Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Websites and blogs I recommend
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(353)
-
▼
July
(29)
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, July 30, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, July 29, 2010
- U.S. v. Arizona -- No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, July 28, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 27, 2010
- Summer Reading 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, July 26, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., July 24 & 25, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, July 23, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, July 22, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, July 21, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 20, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, July 19, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., July 17 & 18, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, July 16, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, July 15, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, July 14, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 13, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, July 12, 2010
- Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., July 10 & 11
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, July 9, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, July 8, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, July 7, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 6, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat., Sun., & Mon., July 3/4/5
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, July 2, 2010
- Operation Wetback
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, July 1, 2010
-
▼
July
(29)
About Me
- William R. Barker
- Pearl River, NY High School Class of '81; Northeastern University, Boston, MA Class of '87.
5 comments:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/7/us-marks-3rd-largest-single-day-debt-boost/
* YESTERDAY AFTERNOON THE MARKET CLOSED UP 242 POINTS... (SOMETHING LIKE THAT, RIGHT?)
* YESTDERDAY EVENING THE FOLLOWING WAS REPORTED:
The nation's debt leapt $166 billion in a single day last week, the third-largest increase in U.S. history...
* SO AGAIN, MY FRIENDS... TELL ME "THE MARKET" IS ANYTHING MORE THAN A RIGGED SLOT MACHINE...
(*SHRUG*)
* SERIOUSLY... EXPLAIN TO ME HOW "THE MARKET" HAS ANY BASIS - ANY CONNECTION - TO REALITY...
(*PURSED LIPS*)
The one-day increase for June 30 totaled $165,931,038,264.30 - bigger than the entire annual deficit for fiscal year 2007...
Daily debt calculations jump and fall, and big shifts are common. But all three of the biggest one-day debt increases have occurred under the tenure of President Bush...
* OK. CUTE! THINK ABOUT THE ABOVE SENTENCE. "ALL BUT THREE..." ENGLISH TRANSLATION: THE THREE BIGGEST HAVE ALL OCCURRED UNDER OBAMA!
(*SNORT*)
...and all of the top six have been in the past two years - an indication of just how quickly the pace of deficit spending has risen under Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush.
"What matters is the overall trend line, and the overall trend line is shooting up," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan deficit watchdog group, who said it is one more reason for a fiscal wake-up call.
* AND THE OVERALL TREND HAS SHOT UP SINCE OBAMA TOOK OVER! (NOT TO MENTION THAT OBAMA SUPPORTED - VOTED FOR - BUSH'S TARP!)
On Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office said the government has recorded a $1 trillion deficit for the first nine months of fiscal 2010, which began Oct. 1. That's slightly down from 2009's record $1.1 trillion deficit at this point.
* BUT OF COURSE THE AUTHOR IS COMPARING 9 MONTHS TO 12 MONTHS. (*SNORT*) HERE... I'LL MAKE IT SIMPLE: IN THE PAST 21 MONTHS DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESSES HAVE GIVEN US DEFICIT SPENDING TO THE TUNE OF $2.1 TRILLION...!
Mr. Obama has also named a bipartisan commission...
* TO BASICALLY DO THE JOB HE AND CONGRESS ARE PAID TO DO...
Testifying to that commission last week, CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf said to reach the sustainable debt goal the government will have to raise taxes by 25%, cut spending by 20% or do some combination of the two.
* SO... FOLKS... HOW DO YOU THINK THIS WILL WORK OUT...???
http://taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=3604&action=Headlines%20About%20TCS
Year after year since 2004, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) has landed earmarks for a tiny Port Townsend,Washington company, Intellicheck Mobilisa.
In all, Dicks has sent more than $20 million to support the startup, including a no-bid $4.5 million contract last year for its trademarked Littoral Sensor Grid, which transmits data from a system of buoys.
Executives of the company have given $26,000 in campaign contributions to Dicks.
The company might have felt its future in peril in March when Dicks, chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, declared that he and his colleagues "will not approve requests for earmarks that are directed to for-profit entities." It was part of an effort to clean up Congress' controversial practice of sending billions of dollars in no-bid, often-wasteful earmarks to constituents, some of whom are campaign donors.
Weeks later, however, Dicks did sponsor a $6.2 million earmark for the Littoral Sensor Grid, but this time he named the intended recipient as a nonprofit, the University of Washington.
(*SNORT*)
Dicks is not alone in seeming to find a way around the House's new earmark restrictions. Seven other lawmakers from the 60-member House appropriations committee appear to be attempting to funnel money through nonprofits into the hands of businesses that the lawmakers previously had rewarded with earmarks, according to the Huffington Post Investigative Fund.
* YEP... YOU READ THAT RIGHT... "ACCORDING TO THE HUFFINGTON POST..." (*WINK*)
Besides Dicks, the politicians include Rep. James Moran, D-Va., and Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio...
[T]he Investigative Fund reviewed military spending-related requests from members of the House Appropriations Committee, comparing the description of last year's for-profit earmarks with that of earmarks requested by some of the same lawmakers this year. In the 18 cases, the descriptions of the projects being sought were similar, if not identical, to those funded the previous year; only the names of the recipients were changed - to nonprofit entities.
(*SNICKER*)
There is no comprehensive list of earmark requests, so it's difficult to determine how many Congress members are still pursuing earmarks benefiting companies. ... Aides to the eight Congress members, when asked about continuing to request such earmarks despite the restrictions, told the Investigative Fund that the new rules have never been spelled out.
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703636404575352860425050800.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Without any public vetting, Dr. [Donald] Berwick will now assume control of a bureaucracy with a budget larger than the Defense Department and that controls 4% of GDP today, hitting 5.9% by 2020 if the Congressional Budget Office is right.
Circumventing Senate confirmation to appoint the new Medicare chief is part of the same political willfulness that inflicted ObamaCare on the country despite the objections of most voters.
Even Max Baucus, the [Democrat] Senate Finance Chairman, issued a statement critical of this end-around.
President Obama [falsely] claimed Republicans were stalling the appointment "for political purposes," but Mr. Baucus hadn't scheduled hearings and the nomination paperwork wasn't even finished 11 weeks after [Berwick] was named.
Mr. Obama's real calculation was to dodge a debate in election season over Dr. Berwick's frequent praise for European health systems that ration care.
[I]t doesn't take an M.D. to understand the opposition to Dr. Berwick. "I am romantic about the National Health Service," he told a London audience in 2008, referring to the British single-payer system. "I love it," Dr. Berwick added, going on to call it "such a seductress" and "a global treasure." He routinely points to the NHS as a health-care model for the U.S.
In an influential 1996 book "New Rules," Dr. Berwick and a co-author argued that one of "the primary functions" of health regulation is "to constrain decentralized, individual decision making" and "to weigh public welfare against the choices of private consumers."
[N]o wonder the White House wanted to dodge a public debate and Senate vote on Dr. Berwick. He's a too obvious reminder of the price controls and care restrictions that are inevitable with ObamaCare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
The current debate over extending and increasing federal unemployment benefits encapsulates the disagreement between the Democrats in power in Washington and...
* REALITY! (YEP... SOMETIMES IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE!)
The most obvious argument against extending or raising unemployment benefits is that it will make being unemployed either more attractive or less unattractive, and thereby lead to higher unemployment.
Empirical research supports this view.
On the face of it, the idea that higher unemployment benefits won't lead to more unemployment doesn't make much sense. Imagine what the unemployment rate would look like if unemployment benefits were universally $150,000 per year.
(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)
Common sense and personal experience indicate higher unemployment benefits will make unemployment less unattractive and thereby increase unemployment...since the 1970s there's been a close correlation between increased unemployment benefits and an increase in the unemployment rate.
Democratic argument[s]...ignores the impact of unemployment benefits on employer costs. Employers don't usually hire people to assuage their consciences. They hire people to make after-tax profits. And if workers require more pay because of higher unemployment benefits, employers will hire fewer employees. Whether increased unemployment benefits incentivize workers to work less or disincentivize employers from hiring more workers, the effect will be the same - higher unemployment.
[T]he Obama administration [and most famously Nancy Pelosi argue] that unemployment benefits are a great way to stimulate demand. Increased unemployment benefits operate quickly and the recipients spend what they get, which makes these stimulus funds the best bang for the buck.
(*ROLLING MY EYES*) NOT EXACTLY...
Studies have shown that previous stimulus spending - much of which was also targeted for the poor and unemployed - was to a large extent saved and not spent.
* THUS NO STIMULUS. (THOUGH PLENTY OF ADDED NATIONAL DEBT...!!!) BUT WAIT... IT GETS WORSE...
[W]hen it comes to higher unemployment benefits or any other stimulus spending, the resources given to the unemployed have to be taken from someone else. There isn't a "tooth fairy" [and] "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." The government doesn't create resources. It redistributes them.
For everyone who is given something there is someone who has that something taken away.
When it comes to higher unemployment benefits or any other stimulus spending, the resources given to the unemployed have to be taken from someone else.
* OR... THE MONEY IS BORROWED - AT INTEREST - WITH THE NEW DEBT PILED UPON THE SHOULDERS OF OURSELVES, OUR CHILDREN, AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN... (*SIGH*)
While the unemployed may spend more as a result of higher unemployment benefits, those people from whom the resources are taken will spend less. In an economy, the income effects from a transfer payment always sum to zero. Quite simply, there is no stimulus from higher unemployment benefits.
No one opposes unemployment benefits as a transition aid for people to get back on their feet and find a new job. Unemployment benefits are a safeguard for individuals down on their luck. But to argue that unemployment benefits actually reduce unemployment is disingenuous at best, and could induce our government to enact policies that have the effect of destroying our nation's production base from whence all benefits ultimately flow.
http://taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&type=Project&proj_id=3602&action=Headlines%20About%20TCS
In the years after Patty Murray (D-WA) first won her U.S. Senate seat in 1992, she received some of her biggest political contributions from women's groups and PACs supporting Israel.
Today, in a transformation that attests to the power of incumbency, lobbyists top the list of Murray's donor groups.
Among the top six Democrats in the Senate leadership, only Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has collected more money than Murray from lobbyists and their firms since 2005, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit that tracks money and politics. Yet even Reid receives a smaller share of his overall donations from lobbyists than Murray does.
(*MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)
Since 2005, lobbyists - who by definition are donors with an agenda - and their firms have given nearly $605,000 for Murray's re-election and to M-PAC, her leadership political-action committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
That's more than any other single source...
(*SIGH*)
[T]he sheer concentration of Murray's contributions from lobbyists warrants watching, said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C., government watchdog. When lobbyists donate to a politician, Ellis said, "they are essentially investing in gaining access."
Post a Comment