duke Power would focus on the areas served by Community Electric Co-ops and offered their “Green Energy” at $.02/KWH. Sounds like a good deal for the consumer currently paying a $.05/KWH right?

Well no because once the Co-Op goes out of business Duke Power than can raise their rates to $.10/KWH and the Consumer would have to pay it. Now repeat through out the land and soon America will only have one Electricity Company.

So why the provision could be written better in order to make the Intent of Congress Known I do believe that the Stockholders of Americas’ Electric Companies will sleep better knowing that Management cannot use the Barons Cheat Stick in order to make their power utilies green. For you notice it says the word “Less Profit” not “More Profit” than they are making now. Therefore, include the tax deductions for the new equippment, labor, and misc. to the companies bottom line and there should be No Excuses premitted by their Friends in High Places for higher dividends being paid out IMHO!

And for GM moving to China or changing its name, I do believe that the the Management and Stockholders need only to look what happen in the 90’s when an other Auto Maker moved their operations out of America. For you see the ultimate problem with Cheap Labor is that you have no Humans that can purchase your product in quanities that will make you Wealthy.

Hence, Henry Ford understood this Fact of Reality. And why not driven by it, I do believe that both Ford and GM (if it stays in America) will do more to make America Energy Independent from foreign oil in the next 5-10 years providing Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Citizens and Leaders can get over the fact that their Democratic and Republican Leadership of the Late 60’s and Early 70’s were Politically Incorrect about Man being able to build a Sustainable Green Civilized Society in the 21st Century.

So enter Mr. T. Boone Pickens Plan into the Debate of Labor and Management and explain to me how a 3rd Political Party could build a 3 Giga Watt Commercial and Industrial Complex based on a Trickle Up Economic Theory. Because with President Obama and by defualt the Democratic Party holding the same Political Argument against the Republicans, I dare not walk up to the Waters’ Edge and explain how this Unlearned Unbridled Anti-Authoritarian Child of the 70’s by Freewill and Self-Nature knows and can prove that the Pickens Plan will make America Energy Independent should I?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 15, 2009 5:06 AM
Comment #275572

Henry, i hung in there pretty well until the last para. About all I got there was ‘T. Boone Pickens’. Your writings are similar to singing along with Willie Nelson, hard to follow. On this thing about the energy utilities. I just don;t like the government making winners and losers. Too much like a democracy. I like competition in industry. The better mousetrap wins the day, etc. erego an attempt at your last para. Our new 3rd Party would attempt to abolish all subsidies and all taxes for commercial entities. (but only after abolishing corporate personhood, money is free speech and routing all campaign contributions through the reorganized FEC) One would then expect some hungry, competetive industry to borrow a few bucks to build a 3GW plant and steal his competitors customers by offering a better price with clean energy as an extra-added attraction. Thus, begins the green revolution. Gov should keep their hands out of it to the extent possible. Although, some regulation of commerce is required, as in the situation we are now witness to. Also, we want a flat tax where income, and only income, is taxed at 17% for ALL except those below the poverty line. Our current tax system is not only biased toward the wealthy but, makes and breaks companies based on their ability to buy perks and loopholes.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 15, 2009 5:00 PM
Comment #275583

Roy,
Government/Society like Parents/Grandparents always establish limits, principles, and standards for Citizens/Children. Why? I do not know, but it is a Fact of Life. So why Potocol prevents me from explaing how President Obama and the 111th Congress holds the Authority to make America Energy Independent. The reason why can be found in Amerocas’ History.

For if we look back some 100 years ago we can find where our ancestors were faced with the same problem facing Americas’ Transportation System. Because why the electric and gasoline cars were new and offered distinct advantages over the Horse and Buggy, the debates of those days show us that why some citizens rebelled against the technology and wanted to keep the Horse and Buggy as the prime choice of Americas’ Transportation. Still others fought to promote electric or gasoline cars in the Market and the Court of Public Opinion.

Thus, what was Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders to do. Keep the Horse and Buggy and watch the rest of the world pass the American Citizen in the 20th Century?

Choice to build electric cars and power them by a source of energy that very few people understood and knew how to control?

Or act as Statesmen and pick the gasoline car due to its simplisty and work with the American Barons to erect an infrastructure that would promote every American still enjoying the Freedom of Movement.

Hence, why this Unlearned Unbridled Anti-Authoritarian Child of the 70’s by Freewill and Self-Nature can build a Zero Weight 100% Traction Vehicle powered by Man-made Wind. Being considered dangerous technology by My Community Elders and Peers that only leaves Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders with two opitions IMHO.

Keep the American Citizen in the Horse and Buggy of the 20th Century (gasolione cars) or select a proveable solution that can become standard around the world so that the Establishment of Man in the 21st Century can build an Infrastructure that can take the Government and Society of Man into the 22nd Century.

Now! How far President Obama and the Children of the 21st Century dare to challenge the Authority of My Comunity Elders and Peers is up to them. Nevertheless, bound by limits and principles that I cannot/will not explain I throw up my hands and laugh at Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders. Saying that they better hope that the Children of the 21st Century do not find out that they can build an Electric/natural gas car that can pay them to drive it.

For why the Market has, is, and always will be a good way to keep score. History will show that without direction it can not grow. So why in Pure Ideology I can see where one may wish that Government and Society would learn how to walk hand in hand to the promise land. Without a good swift kick in the butt once in a while doesn’t the American Baron and Layman Citizen get lazy?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 16, 2009 3:35 AM
Post a comment