Third Party & Independents Archives

Does this mean we can lighten up on the voters of this Country who after years in the darkness realized more of the same was the wrong path to continue upon?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 3, 2009 09:15 AM

j2t2, Voter’s responsibility to hold their representatives accountable to, and for, net positive results on election day, does not change; even if they abdicate that responsibility out of ignorance, lack of education, or just plain lack of perceived vested interest.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2009 09:50 AM

Well it seems to me we finally got one right, this time around. The immediate action taken by this administration is directly responsible for the gain in consumer confidence, IMHO. Despite the claims of socialist/communist, black liberation movement, association with domestic terrorist etc. we the people say through the haze of misinformation and got one right. I’m not saying we no longer need to remain vigilant, I’m just saying it appears we have done good this time around. I was watching Obama at his town hall meeting in Strasbourg and was impressed with his candid response about the goals of his administration.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 3, 2009 10:18 AM

j2t2, I agree, Obama has made a good start on tackling the nation’s threats. But, I reserve judgment on his presidency for another couple years. Many a good beginning never reaches its intended destination for wrong turns here or there. Remaining objective about net results over the next 4 years, IMO, is the best determination of whether Obama’s presidency was a net gain for the nation’s future.

That said, McCain was the alternative. And McCain represented a path the majority of Americans clearly did not want to travel in the wake of a looming economic calamity. So, by that criterion, at the very least it can be said, the people chose the candidate holding out the greatest hope for their nation’s future direction.

Judging history before it has taken place is an iffy proposition at best.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2009 10:41 AM

I’ll give Obama a B so far and hillary a D and Gordan Brown a F and Rush is a total Jerk. Gordan Brown is not going to be let off the hook so easy he was finance minister for years and made many bad decisions that has lead to their ills and he needs to go i hold no favors for favors on both sides.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at April 3, 2009 11:26 AM

About thirty percent of the people who could have voted did so for Obama.

The bankers made tremendous profits, put those in pockets, then basically blackmailed the
politicians, who were supposed to be watching them, into forcing the people to buy the bad investments that will cost the people at the very least, two trillion dollars.

Obama and the Democrats have announced that they are going to double the national debt. Now that’s a change we can believe in.

There are more Americans layed-off now than at anytime in our history with the possible exception of the great depression. The percentage might be lower but in sheer numbers, we are getting very close.

In London, Geithner said that one of the factors leading to banking crisis was a lack of supervision by regulators. Pardon me if I am wrong but, wasn’t he one of those regulators.

Did you read the story about the woman that was fired at Harvard for warning Larry Summers about investing Harvard funds in these derivitives back in 2004? I read the story at Talking Points Memo, a well known liberal site.

I’ll borrow an old term which I think is synonymous with change comming from Washington D.C., smoke and mirrors.

Change? Perhaps, after we clean the prostitutes we call representatives and senators out of that cheap bordello we call the seat of government.

Posted by: jlw at April 3, 2009 11:33 AM

jlw said: “About thirty percent of the people who could have voted did so for Obama.”

Yep. And less than that voted for McCain. And less than that, didn’t vote at all, showing vested interest in the outcome. Aside from being an approximately true estimate, is there any other message contained in your comment?

“The bankers made tremendous profits, put those in pockets, then basically blackmailed the
politicians, who were supposed to be watching them, into forcing the people to buy the bad investments that will cost the people at the very least, two trillion dollars.”

All true, except the “will cost the people at the very least, two trillion dollars.” I don’t think anyone knows yet with any accuracy what it will cost the people, and I suspect, in the end, the figure may be higher. Still, compared to the losses of perhaps 4 or 5 times that amount had the economy collapsed into depression, 2 trillion seems like a bargain.

Kind of like brakes on a car. It may cost 3 or 400 very dear dollars to repair the brakes which are fading fast. But, not repairing them would cost many times that amount if one continued to drive the vehicle without repairing the brakes.

“Obama and the Democrats have announced that they are going to double the national debt. Now that’s a change we can believe in.”

That is not accurate. CBO said that based on a set of assumptions about what the future holds, economically, politically, and in terms of policy remaining what is in place today with the Obama budget for the next fiscal year. Obama has not said he intends to double the national debt. To my knowledge, the only Democrats making touting the CBO language are the Blue Dogs, hardly a majority of Congressional Democrats.

To be sure, many or most of the CBO’s assumptions about the next 10 years will not hold true in those years to come. Just as many to most of the assumptions in past CBO 10 year economic projections were never accurately in hindsight. Some proved to be more positive than predicted, like the resiliency of our economy during this recession and current interest rates, and many worse than CBO projected, like this recession which was not predicted in the 2007-2008 or prior 10 year economic projections.

“There are more Americans layed-off now than at anytime in our history with the possible exception of the great depression.”

True enough along with the U.S. population being greater than ever before in our history. They kind of go hand in hand, don’t you think?

“The percentage might be lower but in sheer numbers, we are getting very close.”

Not might. The percentage is vastly lower than the 25% experienced in the 1930’s and 1970’s.

“In London, Geithner said that one of the factors leading to banking crisis was a lack of supervision by regulators. Pardon me if I am wrong but, wasn’t he one of those regulators.”

Nope! You are NOT wrong. You are absolutely right.
He appears, from his testimony before Congress last week, to have learned more from his tenure at the FED and its failures in hindsight, than almost anyone in government. Which IMO, makes him the quintessentially right person to have in place as Treasury Secretary working closely with the Federal Reserve during these testing times of unprecedented financial system failures. He is intimately aware of what went wrong, and how. And that qualifies him as well or better than any others to set things right again, especially in regard to regulatory oversight and accountability going forward.

He has detailed regulatory reform recommendations beginning to come forward, and many more to come getting the details hammered out.

“Did you read the story about the woman that was fired at Harvard for warning Larry Summers about investing Harvard funds in these derivitives back in 2004? I read the story at Talking Points Memo, a well known liberal site.”

No. I didn’t. Did Summers fire her? Weren’t derivatives, highly profitable in 2004, 2005, 2006, and the first half of 2007? I seem to recall reading that in several places. Didn’t those Harvard Funds produce handsome returns for Harvard through the Summer of 2007?

“I’ll borrow an old term which I think is synonymous with change comming from Washington D.C., smoke and mirrors.”

OK. But give it back when you are through with it. If you don’t perceive already some enormous changes already and far more to come in the way of regulatory oversights, conditions attached to tax payer rescue funds, and an unprecedented government effort to halt this recession, I am not sure I could provide more than the media already have to change your perception. Still, a great deal still needs doing, and Rome was not rebuilt in a day, to borrow and butcher another cliche’.

“Change? Perhaps, after we clean the prostitutes we call representatives and senators out of that cheap bordello we call the seat of government.”

Which ones? Or, are they all prostitutes, even those refusing special interest lobbyist and PAC money, if there are any of these?

I have to confess however, to agreeing with your statement. If the voters rejected the re-election bids of half of incumbents in one election, American politics would be poised for dramatic and enormous positive changes in government as a result of the OBVIOUS mandate to the challengers elected to replace them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2009 01:30 PM

Rodney, why Clinton a ‘D’ ?

I am not disagreeing or agreeing with your assessment. I don’t have sufficient information to give her a grade yet. But, I’m curious what information you are basing your grade on, that my be useful for my own eventual evaluation. Or, is that a ‘D’ for Democrat :-) Thanks.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2009 01:33 PM

I understand obama’s reasoning for making her Secretary of state i think he used good judgement but i question her intentions and job performance and slip of the tongues, Like while in china the economy was more important than human rights while as a senator for over 7 years she championed the cause of human rights and she’s a very intelligent person and implying that it was our guns that was one of the biggest factors in Mexico for all the murders and chaos that’s lip service, There so corrupt and out of control and the unchecked borders and free trade and Drugs is such a money making business is the ROOT cause and offering the Taliban another bunch of goons who pretend it’s 900 AD and blow up Buddhists statutes and causing such mayhem “honorable reconciliation” they laughed in her face there has to be another avenue of diplomacy and logic to solve that problem than what she provided I’m wondering if these are Obama words or hers and if she has other intentions and sour grapes, I noticed that Obama has been urging NATO and Europe for a little assistance in Afghanistan.that to me seems like the most practical avenue right now it’s in their backyard .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at April 3, 2009 04:18 PM

• right / wrong direction:
• 100 |————————-
• 090 |————————-
• 085 |————————-
• 080 |———————w—
• 075 |——————w—w-
• 070 |—————-w——w
• 065 |————-w———w (63% = wrong track)
• 060 |r———-w————
• 055 |-r—-w-w————-
• 050 |-rw-rww—————
• 045 |-wrrwr—————-
• 040 |-wrw—r-r————
• 035 |w————-r———
• 030 |—————-r——r (31% = right track)
• 025 |——————r—-r
• 020 |——————-r-r-
• 015 |———————r—
• 010 |————————-
• 005 |————————-
• 000 +————————— YEAR
• ____ M_J_J_J_J__J_J_J
• ____ a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a
• ____ r_n_n_n_n_n_n_n
• ____ 2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2
• ____ 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0
• ____ 0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0
• ____ 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9
• where: r = right direction
• where: w = wrong direction

That is a truly impressive improvment in people’s opinion of the nation’s direction in a very short period of time.
NPR’s poll states that 59% of those polled approve of the job Obama is doing (as of MAR-2009).
A slightly lower percentage (i.e. 56%) approve of Obama’s handling of the economy.
Congress’ approval ratings are only 36%, which is higher than in late 2008, and odd since the 111th Congress consists of 86.9% of the 110th Congress.
66% of those polled believe the economy is bad.

Of course, the graph above shows that 61% polls still believe we are on the wrong track is not anything to brag about, but the trend is impressive.
Perhaps it simply take more time for consensus to change?
Or, perhaps there are still some people who are worried about the possible consequences of growing massive debt much larger, and the possibility of high inflation (or hyperinflation)?
Yes, not everyone is convinced yet that we are out of the woods.
It depends on what happens next.
If deficit spending continues much longer, as some reports and budget seem to indicate (i.e. only reducing deficit by 50% by 2012), debt and inflation are real and serious dangers, since these these questions remain unanswered:

• (a) Is there any historical precedent of any nation so deep into debt ever successfully solving a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?


• (b) Is there any macro economics model that states that a massive debt-bubble can solved with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?


• (c) Is there any mathematical rationale that demonstrates how any nation so ridiculously deep into debt (much less the biggest debtor nation on the planet) has ever successfully solved a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?


• (d) If the current debt is untenable, how is growing it bigger going to help?


• (e) Where will the money come from when 90%-to-95% of all money in existence in the U.S. exists as debt, because money is created as debt at a steep ratio of 9-to-1 of debt-to-reserves.


• (f) What is the possibility that high inflation (or hyperinflation) will make the situation worse? After all, 33+ nations have previously tried to borrow, create new money, and spend their way out of a massive debt-bubble, and it not only did not work, but made things worse.

Sorry if those questions make me seem pessimistic, but they seem like good questions, and it is disturbing that few (if any) really want to address them.

I don’t want to be too skeptical, and I want to believe everything will turn out OK, but those nagging questions make me skeptical.
I’ll feel better after we’ve seen how bad the inflation will get.

Here’s another poll by Polling Report (2/20-22/09) which shows considerable concern about debt and inflation (source: www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm):

Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the economic stimulus bill that Congress passed, do you think it would have been better for the government to spend more money to stimulate the economy, better for the government to spend less money, or is the amount of spending in the bill about right?”

• Better to Spend More: 14%


• Better to Spend Less: 41%


• About Right: 40%


• Unsure: 1%

In thinking about the trade-offs between spending government money to improve the economy versus adding considerable amounts of money to the federal debt, which do you think is the greater risk: spending too little to improve the economy or adding too much to the federal debt?”

• Spending too little: 37%


• Adding too much to debt: 59%


• About Right: 4%

“Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the steps the government has taken in recent months to address economic problems, how worried are you about each of the following: very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not worried at all? How about [see below]?”

“The amount of money being added to the federal debt”:

• Very worried: 54%


• Somewhat worried: 28%


• Not too worried: 11%


• Not at all worried: 5%


• Unsure: 1%


“The possibility these steps might not work and the economy will get worse”:

• Very worried: 46%


• Somewhat worried: 37%


• Not too worried: 11%


• Not at all worried: 6%


• Unsure: 1%


“The possibility that increased government borrowing could produce inflation”:

• Very worried: 43%


• Somewhat worried: 35%


• Not too worried: 14%


• Not at all worried: 6%


• Unsure: 2%


“The increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy”:

• Very worried: 34%


• Somewhat worried: 35%


• Not too worried: 19%


• Not at all worried: 10%


• Unsure: 2%

So, most people polled seem to be against growing the debt larger. Yet, the debt IS growing much larger.
And on whose advice (primarily)?

And it seems very unlikely that GDP growth (which is currently negative; i.e. -6.2%) will out-pace the growth of federal debt (currently at $23.9T = $11.1T National Debt + $12.8T borrowed from Social Security).
And federal debt alone is not the only concern, with $70.44 Trillion of current nation-wide debt ($70.44T = $57.64T nation-wide debt + $12.8T borrowed from Social Security; source: mwhodges.home.att.net/#debt).
That is, nation-wide debt has ballooned worse than federal debt.
Nation-wide debt has grown from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to 508% of GDP today (MAR-2009).

I am optimistic that there is a way out of this massive debt-bubble (cleverly mischaracterized as a credit problem).
However, I don’t believe it can be done by growing the debt and government so much larger, when it is already beyond nightmare proportions.
We need much smarter spending and cuts in waste.
The more worthless, useless jobs cut from the bloated federal government, the more productive the nation can become as a whole.
Yet, what is disturbing is the resistance to cutting wasteful spending.

There are a LOT of things that can be done to help most Americans.
However, how many of those things are actually being done?
Some people call me a pessimist, but how am I a pessimist when I believe we can do much better …

Again, there are most likely better ways to resolve this nation’s massive debt problem, and growing the debt larger doesn’t seem like a logical solution.
SOLUTIONS (One-Simple-Idea.com/Solutions1.htm):

• (01) Stop these 10 abuses.


• (02) Stop the dishonest, usurious, predatory, lending practices of the banks, and Stop the Federal Reserve’s Ponzi-scheme which steeply leverages debt-to-reserves (i.e. 9-to-1 fractional lending; 90% of every new loan to a member bank is new money created out of thin air). Banks are essentially loan-sharking, jacking up adjustable rate mortgages (foreclosures be damned) with ridiculously high interest rates (commonly up to 10%-to-20% and as high as 64%) and other predetory lending practices. Banks are also preying on the young, poor, minorities, financially naive, and people deep in debt due to outrageously expensive medical fees. As a result, usury has helped widen the wealth disparity gap. 1% of the wealthiest now own 40% of all wealth, while 80% of Americans own only 17% of all wealth. The gap has never been larger since the Great Depression. 40% of Americans have essentially (on average) ZERO net worth. As a result of the Federal Reserve’s Ponzi-scheme, nation-wide debt has never been larger and has steadily grown (now over $67 Trillion; $220,000 per-capita) for decades from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to almost 500% of GDP in 2008. 90%-to-95% of all U.S. Dollars in existence in the U.S. exists as debt. Also, as a result of excessive creation of new money out of thin air, the U.S. has had 52 consecutive years of incessant inflation. A 1950 Dollar is now worth only 10 cents.


• (03) Stop rampant, irresponsible, wasteful federal spending. The federal government has been deficit spending for 52 consecutive years. The National Debt is now over $11 Trillion (as of 22-MAR-2009). It has never been larger in size or per-capita ($36,066 per-capita as of 9-MAR-2009), and is 66% higher than the previous record-high ($21,719 per-capita in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars) in year 1945, after World War II, and that does not even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching.


• (04) Stop growing and eliminate all of the massive bloat and waste (www.akdart.com/gov1.html) in the federal government now. Prioritize and focus on making the U.S. more energy independent. Prioritize and focus on the most important projects. Create jobs to research, develop, and implement better and more renewable energy resources and rebuild and improve the nation’s infrastructure (which will create long-term savings and benefits). Go through the federal budget with a fine-tooth comb and cut all unnecessary spending and waste. Shift unnecessary spending to spending on highest priority projects.
  For example, cut spending:
  With the federal government’s $2.4 Trillion in annual revenues, change the spending as follows:
  
  • $700 [$590] Billion for Health and Human Services (including $432 Billion for Medicare)
  
  
  • $660 [$522] Billion for Social Security
  
  
  • $640 [$447] Billion for Department of Defense
  (leave Iraq; and reduce military presence in 132 foreign nations).
  
  • $100 [$30] Billion for Department of Education
  
  
  • $100 [$30] Billion for Department of Agriculture
  
  
  • $85 [$100] Billion for Veteran Affairs (no cuts here)
  
  
  • $75 [$75] Billion for Homeland Security (no cuts here)
  
  
  • $56 [$10] Billion for Department of Transporation
  
  
  • $50 [$10] Billion for Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
  
  
  • $60 [$30] Billion for Office of Personnel Management
  
  
  • $550 [$550] Billion for Treasury Department (including $430 [$500] Billion for Interest on the National Debt).
  
  
  • ____________________________________________________________________
  
  
  • $3.074 [$2.4] Trillion ($574 [$0] Billion over total revenues of $2.4 [$2.4] Trillion in 2008 [2009])
  
  What’s wrong with that?
  The federal government is the biggest employer in the nation, and will still be even after those spending cuts.
  More people are employed by the government than all manufacturing (nation-wide).


• (05) Stop the U.S. presence in Iraq;


• (06) Stop the U.S. military presence in 132 nations around the world. That costs a LOT! Is all of that necessary?


• (07) Stop throwing money, subsidies, tax breaks, and welfare at failing banks, financial corporations, the wealthy, and Wall Street; stop rewarding failure, which is also unfair to competitors;


• (08) Stop rampant corruption by increasing and enforcing more transparency and accountability (e.g. One-Purpose-Per-BILL, stop Constitutional violations, etc.);


• (09) Stop Constitutional violations; reduce lawlessness; enforce existing laws (e.g. Article V);


• (10) Stop illegal immigration and enforce E-Verify, and stop the $70-to-$327 Billion in annual net losses due to illegal immigration; prosecute greedy illegal employers;


• (11) Stop H-1/2B abuse and stop importing 1.5 Million (AmericanWorker.org) foreign H-1B workers per year, when there are 12-to-28 Million (www.ShadowStats.com) unemployed American workers.


• (12) Stop despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, disguised as compassion (severely misplaced compassion at best); prosecute greedy illegal employers;


• (13) Stop unfair trade practices; set tarrifs on foreign imports into the U.S. at least equal to other nations’ imports tarrifs imposed on U.S. exports.


• (14) Stop plundering Social Security surpluses; $12.8 Trillion has been borrowed and spent, leaving Social Security pay-as-you-go, with 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching;


• (15) Stop regressive taxation (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm#Taxes). This would also save tax payers tens and possibly hundreds of billions per year by eliminating (or greatly reducing) the cost of calculating taxes, cost of tax software, cost of accounting and record keeping, and the cost of storage of many previous years of tax records.


• (16) Stop killing 195,000 per year due to preventable medical mistakes. Between 1999 and 2004, over 1.5 million people were killed by preventable medical mistakes. That is more than all the American soldiers killed in the American Revolution (4,435), the War of 1812 (2,260), the Indian Wars (1,000), the Mexican War (1,733), the Civil War (462,000), the Spanish American War (385), WWI (53,402), WWII (291,557), Vietnam War (58,209), Korean War (36,574), the Iraq Gulf War (529), and the current Iraq war 19-Mar-2003-to-24-Jan-2009 (4,232), combined! Create a non-profit national health insurance system (get rid of the millions of costly unnecessary middlemen); build more non-profit hospitals and clinics.


• (17) Stop Congress from rewarding itself with a raise almost every year (Congress recently gave itself the 10th raise in 12 years and $93,000 per Congress person for petty cash and expenses; the raises are actually automitic and a BILL is required to stop the automatic raise; must be nice, eh?). Is that necessary? No. What arrogance! ? ! Especially when U.S. Troops go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, or 4+ tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.


• (18) Stop pandering politicians who are virtually FOR-SALE. Allow only equal public financing of elections. Otherwise, politicians will continue to sell-out most Americans!


• (19) Stop pork-barrel; pass a ONE-PURPOSE-PER-BILL amendment; Congress needs a transparent system for prioritizing spending, which it obviously does not have. Currently, most (if not all) Congress persons are more concerned about bringing the pork-barrel home, than solving the nation’s most pressing problems, growing dangerously in number and severity, and threatening the future and security of the nation.


• (20) Stop career politicians and judges; pass TERM LIMITS for all offices;


• (21) Stop the unfair incumbent advantages: One-Simple-Idea.com/FAQ.htm#UnfairAdvantages


• (22) Stop the deterioration of public education; eliminate the bloated, over-paid, and incompetent adminstrative staff; limit education administrative costs to a sepcific percentage of the budget. More education solutions: One-Simple-Idea.com/Education.htm


• (23) Stop repeatedly rewarding irresponsible, FOR-SALE, incompetent, and/or corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates. Stop rewarding corruption, or suffer the painful consequences: One-Simple-Idea.com/NeverWorse.htm

There are lots of solutions and ideas.

Unfortunaately, Congress appears to be where good ideas and solutions go to die.

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 April 3, 2009 06:02 PM

Remer’s arguments only make sense if you define “reality” as anything Barack Obama says it is, and “ideologues” as those who doubt or questions in the slightest the omnipotent perfection of Barack Obama.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 3, 2009 07:59 PM

LO
It seems interesting that the only people putting Obama on a pedestal are the Right Wing CLAIMING that the left are looking upon him as an ICON and grooveling at his feet.
He is providing a distinct change from the past 8 years of corruption, ineptitude, ignorange, arrogance, and stupidity.
Yet he is still his own man, and some of his decisions are not to the left’s nor the progressive’s liking.
and when he does make unpopular decisions, he is being criticized, and people are complaining.
Mr Remer presented some observations that are substantiated by objective FACTS — something that the right wing has become unfamiliar with after the past 8 years of BS and propoganda from their lords and taskmasters in the White house.
ideologues are those who unthinkingly are promoting the FAILED policies of the past.
Tax cuts and cutting (or freezing spending)??????
In a Recession/Depression??? MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.
Worried about the Debt???? Since when???
Since the size of the debt — after 8 years of HIDING the TRUE amount of debt— has been made apparent by this administration actually having the audacity to actually publish it and make it public???? — Your dirty little (non) secret is OUT.
Obama did not double the debt, he did not double the defecit even — it is just now the ACTUAL SIZE OF THE DEBT INHERITED FROM BUSH is now being made public instead of hidden.
We on the left have NO (zero, zip, none) false idea that Obama is omnipotent — it is just VERY INVIGORATING to have a leader WHO ACTUALLY LEADS!!! who is INTELLIGENT — who talks to us INTELLIGENTLY and openly — and who addresses the REAL issues head on.
and when he discusses issues, actually sounds like he knows what he is talking about, and does not end his speech with a stupid, inappropriate smirk. (what an idiot! — sorry, but whenever I imagine that twit and his stupid, inappropriate smirk, the automatic trailer to that is “what an idiot!!!”)
I am just so happy to not have to be embarrased by my own president anymore!!!
So LO — keep being LO, but you may want to actually present an intelligent arguement/criticizm rather than the garbage you have just spouted — your opponent is much more intelligent than your past leader.
get used to it.

Posted by: Russ at April 3, 2009 11:21 PM

David,
The citizens of America and Humanity was asked by the media this week if President Obama could lead the world out of this economic crisis, true? Well, What If Congress would have passed a $3.6 trillion dollar Federal Investment Plan and the American Auto Manufactures would have handed the Whitehouse a politically viable solution that would have laid out how they plan to make America Energy Independent over the next 5-10 years. Would we even be having this conversation now?

Yes, the Conservatives on both sides may complain that President Obama is spending to much money; however, without energy independece I wonder how soon it will be before the American Corporation can no longer afford to pay Labor and Management. Because could we be looking at $8-10.00/gallon in the next year if we do nothing to change our dependence on foreign oil?

Wouldn’t that mean that base pay would have to increase by 800-1,000% if an American was going to enjoy the same lifestyle?

I wonder how many Small Business Owners could afford to do that even if the economy was stabilized?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 4, 2009 03:55 AM

DR
In most cases I can agree with you that BHO leads toward realistic solutions,however the plan to assume the “toxic assets” of the banking system is an exception. There may well be political realities and pressures I am not privy to that are forcing this unrealistic approach, but an unrealistic course it is. The plan relies on the belief that these assets are basically sound,just suffering from a lack of confidence. For that to be true one must believe that housing prices in 2006 were an accurate reflexion of value and further those prices will reassert themselves in the forseable future. Not bloody likely.
Another fault of the program,a faut our conservative friends often remark on concerning government programs, is that it is useing a shotgun instead of a rifle. Not all banks are insolvent but nearly all have some of these assets to unload. A better approach would be to identify the banks that are insolvent.Nationalize them temporarily. Re -capitalize them or close them. The ones worth keeping should then be sold off back to private investors to function under a new regulatory regime to avoid problems in the future. With the current plan we taxpayers will be left holding a lot of worthless paper for no reason.

Posted by: bills at April 4, 2009 10:03 AM

Jim M

over the last few years i’ve been looking at property in the austin area, specificly marble falls. don’t know if you’re familiar with that area. it seems that as of late there is less property available, and prices have actually gone up, or at least it appears. this would be right in line with what you said about the growth of business in texas, and would also seem to buck the national trend . just curios what your thoughts on that are.

Posted by: dbs at April 4, 2009 11:54 AM

Jim M offered more Cornyn Nonsense quotes to which I will reply:

“This budget will reduce opportunities for people looking for jobs.”

This budget maintains and creates jobs. That is widely known and discussed as federal dollars create new research and development projects, hires more teachers, and supports extended unemployment insurance and COBRA assistance giving people looking for jobs an extended period without bankruptcy to find jobs.

The kicker here is that Cornyn has in the past said it is not government’s role to create job opportunities, that is for the private sector. Now Cornyn wants to complain that Obama’s budget doesn’t create enough job opportunities, contradicting his previous position on government creating job opportunities for the unemployed.

“Congress chose not to make it harder to raise taxes, and so this year Obama proposed raising net taxes by $1.4 trillion over the next decade. “

First, Obama’s budget is for the next fiscal year. NOT THE NEXT 10 YEARS. Second, Obama’s budget raises taxes on the top 5% of the wealthiest and investors, not working men and women who are not in the top 5% income earning group. Jobs are NOT being lost due to lack of liquidity and investment dollars, therefore, raising taxes on the wealthiest has no negative effect on jobs creation. Lack of consumer demand is causing the jobs to be lost, not lack of capital due to the wealthiest having to choose between investing and being poor.

Cornyn’s comments are full of nonsense.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2009 03:02 PM

If no other benefit of this recession occurs, I’m glad for it exposing the charlatans. One of my pet peeves is the utter adulation for Warren Buffet, that I think is unwarranted and unwise. I guess now he’s the fifth largest welfare recipient.

Mind you I don’t object that someone with cash is making money during a crash, I do mind that someone who is a large investor and supposed genius doesn’t exert more influence on his holdings boards. It never seems to be anyone’s job to do the moral or right thing while making money. It’s still take the money and run, whether it’s Buffet or any other bloated investor.

Just a little reality over ideology. What can I say? The Dream is Over.

Posted by: gergle at April 4, 2009 03:10 PM

d.a.n interprets the polling data by saying: “So, most people polled seem to be against growing the debt larger. Yet, the debt IS growing much larger.”

First, d.a.n, the question of whether growing debt at this time to save the economy is necessary or not, is not included in your data. Therefore, there is no empirical basis for your statement that most people polled seem to be against growing the debt larger.

If the question were posed: “Do you favor deficit spending at this time toward ending this recession and getting companies hiring again”?, I think the majority would say yes. We know this because Obama’s deficit spending is everywhere in the news, and has been since the day he took office and the majority of those polled support Obama’s handling of the crisis and economy. The people are aware we are deficit spending, and the polls show they approve of Obama’s deficit spending methodology for shortening this recession, preventing jobs from being lost, and creating additional ones.

Yes, of course the people are concerned and worried about the possible consequences of growing the debt. That is rational and logical. Just a folks worry about parting with significant cash reserves when buying a new car. They buy the car because they need to, but, still worry whether or not they will have the cash the need to stay afloat in the future if something unexpected arises leaving them short of cash reserves. The majority approve of the Obama’s deficit spending, even as they worry about the inflationary and increased tax consequences in the future, as a result.

As I wrote in the article, only a fool like Sen. Cornyn would posit that we can stem this recession, prevent financial sector collapse, and invest in our economic future with NO costs attending such efforts. That is just more VOODOO economics. There is a very large price tag for making up the trillions in shareholder and balance sheet losses of America’s largest and mid size financial institutions. One cannot fill a hole with nothing and expected the hole to be filled.

The whole polling result may change however, when this recession is over and job growth has returned. I suspect then, the people will not be so approving of government deficit spending, and that may force a change in the political costs of continuing deficit spending. Which would be a very good and positive thing going forward.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2009 03:20 PM

bills said: “however the plan to assume the “toxic assets” of the banking system is an exception. There may well be political realities and pressures I am not privy to that are forcing this unrealistic approach, but an unrealistic course it is. The plan relies on the belief that these assets are basically sound,just suffering from a lack of confidence.”

Consider these facts. The government IS NOT assuming 100% of the burden of the toxic assets. Instead, what Geithner and Summers have proposed is, as I understand it, a holding company for those assets, in which those assets will be purchased off of financial corporation’s balance sheets, and in accordance with new FASB valuation rules more flexible than strict ‘mark to market’ rules which will induce corporations to shed these assets at amounts more closely tied to real world valuation, with, in part, federal tax dollars, and in part, private sector investor dollars. As the demand for such assets increases with the end of the recession and a halt in falling real estate valuations, the holding company will sell those assets at or above cost if possible, and both the government and private investors will reap the reward from sales.

Not all assets will get sold at profit, some will incur near 100% loss. But, the expectation is that this will be a small percentage of the total asset portfolio. The valuation FASB rules, will insure that these assets are devalued significantly still, when unloaded from corporate balance sheets.

As I said, some of those properties deemed toxic assets, will continue to decline in value as those properties sit vacant, and become vandalized, or worse, razed to the ground by arson, or other disaster. Such properties will result in losses for both tax payers and investors in the holding of such assets.

But, the majority of those assets will not suffer such deteriorating effect. And the majority of these properties purchased at discount for resale down the road, if you will, will be sold at or above cost, hopefully resulting in a net profitable return for both tax payers and private investors.

Businessweek explains it this way:

The Treasury’s Public-Private Investment Program aims to create investment partnerships that will combine government cash with equity capital from private investors. Uncle Sam will then lend those partnerships money at below-market rates so they have more funds to buy up the banks’ bad assets. By providing much of the funding—and limiting private investors’ potential losses—Geithner hopes to spur competitive bidding that will establish realistic prices for the toxic assets and get them off the banks’ balance sheets. “The goal is to provide liquidity to the market on reasonable terms,” says Larry Summers, head of President Obama’s National Economic Council.

BusinessWeek also says: “Bolstering major banks so they can start lending again is essential if the economy is going to recover. Will it work? It might, but that may require some sizable bank asset sales to come together by early summer, followed by a steady flow of deals through yearend to get the program off the ground.”

There is no doubt whatsoever that this plan carries risks of failing. But, if a plan with no risk, and no costs to tax payers and the economy were to be had, don’t you think such a plan would have been put forth by now?

Except for the development of the atomic bomb and curbing global climate change, I doubt any problem facing humanity has received as much deliberation, scrutiny, and search for solution as this toxic asset problem has.

To say that this plan may fail, is accurate. To say this plan has real potential for success is also accurate, which BusinessWeek acknowledges. To say there is a better alternative without providing one in detail, is just political rhetoric designed to further political ends, not the toxic asset problem.

Nationalizing the insolvent banks, forces a cascading domino effect of losses throughout the banking and financial industry. Once a corporation is declared insolvent, all other corporations holding debt for loans made to the insolvent corporation’s, must immediately write off that debt as losses in assets on their own balance sheets, thus creating the cascading and domino effect.

Additionally, nationalizing financial corporations, even temporarily, puts the ENTIRE risk of the toxic assets upon the tax payers. The Geithner/Summers plan attracts private investors to share the risk with tax payers, relieving tax payers of bearing the full risk for the toxic assets, and reducing the deficit and debt obligations of the federal government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2009 03:48 PM

(www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006505.html#279542)

Russ wrote: He [Obama] is providing a distinct change from the past 8 years of corruption, ineptitude, ignorange, arrogance, and stupidity.

Yes, there is some improvement in a few areas, but it could (and should) be much better.

The problem is Congress, who still only has a 36% approval rating (though it is up from a dismal 9% in 2008).
Unfortunately, the 111th Congress consists of 86.9% of the 110th Congress (who just gave themselves their 10th Congressional raise in 12 years, while U.S. troops risk life and limb, go without armor, adequate medical care, promised benefits, and have to do 2, 3, 4+ tours in Iraq and/or Afghanistan).
Yeah, they’re a bunch of winners aren’t they? And the vast majority of Congress has been there all along for many decades.
So how do most of those 535 members of Congress manage to repeatedly escape accountability, while problems grow in number and severity?
How?
Why?
Because voters repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

Perhaps enough voters will question that bad habit when enough of the voters are deep in debt , jobless , homeless , and hungry as a result of these 10 abuses and these deteriorating economic conditions?

Russ wrote: Tax cuts and cutting (or freezing spending)?????? In a Recession/Depression??? MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL.

The current tax system is regressive (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/Abuses.htm#Taxes).

That should be corrected A.S.A.P. (which was a campaign promise).

Freeze in spending? You mean in spending increases?
A freeze in spending increases makes sense if the current debt is already untenable.

Russ wrote: Worried about the Debt???? Since when???

Yes, debt should be a worry, since the $11.1 Trillion National Debt per-capita ($35,807) is 65% larger today than the previous record high ($21,719 in 2008 dollars) in year 1945 after World War II, and 517% larger than the National Debt per-capita ($6,923 in 2008) Dollars in the Great Depression. And that does not even include the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching.

Also, running up debt in the past is not any excuse to continue it, is it?
Especially if the debt is untenable, and likely to produce pressure to create new money, which could result in hyperinflation.

Russ wrote: Since the size of the debt — after 8 years of HIDING the TRUE amount of debt— has been made apparent by this administration actually having the audacity to actually publish it and make it public???? — Your dirty little (non) secret is OUT.

The only major lie about the total federal debt is that so-called Social Security surpluse, which actually consists of non-marketable treasury notes. That is, there is really no money in the Social Security Trust fund. That is why some accurately call Social Security and Medicare a “pay-as-you-go” system.

Russ wrote: Obama did not double the debt, …

Not yet, but that appears to be a danger, with what appears to be so little concern about debt and future inflation.

Especially since no one can yet answer simple questions about the current and/or fast-growing debt:

• (a) Is there any historical precedent of any nation so deep into debt ever successfully solving a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?


• (b) Is there any macro economics model that states that a massive debt-bubble can solved with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?


• (c) Is there any mathematical rationale that demonstrates how any nation so ridiculously deep into debt (much less the biggest debtor nation on the planet) has ever successfully solved a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?


• (d) If the current debt is untenable, how is growing it bigger going to help?


• (e) Where will the money come from when 90%-to-95% of all money in existence in the U.S. exists as debt, because money is created as debt at a steep ratio of 9-to-1 of debt-to-reserves.


• (f) What is the possibility that high inflation (or hyperinflation) will make the situation worse? After all, 33+ nations (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation) have previously tried to borrow, create new money, and spend their way out of a massive debt-bubble, and it not only did not work, but made things worse.

Russ wrote: Obama … did not double the defecit even — it is just now the ACTUAL SIZE OF THE DEBT INHERITED FROM BUSH is now being made public instead of hidden.

Well, that is not entirely true. The president could veto more spending, but he chose not to.

So, there is now some shared blame.
Especially when there is so much spending that appears like unnecessary pork-barrel:

• $650 million for digital-TV coupons; $90 million to educate “vulnerable populations”;


• $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts;


• $150 million for the Smithsonian museum;


• $34 million to renovate the Department of Commerce headquarters; the department that wants to end e-Verify?


• $44 million for repairs to Department of Agriculture headquarters;;


• $350 million for Agriculture Department computers;


• $1 billion for the Census Bureau; will that include 12-to-20+ illegal aliens?


• $850 million for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years;


• $1.7 billion for the National Park System;


• $55 million for Historic Preservation Fund;


• $7.6 billion for “rural community advancement programs”;


• $150 million for agricultural-commodity purchases;


• $400 million for hybrid cars for state and local governments;


• $8 billion for innovative-technology loan-guarantee program;


• $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects;


• $54 Billion for federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as “ineffective” or unable to pass basic financial audits.


• $87 million for a polar icebreaking ship;

(www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006505.html#279543)

Henry Schlatman wrote: Yes, the Conservatives on both sides may complain that President Obama is spending too much money; however, without energy independece I wonder how soon it will be before the American Corporation can no longer afford to pay Labor and Management. Because could we be looking at $8-10.00/gallon in the next year if we do nothing to change our dependence on foreign oil?

We still have energy vulnerabilities.

We have other major issues, but they are not being adequately addressed if money for more important things are going to stuff like that listed above.

Henry Schlatman wrote: Wouldn’t that mean that base pay would have to increase by 800-1,000% if an American was going to enjoy the same lifestyle?

Yes, there will be inflation. How bad it gets depends largely on how much larger the debt grows, because more debt creates more pressure to not default on debt which would surely cause the Dollar to plummet in value around the world. Equally disturbing is not the $11.1 Trillion National Debt, and the $12.8 Trillion borrowed from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching, but the total nation-wide debt (total federal and non-federal debt), which is now $70.44 Trillion ($70.44T = $57.64T nation-wide debt + $12.8T borrowed from Social Security; source: mwhodges.home.att.net/#debt).

Henry Schlatman wrote: I wonder how many Small Business Owners could afford to do that even if the economy was stabilized?

High inflation will create more economic instability. Hyperinflation will be worse than a Great Depression, because it will destroy the currency, all savings, all pensions, all 401Ks, all entitlements, and wages.

(www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006505.html#279547)

bills wrote: DR In most cases I can agree with you that BHO leads toward realistic solutions,however the plan to assume the “toxic assets” of the banking system is an exception. There may well be political realities and pressures I am not privy to that are forcing this unrealistic approach, but an unrealistic course it is. The plan relies on the belief that these assets are basically sound,just suffering from a lack of confidence. For that to be true one must believe that housing prices in 2006 were an accurate reflexion of value and further those prices will reassert themselves in the forseable future. Not bloody likely.

Right. Some people will benefit from it (some who probably don’t deserve it), but it’s seriously doubtful that the tax payers (overall) will ever benefit from assumption of so much toxic debt. Even inflation won’t solve the problem. Inflation is good if you are deep in debt, but only if you aren’t still simultaneously growing the debt ever larger while also trying to pay down the debt. The pressures to create more credit and new money (i.e. 90% of every new loan to a member bank is new money) will be enormous, and exacerbated by the fact that 90%-to-95% of all money in the U.S. already exists as debt. That inverted debt-pyramid is possibly out-of-control. If the debt is not out of control now, then what is the answer to the following questions:

• If the debt is tenable, why do we have 9,000-to-10,000 foreclosures per day?
• If the debt is tenable, why are there record bankruptcies (see top 10 foreclosure states below; over 3 Million foreclosures in year 2008)?
• If the debt is tenable, why are the banks worried about the $62 Trillion Credit Default Swap/Derivatives bubble?
• If the debt is tenable, why has the federal government been deficit spending for 52 consecutive years?
• If the debt is tenable, why have we had 52 consecutive years of incessant inflaton?
• If the debt is tenable, why is a 1950 Dollar now worth only 10 cents ?
• If the debt is tenable, why is the U.S. dollar much lower today against most major currencies than it was 7 years ago (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm)?
• If the debt is tenable, why has the federal government borrowed and spent $12.8 Trillion from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching?
• If the debt is tenable, why is the U.S. swimming in $70.44 Trillion ($227,000 per-capita) of current (not future) nation-wide debt (up from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to 508% of GDP as of MAR2009)?
• If the debt is tenable, why is the $60 Trillion of unfunded liabilities (future debt) for Social Security and Medicare a concern?
• If the debt is tenable, why does 90%-to-95% of all U.S. dollars in existence in the U.S. exist as debt?
• If the debt is tenable, why is inflation a concern?
• If the debt is tenable, why is year-to-year inflation still rising (2002=1.59%, 2003=2.27%, 2004=2.68%, 2005=3.39%, 2006=3.24%, 2007=2.85%, 2008=3.85%, 2009=??.??)?
• If the debt is tenable, why aren’t people spending? Maybe it’s largely because they are tapped out and already deep into debt, eh?
• If the debt is tenable, why is the current $11.1 Trillion National Debt the largest National Debt ever in size, and per-capita ($35,807)?
• If the debt is tenable, where will the money come from to merely pay the interest (over $2.818 Trillion per year at only 4.0% on $70.44 Trillion for 176 years) on so much debt, when that money does not exist?
• If the debt is tenable, and inflation is not a concern, why not create more money out of thin air?
• If the debt is tenable, why can’t anyone provide a explanation or excerpt from any economic model that justifies trying to solve massive debt with more debt, money-printing, and spending? Is it possible that the strategies for handling recessions is totally inadequate for a massive debt problem?
• If the debt is tenable, why is unemployment at a 25 year high (8.1%; 12-to-28 Million unemployed)?
• If the debt is tenable, why are 10 more years of deficit spending being predicted?
• If the debt is tenable, why did the Federal Reserve have to pump $3.8-to-$11.6 Trillon into the banks and corporations (source: www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZchK__XUF84)?
• If the debt is tenable, why was it necessary to save GM, Ford, and Chysler?
• If the debt is tenable, why was it necessary to save AIG over and over ($180 Billion so far)?
• If the debt is tenable, why did Ben Bennake and Henry Paulson appear before Congress to beg for emergency funds to prop-up banks without the 10% reserves required by law?
• If the debt is tenable, why was a $850 Billion Rescue BILL necessary in late 2008?
• If the debt is tenable, why was a $787 Billion Stimulus BILL necessary in Feb-2009?
• If the debt is tenable, why was a $410 Billion Budget Exension BILL necessary for fiscal year 2009?
• If the debt is tenable, why are Americans liquidating, as evidenced by foreign-owned assets which have almost quadrupled from $6 Trillion in year 1997 to $22 Trillion in year 2007?
• If the debt is tenable, why is the U.S. the biggest debtor nation on the planet (owing many trillions to foreign nations)?
• If the debt is tenable, why are there so many debt problems as descrilbed above?

If the debt is tenable, how soon before they simply start giving away massive amounts of money (perhaps air-dropped from helicopters)?

bills wrote: Another fault of the program, a fault our conservative friends often remark on concerning government programs, is that it is useing a shotgun instead of a rifle. Not all banks are insolvent but nearly all have some of these assets to unload. A better approach would be to identify the banks that are insolvent. Nationalize them temporarily. Re-capitalize them or close them. The ones worth keeping should then be sold off back to private investors to function under a new regulatory regime to avoid problems in the future. With the current plan we taxpayers will be left holding a lot of worthless paper for no reason.

Not often we agree, but that makes a lot of sense to me too, and some economists have also suggested that very thing.

Also, perhaps something should be done about all of the speculative Credit Default Swaps/Derivatives (a portion of the $60 Trillion CDS/Derivatives bubble)?

The reason they didn’t do that sooner is because they waited too long, and the system was near total melt-down by late year 2008.
Now, 5-to-6 months later, it appears that propping-up bad banks isn’t helping much (e.g. AIG, who simply continues to come back for more and more money).
And the bad banks are still polluting the system, impacting the flow of credit, and making trust and business between banks risky.
And rewarding failure is also unfair to the competitors who played by the rules and were more fiscally responsible.

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).

dbs wrote: over the last few years i’ve been looking at property in the austin area, specificly marble falls. don’t know if you’re familiar with that area. it seems that as of late there is less property available, and prices have actually gone up, or at least it appears. this would be right in line with what you said about the growth of business in texas, and would also seem to buck the national trend . just curios what your thoughts on that are.

I am familiar with the Marble Falls area.

Marble Falls has a fairly large retirement-age population. I don’t know if that has has anything to do with it, but property prices around Austin, TX are still high. Someone also told me none of the grocery stores there have decent produce.

Texas was not unscathed by massive foreclosures, which are still high, and Texas is still one of the top 10 foreclosure states (based on total foreclosures per state; not based on total housing units per foreclosure, in which Texas ranks 24th).
However, as you can see below, while the rate of foreclosures in Texas is still high, the rate slowed from the previous year (FEB-2008), unlike the other 9 of the top 10 foreclosure states listed below.

As of JAN/FEB 2009:
[#01] California:
• The Golden State’s subprime problems continue to fester, though experts predict it will be the first hard-hit state to recover.
• Pre-foreclosures and foreclosures, February 2009: 80,775
• Rate, housing units per foreclosure: 165
• Rank, housing units per foreclosure: No. 3
• Rate, change from February 2008: 51%
• Unemployment rate, January 2009: 10.1%
• One-month increase (from December 2008): 1.4 points
• One-year increase (from January 2008): 4 points
[#02] Florida:
• Foreclosures remain high despite the state’s cumbersome judicial process.
• Pre-foreclosures and foreclosures, February 2009: 46,391
• Rate, housing units per foreclosure: 188
• Rank, housing units per foreclosure: No. 4
• Rate, change from February 2008: 43%
• Unemployment rate, January 2009: 8.6%
• One-month increase (from December 2008): 1 point
• One-year increase (from January 2008): 3.6 points
[#03] Arizona:
• High vacancy rates in overbuilt areas continue to plague this sunny state.
• Pre-foreclosures and foreclosures, February 2009: 18,119
• Rank, housing units per foreclosure: 147
• Rank, housing units per foreclosure: No. 2
• Rate, change from February 2008: 88%
• Unemployment rate, January 2009: 7%
• One-month increase (from December 2008): 0.4 points
• One-year increase (from January 2008): 2.6
[#04] Nevada:
• Too many borrowers were gambling home prices would keep climbing; now declining values continue to drive foreclosures.
• Pre-foreclosures and foreclosures, February 2009: 15,783
• Rate, housing units per foreclosure: 70
• Rank, housing units per foreclosure: No. 1
• Rate, change from February 2008: 156%
• Unemployment rate, January 2009: 9.4%
• One-month increase (from December 2008): 1 point
• One-year increase (from January 2008): 4.1 points
[#05] Illinois:
• A weakening job market has caused foreclosures to jump in President Obama’s home state, which never had a big housing boom.
• Pre-foreclosures and foreclosures, February 2009: 14,218
• Rate, housing units per foreclosure: 369
• Rank, housing units per foreclosure: No. 7
• Rate, change from February 2008: 62%
• Unemployment rate, January 2009: 7.9%
• One-month increase (from December 2008): 0.7 points
• One-year increase (from January 2008): 2.1 points
[#06] Michigan:
• Foreclosures continue to pile up as the job situation deteriorates here. The state relies heavily on the manufacturing sector, which is slowing nationwide.
• Pre-foreclosures and foreclosures, February 2009: 12,564
• Rate, housing units per foreclosure: 360
• Rank, housing units per foreclosure: No. 6
• Rate, change from February 2008: 62%
• Unemployment rate, January 2009: 11.6%
• One-month increase (from December 2008): 1.4 points
• One-year increase (from January 2008): 4.3 points
[#07] Ohio:
• There wasn’t much of a housing boom in this state, but it appears to be going through somewhat of a real estate bust.
• Pre-foreclosures and foreclosures, February 2009: 11,231
• Rate, housing units per foreclosure: 451
• Rank, housing units per foreclosure: No. 10
• Rate, change from February 2008: 15%
• Unemployment rate, January 2009: 9.4%
• One-month increase (from December 2008): 1 point
• One-year increase (from January 2008): 3.1 points
[#08] Texas:
• This state’s snappy foreclosure process is speeding up its recovery, while its energy-focused economy keeps unemployment low.
• Pre-foreclosures and foreclosures, February 2009: 10,527
• Rate, housing units per foreclosure: 896
• Rank, housing units per foreclosure: No. 24
• Rate, change from February 2008: -14%
• Unemployment rate, January 2009: 6.4%
• One-month increase (from December 2008): 0.8 points
• One-year increase (from January 2008): 2 points
[#09] Georgia:
• This southern states foreclosure rate reflects a subprime lending binge coupled with falling home values.
• Pre-foreclosures and foreclosures, February 2009: 10,185
• Rate, housing units per foreclosure: 389
• Rank, housing units per foreclosure: No. 8
• Rate, change from February 2008: 33%
• Unemployment rate, January 2009: 8.6%
• One-month increase (from December 2008): 1.1 points
• One-year increase (from January 2008): 3.4 points
[#10] Viginia:
• Virginia may have a high foreclosure rate, but it’s employment situation looks pretty strong for now.
• Pre-foreclosures and foreclosures, February 2009: 4,823
• Rate, housing units per foreclosure: 679
• Rank, housing units per foreclosure: No. 15
• Rate, change from February 2008: 15%
• Unemployment rate, January 2009: 6%
• One-month increase (from December 2008): 1 point
• One-year increase (from January 2008): 2.6 points

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 April 4, 2009 03:57 PM

dbs, North Texas real estate values continue to fall. Central Texas real estate values overall are holding value or appreciating in the suburban and rural areas just outside cities like San Antonio. Other areas in S. and W. Texas are variable, rural agricultural pricing has been on a tear, but are expected to flatten in 2009. Tourist rural areas like the Marfa area, west of Big Bend, are likely to also flatten out this year and next due to the recession and slow down in business.

Texas has faired better than the rest of the country due its 80% financing law on mortgages. A lesson California would do well to adopt ASAP. Texas has a large military presence, which helps sustain its economy during recessionary periods, especially in the ElPaso and San Antonio areas.

I don’t know this for fact, but, I suspect Texas’ silicon corridor from Dallas to Austin is helped by government contracts as well.

Texas continues to receive a good share of federal dollar inflows, which is rather ironic in light of it being a Republican state and Republican politicians railing against government spending. Being a Southern Sun Belt state has also been an economic stabilizer as population shifts from the North to Texas have been a big boon to Texas’ economy for several decades now.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2009 04:21 PM

gergle, I read recently that Buffet has lost a large share of his wealth during this investment recessionary period. 40% loss comes to mind, but, I would have to search to insure an accurate figure.

Now, Buffet is not screaming and crying about being less wealthy. He is after all, still a billionaire. I think the reason he is well liked is because 1) he does not object to paying his taxes and 2) he publicly states middle class working folks should not be paying higher tax rates on their income than the law requires of him.

You used the word adoration. I think the word, respect for his integrity, would be more realistic and appropriate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2009 04:26 PM

David,

While I’m all for avoiding taxes legally, Buffet uses offshore shell companies to shield himself from taxes. Not to mention all the tax shelters insurance companies have. While I have no knowledge of whether this is completely legal or not, I don’t hold him or Bill Gates out as any sort of moral arbiters, which I often read about, while writers are referencing his wonderfulness. While you may respect him, as anyone should, as a successful investor, he is; it’s just that part of his image is exactly that. Image. PR. I just get a little sick of the fawning. Nobody’s accusing him of being stupid.

Posted by: gergle at April 4, 2009 05:04 PM

I fear that the rose-colored glasses keep Mr. Remer from seeing all the red ink accumulating around him.

Posted by: MS at April 4, 2009 05:25 PM

Yes, Warren Buffet’s honesty about the regressive nature of the federal tax system deserves praise (more about that: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece?print=yes).

There must be other very wealthy people that realize this, but say nothing, or instead, bitch and moan about being taxed unfairly.

I don’t know how many times I’ve seen devious attempts to claim the majority of the wealthy pay higher percentages of their gross income to taxes than the majority of Americans.

It’s a lie that is not yet widely know.

That does not mean that all wealthy people pay lower percentages (such as Warren Buffet), because some wealthy people do not derive the majority of their wealth from capital gains alone. That is, many have larger salaries, wages, and earned labor income. Those types of income are taxed at higher percentages. However, the 15.3% taxation on gross wage income for Social Security and Medicare are also capped (at $102,000 for 2008), which is a very regressive type of taxation. The thing about capital gains is that they are taxed at 5%-to-15%. But gross wage income is taxed first 15.3% for Social Security and Medicare, and then taxed again for federal income taxes. This is how Warren Buffet paid 17.7% in total federal taxes on $46 Million in year 2006, while his secretary paid 30% in total federal taxes on $60K. And even if you omit the 7.65% for the Social Security and Medicare taxes supposedly paid by the employer on the employees behalf, the secretary still pays a 22.35% in total federal taxes (still higher than 17.7%).

I think it is very revealing that some types of income are taxed at vastly different percentages.
Why should capital gains income (mostly money created by playing with money, interest and dividend income, stock price increases, etc.) be taxed at 5%-to-15% while a ditch diggers hard earned income is first taxed a whopping 15.3% ([2 x 6.2% for S.S. taxes] + [2 x 1.45% for Medicare taxes]) on the gross income, and then taxed on the gross again for federal income taxes (without even deducting the S.S. and Medicare taxes). Most middle class Americans pay between 25% and 31% in total federal taxes.

What’s fair about that?
Why is Warren Buffet a lone voice amongst thousands of other very wealthy people?

And while I don’t like to engage in partisan warfare, Republicans are the worst about creating regressive taxes, such as this group that wants a 30% flat sales tax.

All sales taxes are regressive.
Do you the Republicans on that list are really unaware of that fact?
The plan is very clever, because it does its best to hide the true regressive nature of any sales tax (especially a whopping 30% sales tax).
The first deception begins with the smoke and mirrors that the 30% Sales Tax is not really a 30% Sales Tax (because it is really a 23.077% inclusive tax; based on $30 tax on a $100 dollar item; thus $30/($100+$30) = 23.077%).
They then provide tables trying very hard to prove that income will be taxed at approximately the same percentage, but cleverly omit the income column.
And it’s funny that such valiant efforts to show income will be taxed at approximately the same percentage by taxing spending.
Gee, if the goal is to tax income at approximately the same percentage, then why tax spending instead of income?
And then there are those that are completely honest about not caring whether sales taxes are regressive or not.
All they care about is that it will reduce their taxes significantly, and don’t give a damn that others taxes (as a percentage of their gross income) climbs as their income decreases (that is, after a puny rebate to pacify the poor and ignorant who don’t know they’re gettin’ screwed royally).
Again, I hate partisan warfare, but I’ll give this much to Democrats. Very few are dumb enough to fall for a 30% sales tax system (with or without a stupid rebate).

Yes, Warren Buffet isn’t sittin’ around whining about paying his taxes ( 17.7% in total Federal taxes on $46 Million in year 2006), or his billions of dollars in losses in the stock market in the last year or so.

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 April 4, 2009 05:28 PM

gergle, That article is interesting. You may have a point.

from Chron.com … Although Buffett has been outspoken about the need for government intervention in the crisis caused by the mortgage meltdown, he’s said nothing publicly about the role of a company in which his firm is a minority holder. Buffett also has decried “credit default swaps” — which are similar to insurance policies, in which mortgage bonds and other financial instruments are insured against default — as “financial weapons of mass destruction.” He criticized the profligate use of these unregulated financial tools, or derivatives, widely blamed as a root of the credit collapse. Yet Berkshire has issued tens of billions of dollars in derivatives. In a letter to shareholders, Buffett justified derivatives as relatively safe and likely to yield vast profits. Leading economists, however, said that Berkshire’s credit default swaps are much the same as those that sank American International Group, the insurer at the epicenter of the derivative fiasco. …

I was not aware that Buffet called CDS/Derivatives weapons of financial weapons of mass destruction, but also tried to justify some of them to shareholders. Especially when some leading economists claim that Berkshire’s CDS/Derivatives are much the same as those that sank American International Group, the insurer at the epicenter of the derivative fiasco.

But there’s no doubt people want their investments protected. There does seem to be some inconsistencies in rhetoric and actions (with regard to Credit Default Swaps/Derivatives), maybe something that raises questions of ethics, but there doesn’t appear to be anything obviously dastardly. Still, it deserves a closer look.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 4, 2009 05:59 PM

With all of the talk about the wealthy having to pay higher taxes I wonder how many of them realize that by pricing more and more Americans out of the ranks of being Economically Viable Consumers that they are the leading cause of their own problem? For how many corporations can make profit without sales or there is a world wide boycott against them.

Could America be looking at a two tier Labor Market in the near future? For why I may be inclined to give someone on a limited income a break on the price. What stands in the why of an American charging those citizens living in the top 20% of Society 4-5 times the amount paid by the average working American. Especially since price control has been found not to work.

So I ask should the American Small Business Owners and Labor charge those who can afford to pay more for the same products and services in order to pay for their taxes.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 4, 2009 06:12 PM

d.a.n, perhaps Buffet, being an honest person by repute, admits publicly to wearing two hats. One as head of his corporation seeking profitability for its shareholders, and one as an American citizen concerned for the financial health of his nation and economy. The two are often at odds with each other. Were I in Buffets position, I too, would be pulled in different directions with the advent of unbridled profit making instruments which would by definition create a bubble doomed to burst one day.

Does such cognitive dissonance force a person like Buffet to give up the role of citizen, or CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, as a result? Certainly it strains their integrity. But, it does not appear to force them to resolve the dissonance by any method other than speaking truthfully while wearing each hat, at best.

I think most people would be challenged to handle the cognitive dissonance as well as Buffet has. Though certainly, Buffet always had the choice of renouncing his position of responsible citizen toward the economy, or CEO for BH shareholders.

Most people can’t even handle the cognitive dissonance resulting from voting for a particular party’s candidates vs. voting them out for dismal performance in government, responsibly.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2009 08:20 PM

MS, I see the red ink. But, it is the entitlement red ink that is my greatest concern, as it represents debt well beyond the carrying capacity of our economy and government revenues to maintain, wherever one places that tipping point in dollar amount.

The current debt is, by definition, sustainable. By definition means, China and Saudi Arabia and many other nations and investors still regard American treasury bonds a better investment than any other nation can offer.

How much can be added to the current debt level before investors in that debt stop investing in that debt, is the bubble question bursting for an answer.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2009 08:26 PM

gergle said: “Buffet uses offshore shell companies to shield himself from taxes.”

From I have heard, Buffets tax shelters are legal. The fact that Buffet is calling for tax shelter reform, as a measure to insure the wealthy pay at least as high a percentage of their income in taxes as their hourly wage workers, is to his credit.

Buffet is no St. Theresa. He has not taken a vow of poverty and shed his billion plus in net worth to feed and educate the poor of the world to a more prosperous future. But, as a wealthy American, he is calling for tax fairness and justice in federal policy, and while not making him a saint, it does speak to his credibility as a responsible wealthy tax paying citizen, motivated by something other than greed and power.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2009 08:31 PM

MS, just as a point of fact, I will never pay a dime on the growing debt accumulating. And I will pay only a very, very small tax increase before I pass away, on the interest on the current debt levels.

It is my daughter’s wages and taxes I am concerned about. She has 70 years ahead of her, most of them as a wage or salary earner. And I don’t, on principle, object to her taxes being higher than what I paid over my lifetime, provided, that she receives better and more useful services from government that I experienced with the occurence of 9/11, and the Iraq invasion, and the savings and loan debacle, and the current financial system meltdown. If her taxes are higher, but such events are not in her future, her elevated 5 or 10% taxes will be very much worth paying.

If she never has to face a health issue without health insurance, a 5 or 10% tax increase in her future will be worth it, as health care inflation has been between 5 and 10% per YEAR for many years now.

One has to take a rational approach to such issues. The root word of rational being ratio. And I speak to the ratio of taxes paid to the services and all manner of protections provided government. For the last 3 decades, taxation has increased and government services have been reduced.

Example: 3 decades ago, all national parks were available to citizens without entrance fee, and they were spotlessly maintained with the manpower to keep them spotless, paid for by one’s income taxes. Today, our national parks are littered, some very much more than others, and places like Big Bend are horribly understaffed, and the entrance and camping fees have gone up several times in the last decade.

This is but one of myriad examples of how taxes have increased while government services have been reduced. National security and defense spending had been increasing since the 1950’s as a percentage of the federal budget, with a few short term downward corrections. And for all those increases in national security and defense spending, 9/11 still occurred. If we pay more in taxes, we have a right to expect and demand better government performance for those increases. And we, as the middle class and majority of voters, have a right to demand that our wages keep pace with inflation, or that inflation remains equal or less than the rate of inflation, from our government management of the economy. That has not been the case since the 1970’s.

There is a rational case to be made for increasing federal taxes. But, poorer and less government services is not that case. Our government and its leaders have the ability to respond appropriately to higher taxes, by providing better and more widespread services for those tax increases. But, we voters must vote as if we know that this is their responsibility, removing incumbents who fail to provide policy which demonstrates that responsibility.

Like the financial industry meltdown, there are many contributors to poorer government response with the advent of higher taxation, deficit spending, and national debt. And voters head the list.

Though I hasten to add, the rise of the Independent voters numbers surpassing those of either Democrat or Republican registered voters is a very positive sign that voters taking responsibility for their part, at the polls, voting for candidates qualifications and policy direction as opposed to party affiliation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 4, 2009 08:58 PM

Someone up the column said the government employed more people than our manufacturers…perhaps it was meant to be said that our United States government hires more of its CITIZENS than our manufacturers??? Outsourcing and building facilities offshore and across borders has reduced the numbers of employed Americans far more than government hiring has increased it.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 4, 2009 11:22 PM

DR
I hope you are right but have my doubts. Another danger to the plan is that if it does fail there is no much chance politically for even more funds to come from congress.
Nationalization is not the same as bankruptcy. Creditors are still entitled to recieve all or part of the debts owed them. You asked,if there was a better plan, why has no one put it forth. There is a better plan and it has been put forth by several noted economist like Krugman for example. Other countries,faced with the same situation have done so, notably Sweden. Heck ,we did it with the S&Ls. I suspect there is a political bent to all this. If so that belies your original thesis about BHO and reality somewhat.

Posted by: bills at April 5, 2009 06:39 AM

David,
You mentioned that “I too, would be pulled in different directions with the advent of unbridled profit” however, under the current business model held by both the Democratic and Republican Leadership I have to say that their own Ignorance and failure to act in their Inherent Best Interest falls far short of that statement. And IMHO is why folks like Rush and Company cannot see why the Republican Leadership in Congress and the Whitehouse allowed the American Economy to meltdown.

For challenge by UBL and Al Qaeda to end World Poverty when in the last 30 years America and the Nations of Humanity has failed to end World Hunger at the begining of the wars. All I have seen from both sides of the political coin is talk that America cannot become Energy Independent or make all of their Citizens economically viable and financially independent.

Yet, as a Child of the 70’s who has grown up knowing how to build a Sustainable World I am amazed that people like Buffet with all of his billions has not learned the Secert of Wealth. For what if it is humanlt possible to feed every Human on Earth and provide them with the necessary income to meet their obligations and needs as Citizens. Would than not those citizens opposed to Generational Change be found Stupid by the Societal Principles and Standards they claim if they would not accept the Reality understood by President Obama and the Children of the 21st Century?

Because how hard is it to plant a seed in a pot and harvest what you sowed. Or place a few windmills in a wind tunnel in order to have the energy that you need. Or use the Trade of Imports and Exports in order to pay your taxes and provide your family the Bling-Bling that makes their life easier.

For why the Wealthy of Today and Yesterday has done much to make themselve relient on the Labor of the Poor and Uneducated of the World. I would challenge folks like Mr. Buffet to show the World that as a Man he can stand up and be Self-Sufficient.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 5, 2009 06:39 AM

DR
Paul Krugman says it better than I.

To justify the scheme as announced, you have to either assume that the toxic assets are wildly underpriced, or take as a given extreme political and legal constraints preventing you from doing anything close to the right thing.

Posted by: bills at April 5, 2009 08:00 AM

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, perhaps Buffet, being an honest person by repute, admits publicly to wearing two hats.

One as head of his corporation seeking profitability for its shareholders, and one as an American citizen concerned for the financial health of his nation and economy. The two are often at odds with each other. Were I in Buffets position, I too, would be pulled in different directions with the advent of unbridled profit making instruments which would by definition create a bubble doomed to burst one day. Yes, and it makes one wonder about a conflict of interest? But it is difficult (and possibly impossible) to prove.

David R. Remer wrote: Does such cognitive dissonance force a person like Buffet to give up the role of citizen, or CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, as a result? Certainly it strains their integrity.

No. But it does raise questions when someone (a) calls Credit Default Swap/Derivatives “Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction” while (b) also characterizing Berkshire’s CDS/Derivatives to be relatively safe and likely to yield vast profits (to say the least). Especially if Berkshire’s investors lost money as a result of those CDS/Derivatives which are very much the same type as those that sank AIG (American International Group) and other troubled financial corporations?

David R. Remer wrote: I think most people would be challenged to handle the cognitive dissonance as well as Buffet has. Though certainly, Buffet always had the choice of renouncing his position of responsible citizen toward the economy, or CEO for BH shareholders.

Perhaps. No body is perfect, and we should always be careful about putting people on a pedastal. Also, perhaps Buffet would be the first to admit there’s something obviously inconsistent with his simultaneous disdain of CDS/Derivatives and the defense of Berkshire’s CDS/Derivatives? Clearly, opportunities for self-gain is often too much temptation. Very few can people resist such temptations, and even fewer can do it 100% of the time. In retrospect, since Warren Buffet lost $50 Billion (as of FEB-2009), he most likely now sees his mistake. It’s a safe bet that he now wishes he had taken his own advice and completely steered clear of CDS/Derivatives?

David R. Remer wrote: Most people can’t even handle the cognitive dissonance resulting from voting for a particular party’s candidates vs. voting them out for dismal performance in government, responsibly.

True, for a while, and often for far too long. But not forever.

True for a number of the past few decades, as evidenced by 85%-to-90% re-election rates for Congress.

But eventually, the built-in self-correction mechanism (i.e. pain and misery) finally trumps blind partisan loyalties (and other root causes), as evidenced by the majority of unhappy voters who ousted hundreds of members of Congress in the Great Depression (including a whopping 206 members of Congress in year 1933).

Eventually, if the pain and misery gets bad enough, voters will probably repeat what unhappy voters did in years 1927-to-1933 (i.e. voting out incumbent politicians by the hundreds):

• Start __ End __ Congress _ Re-Election _ Party Seat-Retention


• Year ___ Year ___ # _____ Rate _______ Rate


• 1927 __ 1929 __ 070st ___ 83.6% _____ 96.4% (87 incumbents ousted: 22(D), 64(R), 1(FL) )


• 1929 __ 1931 __ 071st ___ 79.7% _____ 92.5% (108 incumbents ousted)


• 1931 __ 1933 __ 072nd ___ 76.8% _____ 88.5% (123 incumbents ousted)


• 1933 __ 1935 __ 073rd ___ 61.2% _____ 78.7% (206 of 531 incumbents ousted; 59 Dems, 147 Repubs)


• … … … … … … … .


• 1989 __ 1991 __ 101st ___ 90.1% _____ 99.6%


• 1991 __ 1993 __ 102nd ___ 87.7% _____ 98.3%


• 1993 __ 1995 __ 103rd ___ 73.5% _____ 98.1% (142 of 535 incumbents ousted)


• … … … … … … … .


• 1999 __ 2001 __ 106th ___ 89.2% _____ 99.3%


• 2001 __ 2003 __ 107th ___ 89.2% _____ 98.7%


• 2003 __ 2005 __ 108th ___ 87.9% _____ 98.1% (65 of 535 voted out)


• 2005 __ 2007 __ 109th ___ 88.6% _____ 98.7% (61 of 535 voted out)


• 2007 __ 2009 __ 110th ___ 84.9% _____ 93.1% (81 of 535 incumbents voted out (68=16(D)+51(R)+1(I) in the House) + (13=3(D)+9(R)+1(I) in the Senate)


• 2009 __ 2011 __ 111th ___ 86.9% _____ 94.0% (70 of 535 voted out (57=13(D)+44(R) in the House) + (13=3(D)+10(R) in the Senate); a few seats left To Be Determined (TBD))

I’m confident enough voters will eventually figure it out. In fact, by 2010, or 2012, I suspect re-election rates for Congress will start to fall, as more and more voters finally learn what most unhappy voters learned in years 1927-to-1933 (during the Great Depression). That lesson being that repeatedly rewarding corrupt, irresponsible, incompetent, FOR-SALE incumbent politicians (in any party) only leads to more pain and misery. As simple and obvious as that lesson is, it apparently is forgotten in time and must be re-learned (the hard way).

Unfortunately, at the moment and based on the 86.9% re-election rates for Congress, too many voters still love THEIR party more than their country, and sabotaged their choice for President by saddling the President with 86.9% of the same irresponsible, incompetent, FOR-SALE, and corrupt incumbent politicians

Perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic, complacent, and blindly partisan when enough of the voters are:

• (a) deep in debt ($70.44 Trillion nation-wide)?


• (b) jobless (13.2-to-30.7 Million unemployed)?


• (c) homeless (3+ Million foreclosures per year)?


• (d) and/or hungry (over 10% (32.2 million) of Americans receive food stamps as of 2-APR-2009)?

It’s a pretty safe bet that there will be more educated voters by 2010 and 2012 as more and more is learned about THEIR congress persons’ who have been stabbing most Americans in the back while carryin’ the water for their big-money donors to their campaign war-chests (such as Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT); the co-conspirator of the AIG loophole, which Dodd initially tried to deny knowledge-of, but later confessed 1 day later that the Treasury asked him to do it and claimed he [Dodd] was (somehow?) therefore not to blame?; a recipient of a sweetheart mortgage deal; and a recipient of huge campaign donations from AIG, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, etc.). Yet, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if he is rewarded for all of it with another re-election in year 2010.

Until then, 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 April 5, 2009 02:06 PM

Jim M, your comments now sound like Cornyn’s, making no sense at all. I state the observable fact that I will not pay any of the taxes to pay down the now accruing national debt, and you entirely misinterpret that statement of fact as my preference for elevating debt and taxes on my daughter’s life and her children.

I don’t relish the idea of anyone slicing my daughter open with a knife either. But, if surgery will extend her quality and length of life, I will assent to cutting her open. The bulk of the deficits now being added to the national debt are necessary to insure the viability of our economy and insure federal revenues into the future to manage that debt without defaulting on it.

I don’t want to see our economy fail, and America become a third world nation accepting handouts from the IMF to try to feed its people. That is no future at all for my daughter or her children.

And as the polls and majority in this government demonstrate, mine is not a minority view by any means. I am surprised a bit that your comments don’t just come out and say you hate this democratic process which is permitting this deficit spending to occur. Fidelity to a governmental process is like marriage, one remains committed to the integrity of it through the good and ill, or one cheats, in the hopes of taking the good and rejecting the ill for another.

Sense is not easy for Cornyn to come by, given his votes and lack of concern for the financial fiasco he was helping to create these last 8+ years. He must defend himself against his record in the only way he knows how, by condemning the actions of others, even laudable actions, to deflect evaluation of his own participation in bringing our economy to its knees.

And if I am not mistaken, those 3 job market areas he refers to, voted in a majority for Obama last November.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 5, 2009 02:20 PM

d.a.n, yes, Dodd has far outlived his credibility as a Senator in defense of the nation and her laws. There are a large number, a very large number of Senators on both sides of the aisle, who would have to be unseated if the Senate is to become the deliberative body for the Nation’s benefit. The lot we have in their now, share Sen. Cornyn’s view, that they are there to represent only those who elected them.

That is fine for a representative in the House, but not for a Senator. The founding fathers and Constitution contemplated the Senators being entrusted with the well being of the entire Nation, not just their home district constituents. To listen to these Democratic and Republican Senators rail against the deficits even as they lard up the spending bills with home district earmarks and largesse, entirely at odds with the financial needs of the nation, is a defilement of the responsibility associated with their title as Senator.

The make nonsense for the nation’s future as they create federal cents for their patrons back home. The Senate was intended to be a check on this kind of disposition anticipated by members of the House of Representatives. But, the Senate increasingly looks more like the House of Representatives with each passing year of wasteful, irresponsible, and narrow visioned deficits.

Deficits intended to secure the nation’s future are justifiable and warranted. But, deficits which undermine the nation’s future in order to preserve a Senator’s reelection bid, by paying back patrons with national dollars, will ultimately spell the demise of that Senator’s state and his/her patrons in the end. It makes no sense regarding the appropriate order of priorities, and represents the selfishness, and narrow short time sightedness of children who will dart in front of a passing truck in the hopes of being first to the ice cream stand.

Alaskan Secessionists are of such mental midgetry. Just how long do they think they would remain a free and independent nation 90 miles from Russia, given their oil reserves? All in the name of saving a few dollars per person in taxes, they would give up the protections against invasion and attack of our federal government. And they apparently assume their 600,000 population would be sufficient to insure their nation’s protection.

They just don’t come more short sighted than that. They are unlikely to vote for reinstating Ted Stevens however, which goes to show, no one is all wrong on every issue. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 5, 2009 02:54 PM

bills, out of context, Krugman’s words afford little meaning. Do you have a link? Taking his statement as it stands reported, I have to reply:

To justify the scheme as announced, one does not have to assume anything about the value of the assets. That is the whole point. There is no timely way of discerning the eventual real market value of those assets before the financial system freezes up.

What does Krugman refer to when he says: “the Right thing?” Aren’t legal prescriptions part and parcel of doing the right thing? Isn’t that the goal of the rule of law, as opposed to chaos and anarchy, where different players value the same things in very different measures, each in accord to their own perceived best interest?

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 5, 2009 03:01 PM

Bills, first there are enormous differences between the banking systems of European individual nations and Americas. There’s are not anchors for the global economy and financial system, ours is. That cannot be overstated, and Krugman, apparently by your read of his commentary, sweeps this difference away as irrelevant. It is not.

Second, I agree nationalization is not the same as bankruptcy. Nationalization preserves the integrity of the business operations going forward, whereas bankruptcy, breaks up the business operations and sells them off to the highest bidders, assuming there are bidders, preferably domestic and not foreign where our financial industry is concerned, and assuming there is sufficient liquidity in the financial system to provide the credit for domestic bidders to buy the broken up and more profitable pieces of the bankrupt corporation.

Third, creditors of the unprofitable companies within the corporation WILL lose out since in bankruptcy, the unprofitable companies of a bankrupt corporation are not sold off, and therefore there are no revenues from sale to pay those creditors. In addition, bankruptcy courts are under the gun to make the sale of corporations in receivership as quickly as possible, to preserve value for creditors payments, and to make quick sale, assets are auctioned at discount, meaning all creditors are not paid, as the court has legal prioritization of which creditors are to be paid from proceeds before others.

The lower rung creditors don’t get paid back. When the amounts being discussed for a failed corporation are in the 100’s of billions, you are looking at 10’s of billions of potential creditor losers.

When you say: “Creditors are still entitled to recieve all or part of the debts owed them.”, that is true ONLY as far as the proceeds of the auction will go to high priority creditors. Shareholders are at the bottom of the priority list of creditors. They assumed the risk as part of their contract. Creditors with contracts of sale assumed no legal risk for the corporation’s losses and thus are at the top of the list for auction proceeds.

In the case of these financial institutions, we are talking leverage in the many trillions of dollars, perhaps as many as 10 trillion. These financial institutions in a failed and auction state, represent only a fraction that amount in real assets to be distributed by bankruptcy courts.

Krugman has a Ph.D. and prizes attached to his name, I understand. These do not however, insure that Krugman must be right in his opinions, nor that his analysis is complete and and sufficiently broad in scope.

Krugman doesn’t appear to appreciate the magnitude of the losses to our financial system were these financial institutions to be forced into bankruptcy receivership. Nor, from your comments, does he even address the potential risk of our financial institutions being sold to foreign highest bidders, who at this time would pass federal rules for foreign ownership but whose interests would clearly not lie with America’s international strategic interests in the future having accrued such leverage in our financial system of the future.

These points I raise, are not mine. I don’t have a Ph.D. in economics. These points I raise come from other Ph.D.s in economics in our society. And they are points which Krugman must address satisfactorily if he is to persuade government Ph.D.’s in economics to his views, which he has not sufficiently done, to date, obviously.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 5, 2009 03:24 PM

Jim M.,
Would you rather be ruled by the “legalized tyranny at the hand of government” or by the legalized tyranny at the hand of the Barons of Society? Both by the way is unacceptable in America. Unless you all changed the fact that it is a Government by and for “We the People” that are subject to Generational Change.

For I wonder how many so called Conservatives today could of handled living with the American Barons of the Late 1800’s?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 5, 2009 06:49 PM

It’s bacl! Amnesty # 25. I was sure they would leave this alone since they have paid for the upkeep of the illegal population through the bailouts for several years hence. But, here it is.
“Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) have introduced their latest version of the DREAM Act (S 729 and HR 1751). In spite of the lofty rhetoric, the legislation is really a sweeping amnesty for a broad range of illegal aliens who meet certain minimal educational requirements.

In fact, the amnesty is even more expansive than last session’s DREAM Act. The legalization would cover “children” up to the age of 35, a five-year bump above the previous version. Adult amnesty recipients, or minors when they turn 21, could then petition to bring in other relatives.”

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 5, 2009 10:06 PM

Roy,
The problem the Loyal Opposition has with challenging the Dream Act is the long standing relationship America has had with Mexico and Their Citizens for the last 100 plus years. And why you can say that 9/11 changed all that, proving that most, but not all of the Illegal Aliens come into the Nation to do it harm is a losing political battle.

No, I would take the opportunity to use the issue in order to level the playing field of “We the Corporation” because why crossing the broder is still not a felony. I do believe that the back taxes and wages owed by the Corporation who hire this type of Workforce would help pay for the Law Enforcement necessary to bring the problem under control. For how can an American Company compete fairly with an other American Company who wishes to break the law of the Land for their own personal gain?

So why I realize that the Dream Act would help families stay together and preserve the long standing relationship enjoyed by the United States and Mexico. I do see where a few good Non-profits could be used to bridge the gap that divides My Democratic and Republican Citizens.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 6, 2009 12:37 AM

Roy, Obama insisted a week and a half or so ago, that the border issues with Mexico cannot be resolved in a piece meal fashion, and must be addressed in a comprehensive fashion which concurrently halts illegal traffic at the border, beefs up inspections and oversight at border crossings, works with Calderon to help Mexico more effectively combat the drug cartels, deport illegal aliens who fail to meet tests for remaining in America as eventual law abiding and productive citizens, and yes, provide a ‘move to the end of the line’ legal pathway for productive and otherwise law abiding illegal aliens to become citizens after meeting rigorous requirements, such as speaking English and being lawfully and gainfully employed.

I do not know if the legislation you mention is intended to be part of this comprehensive approach or a Democratic Party unilateral effort to increase Democratic voters in future elections.

I am however, now convinced, despite my fierce objections to allowing the illegal immigration to continue in the past, that Obama’s comprehensive approach is the most just, humane, and potentially effective approach to ending the growing costs of our unsecured Southern border. If the bills you mention are not part of a concurrent comprehensive approach as outlined by Obama, then I will vehemently oppose such legislation right along with you. And I will insist Obama veto such legislation if passed, until such time as similar measures are introduced as part of the comprehensive plan he outlined to the American public.

Thank you for the heads up on these bills so I can look into them and follow this event closely.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 6, 2009 03:19 AM

DR
You might take a look at Krugmans blog. Look for the piece titled, “Some banks versus “the banks”’”

Posted by: bills at April 6, 2009 10:10 AM

Amnesty is amnesty. Just a repeat of the 80’s amnesty deal. If folks set back and let this one happen they truly deserve the government they have.
Some more of yore government in action: “RESTON, Va. – Sallie Mae said Monday that it will bring 2,000 jobs to the U.S. within the next 18 months as it shifts call center and other operations from overseas.”
Rob Peter to pay Paul, or whatever it takes to give em a feel good moment. What we will likely never know is how much the PI gets, under or over the table, for this deal.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 6, 2009 10:15 AM

David,

You mention the ‘new bear market’ as a sign of how the market is taking Obama, but the truth is that the increases in the market are due directly to the relaxing of the Mark to Market accounting rules that I, along with many Republicans, were screaming for last year as the election was bearing down. Unfortunately, the Democrats at the time were more concerned with winning an election than trying to avert a recession.

Every time Geitner talks to Congress to attempt to detail a plan that still has no detail, the market drops.

Now that the Democrats have finally caught on to the changes to the accounting rules that were needed last year, more and more banks are finding much more breathing room and are turning back in the loans they were given. Will that money be used to pay down the debt or put back into the general fund to be used for other programs not related at all to ‘fixing our economy’? That is going to be a very telling situation…

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 6, 2009 10:43 AM

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, yes, Dodd has far outlived his credibility as a Senator in defense of the nation and her laws. There are a large number, a very large number of Senators on both sides of the aisle, who would have to be unseated if the Senate is to become the deliberative body for the Nation’s benefit. The lot we have in their now, share Sen. Cornyn’s view, that they are there to represent only those who elected them.

True. I take it, you mean their deep-pocket puppeteers who fund their campaign warchests?

Yet, it would not surprise me if Connecticut voters reward Chris Dodd with re-election in 2010.
Chris Dodd first lied about any knowledge of the AIG loophole.
Then 1 day later Chris Dodd admitted to knowing about it, and blamed it on Geithner, who was laying low.
And many voters (many who re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect Chris Dodd and similar ilk) appear incredulous as to why so how much corruption and greed is possible, millions of Americans are jobless (13.2-to-30.7 Million unemployed), homeless (3+ Million foreclosures per year), bankrupt ($70.44 Trillion of nation-wide debt), and hungry (over 10% of Americans receive food stamps)! ? ! So, how many Americans will be jobless, homeless, bankrupt, and hungry before they finally understand they have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect … at least until that becomes too painful?

Speaking of John Cornyn, he was one 91 the Congress Persons (86 being Republicans) supporting a regressive 30% Sales Tax (One-Simple-Idea.com/FairTaxFraud2.htm).
John Cornyn:

• Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)


• Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)


• Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)


• Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)


• Voted NO on limiting farm subsidies to people earning under $750,000. (Dec 2007)


• Voted NO on eliminating the “Y” non-immigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)


• Voted NO on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million. (Mar 2008)


• Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)


• Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)


• Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)


• Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)


• Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)


• Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Dec 2007)


• Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)


• Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)


• Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)


• Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)


• Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)


• Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)


• Voted YES on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)


• Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)


• Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)


• Voted NO on limiting soldiers’ deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)


• Voted NO on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)


• Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)


• Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)


• Voted for foreign worker VISAs for foreign workers who are specifically imported to compete with Americans for jobs, which depresses wages and working conditions of American workers.


• Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of pork-laden Farm BILL. (Jun 2008)


• Voted with Republican Party 93.2% of 322 votes. (Sep 2007)


• Said: Make Bush tax cuts permanent, kill death tax. (Jun 2002)


• Voted YES on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)


• Voted YES on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)


• Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)


• Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)


• Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)


• Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)


• Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends (taxed at 5%-to-15% and exempt from regressive 15.3% Social Security and Medicare taxes). (Nov 2005)


• Voted NO on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)


• Texas Attorney General John Cornyn Withdraws from Enron Investigation, But Continues Campaign for U.S. Senate 12-Jan-02; Enron: Texas AG John Cornyn insisted he had no conflicts preventing him from investigating Enron. Then it was revealed that John Cornyn took “$180,000 in campaign donations from Enron officials - including a $25,000 donation from Enron CEO Ken Lay in June.” Ooops! John Cornyn then withdrew from the investigation, but not from the race for U.S. Senator to replace Phil Gramm, whose wife Wendy Lee Gramm was on Enron’s Board of Directors! In the midst of this scandal - with thousands of Texas who used to work for Enron having lost their jobs and their pensions - the idea that Texas would elect a Senator who has received $180,000 from Enron is beyond obscene. But 85%-to-90% re-election rates for a Congress who just gave itself its 10th raise in 12 years and $93,000 per Congress person for petty cash and expenses, doesn’t make much sense either.

Roy Ellis, thanks for the info.
Even if some Congress person’s compassion was genuine, it is serverely misplaced.
How about some compassion for fellow Americans?

• Where is the compassion for U.S. citizens that go without healthcare and access to ERs because ERs and hospitals are over-flowing with illegal aliens (of which many don’t pay)? Is this fair to U.S. tax payers? (www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/178/8693) 84 hospitals closed in California due to illegal aliens; (www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp) In Dallas, Tx., 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas, TX., are illegal aliens; same thing for this Florida hospital (www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI); border states are hit hardest, but it’s happening in all 50 states in the U.S.


• Where is the compassion for the truly needy U.S. citizens that can not get help because of limited resources, because 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare ?


• Where is the compassion for displaced American workers and the outrage at the greedy employers of illegal aliens ?


• Where is the compassion for the U.S. victims and survivors of crimes perpetrated by illegal aliens and tax payers who pay the high costs of incarceration, deportaiton, law enforcement, and trials (29% of all incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens), and the crime rates are rising? Are all illegal immigrants sexual predators or murderers? No, of course not. Most just see better opportunities offered by America. But, per capita, illegals commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes. We also shouldn’t fail to mention their contribution to illegal drug and gun trafficking, adding to America’s crime problem.


• Where is the compassion for U.S. Americans who’s lives have been changed forever by illegal aliens that spread disease ? One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”. Because illegal alien migration into the USA continues unabated for the past 20 years, we now have 16,000 new cases of incurable MDR tuberculosis in the past five years. We suffer 7,000 new cases of leprosy. We tolerate 100,000 new cases of hepatitis “A” in our society. Chagas Disease, which affects 14 million South Americans and kills 50,000 annually, streams across our borders as unchecked thousands of them enter our society. If your child goes to public school, they could be exposed, as thousands already have been?


• Where is the compassion for the people murdered every day by an illegal alien (Source: GAO-05-646R based on study group of 55,322 illegal aliens over a 57 year period)?


• Where is the compassion for all of the people that do not want to see a repeat of 11-Sep-2001, which was perpetrated by several illegal aliens ?


• Where is the compassion for the U.S. tax payers net losses of an estimated $70-to-$327 Billion per year due to all the numerous problems stemming from illegal aliens?


• Where is the compassion for the 2.3 million displaced American workers?


• Where is the compassion for victims killed on the nation’s highways every year? Our highways have become far more dangerous since they have been turned into smuggling thru-ways for criminals and drug smugglers.


• Where is the compassion for these American police men and women (One-Simple-Idea.com/PoliceVictimsOfIllegalAliens1.htm) murdered by illegal aliens?


• Where is the compassion for all of the thousands of victims per year (www.immigrationshumancost.org)? of crime by illegal aliens.

And why are 1.5 Million foreign workers being imported annually when we have 13.2-to-30.7 Million unemployed (8.5%-to-19.8%; source: www.ShadowStats.com)?

And here’s something that will turn your stomach:

• Law firm teaching corporations how to avoid employing American citizens: www.youtube.com/programmersguild


• Cohen & Grigsby gives course on how to not hire Americans: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx—jNQYNgA


• Bill Gates (richest person in the U.S.) begging Congress for more cheap labor: www.programmersguild.org/docs/bill_gates_lies_about_h1b_wages.html

The pitting of American citizens and illegal aliens (or cheap imported labor) for votes and profits, disguised as compassion, is despicable.

Here are the sponsors of the House (H.R. 1751 ; thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S00729:) and Senate (S.729 ; thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01751:) versions of the Dream Act:

• (CA) Barbara Boxer


• (CA) Dianne Feinstein


• (CT) Chris Dodd


• (CT) Joe Lieberman


• (FL) Mel Martinez


• (FL) Bill Nelson


• (IL) Dick Durbin


• (IN) Richard Lugar


• (IA) Tom Harkin


• (MA) Ted Kennedy


• (MA) John Kerry


• (NV) Harry Reid


• (NJ) Bob Menendez


• (NM) Jeff Bingaman


• (NY) Kirsten Gillibrand


• (RI) Sheldon Whitehouse


• (VT) Patrick Leahy


• (WA) Patty Murray


• (WI) Russ Feingold


• (AZ) Paul Grijalva


• (CA) Howard Berman


• (CA) Lois Capps


• (CA) Sam Farr


• (CA) Bob Filner


• (CA) Zoe Lofgren


• (CA) Devin Nunes


• (CA) Lucille Roybal-Allard


• (CA) Loretta Sanchez


• (CO) Jared Polis


• (FL) Lincoln Diaz-Balart


• (FL) Mario Diaz-Balart


• (FL) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen


• (LA) Joseph Cao


• (MA) Mike Capuano


• (MI) John Conyers


• (NY) Gary Ackerman


• (NY) Eliot Engel


• (NY) Carolyn McCarthy


• (TX) Charlie Gonzalez


• (TX) Rubén Hinojosa

Supporters of Sen. Dick Durbin’s DREAM Act will say that the purpose of the BILL is to ensure that the children of illegal aliens, who were brought here through no fault of their own and shouldn’t be penalized for the sins of their parents, and should have an opportunity to go to college. What they won’t tell you is that it would provide amnesty to any illegal alien under the age of 35 who first entered the United States before the age of 16, has been in the country for at least the last five years, and has earned a high school diploma or GED in the United States. But here’s the kicker: Illegal aliens only have to submit a petition in which they claim to meet these requirements. There is not a single provision in the DREAM Act that requires the aliens to provide proof that the claims are true. In fact, once an illegal alien submits this required petition, the only way the alien can be denied amnesty is if DHS proves that the claims are false. The potential for fraud is virtually unlimited. The incentives created by the bill make massive fraud a certainty.

• The BILL retroactively repeals the federal ban on in-state tuition for illegal aliens, thus nullifying the lawsuits already decided in favor of the federal ban, but currently under appeal.


• There are no numerical limits on how many illegal aliens may be granted amnesty, and they cannot be counted against any existing immigration cap.


• There is no end date on the application period, so an alien who enters illegally next year, but who can purchase or fabricate “evidence” indicating that he meets the requirements, can apply for amnesty.


• Amnesty beneficiaries would be eligible for certain student loans and federal work-study programs.


• No alien who files an amnesty application may be removed from the United States before the application is adjudicated completely. There are no exceptions to this, so as long as an alien filed an amnesty application before he flew a plane into the World Trade Center or went on a killing spree in the local mall, he could not be removed from the country until USCIS (hopefully) denied his application and he exhausted all appeals.


• More: www.NumbersUSA.com/content/files/pdf/The%20DREAM%20Act%20in%20the%20111th%20Congress.pdf

Hmmmmm … with so much unemployment and economic difficulty, will Americans tolerate this again?
Well, Americans may have no choice now.
Congress does what it wants (such as brazenly giving itself a raise almost every year; 10 of the last 12 years), because it knows most voters will still reward incumbent politicians with cu$hy 85%-to-90% re-election rates. Cha Ching!
So here we have the (almost identical) DREAM Act BILL that was proposed for the last 8 years.
In year 2001 , the BILL (under a slightly different guise) appeared in the 107th Congress as H.R. 1918 and in the Senate as S. 1291.
Then, it has been introduced multiple times over the years in both the Senate (as the “DREAM Act”) and the House (as the “American Dream Act”): in the Senate as S.1545 (108th Congress), S.2075 (109th Congress), S.774 (110th Congress), and S.2205 (110th Congress) and in the House as H.R.1684 (108th Congress), H.R.5131 (109th Congress), and H.R.1275 (110th Congress).
Then other efforts followed, and the DREAM Act text was also placed in various other failed immigration-related bills, including the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611) and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348).
Then with the failure of all the “comprehensive” reform bills, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, the DREAM Act’s chief Senate proponent, made its passage a top 2007 priority.
Then Dick Durbin spearheaded a failed effort to sneakily bury the DREAM Act deep in a Department of Defense Authorization bill (S. 2919), but it died a quick death when critics labeled it non-germane to defense matters and also noted that without an age cap, adults would qualify for a DREAM Act amnesty.
So, that adds up to 12 DREAM Act defeats.
Yet, Dick Durbin will probably still get re-elected again and again and again.
Introduced again in the Senate by Dick Durbin exactly as he did in 2007, the last time the DREAM Act reared its ugly head when it was co-sponsored by the usual suspects who backed it before (including Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Teddy Kennedy, etc.; Important note: Dick Durbin does not come up for re-election until 2014).
Supported once more in the House of Representative by other familiar names including Howard Berman, Luis Gutierrez, Lincoln Diaz-Balert, etc., the BILL is being hyped one more time by National Council of La Raza president Janet Murguia.

The shamnesty of 1986 more than quintupled the problem, and had similar requirements and restrictions which were never enfored.
So what makes anyone rational and honest person think (not prone to wishful thinking, and/or blind partisan loyalties, and/or more (misplaced) compassion for illegal aliens than fellow U.S. citizens) think a repeat will be different, when E-Verify is undermined, illegal immigration laws are still ignored, the federal government is still importing cheap labor by the millions per year, and the borders are still as pourous as a seive?

The first thing to do is to enforce existing laws, support E-Verify, and prosecute greedy illegal employers of illegal aliens.
Start out with:

• 1st offense: a fine equal to 5% of illegal employer’s annual profits (or the individual’s annual gross income).


• 2nd offense, jail for 1 month, plus a fine of 10% of illegal employer’s annual profits (or person’s annual income).


• 3rd offense, jail for 1 year, plus a fine of 15% of illegal employer’s annual profits (or person’s annual income).


• 4th offense, jail for 2 years, plus a fine of 20% of illegal employer’s annual profits (or person’s annual income).


• 5th offense, jail for 3 years, plus a fine of 30% of illegal employer’s annual profits (or person’s annual income), etc.,
  (i.e. increase jail term and fine by 1 year and 10% (respectively) per subsequent conviction).

Equally disturbing are the net losses to Americans:

• Crime is a serious issue, but only part of the many issues costing U.S. tax payers net losses of $70 billion to $326.7 billion per year; some estimates place losses much higher;


• burden on education systems;


• burden on healthcare systems;


• burden on hospital systems; 84 hospitals closed/closing in California; 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas,TX in only the first 3 months of year 2006 were illegal aliens; same thing for this Florida hospital; border states are hit hardest, but it’s happening in all 50 states in the U.S.!


• burden on welfare systems; over 32% of illegal aliens collect welfare


• burden on Medicaid system;


• burden on Social Security and Medicare systems;


• burden on border patrol systems; ever increasing numbers are needed;


• burden on insurance systems; illegal aliens can/will not pay for damages they cause;


• burden on law enforcement systems; costing California billions per year;


• burden on prison systems; 29% of state and federal prisoners (Sep-2004) are illegal aliens;


• 2.3 million displaced American workers; partly because half of all illegal aliens that don’t pay taxes, and greedy employers that don’t pay unemployment taxes, Social Security, Medicare taxes, etc.; Ask your Congress persons why we keep bringing in 1.5+ Million foreign workers a year to take American jobs when 11-to-25 Million Americans (as of Jan-2009) are unemployed (not even including the tens millions of existing illegal foreign workers in they U.S. and the millions coming to the U.S. illegally every year)? If that bothers you, then please see: AmericanWorkers.org ;


• voter fraud; burden on voting systems;

Most Americans are against another shamnesty BILL.

If Obama and Congress want their approval ratings to plummet, pushing another shamnesty BILL will do the trick.

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 April 6, 2009 11:33 AM

David,
At the end of these last available stimulative measures, the recovery will crater. There is no capacity for the private sector to take on debt as there was after WW2. The govt will be spent as well.

We had the technology bubble in the 90’s and the housing bubble after that. The fact is, without a new bubble for creating phony wealth, this countries average standard of living must go down markedly to find equilibrium with financial reality. Maybe Obama can facilitate the next bubble.

Posted by: Schwamp at April 6, 2009 12:34 PM

Schwamp,
Why “Old School Thinking” may know nothing more than “Bubble Building” to waste their money on I do believe that Americans have the technology and will to take the necessary steps over the next several years to invest in a future that will expose an extreme amount of opportunities that will bring them real wealth.

For like the Barons of the Late 1800’s, tomorrows’ commerce and industry leaders will need the infrastructure that allow them to transport twice the material at half the cost as well as the Goods and Services designed to make the American Consumer Self-Sufficient.

Posted by: Henry Svhlatman at April 6, 2009 05:22 PM

Roy said: “Amnesty is amnesty.”

True. Amnesty is neither an inherently positive nor negative act outside of context.

“Just a repeat of the 80’s amnesty deal.”

False. To be a repeat of the 80’s amnesty, it must in context lead to ever greater illegal immigration exacerbating the problem as opposed to becoming part of the solution to ending illegal immigration.

Context and consequence cannot be ignored in the discussion of amnesty, as your comment does.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 6, 2009 09:04 PM

d.a.n said: “True. I take it, you mean their deep-pocket puppeteers who fund their campaign warchests?”

Yes. Voting for their reelection instead of the best or even good interests of the nation.

“Yet, it would not surprise me if Connecticut voters reward Chris Dodd with re-election in 2010.”

Me neither. Connecticut voters identify themselves as a majority group as Democrats, instead of independent, conscientious, and vested voters in the outcome and product of real government affecting their futures. I haven’t looked it up, but, I would guess Independent voters are growing in numbers in Ct. as they are in nearly every other state. And if so, there is hope for Connecticut voters shedding their party line voting as a majority in the future.

d.a.n said: “Then 1 day later Chris Dodd admitted to knowing about it, and blamed it on Geithner, who was laying low.”

To be accurate, he attributed the amendment to a request made of him by a person within the Treasury department. It may have been Geithner, but, I have not read of any more specific nor reliable attribution of identity, so far.

d.a.n, add to your list this news story just today of a woman being arrested for setting up a sham educational company to teach illegal immigrants to be qualified asbestos workers, taking their money, issuing them a training certificate to get jobs with, and providing not one iota of training in how to work with or renovate asbestos laden facilities.

At least she has been arrested. But, she is but one of 100’s of thousands exploiting the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. for profit, whom authorities have yet to arrest, and in many cases, have yet to even pass legislation permitting the legal shutdown of their operations. America appears to be as addicted to illegal immigration as it is to foreign oil.

And the human tragedies of such exploitation are mounting in number.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 6, 2009 09:20 PM

Schwamp said: “The fact is, without a new bubble for creating phony wealth, this countries average standard of living must go down markedly to find equilibrium with financial reality.”

That is not a fact, at all. It is speculation entirely.

This nation’s standard of living as measured by real wages has been going down for decades, with our without bubbles.

Now, I do agree with you entirely that an equilibrium will have to be achieved in order for a stable sustainable financial reality to come into being. And I share your speculation that to some degree, that will mean less for more persons. Given the wealth gap, however, there are ample opportunities for the wealthy to undergo less going forward, while remaining wealthy, with the proceeds in the form of higher taxation rates equal to those of middle class workers at least, offsetting the hit the middle class will have to take to reach that equilibrium. And this is just one of many options going forward. One which the Obama plan contemplates with majority approval, btw.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 6, 2009 09:28 PM

David,
Why I can see your and Schwamps’ argument of eqyilibrium and agree in principle that it will be achieved through a Sustainable Financial Reality and may I add designed by Lawyers for the Interests that they serve; however, I am wondering what you two mean when you say to a Degree.

For what degree of punishment should “We the People” impose of those Humans who have committed a Mister Meaner for crossing the border without the proper paperwork as their Ancestors have been doing for the last 100 years.

And though I realize that the Law of the Land does state that one must be deported and fined for such a Free Act of Will. I do believe that the Death Penalty is off the table. So why I see where a new Immigration Policy is greatly needed, I an also aware that with the vast Majority of Baby Boomers getting ready to retire and having not done as good as job as their Parents’ Establishment in preparing for the Future that this issue will become more pronounce in Society if My Peers and Their Children do not address it.

For why the quickest way to replace the millions of Retirers is simple allow anyone getting to Americas’ Shore enjoy the future opportunities and thus making Amnesty for All easier to sell. With IMHO America being a Meltting Pot of Tramps and Thieves, I wonder if a Non-Profit Organization could help an Individual pay the fines and provide them with a round trip ticket with a promise of a legal job upon their return.

Seeing that the undue burden of putting all these cases before the Courts delays any hardliner from being able to hold their day in court, I do believe that Local Communitys are better equipped to handle the Hard Luck Stories of those Citizens who cannot afford Legal Representation provided they are given proper guidance from Washington. For why all Illegal Aliens will noy qualify under the program and seeing the public outgry for Justice walk the Streets I do believe that “We the People” can do a lot better job than turning a blind eye to the issue.

Of course the idea of Amnesty for All does mean that a Political Leader can go back to their communities and tell their Citizens that it will not cost them a dime to fix the issue.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 7, 2009 12:32 AM

Henry said: “I an also aware that with the vast Majority of Baby Boomers getting ready to retire and having not done as good as job as their Parents’ Establishment in preparing for the Future that this issue will become more pronounce in Society if My Peers and Their Children do not address it.”

If immigrant workers are needed, there is no impediment to insuring such immigrants are LEGAL immigrants to fill any demographic shortfalls in labor force.

That said, the need for immigrant workers can, and should be, diminished drastically by better education of our own native born, retraining of those Americans whose jobs are lost, and dare I say it; learning to live in a somewhat contracted economy in which output bears some equilibrium with the consumer’s ability to purchase on a more income cash basis and less credit-debt basis that has been the case over the last couple decades.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with voluntary legal immigration to meet the needs of our nation, provided that our nation is maximizing the potential of its progeny to be first in line for those same jobs. To do otherwise, is waste the productive potential of citizens already here, and expand the underground and black market economies with citizens ill-prepared to compete for middle class or better sustaining employment opportunities.

A prostitute can make far more in a year without a H.S. education than working as an Ass’t Manager at McDonald’s for which she is not qualified to apply for. A drug dealer can make vastly more selling illegal drugs than as a solar panel sales person, a job for which their lack of education or experience or training would not qualify them for. Every citizen who desires better income without the prerequisite education and vocational training to compete with a legal immigrant for a job, carries the social, economic, and cultural cost of driving them into the underground economy where fear of consequence is the main qualification for black market employment.

Black market employers are expert at translating and training those with a fear of consequence, into loyal and largely trustworthy employees of the underground economy. It is penny wise and pound foolish in the extreme to substitute legal or illegal immigration for investment in the productivity and opportunity of U.S. born.

It may prove more profitable in this year’s bottom line for an employer to hire an immigrant, but the long term costs to the entire economy and culture of individual worth in America, as well as the rule of law, results in a growing net loss for everyone and their futures.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 7, 2009 02:24 AM

David,
Why it may sound harsh to some that I believe any real immigration reform should start with Congress making it a felony to come into the country illegally with the penality for hiring any such persons limited to the corporation management paying fines and jail time (20-50 years federal time sounds about right). I do believe that Americans could use a Non-Profit Organization to help stop the flow of citizens coming into the country looking for work and provide a better opportunity.

For example; Say a NPO could go to Mexico and recruit the local citizens for the American Corporations in need of Empolyable (SP) Citizens. Not only would it take money out of the hands of the Black Market, but allow for My Peers Establishment to ensure that the citizens coming into the country on temporary visas would be healthy and help them move into a community.

Granted Americas’ long standing with the EU and others has lead to the State Department working well in those countries; however, Mexico and other Latin Nations do not seem to be capable of handling the numbers looking to come to the U.S. to work and help their family back home. Thus, by providing guidance so a NPO could take care and have oversight of not only the citizens involved in the Immigration Reform, but partner with other NPOs in America to create a new Job Training Program that will address the job issues caused by the Black Market.

For why I should not knock My Elders and Peers CEOs attempt at building a Better World, I often wonder what a Street Smart Kid could do if given control of the same funds as Upper Management. Care to wager if the Book Taught CEO could keep up with the Street Smart Kid being explained the rules of the game my way?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 7, 2009 09:03 AM

Real wages have been stagnant or decreasing since around 2000. A recent study by Duke U. and others showed that there are more college graduates in the science and math fields than there are jobs. 50% of graduate degree students are foreigners. Companies are clamoring for more temp workers while laying off Am. workers.
Let’s debate whether it is better for humanity to brain drain the developing countries and have them all come here to work and live, or to get an education here and go home to help develop their own country.
Let’s put an end to the exploitation of immigrants for economic policy.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 7, 2009 10:48 AM

David R. Remer wrote:

d.a.n wrote: “Yet, it would not surprise me if Connecticut voters reward Chris Dodd with re-election in 2010.”

Me neither. Connecticut voters identify themselves as a majority group as Democrats, instead of independent, conscientious, and vested voters in the outcome and product of real government affecting their futures. I haven’t looked it up, but, I would guess Independent voters are growing in numbers in Ct. as they are in nearly every other state. And if so, there is hope for Connecticut voters shedding their party line voting as a majority in the future.

Hopefully sooner than later, since later = more painful, more jobless, more homeless, more hungry, more bankrupt, more sold-out middle-to-lower income Americans.

David R. Remer wrote:

• d.a.n said: “Then 1 day later Chris Dodd admitted to knowing about it, and blamed it on Geithner, who was laying low.”

To be accurate, he attributed the amendment to a request made of him by a person within the Treasury department. It may have been Geithner, but, I have not read of any more specific nor reliable attribution of identity, so far.

Yes, that’s why I merely said Tim Geihtner was “laying low”, rather than say Giehtner told him to do it, since Chris Dodd said he wasn’t sure who told him to do it. Perhaps it was the devil who made him do it?

It appears neither Geithner nor anyone else at the Treasury Department would own up to it.
Chris Dodd later said the details were handled by his staff and the Treasury Department’s staff (source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GoK0539Gl4).
So, the staff is now to blame?
HMMmmmmmm … they are slippery indeed, and it appears Chris Dodd made it worse by diggin’ that hole deeper by engaging in slippery obfuscation and trying to shift blame.
It is that sort of nebulousness, evasiveness, and difficulty in finding who is accountable that lets so many in Congress and the executive branch remain unaccountable. So, if in doubt, the buck should stop with that head of the department (i.e. Tim Giehtner; who later in an interview defended Dodd’s actions).

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, add to your list this news story just today of a woman being arrested for setting up a sham educational company to teach illegal immigrants to be qualified asbestos workers, taking their money, issuing them a training certificate to get jobs with, and providing not one iota of training in how to work with or renovate asbestos laden facilities. At least she has been arrested. But, she is but one of 100’s of thousands exploiting the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. for profit, whom authorities have yet to arrest, and in many cases, have yet to even pass legislation permitting the legal shutdown of their operations. America appears to be as addicted to illegal immigration as it is to foreign oil… . And the human tragedies of such exploitation are mounting in number.

Immigrant or illegal alien bashing is NOT right.

Exploiting illegal aliens is NOT right. Scammers and greedy illegal employers should be prosecuted.

And the majority of illegal aliens are NOT criminals (aside from only illegally tresspassing our borders; only a misdemeanor for the 1st offense).

However, these crimes by illegal aliens ain’t right either, and should NOT be tolerated.

Not all illegal aliens are merely looking for work.
29%+ of all people incarcerated in federal prisons are illegal aliens (source: www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters0b9c).
Illegal aliens cause an estimated at $70-to-$327 Billion in annual net losses to U.S. citizens for burdens on the following systems:

• Crime is a serious issue, but only part of the many issues costing U.S. tax payers net losses of $70 billion to $326.7 billion per year; some estimates place losses much higher;


• burden on education systems;


• burden on healthcare systems;


• burden on hospital systems; 84 hospitals closed/closing in California; 70% of women giving birth at Parkland Memorial hospital in Dallas,TX in only the first 3 months of year 2006 were illegal aliens (source: www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp); same thing for this Florida hospital (www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLJxmJZXgNI); border states are hit hardest, but it’s happening in all 50 states in the U.S.!


• burden on welfare systems; over 32% of illegal aliens receive welfare;


• burden on Medicaid system;


• burden on Social Security and Medicare systems;


• burden on border patrol systems; ever increasing numbers are needed;


• burden on insurance systems; illegal aliens can/will not pay for damages they cause;


• burden on law enforcement systems; costing California billions per year;


• burden on prison systems; 29% of state and federal prisoners (Sep-2004) are illegal aliens;


• 2.3 million displaced American workers; partly because half of all illegal aliens that don’t pay taxes, and greedy employers that don’t pay unemployment taxes, Social Security, Medicare taxes, etc.; Ask your Congress persons why we keep bringing in 1.5+ Million foreign workers (source: www.AmericanWorker.org) a year to take American jobs when 13.2-to-30.7 Million Americans (8.5%-to-19.8% as of MAR-2009; source: www.ShadowStats.com) are unemployed (not even including the tens millions of existing illegal foreign workers in the U.S. and the 1.1 Million coming to the U.S. illegally every year);


• voter fraud; burden on voting systems;

And it should be pointed out that those illegal aliens who were cheated out of money by some sort of scam (which in no way condones such scams), the illegal alien bears some shared responsibility for getting scammed, because that would not have happened had they not been here illegally in the first place. It should be no mystery that coyotes and other scammers are preying on illegal aliens, who are vulnerable by virtue of trying to also do something illegal themselves. Again, that doesn’t condone scams, but when cheaters get cheated, they have themselves to blame too. So, the majority of my sympathies lie with fellow Americans, and my disdain lies mostly with greedy illegal employers and despicable politicians who despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion.

Also, while I’m not against enforcing existing laws, there is a more effective way to stop the illegal employers.
Some of these ICE raids appear to be suspiciously only for show, and suspiciously fail to get to the real root of the problem.
Simply start prosecuting those greedy illegal employers, and escalate the punishment for each repeated offese.
And if necessary, indict, convict, and incarcerate the greedy illegal employers and their employees who knowingly violate the law.
Especially repeat offenses.

And such scams and exploitation do not justify another shamnesty like the shamnesty of 1986, which more than quintupled the problem.
We’ve already been there and done that, Congress obviously can not be trusted.
Naturally, most Americans are against another shamnesty.
Congress has been sellin’ out Americans and despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for decades for votes and profits, cleverly disguised as compassion (severely misplaced compassion at best).
The villains are not the illegal aliens merely looking for work and violating no other laws other than tresspassing our borders illegally.
The true and most disgusting and despicable villains are the despicable Congress persons (especially the likes of (Represtative Luis Gutierrez (IL-Dem)) and other state and local politicians who despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits (or other nefarious motives), cleverly disguised as compassion (severely and pathetically misplaced compassion at best). Especially with 13.2-to-30.7 Million (8.5%-to-19.8%) Americans unemploymed in the U.S. Scams against illegal aliens is unfortunate and nothing justifies it, but illegal employers should be prosecuted for violating the law and making that situation worse, which has been attracting illegal aliens to the U.S. for decades (more than quintupling the problem since the shamnesty of 1986).

I’m also well aware that some people will try to label anyone who wants illegal immigration stopped and greedy illegal employers prosecuted as xenophobic, inhumane, evil, heartless racists (among other lame excuses).

FOR-SALE, corrupt politicians who despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits for greedy illegal employers, disguised as compassion (severely misplaced compassion at best: One-Simple-Idea.com/BorderSecurity.htm#Compassion) should be ousted from office (at the very least; personally, I think some should be prosecuted for back-stabbing Americans and violating their oath to office).

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 April 7, 2009 11:27 AM

Debt works as a stimulus if it results in an increase in productive capacity. Without that increase the interest burden must be borne by people producing without consuming. THAT simply won’t happen.

Obama’s stimulus strategies seem only peripherally aimed at creating capacity and rewarding those who engineer the increase of productivity. It is not “desiring the nation’s failure” to think this is a foolish policy that should not be enacted.

I am constantly hearing stories about how increased burdens placed on business by government are causing the loss of jobs.

Let “liberals” cheer that all they want. It is a bad deal for America.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at April 7, 2009 02:03 PM

Schwamp wrote: At the end of these last available stimulative measures, the recovery will crater.

Maybe, if spending deficts not only continue, but continue to grow.

Growing the debt (of already nightmare proportions) significantly larger (both federal and non-federal) could make things worse if it debauches the currency, which will also destroy all savings and deposits, 401Ks, pensions, entitlemnts, and wages too.

Schwamp wrote: There is no capacity for the private sector to take on debt as there was after WW2. The govt will be spent as well.

That’s most likely true, for a 70% consumer-driven economy, and a $11.17 Trillion dollar National Debt today which is 65% larger per-capita than the national debt per-capita ($21,719 in 2008 dollars) in year 1945 after World War II, and is today 664% larger per-capita than the national debt per-capita ($5,396 in 2008 dollars) in year 1941 at about the end of the Great Depression.

Also, are we getting accurate reports of inflation, GDP, unemployment, and debt?
No.
For one thing, the so-called $7.5 Trillion Social Security/Medicare surpluses are a fair tale, and there is no plan or budget to repay those non-marketable I.O.U.s.
We’ve already been borrowing the money for 52 consecutive years to merely keep up with the interest payments.
And when it rains, it pours.
Now federal annual tax revenues are estimated to have fallen from about $2.4 Trillion to $2.1 Trillion.
We did not enter the Great Depression with as much debt per-capita.
We did not finish World War II with as much debt per-capita.
Today, the $11.1 Trillion National debt per-capita ($35,807) is 65% higher than in year 1945 after after World War II ($21,719 in 2008 dollars).
Today, the $11.1 Trillion National debt per-capita is 663% higher than in year 1941 ($5,396 in 2008 dollars).
And today, the $57 Trillion nation-wide debt has more than quadrupled from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to 411% of GDP today (using GDP in year 2007 of $13.86 Trillion).
And that is all exacerbated by the money for Social Security and Medicare having already been spent, leaving BOTH pay-as-you-go, with a 78 Million baby-boomer bubble approaching. the so-called Social Security surpluses are non-marketable/non-negotiable I.O.U.s. Some people say “so what if the so-called Social Security and Medicare surpluses are only I.O.U.s?”. Well, here’s why it matters. Those I.O.U.s will eventually have to be funded with more taxes, borrowing, debt, and/or new money (and inflation).

Yet, some people say we will be able to control inflation later (by removing money and raising interest rates), and that we have no choice now but to spend, spend, spend.
The problem is a massive debt-bubble problem; not merely only a credit problem.
It will take time to unwind so much debt, and start growing savings again.
I think there may be a way out of this mess, but we need more fiscal discipline, cuts in waste to shift to smarter spending to create long-term benfits (such as energy independence; vital infrastructure projects that benefit large numbers of the population; a national non-profit health insurance system that cuts out the unnecessary and costly, gouging middlemen; reducing the U.S. military presence in 132 nations; and ending these abuses that have been hammering most Americans for several decades).

While many macro economic models recommend more government spending during recessions and depressions, how will that strategy work if the current debt is already untenable?

So, the following questions persist:

• (a) Is there any historical precedent of any nation so deep into debt ever successfully solving a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?


• (b) Is there any macro economics model that states that a massive debt-bubble can solved with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?


• (c) Is there any mathematical rationale that demonstrates how any nation so ridiculously deep into debt (much less the biggest debtor nation on the planet) has ever successfully solved a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?


• (d) If the current debt is untenable, how is growing it bigger going to help?


• (e) Where will the money come from when 90%-to-95% of all money in existence in the U.S. exists as debt, because money is created as debt at a steep ratio of 9-to-1 of debt-to-reserves.


• (f) What is the possibility that high inflation (or hyperinflation) will make the situation worse? After all, 33+ nations (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation) have previously tried to borrow, create new money, and spend their way out of a massive debt-bubble, and it not only did not work, but made things worse.

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).

Lee Jamison wrote: Debt works as a stimulus if it results in an increase in productive capacity. Without that increase the interest burden must be borne by people producing without consuming. THAT simply won’t happen.

Right. And what if the debt is already untenable (which it most is untenable since those questions remain unanswered; such as the absence of any historical precedent of using massive spending to solve a massive debt bubble; such as any mathematical rationale that shows how the debt will unwind; or any evidence from any macro-economic model that demonstrates that massive spending is necessary and effective when the debt is already untenable, etc.)?

Lee Jamison wrote: Obama’s stimulus strategies seem only peripherally aimed at creating capacity and rewarding those who engineer the increase of productivity. It is not “desiring the nation’s failure” to think this is a foolish policy that should not be enacted.

Yes, some of the spending may create a 1+ multiplier effect, but will it be enough?

Another way to increase the multiplier effect is to shift wasteful spending to more responsible spending.

And how much longer can deficit spending last, when we’ve already been deficit spending for 52 consecutive years, and if the current debt is untenable, and the $57 Trillion nation-wide debt has more than quadrupled from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to 411% of GDP today (using GDP in year 2007 of $13.86 Trillion)?

Lee Jamison wrote: I am constantly hearing stories about how increased burdens placed on business by government are causing the loss of jobs.

Unemployment is high and likely to get higher, but most (if not all) corporate taxes are passed along to consumers similar to a hidden sales tax.

But in a 70% consumer-driven economy, with $57 Trillion of nation-wide debt, rising unemployment, regressive taxation, and a number of other abuses, the problem is slowly snowballing. And when the massive stimulus spending does start taking effect, inflation is likely to increase significantly. There’s no easy way out of this mess, but one thing is certain. If we’re not careful, things can get MUCH worse if the currency is debauched.

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 April 7, 2009 04:15 PM

Henry, I oppose making illegal immigration a felony UNTIL we have a border barrier which makes it obvious that crossing the border is a crime, and not UNTIL we make a sincere effort to halt the hiring and exploitation of illegal immigrants by our own citizens for personal gain.

To offer assistance with one hand and punishment for taking that assistance with the other, is inhumane and cruel, and unjust. Its like offering a hungry child food and slapping the crap out of the child for taking it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 7, 2009 04:17 PM

I agree. Merely tresspassing the border to look for work is not a serious crime.

The real villains are our despicable incumbent politicians and greedy illegal employers who despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion (severely misplaced compassion at best).

The first thing to do is enforce E-Verify, prosecute greedy illegal employers, and secure the border. Then try to sort out ONLY which adult illegal aliens were brought here as children and have been here more than N years, and can’t return to their nation of origin.

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 April 7, 2009 04:56 PM

Dan said: “The real villains are our despicable incumbent politicians and greedy illegal employers who despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits disguised as compassion”
A good description of Corporatism.

Four liberal, amnesty, dem’s have asked the Justice Dept. to look into allegations that Az’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio is conducting racial profiling in his zeal to lock up illegals. Larasa, ACORN and Al Sharpton want the 287G program trashed and Sheriff Joe fired. The Justice Dept. is already investing Sheriff Joe on related allegations. Sheriff Joe was recently overwhelmingly voted in for another term and it near drove the amnesty group crazi. Joe tends to stick out even though 67 other localities support 287G. Must be a true embarrassment to Napolitano.

Meanwhile, with over $2T shoved out to the banking industry no one on capital hill knows how much and where the money went? Even though two bills were passed in Congress demanding some transparency the FED RSV has refused to give out any information. This must be ok with Congress as they aren’t really pushing the Fed for information.

Similar deal with the be nice to China thing. The Manhattan DA has determined that China has been helping Iran with their Nuke program, using US banks, etc. The Fed’s had to have known about this and sure do now but they aren’t making any waves about it. Corporatism at its finest. Iran also getting help from N. Korea.

GM is preparing for bankruptcy. No suprise here. Why would GM want a useless plant in the US loaded up with legacy crap when they can ship cars from China and sell them way cheaper. This bankruptcy deal will be about GM holding on to their distributors.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 7, 2009 10:25 PM

David,
Why I can understand your reluctance to charge a person with a felony for just crossing the border; however, the effect that could have on anyone caught hiring or haboring them would take on a whole new meaning would it not?

Yes, as harsh as it sounds the idea of spending 20-50 years in federal prison may save the lives of those coming to America in search of work provided a legal avenue is made in place of the current policy. And with the fence being built now, should America be required to place a sign every 100 yards in plain sight to keep people from traspassing on private property?

For if we keep the problem a mister meaner than at what amount should the fine be set to detour those citizens who do not have the money to pay it? No, I am afriad that a slap on the wrist and told to be a Good Citizen will not stop the continued flood of people leaving their own homes, communities, and countries looking for a better income to feed their family. And though long jail terms only seem to stop those who respect the Law, I do see the measure as an excellent way to halt the endless wave of criminals entering the country.

For at what point does the flow of Illegal Aliens and those who hire them stop becoming a Public Nusance and begin to undermine the National Security of the Nation? Should we wait until they have all the jobs in America or take steps to end the exploitation of these Humans by all of Society.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 8, 2009 01:57 AM

d.a.n, why would GM ship cars from China, when China has an auto manufacturing plant opening next year right across our border in Mexico? NAFTA provides a direct manufacturing and export route for Chinese made cars, using Mexican labor, into the U.S. starting next year.

Why would China, now in the auto manufacturing business itself, invite GM to China to export as competitors to Chinese manufacturers in Mexico? I don’t see the Chinese advantage in that.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2009 04:49 AM

Henry, seeking to improve one’s family’s condition should not be a felony. That is so, Soviet Union like.

I don’t fault a thief stealing bread to feed his children. I do install locks on my doors and maintain two dogs who threaten any coming near our fence, however, to deter such thieves from selecting my house to steal from.

A border barrier will halt between 80 and 90 percent of the illegal aliens coming across the Southern border, by driving the cost of coming through that barrier, up beyond the ability of 80 or 90% of current illegal immigrants, to pay.

The U.S. cost of deterring, interdicting, and deporting the other 10 to 20%, will by definition, drop precipitously with the dramatic drop in volume. Big up front cost for the border barrier, but, big long term savings in perpetuity by virtue of having reduced the manpower costs required to fight illegal immigration without a border barrier. (Note calls already to put the National Guard at the border where the border remains wide open. Which equals high manpower costs annually which can be saved with a border barrier.)

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2009 05:02 AM

Illegal aliens representing the Mexican Illegal drug trade now have operations in more than 230 American cities and towns. Isn’t that sufficient to move Congressional Democrats to stand behind Obama’s plan to finish the border barrier? Apparently not for many of them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2009 05:05 AM

DR
I still find it ironic that as soon as the Mexican drug cartels threaten US drug cartels, all talk of how we should avoid protectionism goes out the window in a hurry. One might wonder who is calling the shots.

Posted by: bills at April 8, 2009 07:44 AM

David,
You said “seeking to improve one’s family’s condition should not be a felony” yet that same defense could be used by Madoff or a whole list of criminals could it not?

No, it may seem harsh to set the penality for crossng the border so high; however, tell all of the souls that died in the attempt or after getting here has lived years in bondage. Especially if a Non-profit would help them get in the country legally if work is what they want. So why a felony may seem extreme or even Soviet Union like to put a person in prison for 20-50 years for wanting a better opportunity for his family. As a Societal Tool against the Drug Mules and those who help them I do believe that the price of getting caught would be high enough to offset the prices paid by the cartels.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 8, 2009 10:03 AM

Lee

“Debt works as a stimulus if it results in an increase in productive capacity.”

That is the wrong conclusion. At this time there is an excess of productive capacity,in the US and globally. THAT is why we are in a recession. What is lacking is demand. If and when demand builds, capacity will follow. Of course it is always better to increase demand or capacity without debt but that is not an option at this point.

DR
More on the bank plan. Seems that unless some very strict rules and policing are involved there is a huge hole for insider activity built in.
Say a bank has bunch of these possibly valueless bonds to unload. They can set up a dummy company to borrow nearly ninety percent of the needed money from the government to purchase them. Then the company defaults and the bank gets what is basically a direct infusion of taxpayer dollars. This problem is out in the open and will probably be taken care of but the troubling aspect is that it shows the BHO administration is too close to the financial markets.

Posted by: bills at April 8, 2009 10:28 AM

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, why would GM ship cars from China, when China has an auto manufacturing plant opening next year right across our border in Mexico? NAFTA provides a direct manufacturing and export route for Chinese made cars, using Mexican labor, into the U.S. starting next year.

That question might have been in response to someone else above (since I don’t recall mentioning China’s auto manufacturing), but my answer would be “there is no good reason, unless labor in Mexico is significantly more expensive”.

David R. Remer wrote: Why would China, now in the auto manufacturing business itself, invite GM to China to export as competitors to Chinese manufacturers in Mexico? I don’t see the Chinese advantage in that.

Me neither, unless China is planning to learn something and/or acquire some technologies, and then nationalize and seize those companies later?

But if there’s profit in it, that appears to be all that matters anymore.

Any way, how bright is China’s future?
China is a nation of about the same size (3,705,405 square miles) as the U.S. (3,794,000 square miles), but China has 1.3 Billion people (420% more than the U.S.’ 310 Million).
Therefore, for China, that’s only 1.82 acres per person.
For the U.S., that’s 7.83 acres per person.

China is losing over 1 million acres per year due to desertification.
Over population is polluting and destroying their environment. 400 million Chinese (90 Million more than the population of the U.S.) remain affected by desertification; erosion particularly due to wind which can cause violent sand storms, forcing people from their homes and threatening the economies of major Asian cities including Beijing and Seoul. Human health effects include respiratory and eye infections. Here’s more photos and info about the desertification of China.

Yet, this lesson is completely lost on Congress and other politicians.
Apparently, votes and profits are more important, and who gives a damn about over-population 20 years from now?
These politicians should go to China and learn about all of the wonderful advantages of over-population.

Any way, GM and many other corporations might do just about anything for a $buck, with no regard for the American worker whatsoever.
The U.S. is currently the biggest debtor nation on the planet.
When Henry Ford created his auto-manufacturing company, people asked him “why do you pay your workers so well?”.
Henry Ford said it was so that they could afford to buy a car!
U.S. corporations might want to think about that, because they have appeared to have forgotten it.
That is, more jobs here means more consumers here too.
If corporations outsource most of the jobs, who will they market to in the U.S.?
Corporations have been outsourcing and moving jobs offshore for decades.
Already, the government now employs more people than all manufacturing.
Americans have been liquidating, as evidenced by foreign-owned assets in the U.S. that have increased from $6 Trillion in year 1997 to $22 Trillion by year 2007.
Despicably, millions of American workers have been used trained their replacements.
Ever heard of Nielsen Ratings in Florida?
It used Americans to train their replacements, and then replaced about 300 American workers with H-1B visa workers.

So why is Congress still importing 1.5 Million foreign workers per year (source: www.AmericanWorker.org) when we have 13.2-to-30.7 Million unemployed (8.5%-to-19.8%; source: www.ShadowStats.com)?

And why is Congress pushing for another shamnesty BILL ( sponsors of the House BILL H.R. 1751: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S00729: , and Senate BILL S.729: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR01751: )?

And here’s an article about 21,800 foreign workers bought into the U.S. with YOUR government’s permission to replace high-paying jobs even as the economy was melting down last year (2008) and millions of Americans were being laid off (according to an Associated Press review of visa applications: www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/02/banks_sought_visas_for_21800_f.html).

Yet, the majority of American voters continue to reward THEIR politicans with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, politicians who are selling them out most Americans (except for their deep-pocketed puppeteers and big money donors).

But, perhaps enough voters will be less apathetic, complacent, and blindly partisan when enough of the voters are:

• deep in debt ($57 Trillion of nation-wide debt; source: mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm)


• jobless (13.2-to-30.7 Million unemployed = 8.5%-to-19.8% unemployed; source: www.ShadowStats.com)


• homeless (8,000-to-9,000 foreclosures per day)


• and hungry (over 10% of Americans receive food-stamps)

… as a result of decades of these continued abuses?

That is, how sympathetic can anyone be when most voters continue to screw themselves by repeatedly rewarding THEIR politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates?
Like Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.
So, continue to reward YOUR politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates and see where it gets us.
That includes the puppet politicians’ wealthy donor puppeteers, because in the end most (if not all) will be hurt by the many manifestations of unchecked greed.

Until then, 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 April 8, 2009 10:41 AM

A link on China/GM incestuous affair:
http://www.gm.com/corporate/about/global_operations/asia_pacific/chin.jsp

Gist from other links: “In 2007, General Motors expanded China’s role in global r&d with a new proving ground and an engineering center. GM’s sales in China remained strong

During an October visit to China by CEO Rick Wagoner, GM said it would build a wholly owned r&d center here. The center is part of a $250 million corporate campus. Its research will focus on alternative fuels and advanced propulsion …”

Some speculation that China will buy GM or a division of GM:
“All the way back in July, Richard Brubaker over at All Roads Lead to China suggested that General Motors could become a chinese-owned company.
…with firms like Anhui Cherry already showing at the Detroit Auto Show, and China’s obvious desire to be a global player in the auto market, I am beginning to wonder if we are about to see a big 3 auto maker be purchased in whole/ part by a Chinese firm looking to expand..”.
It’s clear if you want to go to China you must be prepared to hand over all the techie stuff if you expect to play. Who knows how it will all shake out but whatever China drags up on the shores of Mexico will be some bastardization of a GM product. A GM Cherry so to speak.
The taxpayer has paid for GM to relocate to China and has paid for them to declare bankruptcy. Only fitting that we should pay for first class air tickets to get them back to China.
Ford seems to be making a valiant effort to stick in, reason unknown.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 8, 2009 04:19 PM

Dan said: “Like Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.
So, continue to reward YOUR politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates and see where it gets us.”

Reminds me of the recent appointment of Gary Locke to Commerce Dept. In his run for governor of Wash state Fortune 500’s gave $800k to his campaign. Big players were Boeing and Microsoft. He is their man in Wash. to fight the downturn in defense spending. He worked as a Microsoft attorney after being governor and has 1/4M in Microsoft stock. Now a problem, right Dan? When filling state positions Locke chose at least 15 Boeing employees, five former boeing employees, a half-dozen microsoft employees and four past Microsoft employees for state posts. Locke knows well China’s President and traveled there with Boeing’s Chief Executive who picked up his airfare. Corporatism at its finest.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 8, 2009 04:45 PM

Roy Ellis quoted: “It’s clear if you want to go to China you must be prepared to hand over all the techie stuff if you expect to play.”

Well, there ya go. Thanks Roy.

Here’s an interesting article from MAR-2006 that said China had a labor shortage that was causing wages to soar (like to what? $1.02 per hour, based on average income of $2025 per year in 2006)?). Cha Ching!?!

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 April 8, 2009 05:00 PM

Henry, your reply equating Madoff’s actions with seeking to fend for one’s family is over the top hyperbole, IMO. Madoff stole from other people under false pretenses. That is an entirely different crime than crossing a border in the S.W. of our nation in search of jobs known to be available for illegal immigrants.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2009 08:55 PM

bills said: “I still find it ironic that as soon as the Mexican drug cartels threaten US drug cartels, all talk of how we should avoid protectionism goes out the window in a hurry. One might wonder who is calling the shots.”

That is a fair point and argument. Big Money calls the shots. We have all known that for a very, very long time, where Congress’ actions are concerned. That is what we the voters, must put an end to.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2009 08:57 PM

d.a.n, thanks, my error. My reply regarding China and GM were in reference to Roy’s comments, not yours. Thanks for your feedback on that issue, however. We seem to agree on this.

Following the money will illuminate the players and motives of the relations between China and American corporations. Mexico as an intermediary for Chinese-American corporation deals enabling China’s direct competition with American companies, was enabled by the NAFTA which both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for ignoring.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 8, 2009 09:05 PM

David,
Intended to be over the top I do believe that the Law does not make the difference netween someone stealing to feed their family and those stealing to feed their ego. True, the lawyers can make the case in court, but the Law is the Law is it not?

By the way, in making it a felony to cross the border does that move the issue up on the pecking order? Provide the government with extra powers to deal with those hiring and harboring the individual? And make it harder for smugglers to operate?

Yes, a harsh punishment for one just seeking a better life for their family in a new land; however, seeing that they are taking the food out of the mouths of citizens already born and raised in America. I wonder what you and others would do if it could be proven that an Illegal Aliens caused the death of an American straving?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 8, 2009 09:17 PM

As ususal, some legislators want immigrations raids suspended for the duration of the census count. Az and Tx is expected to gain 7 seats and yes, Calif would gain again this time around.
I believe it was FOX that interviewed a cartel hit man that said many border patrol and US enforcement were on the take re drug money. The officers on the take are only known by a number to the drug runners. Sufficient for them to keep tabs as to who is on duty at any given time. There had to be corruption on this side to move so much drug supply. And, you can bet that corruption runs to the very top.
The administration is likely to roll back REAL ID. From the last ICE raid 1 illegal was deported and the others were given legal work documentation.
Corporatism at its finest.

Otherwise, we have the government we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 8, 2009 10:20 PM

David R. Remer wrote: The optimists argue the deficit spending, growth in the national debt, and risk of inflation are the mandatory price of preventing a depression or, protracted and far deeper recession, potentially threatening even the federal government’s ability to maintain its obligations and debt interest payments.

And some (neither necessarily optimist or pessimist) will argue that many questions are being ignored, and a lot more deficit spending may very likely turn into something worse, if the current debt is already untenable.

What is this picture telling us about debt, and debt per capita (i.e. per-person, on average)?
Chart after chart of debt, inflation, GDP, etc. indicates that something seem to start to go terribly wrong about year 1975.

• ___ $11.2 Trillion National Debt Per-Capita (2008 dollars)____


• $40.0 |———————————-


• $37.5 |———————————o $36,455 per-capita


• $35.0 |———————————o


• $32.5 |——————————-oo


• $30.0 |——————————-o-


• $27.5 |—————————-oo—


• $25.0 |—————————-o—-


• $22.5 |————-o————o—— $22,140 per-capita


• $20.0 |————o-o———-o——


• $17.5 |————o-o———-o——


• $15.0 |————o-o———o——-


• $12.5 |————o—-o—-o———


• $10.0 |————o——-oo———-


• $07.5 |————o———————


• $05.0 |————o———————


• $02.5 |——o-o————————


• $00.0 +o-o——————————YEAR


• ______ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2


• ______ 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0


• ______ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1


• ______ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

HHMMMMmmmmm … many questions remain unanswered, which means that a lot more deficit spending may make things worse, and 33+ nations (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation) have already tried to sovle their massive debt-bubbles with more borrowing, debt, new money, and spending, and they all failed miserably by debauching the currency (i.e. making the problem worse).

Why will it work for the U.S. if it didn’t work for 33+ other nations? Why is the biggest debtor nation on the planet somehow immune to hyperinflation?

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 April 8, 2009 11:39 PM

David,
I just realized that you and me are trying to protect the same thing. For where you said “seeking to improve one’s family’s condition should not be a felony. That is so, Soviet Union like.” Could I say “Wanting to stop the exploitation of the Illegal Aliens seeking to come to America looking for opportunites to improve their family life” and actually mean the same Politically Unalienable Correct thing?

For why I seek to do it though Non-Profits and othe Community Groups that would help these Humans come into the country legally and impose harsh mesures to enforce the Border Security. The intention is not to use the Hammer of the Government to crush the Spirit of the Individual, but give the Border and Law Enforcement the necesary Societal Tools to get the job done. Because why you may catch the small fish when one goes fishing for the sharks, as an American Layman Citizen who reconizes the National Security and long standing relatiomship of the two countries all I want the government to do is find a way to stop the current maddess.

So could America use a 3 strike and your in jail for 20 years, depending on how it is used I say yes. However, that would come with a long list of guidelines set against those citizens found guilty of gross misconduct under the law. Would you not agree?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 9, 2009 03:17 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Mexico#Remittances “”Quote It is estimated that half or more of Mexican immigrants to the United States are legal, and have access to formal transfer channels usually blocked to illegals simply due to the lack of accepted identification documents.”“” Who wrote That Horselaugh illegals were sending it Home to .

Posted by: Rodney Brown at April 9, 2009 10:52 AM

d.a.n, I agree. David Walker was on CNBC this morning saying Obama is following the needed course to address the financial and recession crises. He also says however, and I agree with him, that we must concurrently establish now how we are going to address the deficit and debt once economic recovery is underway, insuring that what we spend as a nation is necessary, and effective in reaching its objectives.

He is advocating for an independent bi-partisan study commission to provide a blueprint for fiscal responsibility which will address entitlements, tax policy, and discretionary spending, and whose blueprint is agreed before hand by Congress to receive an up or down vote when submitted.

It has promise. He is for universal health care, but, says it can only be achieved and sustained with health care and entitlement reforms that put the health care system on a cost sustainable basis for the rest of this century. I agree with him there, too!

He acknowledges such reforms will have opponents coming out of the woodwork attempting to conduct all manner of public referendums to defeat the status quo. Hence the need for the bi-partisan Commission already proposed and Congress’ agreement to give its product an up and down vote, by passing the myriad committee processes which will bury any kind of holistic set of plans and reforms, such as that contemplated to put the nation’s fiscal future on a healthy and sustainable track.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 9, 2009 11:34 AM

Henry Schlatman wrote: So could America use a 3 strike and your in jail for 20 years, depending on how it is used I say yes. However, that would come with a long list of guidelines set against those citizens found guilty of gross misconduct under the law. Would you not agree?

If you are recommending incarceration for illegal employers of illegal aliens, then incarceration and fines is a good idea.

If you are recommending incarceration for illegal aliens who have merely tresspassed our borders once (a misdemeanor), or even lengthy incarceration for illegal aliens for merely trespeassing our borders only to look for work, then incarceration, then that is a bad idea.
The illegal aliens merely looking for work, and not comitting other more serious crimes, are not the true villains.
The true villains are the greedy illegal employers of illegal aliens, and despicable politicians who despicably pit American citzens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, disguised as compassion (severely misplaced compassion if such compassion were truly genuine).

Enforcing laws to prosecute illegal employers will have the most effective impact on reducing illegal immigration.
But the borders need to be secured too, and that can not be accomplished only with border patrol alone or fences/detection-systems/delay-barriers alone. A balance of methods are needed).

(www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/006505.html#279874)

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, I agree. David Walker was on CNBC this morning saying Obama is following the needed course to address the financial and recession crises.

I didn’t see it. However, as you also note …

David R. Remer wrote: He [David Walker] also says however, and I agree with him, that we must concurrently establish now how we are going to address the deficit and debt once economic recovery is underway, insuring that what we spend as a nation is necessary, and effective in reaching its objectives.

Exactly. Because this many unanswered questions is telling us something; something disturbing.

David R. Remer wrote: He is advocating for an independent bi-partisan study commission to provide a blueprint for fiscal responsibility which will address entitlements, tax policy, and discretionary spending, and whose blueprint is agreed before hand by Congress to receive an up or down vote when submitted.

David Walker is absolutely correct to want to see a mathematical rationale and a strategy for how the massive national debt will be dealt with; especially if the debt is already untenable.

However, equally disturbing is not only the $11.2 Trillion federal National Debt, but the current (not futre) $57 Trillion nation-wide debt and future debt (potentially as high as $174 Trillion).

I’m still very curious what the plan is to unwind so much debt without a lot of one or more of the following:

(1) borrowing and debt;
(2) defaults on debt; 3+ more foreclosures per year (8,000-to-9,000 foreclosures per day);
(3) new money created out of thin air (such as part (or all) of this bail-out money $3.8-to-$11.6 Trillion);
(4) very high inflation (possibly hyperinflation), which could make things much worse;
(5) a long time to slowly unwind the debt without causing excessive inflation;

Because at the moment, the national debt per-capita ($36K) and nation-wide debt per-capita ($184K), and other math and trends look dismal.

The historical precedence looks horrible (with 33+ other nations that have already discovered the consequences of massive debt and hyperinflation resulting from too much new money created out of thin air); especially considering that the U.S. is the biggest debtor nation on the planet.

And the lack of any economic model that demonstrates how massive debt can be solved with more borrowing, debt, new money, and spending, raises many questions about the choice to do just that (i.e. more borrowing, debt, new money, and spending).

David R. Remer wrote: It has promise. He is for universal health care, but, says it can only be achieved and sustained with health care and entitlement reforms that put the health care system on a cost sustainable basis for the rest of this century. I agree with him there, too!

Universal healthcare is a good idea if it cuts out the unnecessary middlemen and creates a non-profit national health care insurance system, and doesn’t let 12-to-20+ Million illegal aliens game the system. Otherwise, it will be troubled and as mismanaged as badly as Social Security and Medicare, with incessant debt and unfunded liabilities.

David R. Remer wrote: He acknowledges such reforms will have opponents coming out of the woodwork attempting to conduct all manner of public referendums to defeat the status quo. Hence the need for the bi-partisan Commission already proposed and Congress’ agreement to give its product an up and down vote, by passing the myriad committee processes which will bury any kind of holistic set of plans and reforms, such as that contemplated to put the nation’s fiscal future on a healthy and sustainable track.

No doubt about it. The health insurance corporations will do their best to stop any non-profit national health care insurance system. But Americans don’t need to be paying profits to corporations trying to capitalize on others misfortune, pain, and misery. As inefficient and severely bloated as the federal government is, it is hard to see how a non-profit health insurance sysetm can be much worse than a for-profit health insurance companies who spend a lot of their time trying to deny coverage and cheat people. Since for-profit health insurance is inaffordable for 40-to-50 Million Americans, what good is it? Americans don’t need to be paying a bunch of greedy CEOs, executive managment, and stock-holders anything, much less exorbitant and obscene amounts (Such as Bill Frist’s HCA hospitals who bilked Medicare for almost a Billion dollars, and later agreed to pay back about $631 Million (source: www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bill_Frist#HCA-Medicare_investigation).

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 April 9, 2009 12:38 PM

UUhhhh Oh. According to Bloomberg.com, the financial rescue and stimulus is now up from $8.5 Trillion as of 30-NOV-2008, to $11.6 Trillion as of 24-FEB-2009, and now up to $12.8 Trillion as of 31-MAR-2009.

Yikes! At that rate (extrapolated out 11 months), it would be $25 Trillion in less than 10 months:

• See graph: One-Simple-Idea.com/RescueBailoutsAndStimulus20090331.jpg

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 April 9, 2009 03:18 PM

One-Simple-Idea.com/RescueBailoutsAndStimulus20090331.jpg

Posted by: d.a.n at April 9, 2009 03:19 PM

D.a.n,
If not 3 strikes and your out, how many times should we allow the person crossing Americas’ Border illegally when they have a legal and helpful manner to enter the country legally. Should we reward these people by allowing them to jump the line or give them 10, 100, or even a 1,000 chances before we use the Law of the Land?

No, like I told David it may seem harsh to throw a person in jail for 20 years when their own country cannot afford to give them the opportunities to provide for their families; however, IMHO I do believe that if Americans teach these tempoary workers to become economically viable and financially independent and send them back to their local communities that “We the People” would be doing Our Fair Share to help stop the need of Human Smuggling. For that is the heart of the problem.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 10, 2009 03:35 AM

Henry Schlatman wrote: d.a.n, If not 3 strikes and your out, how many times should we allow the person crossing Americas’ Border illegally when they have a legal and helpful manner to enter the country legally.

Based on current federal laws, the first trespass is only a misdemeanor.

Subsequent trespasses are a felony, and carry more penalties.
However, I do not think people merely looking for work, and not violating other laws, and not comitting other serious crimes, should be treated harshly.
The true villains are the greedy and despicable illegal employers and our politicians who despicably pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other for votes and profits, disguised as compassion (severely misplaced compassion even if genuine).

Henry Schlatman wrote: Should we reward these people by allowing them to jump the line or give them 10, 100, or even a 1,000 chances before we use the Law of the Land?

No. Any illegal aliens having comitted other crimes (other than one misdemeanor trespass of our borders) should be held accountable, incarcerated, and/or deported. But if you want to get to the root of the problem, the illegal employers should be fined and punished. For example, for illegal employers:

• 1st offense: a fine equal to 5% of illegal employer’s annual profits (or the individual’s annual gross income).
• 2nd offense: jail for 1 month, plus a fine of 10% of illegal employer’s annual profits (or person’s annual income).
• 3rd offense: jail for 1 year, plus a fine of 15% of illegal employer’s annual profits (or person’s annual income).
• 4th offense: jail for 2 years, plus a fine of 20% of illegal employer’s annual profits (or person’s annual income).
• 5th offense: jail for 3 years, plus a fine of 30% of illegal employer’s annual profits (or person’s annual income).
• Nth offense: increase the jail term by 1 year and the fine by 10% of illegal employer’s annual profits.

How’s that?

Do that, and most illegal aliens will stop coming here. How many people do you see illegally immigrating from the U.S. to Mexico?
That’s largely because there are even fewer jobs (and lower paying too) in Mexico.
The problem is that many laws are being ignored, and allow greedy illegal employers to break the law too. So, whose the real villain?
The biggest part of the solution is to prosecute the greedy illegal employers.
The other part of the solution is to secure the border.
Also, deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. by illegal aliens.
But harshly punishing illegal aliens who are merely looking for work and comitting no other serious crimes other than trespassing our border just ain’t right, and it is also costly to U.S. taxpayers. It would be smarter to address the root causes. As long as illegal employers are allowed to violate existing laws, the illegal alien problem will continue to grow.

Henry Schlatman wrote: No, like I told David it may seem harsh to throw a person in jail for 20 years when their own country cannot afford to give them the opportunities to provide for their families; however, IMHO I do believe that if Americans teach these tempoary workers to become economically viable and financially independent and send them back to their local communities that “We the People” would be doing Our Fair Share to help stop the need of Human Smuggling. For that is the heart of the problem.

Sorry Henry, but I do not agree with incarcerating illegal aliens for merely trespassing our borders once (currently only a misdemeanor), nor I do not think it is fair or humane to punish illegal aliens with long-term incarceration merely for working here illegally and having comitted no other serious crimes.

However, for truly criminal illegal aliens, like the criminal illegal aliens that killed these police, and killed these people in the United States, and comitted other serious crimes, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Solutions …

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 April 10, 2009 01:08 PM

Ex-Mex Pres. Fox was in the US making speeches about how we are discriminating against Latinos, expansion of NAFTA and embracing the NAU. Fox didn’t just come here to speak his mind and piss off Lou Dobb’s. He was invited here by the Corporatist to continue pandering to the immigrant community. He, nor the administration wants the illegal work force to get fed up with globalization and start returning home. Likewise, the administration is talking up amnesty a full year before they say they might bring that issue up in Congress. Lou sez you can’t reform immigration until you can control immigration, and you can’t control immigration without securing the borders and ports. Once that is done he seems to be open to some kind of immigration reform. Where does he find such faith that the Corporatist will abide by some legislative agreement on securing the border and ports? Does he have no recall of the 86 amnesty promise? Does he think that because they are not enforcing US law now in regards to immigration that they will choose to do so in the future? For 30 years we have watched five different administrations do their dead level best to break the back of the middle class American, biggest transfer of wealth in human history. Continues at this minute with the whizzing away of trillions to nobody knows where, foreigners, banks, governors, mayors, and next is the insurance companies. Lou gets to watch the dismantling of the auto industry after giving them $17B to pay for their bankruptcy. What a perfectly seamless transition between Bush and Obama over the Iraq deal, getting on with Afghan, etc. Celebrate the change!
The voting public voted for the Corporatists to continue their failed globalizataion policy, bring us a recession, continue their open border NAU policy to bring in drugs and illegals, and pit Am. workers against the illegal worker, the Chinese worker, and the foreign temp visa worker while some 15% of the Am, people are unemployed. I wonder if Lou can get by on $20 grand a year?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocrisy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 10, 2009 11:02 PM

D.a.n,
The problem with allowing a person to be charged with a misdemeanor (btw thanks for correcting my spelling) is that it sends the wrong message. For if I can get into the country illegally and only face a small fine if and when I am caught than why should I wait in line with all the other people looking to better their family lives?

Yet, faced with 20-50 years in prison and knowing that anybody who helps me can face the same jail time I do believe that I would have to think two or three times before I crossed the border looking for work especially if my own community had a program available to their citizens that will allow them to come to America legally.

For if we want to secure the border than the 70’s expression “If you can’t do the time don’t commit the crime” has to be Americas’ first line of defense IMHO. Otherwise, remove the Immigration Laws from the books and allow everyone looking for work to come into the country so we as a society can exploit them by keeping wages for Unskilled and Skilled Labor Cheap.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 11, 2009 03:52 AM

Henry, doctrines of western justice in democratic societies require the punishment fit the crime.

Not like Nazi Germany where nearly all crimes were deemed equally threatening to the power of the state and met with one punishment, death, whether by hard labor or more immediate means.

Another aspect of our sense of justice is one which states one may not bait crime. If one leaves purposefully leaves a stack of 1000 bills sitting atop a U.S. Mail box, one has no legal reason to expect everyone to simply pass it by untouched.

America has on legitimate reason to expect illegal immigrants not to come into this country if America leaves its doors wide open to their crossing in.

Just as a store owner who closes shop but leaves the front door open overnight, cannot ask for the more severe penalty of breaking and entering if someone simply walks in and takes merchandise after the shop owner went home. The store owner can only expect simple theft charges to be exacted.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 13, 2009 12:22 AM

David,
Why I agree in Principle with you, I do believe that is why a comprehensive approach to Border Security is parmont. For why America could invest in an Early Warning Person Defense Systems and erect fences all across the land. I do believe that if we are to change Public Behavior than like the 18th Amendment we owe to both sides of the political spectrum to draw a hard line.

Thus, making it a felony would IMHO be well within the Framework of America. Because why you and others may be able to make the case for the “Poor Soul” who happened to wonder North across the border in search of work. Can one also make the case that by establishing Non-Profits and securing the border within reason the law needs to be capable of discouraging the “Poor Soul” from endangering their Life or being taken advantage of by those not so honorable elements of society?

A fine line that IMHO should remain in the hands of the Democratic and Republican Elected Officials. For why I realize that the issue has Local, State, and Federal Parts (sorry can’t think of the proper name right now). I do believe that on the Federal Level the President of the United States of America and Congress needs to have such a Political Tool in order for the Leaders of the World and Their Citizens to come to terms with the fact that “We the People” mean business.

However, in seeing the Wisdom of cutting the baby in half and the costs to the citizrns of keeping a Human imprisoned for 20-50 years. I have to wonder if Congress could create such Immigration Reform that gave the Local and State more say in how the problem of Illegal Aliens was dealt with. For surely the Boder States would be put at a distinct disadvantage if they had to house those arrested under any mandated terms, would they not?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at April 13, 2009 02:19 AM

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n, you are asking the wrong question.

Not true.

These are very good questions and the fact that those questions remain unanswered speaks volumes.

David R. Remer wrote: If our debt is untenable, why are our creditors not foreclosing on our debt, and still buying it up?

Foolish investing does not equate to fiscal sovlency.

Besides, foreclosure is not eminent as long as the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve continue to create trillions of dollars of new money each year.
In year 2007, the U.S. government paid $430 Billion dollars for interest alone on the $9 Trillion National Debt (as of SEP-2007).
But that can not last forever.
The federal and non-federal debt can not continue to grow exponentially forever.
The math is truly dismal, and there are limits, and so many unanswered questions is telling us something important.
Especially when the $57 Trillon nation-wide debt has more than quadrupled from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to 411% of GDP today.
Especially when 90%-to-95% of all U.S. dollars in the U.S. already exists as debt.

Only because some foreign nations (e.g. China, Japan, U.S. citizens too, etc.) continue to throw money into the black-hole is not proof that the debt is tenable.
Only because the stock market rallied recently (the other so-called proof offered) is is not proof that the debt is tenable …

David R. Remer wrote: The treasury and currency markets however, absolutely contradict your statement that our current debt is untenable. America is still where the world chooses to invest their dollars in our debt instruments.

If the stock market was such a wonderful indicator, why did Warren Buffet lose $50 Billion last year (online.wsj.com/article/SB123575572935295811.html)?
Why did millions of people lose trillions of dollars in the stock market if it is such a great predictor of the future and the fiscal condition of the U.S. government and the U.S. economy, and its $11.3 Trillion National Debt and its $57 Trillion nation-wide debt of of nightmare proportions?

Some foreign creditors are currently reducing their exposure to U.S. debt, because some foreign nations were so damaged and/or devastated (e.g. Iceland) by toxic U.S. debt peddled as AAA securities, that they currently have little (or nothing) left to loan to the U.S.

China already said in year 2006 that it planned to reduce its exposure to the falling U.S. Dollar (source: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901042_pf.html).
But China is trapped in a Catch-22.

• If China stops loaning the U.S. money, the U.S. will create more money out of thin air, which will create more inflation, which will erode their investments.


• If China continues to loan the U.S. money, and the U.S. continues to grow its debt beyond already-nightmarish proportions, the U.S. will create more money out of thin air to avoid default, which will create more inflation, which will erode their investments.


• If China sells their marketable treasuries, the U.S. dollar will plummet, which will erode their investments.


• But there could possibly be a more sinister reason for holding so much debt: If China wanted to severely damage the U.S., it could start dumping their marketable U.S. treasuries on the world markets, which could cause the U.S. Dollar to fall more rapidly than it has already been falling for the past 7 years (against all major international currencies; source: One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm).

At any rate, banks (foreign and domestic) are foreclosing on millions of Americans per year (i.e. 3.0+ Million home foreclosures per year).

Why is it necessary for the Federal Reserve to create (as of 31-MAR-2009) $4.2-to-$12.8 Trillion dollars out of thin air?

David R. Remer wrote: Untenable equals either default on debt or having run out of credit to support one’s debt.

Not true.

Since the federal government has a near-unlimited ability to grow debt and create new money, the government will most likely cause high inflation and/or hyperinflation before defaulting on debt.
33+ nations have already demonstrated how this other economic terror begins and ends (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation) have previously tried to borrow, create new money, and spend their way out of a massive debt-bubble, and it not only did not work, but made things worse.

So, numerous signs of serious debt-related problems remain ignored, and many questions remain unanswered.
One obvious sign is the creation of $4.2-to-$12.8 Trillion dollars of new money to avoid default (source: www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4&refer=worldwide).
Another obvious sign is the highest $11.3 Trillion National Debt per-capita (about $36K), which is 65% higher than the National Debt per-capita (about $22K in 2008 dollars) in year 1945 after World War II.
Another obvious sign is the $57 Trillion nation-wide debt, which has never been higher ever in size, per-capita ($184K), and as a percentage of GDP (having grown from 100% of GDP in year 1956 to a nightmarish 411% of GDP today).
Another obvious sign is that a 1950 Dollar is now worth only 10 cents.

• Only because some foreign nations (e.g. China, Japan, etc.) continue to throw money into the black-hole is not proof that the U.S. debt is tenable.


• Only because the stock market rallied is is not proof that the U.S. debt is tenable.


• Only because people are all running around like chickens with their heads cut-off, looking for some place to put their money so that it can avoid the incessant erosion of inflation, is not proof that the U.S. debt is tenable.


• Only because some of these foreign investors’ own nations have worse inflation, worse economic conditions, and fewer places to put money to avoid the incessant erosion of inflation, is not proof that the U.S. debt is tenable.


• Stock markets don’t predict economic decline; otherwise, Warren Buffet wouldn’t lose $50 Billion in the stock market.

Therefore, …

David R. Remer wrote: If our debt is untenable, why are our creditors not foreclosing on our debt, and still buying it up?

… only proves that many people do foolish things. So, foreign nations dumb enough to continue to help the largest debtor nation on the planet continue to grow its debt ever larger is not very good proof that the U.S. debt is tenable. Also, there are stages and degrees of everthing, and it can take many decades for such a massive problem to grow beyond the point of no return before most realize it.

David R. Remer wrote: Neither of these definitions currently apply to the United States. In fact, our creditors continue to buy our new debt because our new debt is restoring confidence in our resolution to remain solvent.

Again, foolish investing is not proof that the U.S. debt is tenable.

Foreign investors may be very sorry that they continued to throw money into the blackhole, while ignoring largest debtor nation’s fast-growing $11.3 Trillion federal debt ($36K per-capita) and $57+ Trillion of total nation-wide debt per-capita ($184K).

David R. Remer wrote: Had we allowed the financial sector to buckle, and the Recession to become a depression, then our creditors would have lost confidence in our ability to generate revenues to support debt and pay returns on new debt.

That’s a separate issue. Insuring deposits and money-markets was necessary.

However, growing the severely bloated and wasteful federal government and national debt ever larger is not only unnecessary, but very foolish, and making the problem worse.
Playing chicken with hyperinflation is foolish.
Trillion dollar deficits (with only $2.4 Trillion (or less) in total annual federal revenues, and $11.3 Trillion of National Debt) is foolish.
Smarter and less government spending is necessary; not more foolish spending and not more massive debt.
And propping up bad banks and badly mananged corporations is foolish, and those bad banks and bad corporations will fail anyway.
When we needed more fiscal responsibility the most, we got the opposite.

David R. Remer wrote: Reality is what it is.

That’s right. And foolish investing is not proof that the U.S. debt is tenable.

David R. Remer wrote: I agree with you that our debt may become untenable under a growing number of scenarios.

If the debt is tenable, then why do these questions remain unanswered …?

• (1) Is there any historical precedent of any nation (much less the biggest debtor nation on the planet) so deep into debt ever successfully solving a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending ($11.3 Trillion Fedreal National Debt, and $57 Trillion of total nation-wide debt)?
• (2) Is there any macro economics model that states that a massive debt-bubble can solved with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?
• (3) Is there any mathematical rationale that demonstrates how any nation so ridiculously deep into debt (much less the biggest debtor nation on the planet) has ever successfully solved a massive debt-bubble with more debt, borrowing, new money, and spending?
• (4) If the current debt is untenable, how is growing it bigger going to help?
• (5) Where will the money come from when 90%-to-95% of all money in existence in the U.S. exists as debt, because new money is created as debt at a steep ratio of 9-to-1 of debt-to-reserves.
• (6) What are the chances that high inflation (or hyperinflation) will make the current situation worse? After all, 33+ nations (source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Examples_of_hyperinflation) have previously tried to borrow, create new money, and spend their way out of a massive debt-bubble, and it not only did not work, but made things much worse.
• (7) What is the debt limit? How can anyone say the debt is untenable if they do not know what the limit is?

David R. Remer wrote: But, at this moment, the reality of foreign and domestic investors still buying up our treasuries at auction, and investing in our currency, contradicts all statements regarding our current debt being untenable. Our creditors will be the first to let us know when our debt appears untenable to them.

Again, foolish investing is not proof that the U.S. debt is tenable, and still leaves many questions (above) unanswered.

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 April 19, 2009 10:56 AM