[Washington Examiner] A new report by the Federal Reserve points to "widespread signs of deceleration" in the U.S. economy. No kidding! These signs follow what the Fed calls a "burst" of growth in the last quarter of 2009 and first quarter of 2010 triggered by President Obama's $862 billion stimulus package. Unfortunately, the burst failed to help anybody except special interests like unions and public employees. Note the Fed's evasive word choice: Another word for "decelerating" would be "contracting." That's what happens in an economy debilitated by high unemployment, government over-regulation, spiraling public debt, and whopping tax increases looming for the most productive people and businesses.
The Fed report also warned that consumers are not spending like they used to. In other words, they are instead prudently doing what Washington politicians seem incapable of doing -- reducing debt instead of piling on more of it. Consumers are thus casting an overwhelming vote of "no confidence" in Washington's ability to put the nation back on the road to prosperity in the age of Obama. When you add taxpayer bailouts of ineptly or dishonestly managed corporations and a massive expansion of health care entitlements, it becomes clear that America is at a historic crossroad. We are fast approaching a tipping point where those dependent on government largesse outnumber those taxed to pay for it.
According to the Heritage Foundation's 2010 Index of Dependence on Government, the number of Americans receiving a government check jumped nearly 14 percent in 2009 - the largest single-year increase since 1970 and 49 percent higher than in 2001. In May, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the portion of personal income Americans received from private sector paychecks declined to a record low of 41.9 percent, while income from government programs climbed 17.9 percent. And with nearly half of American wage earners now paying no federal income taxes, the burden of increasing levels of government spending on housing, health care, welfare, education and other entitlements is being borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/12/2010 10:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yes, the 'best and brightest' are clear cutting and strip mining the economy.
#2
The major tipping point (not mentioned in this article) is the 70% of the US economy that used to depend on US consumers buying stuff they don't much need. US consumers are having a 'come to Jesus' moment, are less willing to go into debt in order to buy trivia, they have cut way back, and could yet cut back even more.
The economy, if it is to be rebuilt, will have to be rebuilt along other lines.
#3
Solutions simple. Manufacturing and re-industrializing the US...which requires facing the twin issues of Chinese currency manipulation-undercover subsidy-terrible quality control-and plain out dishonesty, coupled with energy independence which requires lots of nuclear power, domestic drilling, and elimination of middle eastern lobbying of Congress.
It took decades to get this screwed up, lets get started undoing it. Just needs will and politicians that are actual grownups, not spoiled elites or self-absorbed ingrates.
#4
As someone wrote in these pages recently, the economy is not going to improve until consumer and bank debt are significantly reduced. Consumers have been doing their part by increasing savings and paying down debt in recent months, according to recent reports -- particularly credit card debt. And banks have been quietly rebuilding their balance sheets by not lending out much, from what I've heard. No doubt somewhere in windowless back rooms of-the-books investments are quietly being unwound, or so one hopes. On the other side of the ledger, China is apparently back in the market for U.S. Treasuries for the first time since last September, followed closely by Japan. So it appears they haven't been able to find a safer haven than the US dollar, no matter how hard they tried... and it was clear from the shouting how much they did try.
On the third hand, if Americans have been cutting back on unnecessary purchases, it seems to me in my ignorance that the first thing they likely have been cutting is all the unnecessary ticky-tacky stuff from China... which would mean China is buying US Treasuries out of their reserves, not current cash flow, making life very interesting in the middle term. If somebody who actually understands financial things could comment on that in a way I'm capable of understanding, I'd be grateful.
#5
Separately, I'm hearing things privately that strongly suggest within a decade or two a lot of the things that we currently use oil for will no longer need oil. Things like significantly improved batteries, significantly reduced energy use for common energy hogs, that kind of thing. Some seriously useful inventions are approaching manufacturability. (If I knew any details I would have to work on not engaging in insider trading, so it's a good thing for the state of my soul that I only know that level of generality).
This suggests we are approaching a new jump in productivity and reason-to-purchase on the one hand, and a serious reduction in the importance of petroleum production -- just as new petroleum producers come into production around the world on the other.
We may win the war against the Caliphatists by default, when the states that support the idea collapse for lack of income.
#6
And with nearly half of American wage earners now paying no federal income taxes, the burden of increasing levels of government spending on housing, health care, welfare, education and other entitlements is being borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers.
#7
If you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't get a vote. Skin in the game = a voice in how the game is run. Otherwise, if your life is suckling off the gubbamint teat, you're out
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/12/2010 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
A social engineering bill to restrict residence in the suburbs and rural areas and force Americans into city centers has passed the United States Senate Banking Committee and is on the fast track to passage in the Senate.
The bill is called the Livable Communities Act (SB 1619) and it was introduced by corruptocrat outgoing Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.). It seeks to fulfill the United Nation's plan Agenda 21, adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and signed onto by "New World Order" President George H.W. Bush.
Before I get upset, I would like to know where this stands in the House -- if there's nothing analogous on track over there, then this is just grandstanding. If there is, what odds it will get passed before the Republicans take control in January? I read that Congress is adjourning early to begin campaigning for the November elections, and there is very little with realistic odds of being addressed before they leave.
West, who got 76.7 percent against Brady in the Aug. 24 primary, says such talk has a place in political discourse.
"That's how people talk. ... And you can print that: That's how men talk. You know, college football season's started and Chris Fowler on ESPN College GameDay is going to talk about taking people behind the woodshed," West said in a recent interview.
"You can call it trash talking, you can call it whatever you want. Patton was a tough guy. MacArthur was a tough guy. William Tecumseh Sherman was a tough guy. America has a history of, when there are tough times, they look for tough leaders to take them out of those tough times and tough situations."
Klein has a different view of what the times demand.
"These are serious times and people want serious people in office solving their problems. This isn't about college football. This isn't about back-slapping and using, you know, sexist remarks or threatening statements as a way of being cute or funny," Klein said.
#3
I'm amazed that he cited W.T. Sherman, in the South. Wasn't too long ago that parents would put their hands over their children's ears at the mention of his name.
Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) on Saturday repeated a Republican threat to withhold funding for health care reform if the party takes control of the House after the Nov. 2 elections.
Republicans have been calling for appropriations legislation that doesn't include funds to implement the health reform law, and have expressed a willingness to force a government shutdown if President Barack Obama vetoes the legislation. This approach has become more popular among GOP candidates given the likelihood that a full repeal of the law would not be able to overcome Democratic opposition in the Senate or Obama's veto.
Life is going to become very interesting in the near future. The Republicans are moving from "the party of No" to "the party of Hell No!"
With at least 70% of Americans opposed to this bill and its various components (many of which have literally nothing to do with health care or health insurance), an Obama veto will start pushing even more disengaged voters towards voting against him in 2012.
A government shutdown this time around will not have nearly the same result politically that it did in the nineties, when the internet as a means of getting out "the rest of the story" was in its infancy and did not reach very many people. Then, the MSM was able to craft a ridiculous narrative that the GOP wanted old people and kids to starve to death, and there were limited means of combating the propaganda. It won't be something they can do this time around with any real success.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
09/12/2010 6:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Now let us discuss the.... "DEFUNDING" of the foreign giveaway programs to Hamas and the rest of these muslim vermin. DEFUNDING of the feckless UN. DEFUNDING of Fannie and Freddie. DEFUNDING of welfare and unemployment benefits for those who refuse to work. DEFUNDING of free college education for so-called protected classes. DEFUNDING of the INS, US Depart of Agriculture, and US Department of Education.
#4
The Republicans need to remember 1995. In winning control of Congress this fall, the victory will not be a mandate for change but a repudiation of Obama. Non-funding of Socialized Medicine will be popular, but little else at this point. The Democrats will be looking for a way to shut down the government and blame it on the Trunks. If they give the Asses the chance, they open the door to Barry being re-elected in 12. Stop Health Care, gridlock on everything else, wait for the mandate from a Tea Party approved presidential candidate in 12. Then remember what happened to Barry when he thought he had a mandate.
The American people do not like radical change. That is where much of the opposition to Health Care comes from. So just as all the noxious programs and policies were added over the last 80 years, they must be starved, phased out, sold, and reformed into oblivion over the next 80 years, not the next 80 days.
#5
Not so fast. The health insurance system is still broken, and driving us into bankruptcy. The GOP has to offer a credible alternative, not just "shut it down!"
At a minimum, this means retaining the ban on denial for preexisting conditions, plus some subsidies for low-income people whose employers don't provide insurance-- see Mitch Daniels' fiscally responsible but generous and inclusive approach. Wouldn't hurt to have more GOPpers in Washington who share Daniels' expertise (he used to be CEO of Eli Lilly) in health care-- as opposed to clueless culture warriors decrying a "sOciALiST!!!!" straw man even as they collect their medicare payments.
#6
I had an interesting discussion about this over, of all things, a comedian's line on Blue Collar Comedy (XM 148--Git R Done!).
The guy was talking about car insurance and how "your car is more protected than you are" because of mandatory car insurance. Now we didn't get into what the car insurance protects against (e.g. my liability), but we started to talk about what health insurance protects: your finances.
Yes, sez my wife (who holds a Master's in Public Health), but you aren't locked out of car maintenance if you don't have insurance. No, you aren't.
And I asked: how much malpractice insurance does the auto mechanic or the car dealership have to carry vs. the doctor? (next to 0, was our guess, at least in comparison.)
So why is a doctor's costs of doing business so high?
She didn't have a ready answer, and we were at our destination so we didn't get into that part.
But that part--the jackpot justice system--is what I'd like to see fixed.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
09/12/2010 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#7
You can greatly reduce the overall, society-wide liability that car insurance protects against. There's not much we can do at this point to reduce the overall, society-wide liability for catastrophic illness. Cancer happens.
And when it, or some other life-threatening (and very expensive to treat) illness happens, if you do not have insurance, you go bankrupt, period.
In an advanced society with advanced and very expensive medical technologies, there is no alternative to heavy state intervention in health insurance and health care. Either you expand the risk pool with government insurance, or you have state-dictated rationing.
#8
But that part--the jackpot justice system--is what I'd like to see fixed
I agree completely. And the solution is simple - change the law so that in a lawsuit - the loser pays. Don't expect the Democrats to do this, cause the trial lawyers are their biggest source of campaign cash. And don't expect the GOP to do this cause ... frankly, they're not very bright.
#9
This approach has become more popular among GOP candidates given the likelihood that a full repeal of the law would not be able to overcome Democratic opposition in the Senate or Obama's veto.
Lest we forget, this bill is unconstitutional. It needs to be crumpled, burned, the ashes stomped on, and any remains shot into the sun for final disposition.
The federal government does not need this kind of example to base further power-grabbing legislation on.
If necessary, transfer it to the individual states for them to fix the numerous broken parts and make something of it.
#11
Every future nominee to the Supreme Court should be asked "Do you think the Federal Government has the Constitutional authority to require American citizens to purchase health care?". Any answer other than a confident "no" should bring instant disqualification.
#12
The government does not have the Constitutional authority to require you to purchase health insurance, but it does have the authority to tax you and to administer the providing of your health care (though you would still be free to purchase additional or different health care on your own.)
That - Single Payer National Health Care - was the goal all along; the insurance thing was and is just a red herring.
If ObamaCare is a tax, then it is an unconstitutional "Direct Tax". See here.
Also, for those of us who think that Wickard v. Filburn was wrongly decided, there is no role for the Federal Government in health care at all. It is not one of the 17 enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, and it has nothing to do with interstate commerce as that term is correctly understood (what happens at interstate borders).
#14
In an advanced society with advanced and very expensive medical technologies, there is no alternative to heavy state intervention in health insurance and health care.
Yes there is. It's called DEATH. I'm sorry to say but death is a fact of life. People get sick and die. You can't stop it. Maybe you can slow it down but you cannot stop it. Government needs to get out of the picture. If you can afford insurance, fine. If you can't, tough. I'd rather live that way than with an oppressive nanny state that tells me how to spend my own money. And when I get sick, let me go.
And do not try to confuse me with car insurance. You want to drive on public roads? Just by doing so you put yourself and others at risk. It's not you that I'm worried about, it's the others. Get car insurance so they don't have to jail you after you kill their loved ones. You don't want to drive? No worries. It is not anything at all like government mandated health insurance. Do not even go there.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/12/2010 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#15
The lesson of car insurance is deductibles.
When I was young and stupid, I had a $50 deductible. One day, I asked my agent what it'd cost for a $100 deductible, and if I didn't have a claim every year, I saved money.
Now my auto deductible is $1,000. Insurance is for catastrophes, not headaches.
I wonder how much could I save with a $500 deductible for health insurance?
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/12/2010 18:23 Comments ||
Top||
#16
and it has nothing to do with interstate commerce as that term is correctly understood
Also, the Feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce, not hijack it.
I want to focus on the meaning of the word regulate.
These days, it means to control. In the days the Constitution was written, it meant to make regular, in other words to eliminate gross discontinuities between the states to keep the playing field level.
Now where does that leave the federal government? Basically, they are supposed to be a referee. That's all.
#17
The lawsuit that the State of Virginia has brought against the Federal Government may decide the fate of Obamacare. My lay understanding is that the suit takes aim at the Commerce clause. It has passed the first hurdle, i.e. getting past summary judgement. Many other states also have lawsuits in the works. Many of these lawsuits take aim at the constitutionality of ObamaCare--challenges based on the 10th amendment. These are going to most likely keep the DOJ attorneys very busy for at least the next two years. ObamaCare is going to be under assault on at least a couple of fronts--the legal front and the defunding front. A readable discussion is here .
#19
But does anyone know what the going rate is for a physical exam if you were to just pay cash?
No. Because no one pays cash. Excpet Rush. He recently had some medical procedure and he paid cash up front and paid about 20% of (not off, of) the list retail price used to charge insurers.
The solution? Return to fee for service. And if you want to buy insurance, you may. With after the service reimbursement when you file a claim.
#20
"But does anyone know what the going rate is for a physical exam if you were to just pay cash?
No. Because no one pays cash."
Actually, people do, NS. I do. I have a medical savings account, which I could tap to be reimbursed for my medical costs (of course, I put the money there to begin with, so even if I'm "reimbursed" I'm paying cash), but I rarely do; I'd rather save the money for if I ever have a bad accident or serious illness (so I've got money to meet my very high insurance deductible).
The only time I've hit the account for reimbursement so far is the year I got new glasses (mine are very expensive and I can't get them from Lenscrafters); got a shingles vaccine shot (around $250); and had a couple of doctor's visits, for a total of a little under $1000 in one year.
I put aside money every month for medical expenses that might come up; when I do go to a doctor for a checkup or something, it costs under $200 and I write them a check. I do have insurance through my employer, with a $5000 deductible, so you can see why I pay the doctor. The insurance is for castastrophies, not a hangnail.
Of course, most people won't put that money aside each month come hell or high water; they'd rather spend it on fun things and pretend their health care is free.
And as for those who truly can't pay, or who come down with expensive diseases, we used to have a thing call charity (not taxes confiscated by the gummint) that would take care of those people.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/12/2010 22:59 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
