Monday, February 27, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, February 27, 2012


My friends... the incomparable Shirley Crabbe!
Posted by at

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpps/news/credit-card-debt-nears-toxic-levels-dpgonc-km-20120226_18232559

Last year, total U.S. consumer debt reached its highest point in a decade, according to a credit card industry observer.

More American households are falling back into the debt hole, this time without the safety net of home values to help bail them out, the New York Post reported Sunday.

In December 2011, the total consumer debt (which is the combination of non-revolving and revolving debt) rose by some 9.3% to $2.498 trillion, according to the latest Federal Reserve Board numbers.

Both revolving debt and non-revolving debt increased.

(Revolving debt, which is credit-card debt, went up by 4.1%. Non-revolving debt, which includes loans for cars and education, rose 11.8%, the central bank's report said.)

* DOES THIS SOUND LIKE AN "ECONOMIC RECOVERY" TO YOU, FOLKS?

The trend - month to month, quarter to quarter and year to year - is rising steeply.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

February 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/02/more-bad-news-us-water-bills-triple/317086

A shocking new report about the nation's crumbling drinking water system says that Americans should expect their bills to double or triple to cover repairs just to keep their faucets pouring. That means adding up to $900 a year more for water, nearly equal the amount of the newly extended payroll tax cut.

* AND AS YOU KNOW, ANOTHER TERM FOR "PAYROLL TAX CUT" IS "FUTURE UNFUNDED LIABILITIES - i.e. FURTHER DEBT PILED UPON OURSELVES, OUR CHILDREN, AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN."

Fixing and expanding underground drinking water systems will cost over $1 trillion in the next 25 years and users will get socked with the bill, according to the American Water Works Association.

What kind of stress? Families can expect to pay at least $300-$550 more for water in taxes and fees just to keep their current systems operating. Add growth and improved systems, and that bill jumps to $900 for a family of three, said the report.

* FRANKLY... I THINK THESE ESTIMATES ARE INFLATED. THAT SAID... OBVIOUSLY EVEN SO... WE'RE TALKING SUBSTANTIAL COST INCREASES.

(*SHRUG*)

February 27, 2012 at 12:23 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49721

Who are [America's] poor?

To qualify, a family of four in 2010 needed to earn less than $22,314.

Some 46 million Americans, 15% of the population, qualified.

And in what squalor were America's poor forced to live?

Well...two-thirds had a plasma TV, a DVD player and access to cable or satellite...half had a video game system like PlayStation or Xbox.

Three-fourths of the poor had a car or truck...80% had air conditioning.

(In 1970, only 36 percent of the U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.)

America's poor enjoy amenities almost no one had in the 1950s, when John K. Galbraith described us as "The Affluent Society."

What about homelessness?

Are not millions of America's poor on the street at night, or shivering in shelters or crowded tenements?

Well, actually, no.

Of the real poor, fewer than 10% live in trailers, 40% live in apartments, and half live in townhouses or single-family homes.

Forty-one percent of poor families own their own home.

* THAT'S NEARLY HALF, FOLKS. (*SIGH*) (*SNORT*) (*SMIRK*)

The average poor person's home in America has 1,400 square feet - more living space than do Europeans in 23 of the 25 wealthiest countries on the continent.

Two-thirds of America's poor have two rooms per person, while 94% have at least one room per person in the family dwelling.

Some 84% of America's poor say they always have enough food to eat... The daily consumption of proteins, vitamins and minerals of poor children is roughly the same as that of the middle class, and the poor consume more meat than the upper middle class.

Children of the poor are educated free, K-12, and eligible for preschool Head Start, and Perkins Grants, Pell Grants and student loans for college.

February 27, 2012 at 1:22 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49721

In fiscal year 2011, the U.S. government spent $910 billion on 70 means-tested programs, which comes to an average of $9,000 per year on every lower-income person in the United States.

* AND THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE K-12 EDUCATION AT A COST OF ROUGHLY $5,000-$15,000 PER YEAR PER STUDENT.

Among the major programs from which the poor receive benefits are Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, food stamps, the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) food program, Medicaid, public housing, low-income energy assistance and the Social Service Block Grant.

Children of the poor are educated free, K-12, and eligible for preschool Head Start, and Perkins Grants, Pell Grants and student loans for college.

Lyndon Johnson told us this was the way to build a Great Society.

Did we?

Federal and state spending on social welfare is approaching $1 trillion a year, $17 trillion since the Great Society was launched, not to mention private charity.

But [instead of building a Great Society] we have witnessed a headlong descent into social decomposition.

Half of all children born to women under 30 in America now are illegitimate.

Three in 10 white children are born out of wedlock...

(*PURSED LIPS*)

...as are 53% of Hispanic babies...

(*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

...and 73% of black babies.

* BLACK AMERICA IS IN A SUICIDAL DEATH SPIRAL. THERE'S JUST NO OTHER WAY TO PUT IT.

* AS TO HISPANICS... (*SIGH*)

Rising right along with the illegitimacy rate is the drug-use rate, the dropout rate, the crime rate and the incarceration rate.

The family, cinder block of society, is disintegrating, and along with it, society itself.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation reports in "Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor": "The welfare system is more like a 'safety bog' than a safety net."

Heritage scholars William Beach and Patrick Tyrrell put Rector's [critique] in perspective:

"Today ... 67.3 million Americans - from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries - depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid or other assistance."

[Continuing, Beach ad Patrick note,] "The United States reached another milestone in 2010. For the first time in history, half the population pays no federal income taxes."

(*PURSED LIPS*)

The 19th century statesman John C. Calhoun warned against allowing government to divide us into "tax-payers and tax-consumers." This, he said, "would give rise to two parties and to violent conflicts and struggles between them, to obtain the control of the government."

We are there, Mr. Calhoun, we are there.

February 27, 2012 at 1:38 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1951:economy-gets-squeezed-as-debt-accelerates&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

* BY THE VERY HONORABLE CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL (R-TX)

Senator Jeff Sessions, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee has pointed out that our per capita government debt is already larger than Greece's.

Per person, our government owes over $49,000 compared to $38,937 per Greek citizen.

Our debt has just reached 101% of our Gross Domestic Product.

Our creditors see this and have quietly slowed down [and in some cases have] stopped their lending to us [all together].

As a result, the Federal Reserve has been outright monetizing debt as a way to patch things together and keep the economy on life support a little longer.

There is rapidly shrinking demand for our debt, and confidence in the dollar is falling. This phenomenon is hidden only by the fact that confidence in all other fiat currencies is falling faster.

None of this seems to really alarm the administration... they have just released a budget that accelerates spending and borrowing.

The reason the debt and deficits plague the economy according to this administration is that the American economy is not taxed enough.

(*SNORT*)

Therefore, hidden in the fine print of the budget is a provision that ramps up the corporate dividends tax rate from its current 15% to 39.6%.

In addition, certain deductions and exemptions will be phased out; an additional 3.8% ObamaCare investment tax surcharge will be tacked on, bringing the effective dividend tax rate to 44.8% in 2013.

Keep in mind, this is not just a tax on big business, this is a tax on anyone who depends on dividend income to live - retirees will be hit hard by these changes and dividend yielding stock prices will adjust downward rapidly to reflect their decreased value.

Not only this, but the Obama administration is worsening the uniquely American policy of taxing income of U.S. based companies earned overseas.

No other country presumes to tax globally in this manner, so it amounts to a huge penalty for basing a company in the United States.

Companies have been able to manage this penalty by deferring taxation until it is repatriated or by paying dividends. What will happen to U.S. based businesses with strong international ties if these allowances are abolished as the Obama administration proposes?

(*DRUM ROLL*)

A massive wave of permanent capital flight will undoubtedly cause the already high levels of unemployment to rise.

Businesses are struggling and failing in this economy. The government ultimately depends on a healthy business climate to provide jobs and a tax base. It is penny wise and pound foolish to add to business tax burden in a misguided attempt to close the colossal gap between our government's revenue and spending. Rather than crippling and absorbing more of our shrinking economy, government needs to be drastically cut - not in 10 years, but immediately.

* HEAR! HEAR!

Those who understand the underpinnings of the dollar and how the Federal Reserve works have known for some time that we are on an unsustainable course, that major chaos is in store if nothing is done quickly to reform things.

Politicians pay lip-service to reforms that never materialize or turn out to be at best small and meaningless, or at worst actively harmful.

It seems more and more inevitable that because the necessary changes would be too inconvenient for the elites to enact now, we will get them later Greek-style, through collapse and chaos.

February 27, 2012 at 3:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-27/buffett-says-banks-victimized-by-evicted-homeowners-who-emerged-as-winners.html

Warren Buffett, who controls the biggest shareholding of the No. 1 U.S. mortgage lender...

* HOW MANY OF YOU KNEW THIS? FRANKLY, I WASN'T CONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF IT.

...said banks were victimized by some homeowners who refinanced their loans before getting evicted.

“Large numbers of people who have ‘lost’ their house through foreclosure have actually realized a profit because they carried out refinancings earlier that gave them cash in excess of their cost,” Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. said Feb. 25 in his annual letter. “In these cases, the evicted homeowner was the winner, and the victim was the lender.”

* WHICH IS OF COURSE TRUE... BUT... IRONIC THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN BUFFETT SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF THOSE "PREDATORY CAPITALISTS" THE DEMS RAIL AGAINST... WITH BUFFETT HIMSELF OFTEN BACKING THEM UP.

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

Foreclosures have claimed about 5 million homes since the property market began its slide in 2006. That has saddled lenders like Bank of America Corp. with defaults, vacated properties and lawsuits. Berkshire, whose stake in Wells Fargo & Co., the largest U.S. mortgage lender, is valued at more than $11 billion, invested $5 billion in Bank of America last year.

(*SMIRK*) AHH... NO WONDER BUFFETT SUDDENLY SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF THEM "WRASCALLY WREPUBLICANS."

(*GUFFAW*)

Buffett, who publicly defended Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in 2010 against accusations it misled clients, used the letter to renew his support for banks.

* OH, YES... BUFFETT IS A GOLDMAN SACHS SUPPORTER. (*SMIRK*) AND WHEN HE'S A MAJOR SHAREHOLDER IN A BANK... WELL... THEN OBVIOUSLY HE'S GONNA BE ON THE BANK'S SIDE. (*SNICKER*)

* OH... AND BY THE WAY... (READ ON!)

Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire owns warrants to purchase $5 billion of stock in New York-based Goldman Sachs.

(*SHRUG*)

Buffett, an ally of Obama’s, has won praise from Democratic lawmakers as the billionaire campaigned for higher taxes on the wealthy.

* WHILE HIS OWN INCOME IS TAXED MAINLY AT CAPITAL GAINS RATES.

* NOTHING STOPPING BUFFETT FROM SIMPLY WRITING THE TREASURY A CHECK FOR THE AMOUNT HE WOULD HAVE PAID HAD HIS INCOME BEEN "EARNED" INCOME LIKE YOURS AND MINE IS.

(*SMIRK*)

February 27, 2012 at 3:43 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203960804577243314236012998.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTSecond

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has announced he will use dynamic, not static, scoring to demonstrate his tax reform plan's potential to jumpstart growth.

The former House speaker arguably has the boldest tax plan, which includes a 15% optional flat tax. He would also allow young workers to take a share of their payroll tax dollars and divert the funds into a personal IRA.

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

These plans have come under attack from liberal groups like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and even from some of Mr. Gingrich's fellow Republicans, [but] on Thursday Gingrich showed that using this dynamic scoring (which takes into account the extra economic steroid effect of the plan) there would be six million new jobs in two years.

* THEY'RE ALL MAKING "CLAIMS," FOLKS, BUT BEAR THIS IN MIND: EARLY ON... NEWT WAS ENDORSED BY ART LAFFER. (*SHRUG*) I TEND TO TRUST LAFFER.

The new economic numbers, from former Reagan economists Peter Ferrara and Gary Robbins, also show that the Gingrich policies would balance the budget within the first term of his presidency.

* AGAIN... I KNOW OF BOTH MEN AND I TEND TO TRUST THEIR ANALYSIS.

In an interview, Mr. Gingrich said that "we make the most serious cuts in entitlements of any of the candidates." He's embraced many of the Paul Ryan entitlement reforms and calls for a sweeping devolution of the welfare programs to the states. Mr. Gingrich stressed "the crucial role that growth plays in balancing the budget. We figured that out when I was speaker."

* YEP!

His plan calls for the "elimination of the capital gains tax and death tax, deregulation and sound monetary policy," as well as for rolling back the "regulatory barriers to energy production [and] unleashing the private sector to maximize all forms of American energy production."

* EXCEPT FOR RON PAUL, WHICH OTHER OF THE GOP CANDIDATES HAVE YOU HEARD CALLING FOR SOUND MONETARY POLICY? HMM...???

There's no doubt Newt is the real supply-sider in this race," said Mr. Ferrara. "And now we have evidence the numbers actually add up."

* AGAIN, FOLKS... WE DON'T HAVE CRYSTAL BALLS. NOTHING IS GUARANTEED. THAT SAID... THINK OF WHAT THE GINGRICH OF THE LATE 1980's AND THE 1990's ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED! HE DIDN'T SUCCEED IN EVERYTHING HE TRIED TO DO, BUT, HE SUCCEEDED BEYOND ANYONE'S REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS. I TRULY DO BELIEVE THAT A PRESIDENT GINGRICH WOULD GIVE AMERICA AT LEAST A FIGHTING CHANCE AT REVERSING OUR LONG NATIONAL DECLINE.

February 27, 2012 at 4:05 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://warnerrobinspatriot.com/bookmark/17668461-Obama-budget-carries-higher-health-med-coverage-costs-for-military-retirees

Military retirees can expect to pay more for medical coverage and prescription drugs if the president’s fiscal year 2013 budget is approved by Congress.

Tricare Prime...annual enrollment fees would go up from $460 or $520 for families to $600 and $820.

Retirees under 65 years of age who elect Tricare Standard and Extra would pay an annual enrollment fee of $70 for individual and $140 for a family. (Standard and Extra coverage currently have no enrollment fee.)

Deductibles for Standard and Extra would also increase from $10 for individuals and $20 for families.

Retirees over 65 years of age enrolled in Tricare for Life would be assessed $35 to $115 per individual depending on retirement income. (Tricare for Life participants currently do not pay an enrollment fee but are required to enroll in Medicare Part B.)

* YOU KNOW WHAT... (*PURSED LIPS*)... (*LONG PAUSE*)... I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THIS. MARY AND I PAY APPROXIMATELY A THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH FOR OUR INSURANCE (WHICH BY THE WAY CARRIES FAIRLY HEAVY CO-PAYS) SO I FIND IT HARD TO GET TOO UPSET ABOUT OTHERS BEING ASKED TO SPEND LESS OVER THE COURSE OF AN ENTIRE YEAR FOR INSURANCE THAN WE SPEND IN A SINGLE MONTH.

The enrollment increase would not apply to survivors of military members who died on active duty or to medically retired military members.

* SEEMS REASONABLE! (HEY... I'M NOT GONNA BASH OBAMA JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BASHING OBAMA. INDEED, IT DISGUSTS ME THAT I KNOW THE REPUBLICANS WILL ATTACK HIM ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S A GOOD VISCERAL EMOTIONAL SPRINGBOARD FOR ATTACKS. (AND LET'S BE HONEST... IF HILLARY HAD CHALLENGED OBAMA FOR THE NOMINATION THIS YEAR HER CAMPAIGN WOULD ALSO NO DOUBT GO AFTER OBAMA ON THE POLITICS AS WELL.)

Prescription drug coverage would also increase, particularly for brand name products. Co-pay for generic drugs would remain $5 at retail pharmacies but increase to $26 for brand names, growing $2.00 each year through 2017.

* FOLKS... WE PAY $15/$35/$70 FOR OUR PRESCRIPTIONS WITH A YEARLY $50 DEDUCTIBLE PER FAMILY MEMBER!

Generic drugs through the Defense Department’s by-mail source would remain free for a 90-day supply but brand name medications would jump to $26 from $9.00 and increase $2.00 each year through 2017.

* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... ALL OF THIS SOUNDS REASONABLE TO ME.

February 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.investors.com/article/602351/201202270822/national-debt-ceiling-congress-obama.htm

Remember that major political struggle last summer over raising the nation's debt ceiling?

How President Obama said Congress "simply had to do it," even though he voted against a similar maneuver during his brief Senate stay?

How Republicans said simply, 'No way!' without serious spending cuts, even though GOP President George W. Bush sought an increase in 2006?

It was great precipice politics, allowing both sides to grandstand and construct a Rube Goldberg compromise that left it up to a special committee to cut spending and that didn't work either.

One of the key calculations in that deal was that by raising the limit $2.1 trillion to $16.4 trillion, it bought enough time for the country to get through this fall's presidential election before the next big debt-spending confrontation over raising the national limit.

(The limit was $12.1 trillion shortly after Obama took office.)

Well, maybe not.

A new study released on Friday now suggests that slimmer federal tax receipts than anticipated from the sluggish Obama economy along with continued abundant spending...will likely move the date of the next debt deadline considerably forward so that it comes during this fall's presidential election, with political debate beginning even earlier.

* OH, GOODY!

The Bipartisan Policy Center previously predicted the newly-enlarged borrowing limit would not be reached until well into the first quarter of 2013. But no more.

* OOPS!

A new examination by the center, as reported in The Hill, now suggests the limit could be reached months sooner, possibly during the election month of November.

* DOUBLE OOPS!

That means the fall presidential and congressional campaigns would most likely contain highly-charged debt-spending debates in addition to other contentious issues.

Obama and his strategists have sought with some success to steer the early campaign discussion toward social issues such as birth control, abortion and education, where they feel Republicans are at a disadvantage, and away from the economy's stubborn sluggishness, which is Obama's major vulnerability.

The recently enacted payroll tax cut extension, unemployment insurance extension and Medicare fixes, all unfunded in the legislation, will cause further borrowing in excess of $100 billion, bringing the limit even closer.

* "ALL UNFUNDED." YEP. ONE... MORE... TIME: "ALL UNFUNDED."

Much of the timing depends on the federal government's tax harvest come April 15 and beyond, including business taxes. They could be severely affected if, as expected, this year's prematurely rising gasoline prices slow consumer and business spending, as well as confidence.

* "IF?" (*SNORT*)

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... BROWSE THE ARCHIVES OF USUALLY RIGHT. NONE OF THIS SHOULD COME AS A SURPRISE TO ANY OF YOU WHO ARE REGULAR READERS OR WHO ARE PROPERLY EDUCATED AND REASONABLY KNOWLEDGEABLE.

February 27, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)