Saturday, January 15, 2011

Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., Jan. 15 & 16, 2011


How'bout a little "Romance"...
Posted by at

6 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110115/ap_on_re_us/us_debt_wars

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

* THE FOLLOW NEEDS TO BE POUNDED HOME AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...

Today's ["official" national] debt level represents a $45,300 tab for each and everyone in the country.

* I PUT THE WORD "OFFICIAL" IN QUOTES BECAUSE AS WITH MOST GOVERNMENT GENERATED NUMBERS, IT UNDERSTATES THE TRUE SEVERITY OF THE SITUATION. (BUT THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER TIME...)

The United States just passed a dubious milestone: Government debt surged to an all-time high, more than $14 trillion.

* THANK YOU PRESIDENT OBAMA... THANK YOU NANCY PELOSI, HARRY REID, AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY...

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says failure to increase borrowing authority would be "a catastrophe"...

* OF COURSE THE TAX CHEAT DOES...

(*SMIRK*) (*GIVING GEITHNER THE FINGER*)

[N]early half of today's national debt was run up in just the past six years. It soared from $7.6 trillion in January 2005 as President George W. Bush began his second term to $10.6 trillion the day Obama was inaugurated and to $14.02 trillion now. With a $1.7 trillion deficit in budget year 2010 alone, and the government on track to spend $1.3 trillion more this year than it takes in, annual budget deficits are adding roughly $4 billion a day to the national debt. Put another way, the government is borrowing 41 cents for every dollar it spends.

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... BOTTOM LINE, AS BAD AS THE RINOs WERE WHEN THEY RAN CONGRESS, IF YOU LOOK AT A DEFICIT SPENDING GRAPH FROM THE MOMENT THE DEMS TOOK OVER CONGRESS IN JANUARY 2007 TO THE TIME OBAMA TOOK OVER IN JANUARY 2009 TO THE LAST DAY NANCY PELOSI AND THE DEMS CONTROLLED THE HOUSE THIS VERY MONTH... (*SHRUG*)... FOLKS... THE NUMBERS DON'T LIE.

* OH... AND BEWARE, FOLKS... HARRY REID AND THE DEMS STILL CONTROL THE SENATE. THEY'LL BE DOING EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO STOP REPUBLICANS FROM PUTTING THE BREAKS ON SPENDING.

* NOW... ON TO THE BLATANT HYPOCRISY OF OBAMA AND THE DEMS... (WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...)

* To be continued....

January 15, 2011 at 1:13 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

Here's what then-Sen. Barack Obama said on the Senate floor in 2006: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance the government's reckless fiscal policies."

It was a blast by the freshman lawmaker against a Bush request to raise the debt limit to $8.96 trillion.

Bush won on a 52-48 party-line vote. Not a single Senate Democrat voted to raise the limit...

* THEM'S THE FACTS, FOLKS! THAT'S THE RECORD!

* NOW... SOME STRAIGHT TALK ABOUT THE DEBT LIMIT:

Hitting [the debt limit] does not automatically mean a default on existing debt. It only stops the government from new borrowing, forcing it to rely on other ways to finance its activities.

(*NOD*)

In a 1995 debt-limit crisis, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin borrowed $60 billion from federal pension funds to keep the government going. It wasn't popular, but it helped get the job done. A decade earlier, James Baker, President Ronald Reagan's treasury secretary, delayed payments to the Civil Service and Social Security trust funds and used other bookkeeping tricks to keep money in the federal till.

* NOT THE BEST SOLUTION, BUT AN EMERGENCY MEASURE TO GET US THROUGH "WITHDRAWAL." (THINK OF IT AS GIVING A HEROIN ADDICT METHADONE TO HELP HIM GET THROUGH THE DTs.)

Baker and Rubin "found money in pockets no one knew existed before," said former congressional budget analyst Stanley Collender.

Collender, author of "Guide to the Federal Budget," cites a slew of other things the government can do to delay a crisis. They include leasing out government-owned properties, "the federal equivalent of renting out a room in your home," or slowing down payments to government contractors.

(*SHRUG*) (SOMETIMES SHIT ROLLS DOWNHILL FOLKS...)

Now partner-director of Qorvis Communications, a Washington consulting firm, Collender said such stopgap measures buy the White House time to resist GOP pressure for concessions.

"My guess is they can go months after the debt ceiling is not raised and still be able to come up with the cash they need. But at some point, it will catch up," and raising the debt limit will become an imperative, he suggested.

* FOLKS... SOMEONE HAS GOT TO GET SCREWED. I'D RATHER GET SCREWED LESS NOW THAN MORE LATER. I'D ALSO LIKE TO TAKE THE HIT RATHER THAN PASS IT ON TO MY KID.

January 15, 2011 at 1:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/us/politics/15stimulus.html?_r=1&hp

[A] new bill is coming due [for may states; a bill] from the federal government, which will charge them $1.3 billion in interest this fall on the billions they have borrowed from Washington to pay unemployment benefits during the downturn.

The interest cost, which has been looming in plain sight without attracting much attention...

* I POINT OUT INTEREST COSTS QUITE FREQUENTLY!

[Irresponsible states] have borrowed from $41 billion the federal government to help them pay [extra] benefits to millions of unemployed people, a debt that federal officials say could rise to $80 billion.

The states, when they borrowed the money, hoped that the economy would have turned around by the time the first interest payments came due, or that future Congresses might loosen the terms. But the economy did not turn around in time and the new Congress, dominated by Republicans determined to shrink the size of government, shows little appetite for deepening the federal deficit by bailing out the states.

* "THE STATES HOPED." THEY "HOPED." WOW... SOUNDS LIKE A SOLID PLAN TO ME!

* OH... AND THANK GOD THAT REPUBLICANS ARE DETERMINED TO CUT SPENDING AND CUT DEBT ACCRUAL!

[M]any states borrowed money from the federal government, helped by the stimulus act, which gave them a break on interest for nearly two years. But that grace period ended Dec. 31, and states will owe the first interest on those loans in September.

* "HELPED" BY THE STIMULUS ACT...??? (ENABLED BY THE STIMULUS ACT IS MORE ACCURATE!)

Michigan, which owes Washington $3.7 billion, is supposed to pay $117 million in interest by September - just about what it pays each year to run Western Michigan University. California, which owes $362 million in interest on a total debt of $9.7 billion, the highest in the nation, plans to juggle its accounts, borrowing from a trust fund for disabled workers to pay interest to the federal government.

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

In New York, which owes $115 million in interest on $3.2 billion, the cost will be passed on to employers in the form of a tax surcharge.

* AND HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER...?!?!

Texas went to the bond market and borrowed $2 billion to pay back all the money it borrowed from the federal government, judging that the interest on the bonds, which are backed by a tax on employers, would cost less.

* AGAIN... HOW IS IT POSSIBLY FAIR - HOW IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL - HOW IS IT EVEN GOOD ECONOMICS - TO PASS ON THE COST TO EMPLOYERS...???

January 15, 2011 at 1:48 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704323204576083633043852612.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories

Three American soldiers were killed and one was wounded in two separate attacks in Iraq on Saturday, the U.S. military said.

* FUNNY HOW THE ARTICLE DOESN'T DESCRIBE THE DEAD AS "NON-COMBAT" U.S. SOLDIERS; AFTER ALL, HAVEN'T PRESIDENT OBAMA AND SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON DECLARED TO FANFAIR THAT WE NO LONGER HAVE "COMBAT" TROOPS IN IRAQ?

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

[A] man dressed in an Iraqi army uniform opened fire at U.S. soldiers while they were conducting a training session for Iraqi forces at a military base on the outskirts of the volatile northern city of Mosul... The attacker killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded a third before he was shot dead... The wounded soldier was flown to a field hospital at the Balad air base north of Baghdad for treatment...

A third U.S. soldier was killed in a separate attack in central Iraq, while "conducting operations," according to a military statement.

* "NON-COMBAT" OPERATIONS...???

* HEY... BELIEVE ME, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE A WISEASS HERE. WE WERE TOLD THAT ALL U.S. "COMBAT TROOPS" HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM IRAQ. MONTHS AGO! I TOLD YOU IT WAS A LIE THEN... THESE LATEST "INCIDENTS" REINFORCE THAT YOU'LL GET THE TRUTH HERE AT BARKER'S NEWSBITES.

This isn't the first time U.S. soldiers have been attacked by members of Iraq's security forces or insurgents dressed like them. In September an Iraqi soldier shot and killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded nine inside an Iraqi army base in the town of Tuz Khurmatu, north of Baghdad. The troops were resting between joint operations with Iraqi forces against insurgents in the area when the attack occurred.

* SEPTEMBER, HUH...??? FUNNY... "OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM" OFFICIALLY ENDED IN AUGUST WHEN "THE LAST U.S. COMBAT TROOPS" WERE SUPPOSEDLY PULLED OUT... ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT THAT IS. (GOOGLE IT!)

The fresh American casualties came two days after a visit by Vice President Joe Biden...

* WHO AS NEWSBITE READERS ARE AWARE BASICALLY ANNOUNCED THAT WE MAY NOT BE LEAVING IRAQ ALTOGETHER ON THE AGREED UPON DATE AFTER ALL...

(*SMIRK*)

* FOLKS... NOTICE THE DEAFENING SILENCE FROM THE SUPPOSED "ANTI-WAR LEFT" WHICH GREETED BIDEN'S REMARKS AND WILL NO DOUBT GREET THE NEWS OF THESE NEW DEATHS?

January 16, 2011 at 9:57 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704803604576077841465080236.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

An insurance company in California plans to raise premiums by as much as 39%, and Democrats call it proof of industry malfeasance and the need for health-care reform.

[A]nother California insurer plans to raise premiums by as much as 59% - and Washington takes this as evidence of how great a year of this reform is working.

(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)

* BUT... BUT... BUT...

The first company is Anthem Blue Cross, the California unit of for-profit WellPoint, and the second is Blue Shield of California, a not-for-profit that is a member in good standing of the government health-care booster club.

* AHH...

Blue Shield recently filed three cumulative rate increases that will raise average premiums for consumers in the individual market by 30% over two years. The jump primarily reflects the underlying cost of medical care, including an average rise of 19% in 2010 and expected increased for 2011 that will average 6.5%. The tab also includes a 4% jump solely to pay for required ObamaCare benefits like allowing 26-year-olds to remain on their parents' policy.

None of this is unusual. The laws of economics apply even to nonprofits...

* REALLY...?!?! PRESIDENT OBAMA NEVER EXPLAINED THIS TO US...

[Non-profit insurance provider] premiums have to pay for the doctors, hospitals and drugs their customers use.

* REALLY...?!?! (WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT...?!?!)

Medical costs continue to rise despite the reform that President Obama claimed would lower them, even as it mandated benefits that many people didn't value enough to buy on their own.

(*SMIRK*)

[W]hen [for-profit] Anthem floated that 39% jump last year (it was [actually] 24% on average) President Obama denounced it as "jaw-dropping." Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called it a gambit to "keep their profit margins going" and lavish compensation on WellPoint executives. Henry Waxman launched a formal investigation.

[Yet now] Mr. Waxman of Beverley Hills [seems to have] lost his talent for vitriol...claiming in a statement that the [non-profit] Blue Shield increases merely show that "the individual insurance market is broken and won't be totally fixed until new exchanges open in 2014." (You've got to love the confidence of that "totally.")

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

January 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959104576081783880635012.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

Detroit was once America's fourth largest city, though today large sections of its inner core are abandoned to the elements, and monuments like Michigan Central Station are returning to dust. Another emblem of civic decline is a plan to desert nearly half of Detroit's public schools so that it can afford to fulfill its teachers union contract.

* SAY WHAT...?!?!

The school district is facing a $327 million deficit and has already closed 59 schools over the last two years to avoid paying maintenance, utility and operating costs. Under a worst-case scenario released this week by Robert Bobb, an emergency financial manager appointed by the state to resolve the Detroit education fisc, the district will close another 70 of its remaining 142 schools to save $31.3 million through 2013.

"Additional savings of approximately $12.4 million can be achieved from school closures if the District simply abandons the closed buildings," the proposal explains, purging costs like boarding up buildings, storage and security patrols.

* BUT... BUT... BUT...

Under the "emergency plan," consolidated high-school class sizes would increase to 62 by 2014, "consistent with what students would expect in large university settings." Yet under the terms of the Detroit Federation of Teachers contract, the district must pay bonuses for class enrollment over 35, thus imposing some $11.1 million in new costs through 2014.

(*SNORT*)

Note that this dispensation carries about the same price tag as the school abandonment windfall: In other words, Detroit may end up destroying serviceable capital assets so it can pay its public workers more over the short term.

(*SIGH*)

January 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)