Category Archives: Economy

Updated: Memo To Ditto Heads: Obama Didn’t Do It

Barack Obama, Bush, Conservatism, Economy, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Inflation, libertarianism

Just in case ditto heads are still blaming Obama for the economic depression we’re in, here’s a reality check, and an excerpt from the CNN documentary, “I.O.U.S.A.”:

January 1, 2000, Federal Debt: $5.6 Trillion Dollars.

George W. Bush is declared the winner of the 2000 election.

One of his first priorities is pushing a large tax cut.

September 11, the attacks put the U.S. on war footing.

Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost hundreds of billions.

May 1, 2003, Federal debt: $6.5 trillion.

Through Bush’s first term, the Fed cuts interest rates 12 times. [Creating the glut of malinvestment and spending]

The dollar begins a long, steep decline against other currencies.

Cheap credit floods the housing market.

Many home buyers grab risky, non-fixed mortgages. [Helped along by existing federal laws, to which Bush added,mandating loans to risky minorities]

The war drags on.

Bush signs into law Medicare-D, an expensive drug benefit program.

Bush wins re-election on November 3, 2004.

Federal debt: About $10.7 trillion and 75 percent of GDP.

Federal deficit: $455 billion … and now we’re talking trillions for several years going forward.

[Snip]

As we’ve pointed, the totality of US government liabilities exceeds the worth of its citizens.

Also pointed out in this space, years back, is that with an extremely high debt-to-GDP ratio, the US would not be admitted to the company of socialists: the EU. The US’s debt is about 75 percent of its GDP.

I’m often asked what is to be expected under these dire circumstances.

Assets will continue to devalue. Saving will be difficult; retirement near impossible, because, with the continuing devaluation of the dollar, savings depreciate. Hyperinflation is a very real threat, as the amount of goods in the economy decreases, and the supply of worthless paper increases.

Now Obama’s thinking is wrongheaded: he is as clueless as Republicans about the economy and will only prolong the agony. Nevertheless, “I didn’t do it” (Bart Simpson’s famous phrase) is an appropriate defense of Barack.

Update: In response to comments. I do hope the Addiction to that Rush is not on display.

So it’s Obama’s deficit as it is Bush’s??? ‘Cmon; don’t be a ditto head. As bad as he is, Obama is probably one of the least influential politicians to date, given his short tenure in office. (He is destined to change that, of course.) Didn’t ditto heads make that very point in arguing against his candidacy?

This is not about giving anyone a pass. However, spreading irresponsibility is just what ditto heads and democrats like. This allows their respective point men and women to continue to commit legalized crimes, because responsibility in government is always socialized. “Don’t play the blame game” is the political parasite’s favored term.

No, Obama was a relatively obscure politician until now. Bush and Cheney—they ought to have been impeached. Blame for the depression belongs to their administration and to its foreign, fiscal and monetary policy.

To collectivize responsibility and spread it around equally is to oblige the political operatives, and reward them for their crimes. That’s precisely what they want. You’ve fallen into their trap. I’m afraid responsibility must be assigned with laser-like precision.

While on the issue of history, not revisionism, one more thing: The only commentators deserving credit for warning of the financial crisis are my fractious political tribe—not all, but certain libertarians and assorted paleos. And Ron Paul always. Of course, because, other than Paul, we are relatively unknown, the likes of Stephen Moore, who wrote odes to Bush’s “ownership society,” can remake themselves into all-knowing gurus, without crediting their betters.

No one in the age of the idiot will be the wiser.

America Will Soon Owe More Than Its Citizens Are Worth

Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Inflation, Political Economy

I’ve frequently warned about America’s overall debt: “Government debt is $70 trillion: $9 trillion plus the unfunded liabilities of ‘Medicare, pension, and Social Security programs.‘”

David M. Walker, former Comptroller General of the United States, is one of the few power brokers who’s been sounding the same alarm. The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, with which Walker is now affiliated, reported:

“NEW YORK (Dec. 15, 2008) – The sum of America’s liabilities and other financial commitments now exceeds the collective net worth of its citizens, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation has calculated using the latest official data. Growth in the government’s unfunded promises for social insurance programs such as Medicare, combined with a drop in Americans’ net worth due in part by lower home equity values, is causing this unprecedented milestone.”

“The Foundation’s calculations are based primarily on the new consolidated federal financial statements as of September 30, 2008 which do not reflect the additional toll taken by more recent market declines, bailout packages, and record October and November deficits. The financial statements show approximately $56.4 trillion in debts, liabilities, and unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security versus the Federal Reserve’s estimate a total household net worth of $56.5 trillion, both as of September 30, 2008.”

“Given more recent developments, it’s clear that America now owes more than its citizens are worth,” said Foundation President and CEO David M. Walker. ‘Passing this shocking milestone highlights the need for President-elect Obama and the next Congress not only to turn the economy around and boost consumer confidence, but to put a process in place that will lead to tough choices getting made to strengthen the government’s financial condition once the economy begins growing again.'”

[SNIP]

Rome is burning. But nobody is stopping the arsonists.

Courtesy of the same source comes the Real National Debt:

Total Federal Burden
$56,400,000,000,000

Your Share
$184,000

Neocon-Style Social Engineering

Economy, Energy, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Neoconservatism, Socialism, Taxation

However you slice it, what you have in Charles Krauthammer is a crypto-leftist. Here he proposes an elaborate tax scheme to shape consumer conduct. After all, that’s why we have know-it-alls like Krauthammer—to lead us toward the light:

[BLOVIATION BEGINS]

“Here is how it works. The simultaneous enactment of two measures: A $1 increase in the federal gasoline tax–together with an immediate $14 a week reduction of the FICA tax. Indeed, that reduction in payroll tax should go into effect the preceding week, so that the upside of the swap (the cash from the payroll tax rebate) is in hand even before the downside (the tax) kicks in.

The math is simple. The average American buys roughly 14 gallons of gasoline a week. The $1 gas tax takes $14 out of his pocket. The reduction in payroll tax puts it right back. The average driver comes out even, and the government makes nothing on the transaction. (There are, of course, more drivers than workers–203 million vs. 163 million. The 10 million unemployed would receive the extra $14 in their unemployment insurance checks. And the elderly who drive–there are 30 million licensed drivers over 65–would receive it with their Social Security payments.)

Revenue neutrality is essential. No money is taken out of the economy. Washington doesn’t get fatter. Nor does it get leaner. It is simply a transfer agent moving money from one activity (gasoline purchasing) to another (employment) with zero net revenue for the government. …”

[SNIP]

Incentivizing good behavior (“drive less and shift to fuel-efficient cars”), and penalizing bad is in the purview of the big, overweening neoconservative government. This has been the Bush mandate. And it’s of a piece with Obama’s impetus.

Hear it straight from the ass’s mouth: “The whole idea is to reward those who drive less and to disadvantage those who drive more. … we support such incentives because … Decreased oil consumption is a … desirable national good.”

Who is this Royal “We” you speak of, Krauthammer, you statist?

Inoculate yourself against the gaseous one with “The Goods On Gas.”

Update III: Bush Bolsters Israel, Makes Policy Change Hard for Barack

Barack Obama, Bush, Democracy, Economy, Individual Rights, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Neoconservatism, War

“President George W Bush called the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel an ‘act of terror’ and outlined his own conditions for a ceasefire in Gaza, in his weekly radio address to the American people.”

Listen to the president’s radio address. This is a very emphatic statement from George Bush. Such a forceful position in support for Israel makes it hard for the incoming president to deviate, or chart a new course.

Update I: The backdrop to the Israeli offensive:

A quarter of a million Israeli citizens have been living under incessant terror attacks from the Gaza Strip with thousands of missiles fired over the past eight years.

Israel left Gaza in 2005, giving Palestinians the chance to run their own lives. Despite this, more than 6300 rockets and mortars have been fired into Israel since then.

During the past year alone, more than 3000 rockets and mortars have been launched into Israel.

As US President-elect Obama stated during a visit to Sderot five months ago, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing.”

More…

Update II (Jan. 4): Regarding Bush and the comment by “gunjam” (may his gun never jam): Bush’s support for Israel’s self-defense need not be psychologized. The president’s violation of the negative rights of Iraqis; and his support for those of Israelis is not courageous, but craven and contradictory. As I observed in “Conservatives For Killing Terri“:

I can think of only two occasions on which I agreed with George Bush. Both involved the upholding of the people’s negative, or leave-me-alone, rights.

The first was his refusal to capitulate to the Kyoto-protocol crazies. Not surprisingly, some conservatives denounced this rare flicker of good judgment. And I’m not talking a “Crunchy Con” of Andrew Sullivan’s caliber—he does proud to Greenpeace and the Sierra Club combined. No less a conservative than Joe Scarborough commiserated with actor Robert Redford over the president’s “blind spot on the environment.” (Ditto Bill O’Reilly.)

The other Bush initiative I endorsed was the attempt by Congress to uphold Terri Schiavo’s inalienable right to life—a decision very many conservatives now rue.

Update III: Did I hear Bush claim Hamas took over Gaza by violent coup? This is what the neoconservatives would like their acolytes to believe. This pie-in-the-Palestinian-sky helps neocons downplay the failure of their democratic evangelizing. Hamas, of course, won the 2006 elections fair and square. Even J. Carter conceded that much, if I’m not mistaken, as did other observers like him, who rushed to the PA to watch their Palestinian protégés practice democracy. The neocons will never admit that a democratic heart does not beat in every breast. In their cultural relativism they are no different from the lefties. Neocons are simply lefties who like war.