|
17 October 2010
Volunteers Wanted: We Need You, Race to the Finish Line for Allen West!
15 August 2010
Obama claims GOP trying to destroy Social Security
I ran across this story and thought it was a Joke. Social Security is broke, this year for the first time it's paying out more than what they're taking in, as for a Trust fund there ISN'T any "Trust" fund. It's a bunch of "funny Money". Government simply taxes everyone for what they need to keep the system going. That's not a trust fund that's welfare. Yet Obama claims the GOP is trying to "destroy" something that in reality, DOESN'T EXIST!
Let's take a look at Chile, where the average working stiff actually has a higher net worth than those here in the U.S. Why, because their private IRA's and Pension funds are REAL Assets, not the funny money variety that the Government "guarantees" us here. In addition, these funds can be willed to a spouse or kids, can the same be said of the Social Security "Trust Fund" here in the U.S.? I think not!
Obama claims GOP trying to destroy Social Security
Erica WernerPresident Barack Obama used the anniversary of Social Security to trumpet Democrats' support for the popular program and accuse Republicans of trying to destroy it.
Seventy-five years after President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Social Security into law, Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday: "We have an obligation to keep that promise, to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities and all Americans — today, tomorrow and forever."
Some Republican leaders in Congress are "pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall," Obama said.
He contended that such privatization was "an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit while tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock market."
Most Republicans, in fact, are wary of touching that idea, because Social Security is virtually sacrosanct to voters, particularly seniors.
Nonetheless, Democrats have been able to seize on the issue because of a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, that would allow younger people to put Social Security money into personal accounts.
Ryan's idea is similar to a proposal pushed unsuccessfully by former President George W. Bush. It's not been endorsed by party leaders and has attracted only a small number of GOP co-sponsors.
With Social Security's finances strained, policymakers talk frequently about the need to address the solvency of the entitlement program. How to do so is less clear, as Obama's comments Saturday underscored.
Obama said he's "committed to working with anyone, Democrat or Republican, who wants to strengthen Social Security." But he proposed no ideas for doing that.
Many Democrats adamantly oppose any cut in benefits to reduce costs and some won't accept a gradual increase in the retirement age, something that was done in the last overhaul in 1983. Republicans say an increase in Social Security taxes is out of the question, even for the wealthy.
Unless Congress acts, Social Security's combined retirement and disability trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037. At that point, Social Security will collect enough in payroll taxes to cover about three-fourths of the benefits.
Obama has created a bipartisan fiscal commission that is supposed to come up with recommendations in December on improving the government's troubled finances and has said everything should be on the table.
"Democrats made an impossible mess out of health care and cut a half-trillion from Medicare, so I don't know whether the commission will come up with anything on health care or not," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said in a statement. "But on Social Security, hopefully they will come up with a credible plan that I can support and my members can support."
Republicans used their weekend address to accuse Democrats of pursuing an "extreme ideologically driven agenda" that threatens the nation's economic recovery.
"I am deeply concerned about the direction we're heading in right now," said former Rep. Pat Toomey, speaking for the GOP. "That direction is being driven by extreme policies that are coming from one-party domination of government in Washington. ... It's time we put some real checks and balances back in place this November."
Toomey, the GOP Senate nominee in Pennsylvania, focused on bailouts for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the car companies; the economic stimulus legislation that has failed to cut unemployment rates; and Obama's health care law.
"Now, where do all these bailouts, takeovers and spending sprees leave us?" Toomey asked. "They leave us with a weak economy without job growth and with a mountain of debt for our kids."
14 August 2010
First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico - NaturalNews.tv
First Amendment suspended in the Gulf of Mexico - NaturalNews.tv
I just came across this from a few months ago and I COULD NOT believe this. For all you Left Wingers out there, this is NOT from FOX News, (since you're alway saying they're biased against this administration), this is from none other than the Clinton News Network, er... I mean CNN.
This text will be replaced by the player
19 July 2010
White House 3M Jobs Figure Not Based on Real Numbers
Three Million Jobs: Really? [Veronique de Rugy]
The White House can repeat these “jobs saved or created” numbers as often as it wants; it won’t make them true. Consider this Business Week report on a study released today by the Council Of Economic Advisers:
The report says the stimulus has “saved or created” about 3 million jobs, and is moving toward a goal of 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year, according to an administration official speaking on condition of anonymity before the report’s release today.As it turns out, when you unpack the numbers, you find that Romer and her team didn’t actually count how many people got a job thanks to the stimulus. Instead, the number is a projection that relies on the myth that a dollar of government spending creates up to 2.5 dollars of economic growth.
That’s strange. Robert Barro of Harvard University has estimated that, even in the best-case senario, $1 of government spending will generate between $0.40 and $0.70 ofeconomic growth, i.e., much less than the amount of growth that we would get if that dollar was invested privately. What’s more, if that dollar has previously been taxed out the economy, then the overall effect of $1 of government spending is a destruction of $1.10 of economic growth. Not exactly the rosy projections that Romer is touting today. (And Barro is not alone. Even the most optimistic projections of the economic effect of government spending never display such numbers. Never.)
Recovery.gov, which actually counts the number of jobs created (if in a very favorable light), only displays roughly 680,000 jobs, not 3 million. Why would the White House not up that number if in fact 3 million jobs had been created? Because they don’t have names and addresses to back up their gargantuan projections.
The business community itself doesn’t seem to know where these miraculous jobs are. A few weeks ago, the chairman of the Business Roundtable — the association of top corporate executives that has been President Obama’s closest ally in the business community — accused the president and Democratic lawmakers of creating an “increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation.” The stimulus, they say, is hurting them, not helping:
“In our judgment, we have reached a point where the negative effects of these policies are simply too significant to ignore,” Seidenberg said in a lunchtime speech to the Economic Club of Washington. “By reaching into virtually every sector of economic life, government is injecting uncertainty into the marketplace and making it harder to raise capital and create new businesses.”Romer, on the other hand, lives in a fantasy world where the administration’s policies will encourage investment:
The economic stimulus legislation pushed by U.S. President Barack Obama last year will help encourage $280 billion of investment by private industry and local governments, according to an administration report being released today.Well, not exactly: The Federal Reserve has calculated that almost $2 trillion of capital is sitting on the sidelines right now, waiting for the government to stop its policy of destruction. The business community is not investing $1.8 trillion because of the uncertainty injected by the government’s policies, including the stimulus.
The analysis, by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, estimates that about $100 billion in government grants, loan guarantees, interest subsidies and tax breaks will be matched almost three-to-one by other spending on clean energy projects, economic development and building construction.
I am about to release the third Stimulus Facts report based on Recovery.gov data, which show that four out of five jobs created were created in the public sector. Remember the promise made by Romer herself when the stimulus was passed, that the bill would create 3.5 million jobs in two years, mostly in the private sector? Almost two years later,682,370 jobs were reported created, not 3 million, and over 510,000 of these were in the public sector. (My preliminary data is online here; my paper on whether government spending stimulates economic growth is here.)
Basically, the White House can claim all the job creation that it wants. The data show a completely different story. I am testifying before Congress and Rep. Paul Ryan at 1 p.m.to make these points.
14 June 2010
Thugs Assault Congressman Etheredge
From CollegeNews.com:
Resjudicata
2010 06 14
Jack booted college thugs from the Tea Party’s vicious Youth Video Projects department attacked innocent Congressman NC Rep Bob Etheridge (Dem) as he returned from conducting the people’s Pelosi business. Both thugs were able to escape from the victim after the poor congressman was able to overcome and detain one of the assailees for a short time and squeeze a gurgled epithet from the more brawny of the two skinny thugs. The congressman’s friends from the SEIU benevolence league have offered to protect the congressman from future random attacks by sacrificing other people’s rights to assure he is left unopposed in the business of raising taxes for the peoples own good of course. Keith Olbermann was quick to point out the obvious racial overtones that weren’t heard or seen during the altercation. Rosie O’Donnell also commented during her radio show on the blatant anti-gay rhetoric not being uttered during the attack by the pro life Catholic Church mob down the street during a church service. The congressman coming from a Pelosi fund raiser to repeal Arizona’s AB1070, was heard to yell “I have a right to know who you are” and “Vee haf veys ouf making you show zee papers” at the assailants, no admission by the attackers of belonging to any neo-type group was forth coming. After the congressman’s dust up with the hooligans, Janet Napolitano quickly declared the scene safer than it had ever been before and pledged to be even more vigilant for neo-anti taxpayers like these two youths. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the President will withhold any comments about whose @#$% ass to kick for at least a month or two. A full investigation of the assault by the top prosecutors in the US AG’s office has been promised by the US Attorney General. Mr. Holder said funds allocated in the next year’s budget for the persecution of the two youths will require billions to assure the American people this type of freedom of the press or speech behavior by youths running rampant with cameras and microphones cannot continue unchecked. Harry Reid has proposed massive tax hikes on the rich to fund the new legislation.
I'm guessing Mr. Etheredge takes Arguing with Idiots
to a whole new level!
I'm guessing Mr. Etheredge takes Arguing with Idiots
to a whole new level! 26 May 2010
More Cities on Brink of Bankruptcy - CNBC
Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure
More Cities on Brink of Bankruptcy
Published: Wednesday, 26 May 2010 | 11:01 AM ET
Text Size
By: Kate Kelly
CNBC Reporter
CNBC Reporter
 |
Jeremy Woodhouse | The Image Bank | Getty Images |
The possibility of a bankruptcy filing by the city of Harrisburg, Pa., the state capital, looms large these days—and it could be the first in a series, say some Wall Street traders.
Harrisburg, population 55,000, owes nearly $70 million in debt payments this year, and it's unclear where that money will come from.
Harrisburg now has one of the lowest credit ratings of any municipality in the United States.
Harrisburg Mayor Linda Thompson told CNBC Wednesday that she had assembled a group of bond stakeholders, the city council and other interested parties to work out the crisis "so that we don't become the poster child of the world in terms of bankruptcy."
Municipal bond underwriters are monitoring Harrisburg, which has struggled to contain the costs of financing a troubled incinerator project.
Kate Kelly
CNBC Reporter
In 2003, the city borrowed $125 million to expand and retrofit its incinerator, which officials thought would make money for Harrisburg. The incinerator re-opened five years later, but it's turned out to be nothing but a money drain.
On May 1, the city missed a $452,282 loan payment related to the incinerator.
Raising taxes or selling assets, like real estate or parking lots, are options for Harrisburg. So is a restructuring plan—either inside or outside of bankruptcy.
If Harrisburg does file for bankruptcy, it would do so under Chapter 9—which is employed by cities, but rarely. In one closely watched case, the city of Vallejo, Calif., has been in Chapter 9 since 2008.
About the Harrisburg situation, Jim Lebenthal, head of public affairs for the longtime municipal-bond underwriter, Lebenthal & Co., said that while filing for Chapter 9 would be a small matter in the scheme of things, it's "emblematic" of the larger economic struggles that cities face right now. "If it can happen in a state capital, my God, it can happen anywhere," said Lebenthal.
The overall problem is that the $2.8 trillion muni bond market, long considered one of the safest havens for investors, now faces a daunting level of debt, as cities from Los Angeles to New York struggle with an array of headaches, including less tax revenue and high labor costs.
According to remarks made by Harrisburg mayor Thompson in April, the city spends rought 70 percent of its annual budget on labor.
Cities can always raise taxes to fight a budget shortfall. But costly projects, fewer people in the workforce and more demand for city services can make budgets tough to square these days.
Financial firms underwrite bond offerings for cities and public-works projects, and the default rate on muni bonds has historically been quite low—less than 1 percent—compared to nearly 13 percent for corporate bonds, according to ratings agency figures.
In that sense, the Street encourages investors to go long municipalities.
But investors and the Street can also short munis through credit default swaps, or CDS policies that pay out if an entity defaults.
The Markit MCDX, an index that tracks the cost of insuring against default of a basket of 50 municipalities, is on a recent high of $173,000 for $10 million of protection on a five-year bond—a point last reached near the beginning of this year. A swap that would pay out if the state of Pennsylvania defaults cost $112,000 for the same $10 million amount.
Jesse Bergman contributed to this story.
© 2010 CNBC.com
TOPICS:Economy (U.S.) | Regulations | Investment Strategy | Debt | Credit | Banking |Corporate Bonds | Municipal Bonds | Bankruptcy | New York City | Politics & Government
06 May 2010
Is Western Watts Research Biased?
An interesting thing happened to me today. I got a phone call from what sounded like a young college student today asking some political questions. He said he was doing some research and wanted to know where we stood in our household.He asked if we were registered to vote and I said yes.
He then asked if we mostly leaned Republican or Democrat or Independent. I said, "Mostly Republican".
He then asked how likely we were to vote in the upcoming mid term elections, to which I responded, "Very Likely".
He then asked if we were likely to vote Democrat, Republican or Independent. I responded that I would vote Conservative. Sometimes that's Republican and sometimes that's Independent, but rarely Democrat.
At this point the phone went dead. I hit *69 to see who had called and that's how I got the Company name. So I ask. Is Western Watts Research Biased?
He then asked if we mostly leaned Republican or Democrat or Independent. I said, "Mostly Republican".
He then asked how likely we were to vote in the upcoming mid term elections, to which I responded, "Very Likely".
He then asked if we were likely to vote Democrat, Republican or Independent. I responded that I would vote Conservative. Sometimes that's Republican and sometimes that's Independent, but rarely Democrat.
At this point the phone went dead. I hit *69 to see who had called and that's how I got the Company name. So I ask. Is Western Watts Research Biased?
12 April 2010
15 Mayors Who Must Shred The Budget To Save Their Bankrupt Cities
Just as they bankrupted the Auto Companies, the Unions have now bankrupted the cities.
Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure
Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure
27 February 2010
Big Pharma's Latest Puppet - John McCain
DSSA Bill a Big win for Big Pharma?The dietary-supplement industry is fighting a bid by U.S. Sen. John McCain to force it to disclose ingredients and register with the Food and Drug Administration.
Most of the industrialized world has incredibly restrictive laws governing supplements. People worldwide often purchase supplements from the U.S. because they are freely available at low costs. The Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 would also strengthen recall authority of any dietary supplement the FDA finds to be hazardous.
Obviously, forcing small companies to go through the FDA's Billion Dollar drug approval process would be way too expensive for natural substances that can't be patented, and would drive up the costs of Natural Supplements substantially.
Tucson's Food Conspiracy Co-op on Fourth Avenue is urging visitors to its Facebook page to take action against the bill, warning it would "create administrative hurdles that small supplement companies could not take on, leaving only products from large pharmaceutical companies."
McCain, who is teaming on the bill with Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., held a press conference in early February to tout it, flanked by several athletes, including swimmer Kicker Vencill, who was banned from the Olympics after taking a tainted supplement. He successfully sued the manufacturer but missed out on the Olympics.
Strong Opposition to DSSA
Stung by rapidly escalating criticism about the bill's intent, McCain made a floor speech last week saying he introduced the legislation at the behest of Major League Baseball, the National Football League and the American College of Sports Medicine, along with several other sports organizations.
He recalled the case of Phoenix Suns' star Tom Gugliotta, who almost died in 2000 after taking a "sleep aid" that sent him into a seizure.
But McCain said the bill was also introduced for the half of all Americans who take some kind of supplement. "People have died from taking dietary supplements, including a young mother and wife who lived in my home state, and thousands have had to be hospitalized or seen by a doctor due to an adverse reaction from a dietary supplement."
Of course, McCain didn't introduce a bill to do anything about the more than 100,000 people a year that die from drug interactions from the Pharmaceutical industry.He said it was about "truth in labeling," saying it only makes sense because Americans can get ingredients off the side of a cereal box or a container of yogurt.
McCain spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said it's important for consumers to know ingredients, too, because some compounds may interact poorly with or nullify their prescription drugs.
Buchanan said the bill has been mischaracterized by opponents. The biggest misconception? "That John McCain is trying to take away people's vitamins. It's just not true. He wants to make is safer for you to take your vitamins."
The importance of DSHEA
The passage of DSHEA resulted from millions of Americans who worked hard to reinforce their freedom to buy and sell supplements. At the time, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was alleging that nutrients like CoQ10 and selenium were dangerous and should be pulled from the market.
Of course, today we know that supplements like CoQ10 have can vastly improve human health, and there are studies that show that CoQ10 can be more beneficial than some of the expressive medications that have been approved by the FDA. In a way, CoQ10 is costing big Pharma Billions in additional profits!
Though weak in some areas, DSHEA established a foundation upon which free access to dietary supplements would be protected from attacks by drug companies and the FDA.
What prompted DSSA?
McCain's DSSA bill emerged in response to illegal steroid use among Major League Baseball players. Likely instigated by pharmaceutical interests, the bill is being posited as necessary to prevent supplement adulteration.
The FDA already has the power to pull supplements from the market that are contaminated but it has not been doing its job. DSSA is not only unnecessary, but it would actually reward the FDA for its failures. DSSA would also strip DSHEA and give full control of the supplement industry to the FDA.
Registration requirements
DSSA would mandate that all supplement companies register with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the FDA. Any company that refuses to register and comply with HHS would be subject to hefty fines, the classification of its products as "adulterated", and their removal from the market. The new system would burden manufacturers with significant new costs that would cause supplement prices to increase. A new taxpayer-funded bureaucracy would also be created to conduct inspections and oversee compliance.
Reporting requirements
DSSA would require all "non-serious adverse events" received by supplement companies to be reported to the government, regardless of whether or not the events are related to the supplements for which they are submitted. Pharmaceutical companies would have access to these reports which they could use to petition the FDA to have supplements removed from the market. The FDA could also arbitrarily pull supplements from the market if it believes it has "reasonable probability" that there may be a problem.
FDA would decide which supplements are legal
Perhaps the most chilling aspect of DSSA is that it would allow the HHS Secretary to establish a list of permitted supplements. Reversing common law, which assumes all is legal unless restricted, DSSA would allow only what is permitted to be legal.
In a nutshell, DSSA would increase supplement costs for consumers, grant incredible new power over the supplement industry to the FDA, and drastically limit the availability of supplements. Drug companies could also use the bill to remove supplements from the market, patent them, and sell them as drugs!
It is absolutely critical to contact your Congressmen and oppose this bill. LifeExtension Magazine has a convenient "Action Alert" page in which to do so.
A Market Solution to Capping CEO Pay
I personally believe that CEO's of PUBLICLY Traded companies, should never be paid more than 10X the Median income in the State they do business in because of that. It's a publicly traded company, not a completely private firm, doing business with completely private money. However, I DO feel that there definitely should be Stock Options given to attempt to match the pay at private companies.How would this work?
Let's say that you're the CEO of Fannie Mae, and your pay is around 500,000 a year, which is about 10X the median income in DC, where the company is headquartered.
As part of your compensation package, you also get a pool of Stock Options, let's say 500,000 shares (about 1 for every dollar earned), that you can exercise in 5 years. Let's face it, any decisions you make today, won't really impact the company for at least 3 to 5 years.
Now if you did as the last CEO of Fannie Mae did, and lower the value of the stock from 70 bucks a share down to a couple of bucks today, then your Stock Options would be absolutely worthless. Why? Options are given at the price they are the day they are given. In other words, if the price of a share was say $70.00, and over 5 years went up to say $100.00, then your options would be worth around 30 bucks a share, or 15 Million Dollars. 50% higher than today's average "Big Gun" pay of 10 Million a year, but here's the big difference in my "Market Driven" compensation plan.
If you drove the company into a ditch, as Fannie Mae is in now, the options are worthless and you get ZERO bonus. Since it takes 5 years for the Options to kick in, the "Serial CEO", would be gone. Long term growth and stability would take center stage, instead of this mindset of "Short Term" gains.
A perfect example of this is the guy that went to Sears about 30 years ago, fired all the full timers, replaced them with part timers with no benefits. Since this dramatically cut Sears cost of doing business Profits boomed. Before long, he took MASSIVE bonuses and then left just a few years later, JUST as the effects started being felt that eventually drove the company into bankruptcy. What effects you say? Do you think that Part timers are as dedicated to the long term growth and stability to the Company as are full timers, some of which had been at the company for decades? Of course not Can you imagine going over to Mobil, GE or Boeing and saying, "I'm going to cut all the full timers and hire a bunch of part timers and the company's going to make more money". The board would think you're a nut job and fire you.
This same idiot was then hired by Home Depot, where he tried to do the same thing, cut full timers, cut training budgets, took massive bonuses, then left just as Home Depot stock took a 10 years slide. The problem with these kinds of CEO's is that while there's an IMMEDIATE up-tick to the stock price, because of improved profitability, over the long term, they lose their best employees and end up with a sinking ship.
I have no problem with massive compensation to the top guns that run these companies, as long as it is DIRECTLY tied to their performance as CEO's. Take a look at the banks, still getting multi-million dollar bonuses after they had US bail them out, that's sickening. Can you imagine if Paton Manning, who's getting 14 Million a year, decided to get Fat and Lazy and didn't perform as well as he has? He'd be CUT. His 14M a year GONE.
Why do these CEO's continue to get paid MASSIVE salaries from public companies, Government sponsored Enterprises (GSE's) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, publicly Traded AND publicly funded companies like these top banks, Monopolies like the Utilities and so on. It's insane, and it's definitely NOT capitalism. It's Crony Capitalism, it's "Who do you know". It's almost a Reverse Socialism, where the Super Rich are supported by the little guy.
While I still believe in a very limited government, I do believe that common sense regulations should be in place to protect Wall Street and the public sector from the excessive gluttony that we've seen when it comes to CEO pay. The reason I say this is because it's gotten to the point to where their pay has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the level of performance at the companies.
Proposals like Obama's 500K cap on pay means absolutely nothing because all the board needs to do is give the CEO's additional pay in the form of direct Stocks, (not stock options like my plan would propose). If the board was hell bent on giving the CEO 5 Million bucks, even if the stock went all the way down to $1.00, they would simply give him 5 million shares.
In the mean time, the Government continues their attack on the true hero of the American Economy, the small business owner. God Forbid, any of these guys make over a Million, we have to tax them to death. These guys aren't taking any public money, they're not taking public stocks and grinding them down to nothing. They're not ruining the Pension funds of America, yet they're made out to be the bad guy. Those "Evil People" over there making more than 250K a year. While we're being RAPED by the bank CEO's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)