Thursday, December 20, 2012
Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, December 20, 2012
All Hail The Tree...!
Yep... picked her up this morning; a live, potted "hybred" something or other from Home Depot... $17.98 plus tax (that's the 50% off price, folks)!
We've been getting these "little trees" for several years now... ever since Kim moved out, I guess. At first I wasn't thrilled with not getting a BIG tree, but frankly, these "little trees" have grown on me.
Anyway... another day closer to the Big Day!
Ho! Ho! Ho!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPERSTORM_AID?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-19-18-25-05
Senate Republicans on Wednesday proposed a $24 billion emergency aid package for Superstorm Sandy victims, less than half of what Democrats hope to pass by Christmas.
(*THUMBS UP*)
The GOP alternative bill would provide more than enough money to pay for immediate recovery efforts through the spring.
* WHY DO WE NEED TO PROVIDE "MORE THAN ENOUGH" - LET ALONE MORE THAN THE "MORE THAN DOUBLE ENOUGH" THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO BORROW AND PISS AWAY...? WHY WOULDN'T SIMPLY "ENOUGH" DO...?
Republicans complain that the $60.4 billion Democratic bill being debated in the Senate is larded with money for projects unrelated to damage from the late October storm...
* WHICH IT IS...
The Republican version does not include $13 billion Democrats want for projects to protect against future storms, including fortification of mass transit systems in the Northeast and protecting vulnerable seaside areas by building jetties against storm surges. Republicans said however worthy such projects may be, they are not urgently needed and should be considered by Congress in the usual appropriations process next year, not through emergency spending.
* MAKES SENSE!
The GOP bill also scraps spending from the Democratic bill that is not directly related to Sandy damages...
* AGAIN... SOUNDS LIKE SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO BE RESPONSIBLE!
More than $2 billion in federal funds has been spent on relief efforts so far for 11 states and the District of Columbia. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund still has about $4.8 billion, and officials have said that is enough to pay for recovery efforts into early spring.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324024004578171444161023374.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
It is a simple fact that the United States is becoming an entitlement state.
The problem with this is not just that it is bankrupting the country. It is that the entitlement state is impoverishing the lives of the growing millions dependent on unearned resources.
The good news is that we have a golden opportunity to rein in entitlements, for the first time in many years.
But there is bad news, too. President Obama argues that the real problem is undertaxing the public, not overspending on entitlements. He is currently asking Congress for $1.3 trillion in tax increases over a decade but less than $1 trillion in spending cuts—largely deferred, meaning much of that may not even take place.
A study by Ernst & Young shows that Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes would force small businesses to eliminate about 710,000 jobs.
Mr. Obama's proposal suggests he is entirely comfortable with an entitlement state. His telling entrepreneurs that they weren't responsible for their success on the specious grounds that government was responsible for the country's infrastructure — "You didn't build that" — wasn't just an inartful turn of phrase. It implied he is blind to the moral difference between what is earned and what is unearned.
Before us today is a chance to improve the true welfare of our nation while changing our overspending ways. By reforming entitlements and the tax system instead of extracting more money with higher tax rates, the economy could be reoriented away from unearned transfers to earned wages. This would make the economy fairer and sounder. And in the process it could build a happier country for ourselves and our children.
* FOLKS... THIS ISN'T MY USUAL NEWSBITE. THAT SAID, IF YOU UTILIZE THE LINK TO READ THE FULL OP-ED YOU'LL SEE WHY I'VE INCLUDED IT IN TODAY'S NEWSBITES.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/20/the-three-not-so-wise-men-of-w
So far, neither the president, his Democratic ally Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, nor Republican adversary Speaker of the House John Boehner has shown resolve to slow the nation’s out-of-control spending on borrowed money.
All are willing to raise the debt ceiling again (the negotiation is only about how much and for how long), continue the borrowing, and stuff the IOUs in our children’s Christmas stockings.
To make matters worse, these politicians are cooking the books, claiming to offset their borrowing with cuts in future spending, knowing full well that those cuts are unlikely to ever happen. Here’s how their creative book keeping got us to this fiscal cliff:
In August 2011, when the federal debt hit the $14.3 trillion legal limit, President Obama asked Congress to hike the limit by an astounding $2.1 trillion, the largest increase in history. The President wanted enough borrowing leeway to carry him through the election. Sadly, Boehner and congressional Republicans relented. They defended this capitulation by boasting that they got a dollar of spending cuts for every dollar of debt ceiling hike. That was a whopper.
* BOEHNER... IS... A... PIECE... OF... SHIT...
* BOENER... IS... AN... INCOMPETENT... PIECE... OF... SHIT...
The Budget Control Act of 2011 — the deal they struck with the president — provided for only $21 billion in immediate cuts — about a penny for every dollar of debt hike — plus about $900 billion in specified future cuts to occur mostly after 2016. (That’s so far in the future as to be meaningless because any future Congress can undo them. History proves that is what almost always happens.)
* DIE... BOEHNER... DIE... BOEHNER... DIE... BOEHNER...
Here’s the bigger outrage. To offset the rest of the debt hike, the law provided for $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts over ten years starting in fiscal 2013, unless Congress came up with a better plan for reducing spending or borrowing in the meantime.
* YEP! REMEMBER HOW THE MSM CHEERED AT THIS "GRAND COMPROMISE?!" THIS SAME "GRAND COMPROMISE" THE SAME MSM NOW CALL THE "FISCAL CLIFF!"
* FOLKS... YOU MY READERS AREN'T STUPID... BUT UNFORTUNATELY MOST PEOPLE ARE. MOST PEOPLE BUY THE SHIT THE MEDIA PEDDLES.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
To incentivize Congress to work seriously on a plan, the automatic spending cuts included some bitter medicine, such as a drastic 9.8% cut in defense spending.
* WHICH WOULD RETURN "DEFENSE" SPENDING TO WHAT... WHERE IT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO...?
* NOTE, FOLKS... NOTE HOW RARE IT IS FOR THE MSM TO ACTUALLY ANSWER SUCH QUESTIONS... TO QUANTIFY THE SCAREMONGERING! MY GUESS... WE'RE PROBABLY TALKING GOING BACK TO A 2005 DEFENSE BUDGET - PERHAPS LATER... PERHAPS EARLIER... BUT THEREABOUTS.
(*SHRUG*)
Nevertheless, Congress did nothing, the borrowed money is long gone, and the automatic spending cuts (called “sequestration in Washington lingo) are scheduled to start.
* AND I SAY "HURRAH!"
So, predictably, the politicians are backtracking. As the Yuletide negotiations began, Obama offered only $400 billion in net future spending cuts, now upped to $1.2 billion. But to cook the books still more, he wants these spending reductions counted to offset the next debt ceiling hike, not the one long past.
(*SNORT*)
Sadly, Boehner has already indicated he...
* REFUSES TO COMMIT SUICIDE...?
(SORRY, FOLKS... COULDN'T HELP MYSELF...) (CONTINUING...)
...is willing to raise tax rates on millionaires, accede to another debt hike, and continue the charade that spending reductions scheduled way out in future years are really going to happen.
* SERIOUSLY... SUICIDE WOULD BE MUCH APPRECIATED!
* DIE, BOEHNER, DIE! DIE, BOEHNER, DIE! DIE, BOEHNER, DIE!
Obama, Boehner, and Reid — not exactly the three wise men needed to put the nation on a firm fiscal path.
* WE... ARE... SO... FUCKED...
No wonder credit experts are pessimistic. Days after the August 2011 debt hike agreement that led to our current fiscal cliff dilemma, Standard & Poors rating agency stripped the U.S. of its AAA credit rating for the first time in history.
* THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T CARE...
(*SIGH*)
Now S&P’s top analyst, John Chalmers, remains gloomy. “We think the events of the last eighteen months validate our decision to lower the rating.” These are not glad tidings for the U.S.
* OUR NATIONAL SUICIDE IS ON AUTO-PILOT.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2012/12/19/john-boehner-brings-new-meaning-to-the-gops-stupid-party-label/
When evil matches up against stupid, evil tends to win.
Though the alleged “fiscal cliff” negotiations are ongoing, it appears the Republicans have yet again been duped by Barack Obama and the Democrats.
In this case House Speaker John Boehner has offered tax increases on incomes over $1 million in return for spending cuts that are essentially “to be determined.” In short, Boehner offered Obama the one good thing anymore about the Republican brand (the Party’s reputation for being viscerally opposed to tax increases) in return for spending cuts that anyone with a pulse knows will never materialize; that, or they’ll be erased by bursts of spending elsewhere.
* YEP... THAT'S BOEHNER FOR YA...
It’s no mistake that the biggest recession most of us have never heard of (1920-21) is largely unknown precisely because Congress wisely slashed the federal spending burden from $6 billion to $3 billion on the way to a major economic boom. This was done without any major changes to the tax code. Spending cuts work when it comes to boosting economic growth.
The problem now is that there’s not much definitive about the supposed cuts. Unless immediate they rarely ever happen given the tautological reality that future Congresses will not allow themselves to be hamstrung by deals made by past Congresses. [I]t’s inevitable that the alleged spending cuts of tomorrow will essentially be sterilized by the war, natural disasters and financial crises that serve as food and water for the ever growing state.
As for Boehner’s proposal to “only” raise taxes on incomes over $1 million, a proposal the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page very oddly proclaimed to be “better than the scheduled increase on incomes above $200,000 a year,” nothing could be further from the truth.
Boehner of course thinks he’s being clever here, that very few Americans earn over $1 million so we can raise taxes on them without tears and without a hit to growth. What a laugh, that is unless, you’re poor, middle class, or in search of a job. Then Boehner’s tax-the-rich scheme is not so funny.
Indeed, to raise taxes on top earners is to by definition lower the wages and job opportunities of the poor and middle class.
Lest we forget, the rich, though very much a tiny minority, have by virtue of being wealthy the majority of disposable income which, if banked or invested, is lent to tomorrow’s Microsofts and Intels. If that’s not clear enough, there are once again no companies and no jobs without investment, and that small sliver of Americans earning over $1 million has the lion’s share of funds for investment.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
It’s also true that $1 million earners and wannabe $1 million earners are the risk takers. They’re the vital few, the economic activists as it were whose exploits make us healthier, more efficient and productive (think higher wages), and who are most likely to employ us. The problem now is they’ve been told yet again by the Party of Evil and the dependably clueless Party of Stupid that successful innovation - and investment in same - will be hit first and hardest by the tax man.
The above in mind, and from a purely economic point of view, the Boehner compromise provides us with a scenario that is worse than falling off of the cliff. At least with the cliff dive we were going to get some immediate spending relief that would somewhat mitigate the higher taxes (prices) placed on work.
Also, if the Republicans had held their ground and been forced off of the cliff, they would still be the Party opposed to tax increases. In this scenario President Obama would own the tax increases, and for having opposed them, the Republicans would have ensured their hold on the House (economies tend to do better amid gridlock) going into the 2014 elections. With the Boehner compromise, the Republicans will be signing off on the tax increases that will do the most to reduce growth, the spending cuts promised will of course never materialize, and then in 2014 a tarnished GOP brand will have to fight for the House with a greatly weakened, tax-increase dirtied hand.
* YEP...
(*GRITTING MY TEETH*)
Forgotten by John Boehner is that the electorate handed his GOP the House to ensure that tax-averse Republicans would hold the line on tax increases. Instead, Boehner and the Stupid Party appear ready to cave not just on any tax increase, but a tax hike that will easily do the most to harm the economy at a time when it’s still gasping for air.
http://news.investors.com/121912-637656-real-federal-outlays-up-78-since-98-spending-cap-key.aspx?src=HPLNews&p=full
Federal government revenue rose from $1.7 trillion to $2.4 trillion from fiscal 1998 to 2012, slightly exceeding inflation.
Revenue growth averaged 2.9% annually, despite two recessions, bear markets — and tax cuts.
But federal spending rose nearly twice as fast — 5.7% per year — surging from $1.6 trillion to $3.5 trillion over that same span.
* AND...
The spending spike also exceeds growth in the population.
(*SHRUG*)
* IT'S... THE... SPENDING... STUPID...!!!
Some of the spending surge came during the Bush administration — the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, increases in non-defense discretionary spending and the creation of the Medicare prescription drug entitlement.
* AND THROUGHOUT THOSE BUSH YEARS I TRASHED BUSH LEFT AND RIGHT WHEN HE AND HIS POLICIES DESERVED TRASHING.
But spending accelerated under Obama.
(*SHRUG*)
While Obama inherited a budget increase from Bush in fiscal 2009...
* ACTUALLY... A BUDGET INCREASE PASSED BY A TOTALLY DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS - BOTH THE SENATE (HARRY REID) AND HOUSE (NANCY PELOSI).
(*SHRUG*)
...an omnibus bill Obama signed plus his "stimulus" package [Porkubus] helped boost spending $535 billion in Obama's first year, hiking total spending from $2.9 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009.
Spending has never returned to the already-high 2008 level even after controlling for inflation.
* I'D BE HAPPY WITH 2006 LEVEL SPENDING; EVEN HAPPIER WITH 2000 LEVEL SPENDING.
(*SHRUG*)
Post a Comment