Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, April 3, 2013


This is my favorite track (and since it's to benchpressing, my favorite exercise) from my BodyPump classes at the gym!

Posted by at

21 comments:

William R. Barker said...

* SIX-PARTER... (Part 1 of 6)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html

* HERE'S THE HEADLINE:

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

* THAT'S... er... THE WASHINGTON POST HEADLINE BY THE WAY...

(*SHRUG*)

* LIKE I SAY, FOLKS... EVERYTHING THAT DUMB BASTARD BUSH DID... OR ALLOWED... BY AND LARGE OBAMA DOUBLES DOWN ON!

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD IN AMAZEMENT*)

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound...

* THERE IS NO "HOUSING REBOUND." HOUSING INFLATION IS... er... INFLATION! INFLATION IS THE ENEMY OF THE MIDDLE CLASS! FURTHERMORE, THE SPECULATORS ARE BACK - AND VIA READING THIS ARTICLE'S HEADLINE YOU CAN SEE WHY...!!!

...is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

* TWO WORDS: 1) STUDENT; 2) LOANS.

* MY POINT? ADDING DEBT UPON DEBT UPON DEBT - ALL ENCOURAGED BY A GOVERNMENT THAT HAS TO BORROW SOMETHING LIKE 43-CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR IT SPENDS JUST ON BASIC OPERATING COSTS - IS INSANITY... NOT RESPONSIBLE ECONOMIC POLICY!

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

* I... DON'T... WANNA... BACK... THESE... LOANS...!!!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 6)

* HOW IS IT FAIR THAT I'M FORCED TO BACK SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME LOAN WHEN I MYSELF DON'T OWN A HOME BECAUSE I MADE THE DECISION NOT TO SO THAT I'D BE ABLE TO SPEND MY MONEY ELSEWHERE?

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

* REMEMBER DODD-FRANK, FOLKS...??? REMEMBER OBAMA AND THE DEMS ASSURING US THAT THE ERA OF THE BAILOUT WAS OVER...?!

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan...

(*CRADDLING MY HEAD IN MY HANDS*)

...and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.

* BUT IT WAS THE CONSTANT REFINANCING THAT INFLATED THE REAL ESTATE BUBBLE WHICH BURST AND TOOK THE ENTIRE U.S. AND WORLD ECONOMY WITH IT...!!!

Obama pledged in his State of the Union address to do more to make sure more Americans can enjoy the benefits of the housing recovery, but critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars.

* DUH!

* HEY... NOTHING IS STOPPING CITIZEN OBAMA - MILLIONAIRE CITIZENS BARRACK AND MICHELE OBAMA - AND THEIR FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS FROM CHARTERING THEIR OWN FRIGGIN' NON-PROFIT SAVINGS AND LOAN AND "HELPING" PEOPLE WHILE LAYING THEIR OWN MONEY ON THE LINE INSTEAD OF MINE!

April 3, 2013 at 12:47 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 3 of 6)

“If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from,” said Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former top executive at mortgage giant Fannie Mae.

* WHY SHOULD OBAMA CARE? AFTER ALL, COME JANUARY 2017 IT'S ALL SOMEONE ELSE'S PROBLEM.

Administration officials say they are looking only to allay unnecessary hesitation among banks and encourage safe lending to borrowers who have the financial wherewithal to pay. “There’s always a tension that you have to take seriously between providing clarity and rules of the road and not giving any opportunity to restart the kind of irresponsible lending that we saw in the mid-2000s,” said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

* IT STARTED WITH THE BAILOUTS AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF THE STUDENT LOAN BUSINESS; OBAMA AND THE DEMS ARE BASICALLY TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE ENTIRE BANKING INDUSTRY... FASCISM AS OPPOSED TO SOCIALISM... STATE CONTROL AS OPPOSED TO STATE "OWNERSHIP" PER SE.

* FOLKS... I'M NOT OVERSTATING THE CASE. THIS IS WHAT FASCISM IS. FASCISM IS BASICALLY FORMALIZED CRONY CAPITALISM.

The administration’s efforts come in the midst of a housing market that has been surging for the past year but that has been delivering most of the benefits to established homeowners with high credit scores or to investors who have been behind a significant number of new purchases.

* BY "INVESTORS" THEY MEAN SPECULATORS! AS FOR ESTABLISHED HOMEOWNERS... WHAT BENEFITS? THE ABILITY TO LEVERAGE MORE BORROWING...??? AN INCREASED SALE PRICE WHEN THEY SELL... OFTEN WIPED OUT WHEN THEY BUY? FOLKS... THINK ABOUT IT! UNLESS YOU'RE GONNA SELL YOUR HOME IN A RISING MARKET AND BUY A NEW HOME IN A NON-RISING MARKET THE ONLY "BENEFIT" FROM HIGHER VALUATION IS THEORETICAL - AND THE FLIP SIDE TO THAT IS THE REAL PAIN OF YOUR PROPERTY TAXES GOING UP ALONG WITH YOUR PROPERTY VALUATION! GEEZUS... TELL ME YOU FOLKS GET THIS....!!!

April 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 4 of 6)

“If you were going to tell people in low-income and moderate-income communities and communities of color there was a housing recovery, they would look at you as if you had two heads,” said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a non-profit housing organization. “It is very difficult for people of low and moderate incomes to refinance or buy homes.”

* SO...???

Before the crisis, about 40% of home buyers were first-time purchasers. That’s down to 30%, according to the National Association of Realtors.

From 2007 through 2012, new-home purchases fell 30% for people with credit scores above 780 (out of 800), according to Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke. But they declined 90% for people with scores between 680 and 620 — historically a respectable range for a credit score.

* 620...??? "RESPECTABLE...???" IN WHOSE FRIGGIN' WILD IMAGINATION...?!?! (AND WHAT IS THE AUTHOR BABBLING ABOUT WITH THIS "OUT OF 800" NONSENSE? CREDIT SCORES GO UP TO 850! I KNOW... MY CREDIT SCORE - MARY'S AND MINE - IS AROUND 840!)

“If the only people who can get a loan have near-perfect credit and are putting down 25%, you’re leaving out of the market an entire population of creditworthy folks, which constrains demand and slows the recovery,” said Jim Parrott, who until January was the senior adviser on housing for the White House’s National Economic Council.

* AGAIN... IF OL' JIM WANTS TO SINK HIS MONEY INTO A START-UP NON-PROFIT S&L THEN GOD BLESS HIM AND MORE POWRE TO HIM! IN THE MEANTIME, STOP ASKING ME TO BACKSTOP OTHER PEOPLE'S LIFE CHOICES WITH THE FRUITS OF MY LIFE CHOICES!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 5 of 6)

One reason, according to policymakers, is that as young people move out of their parents’ homes and start their own households, they will be forced to rent rather than buy, meaning less construction and housing activity. Given housing’s role in building up a family’s wealth, that could have long-lasting consequences.

* EXCEPT FOR WHEN INFLATED MARKETS CRASH ALL THE WEALTH IS LOST! NOT ONLY THE HOMEOWNER'S WEALTH... BUT PART OF MINE AND YOURS WHEN WE'RE FORCED BY GOVERNMENT TO BAIL THESE PEOPLE OUT...!!!

“I think the ability of newly formed households, which are more likely to have lower incomes or weaker credit scores, to access the mortgage market will make a big difference in the shape of the recovery,” Duke said last month. “Economic improvement will cause household formation to increase, but if credit is hard to get, these will be rental rather than owner-occupied households.”

* SO...???

Deciding which borrowers get loans might seem like something that should be left up to the private market.

* UH... YEAH...

But since the financial crisis in 2008, the government has shaped most of the housing market, insuring between 80% and 90t% of all new loans, according to the industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance.

* SO AFTER DOUBLING DOWN THE NEW PLAN IS TO TRIPLE DOWN...???

It has done so primarily through the Federal Housing Administration, which is part of the executive branch, and taxpayer-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, run by an independent regulator.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 3, 2013 at 12:49 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 6 of 6)

The FHA historically has been dedicated to making homeownership affordable for people of moderate means.

* BULLSHIT! BACK WHEN THE FHA WAS STARTED AND THROUGHOUT THE 60's AND 70's THE STANDARD MORTGAGE DOWN PAYMENT WAS 20% (WHICH HAD BEEN SAVED BY THE BUYERS!) AND MORTGAGES WERE GIVEN ONLY FOR ENOUGH TO FINANCE THE PURCHASE OF A HOUSE A FAMILY COULD REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO AFFORD WITH MORTGAGE PAYMENTS SPACED OVER 30 YEARS OR LESS. THAT WAS THE "HISTORIC" DEFINITION OF "AFFORDABLE." STARTING IN THE 80's THAT HISTORIC DEFINITION WAS THROWN IN THE TRASH... AND WE'VE SEEN THE RESULT.

Under FHA terms, a borrower can get a home loan with a credit score as low as 500 or a down payment as small as 3.5%.

* INSANITY!

If borrowers with FHA loans default on their payments, taxpayers are on the line — a guarantee that should provide confidence to banks to lend.

(*BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL*)

* FOLKS... THESE ARE THE OBAMA/DEMOCRAT (AND OFTEN RINO) POLICIES...!!!

But banks are largely rejecting the lower end of the scale, and the average credit score on FHA loans has stood at about 700. After years of intensifying investigations into wrongdoing in mortgage lending, banks are concerned that they will be held responsible if borrowers cannot pay. Under some circumstances, the FHA can retract its insurance or take other legal action to penalize banks when loans default.

“The financial risk of just one mistake has just become so high that lenders are playing it very, very safe, and many qualified borrowers are paying the price,” said David Stevens, Obama’s former FHA commissioner and now the chief executive of the Mortgage Bankers Association.

* AND BY "MANY QUALIFIED BORROWERS" THIS ASS STEVENS ACTUALLY REFERS TO MANY UNQUALIFIED BORROWERS!

The FHA, in coordination with the White House, is working to develop new policies to make clear to banks that they will not lose their guarantees or face other legal action if loans that conform to the program’s standards later default. Officials hope the FHA’s actions will then spur Fannie and Freddie to do the same.

(*CONSIDERING SUICIDE*) (*PAUSE*) (*NO... CONSIDERING HOMICIDE*)

The effort requires sign-on by the Justice Department and the inspector general of Department of Housing and Urban Development, agencies that investigate wrongdoing in mortgage lending.

* THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT... I REPEAT, DOES NOT... CONSTITUTIONALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BIND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO POTENTIAL BAILOUTS. THE FACT THAT HE WILL ANYWAY AND THAT THE REPUBLICANS WILL LET HIM TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE STATE OF AMERICA 2013 AND THE STATE OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 2013.

“We need to align as much as possible with IG and the DOJ moving forward,” FHA Commissioner Carol Galante said. The HUD inspector general and Justice Department declined to comment.

The effort to provide more certainty to banks is just one of several policies the administration is undertaking. The FHA is also urging lenders to take what officials call “compensating factors” into account and use more subjective judgment when deciding whether to make a loan — such as looking at a borrower’s overall savings.

* IF THE BORROWER HAS SAVINGS... WHY AM I BEING ASKED TO BACKSTOP HIS OR HER BORROWING... HMM...???

“My view is that there are lots of creditworthy borrowers that are below 720 or 700 — all the way down the credit-score spectrum,” Galante said. “It’s important you look at the totality of that borrower’s ability to pay.”

* GOD HELP THIS ONCE GREAT NATION...

April 3, 2013 at 12:50 PM
William R. Barker said...

* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)

http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/02/obamacare-incompetence/

Let me try to understand this: The key incentive for small businesses to support ObamaCare was that they would be able to shop for the best deals in health care super-stores—called exchanges. The Administration has had 3 years to set up these exchanges. It has failed to do so.

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... THIS IS JOE FRIGGIN' KLEIN WRITING THIS.. (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

This is a really bad sign.

* YA THINK SO, JOE...??? I MEAN, WORSE THAN NANCY PELOSI SAYING "WE'LL FIND OUT WHAT'S IN THE BILL AFTER WE PASS IT"...?!?!

There will be those who argue that it’s not the Administration’s fault. It’s the fault of the 33 states that have refused to set up their own exchanges.

Nonsense.

Where was the contingency planning?

There certainly are models, after all — the federal government’s own health benefits plan (FEHBP) operates markets that exist in all 50 states.

So does Medicare Advantage.

But now, the Obama Administration has announced that it won’t have the exchanges ready in time, that small businesses will be offered one choice for the time being — for a year, at least.

[So much for] the Obama Administration’s belief in the efficacy of the [exchange] "market system" to produce lower prices through competition. That was supposed to be the point of this plan.

(*SMIRK*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

Certainly, the Republicans who have stood in the way of these exchanges...deserve a great deal of the “credit” for the debacle.

* NOPE. NOT TRUE. AS KLEIN PREVIOUSLY QUESTIONED, "WHERE WAS THE CONTINGENCY PLANNING?" THERE WAS NONE. CERTAINLY THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE STOOD BY THE PRINCIPLES ALL ALONG CAN'T BE BLAMED FOR NOT ROLLING OVER AND SURRENDERING!

* FOLKS... REMEMBER... THIS WAS NOT BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION. THE DEMS RAMMED IT THROUGH USING THEIR RAW MAJORITY POWER WHEN THEY CONTROLLED THE HOUSE, SENATE, AND THE WHITE HOUSE. FOLKS... REMEMBER WHEN PELOSI AND REID SIMPLY "DEEMED" LEGISLATION PASSED WHICH HADN'T ACTUALLY BEEN CONSTITUTIONALLY PASSED?!

But we are now seeing weekly examples of this Administration’s inability to govern.

(*NOD*)

Just a few weeks ago, I reported on the failure of the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration to come up with a unified electronic health care records system. There has also been the studied inattention to the myriad of ineffective job training programs scattered through the bureaucracy. There have been the oblique and belated efforts to reform Head Start, a $7 billion program that a study conducted by its own bureaucracy — the Department of Health and Human Services — has found nearly worthless. The list is endless.

* AND YET KLEIN SUPPORTED OBAMA IN 2008... AND AGAIN IN 2012. (*SHRUG*) YET NOW OBAMA IS "SUDDENLY" INCOMPETENT? WHAT FAKE, PHONY, IRRESPONSIBLE SCUM THESE LIBERAL PUNDITS ARE... (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Yes, the President has faced a terrible economic crisis — and he has done well to limit the damage.

* NO HE HASN'T! THAT'S JUST A FALSE STATEMENT WITH NOTHING TO BACK IT UP! AGAIN... APPLES TO APPLES... LBJ, NIXON, FORD, AND CARTER DROVE THE U.S. ECONOMY INTO FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS - OIL SHORTAGES, INFLATION, STAGFLATION, UNEMPLOYMENT, DEINDUSTRIALIZATION - AND YET WITHIN HIS FIRST TERM IN OFFICE RONALD REAGAN AND HIS CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICIES TURNED EVERYTHING AROUND. (OR, NOT WITHOUT SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES... BUT THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE CASE. BOTTOM LINE, THERE'S BEEN NO "OBAMA RECOVERY" IN THE REAL - AS OPPOSED TO WALL STREET - ECONOMY. THERE WAS A REAL RECOVERY UNDER REAGAN.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

The President has also succeeded in avoiding disasters overseas.

* IS THIS FUCKING MORON KIDDING...?!?! WE'VE LOST EGYPT! NORTH KOREA - AS WELL AS CHINA - THREATENS US OUTRIGHT AND BOTH GROW BOLDER BY THE DAY! BENGHAZI...?!?! HAVE THIS FOOL "FORGOTTEN" BENGHAZI...??? AMERICANS CONTINUE TO DIE NEEDLESSLY IN AFGHANISTAN... (I COULD GO ON AND ON... BUT YOU GET THE IDEA...)

But, as a Democrat — as someone who believes in activist government — he has a vested interest in seeing that federal programs actually work efficiently. I don’t see much evidence that this is anywhere near the top of his priorities.

* OBAMA'S "PRIORITIES" ARE... OBAMA.

One thing is clear: ObamaCare will fail if he doesn’t start paying more attention to the details of implementation, if he doesn’t start demanding action.

* "IF..." OBAMACARE IS ALREADY A HUGE FAILURE! PREMIUMS UP... SERVICES DOWN... DEFICIT SPENDING ON IMPLIMENTATION UP... (*SIGH*)

And, in a larger sense, the notion of activist government will be in peril — despite the demographics flowing the Democrats’ way — if institutions like the VA and ObamaCare don’t deliver the goods.

* I ONLY WISH I COULD BELIEVE THAT. THE 2012 ELECTION DISABUSED ME OF SUCH NAIVETE.

Sooner or later, the Republican party may come to understand that its best argument isn’t about tearing down the government we have, but making it run more efficiently.

* SO WRITES THE UTOPIAN WHO TURNS A BLIND EYE TO ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.

Sooner or later, the Democrats may come to understand that making it run efficiently is the prerequisite for maintaining power.

* FAT CHANCE...

April 3, 2013 at 4:46 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-to-pay-navigators-20-to-48-an-hour-provide-free-translators/article/2526167

Tens of thousands of health care professionals, union workers and community activists hired as "navigators" to help Americans choose ObamaCare options starting Oct. 1 could earn $20 an hour or more, according to new regulations issued Wednesday.

* AGAIN... THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T MEET... CAN'T COME CLOSE TO MEETING... EXISTING OPERATIONAL COSTS. NOW "REGULATORS" - AS OPPOSED TO CONGRESSIONAL VOTES FOLLOWED BY PRESIDENTIAL SIGNATURES AS PER THE CONSTITUTION - ARE GOING TO AUTHORIZE FURTHER EXPENDITURES... FURTHER GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT...

The 63-page rule covering navigators, drawn up by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also said the government will provide free translators for those not fluent in English -- no matter what their native language is.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* KICK ME IN THE BALLS! KEEP ON KICKING! KICK SOME MORE!

"The proposed requirements would also include that such entities and individuals provide consumers with information and assistance in the consumer's preferred language, at no cost to the consumer, which would include oral interpretation of non-English languages and the translation of written documents in non-English languages when necessary to ensure meaningful access," said the regulations.

* VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY ANSWER. REVOLUTION!

It is still not clear how many navigators will be required. California, however, provides a hint. It wants 21,000.

(*LITERALLY FEELING SICK TO MY STOMACH*)

* FOLKS... YOU UNDERSTAND, DON'T YOU... THIS IS POLITICAL... THIS IS ABOUT CREATING A NEW BUREAUCRACY OF OBAMAPHILES AND PUTTING THEM ON THE PUBLIC PAYROLL - A DOUBLE WHAMMY!

That could be an expensive proposition. The proposed rules, now open for public comment, suggest an estimated pay of $20-$48 an hour.

* PLUS BENEFITS... PLUS BENEFITS... PLUS BENEFITS INCLUDING PENSIONS AND CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THIS NEWEST BUREAUCRACY CAN NEVER BE DISMANTLED....

(*PURSED LIPS*)

The rules allow navigators to come from the ranks of unions, health providers and community action groups such as ACORN and Planned Parenthood. They are required to provide unbiased advice.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

April 3, 2013 at 4:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-give-5-salary-back_714496.html

The New York Times reports:

President Obama plans to return 5% of his salary to the Treasury in solidarity with federal workers who are going to be furloughed as part of the budget cutting process known as sequester, an administration official said Wednesday.

The voluntary move would be retroactive to March 1 and apply through the rest of the calendar year, the official said.

The White House came up with the 5% figure to approximate the level of automatic spending cuts to non-defense federal agencies that took effect that day.

Politico adds:

"The salary for the president, as with members of Congress, is set by law and cannot be changed," the official said. "However, the president has decided that to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government that are affected by the sequester, he will contribute a portion of his salary back to the Treasury."

* GOOD FOR HIM!

* CAN ONE "WRITE-OFF" "DONATIONS" TO THE U.S. TREASURY...??? (JUST CURIOUS... AND, YES, I'D BE ASKING THE SAME QUESTION IF IT WERE BUSH OR EVEN REAGAN.)

April 3, 2013 at 5:13 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324789504578380684292877300.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

President Obama has been telling America for months that special tax breaks for the oil and gas industry must come to an end. The presidential demand always prompts puzzled gazes among tax and energy-industry experts, who ask: What special tax breaks?

Thanks in part to a bill sponsored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland and ranking member on the House Budget Committee, it's all much clearer now.

(*GRIN*) READ ON!

The congressman has inadvertently called attention to the fact that those special tax breaks just for the oil and gas industry don't exist.

(*SMIRK*)

Mr. Van Hollen proposes to create some very special punishments instead.

* THIS SHOULD BE GOOD... (*ROLLING MY EYES*)

Regardless of the bill's fortunes on Capitol Hill, it has already performed a public service by illuminating the fallacy behind assaults on the industry.

Mr. Van Hollen's ''Stop the Sequester Job Loss Now Act" would raise taxes on individuals — what he calls the "Fair Share on High-Income Taxpayers" — and effectively hike taxes on the oil and gas industry by changing the way their taxes are calculated. The problem with the bill is that the so-called tax breaks the industry would lose are not specific to oil and gas at all. They are widely available to lots of industries.

* DUH...!!! I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I'VE POINTED THIS OUT. KNOWLEDGEABLE, WELL-READ AND WELL-EDUCATED PEOPLE KNOW THIS! (UNFORTUNATELY... MOST FOLKS ARE NEITHER WELL-READ NOR WELL-EDUCATED; EITHER THAT OR THEY'VE SOMEHOW SIMPLY MANAGED TO "SIDESTEP" GAINING THE KNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE... THAT THIS PIECE PROVIDES...)

Title III of the act goes after oil and gas with: a limitation on the section 199 deduction; a prohibition on using last-in, first-out accounting for major integrated oil companies; and a modification of the foreign tax-credit rules.

Section 199 is part of the domestic production activities deduction that was included in the American Job Creation Act of 2004, which passed with strong bipartisan support, especially in the Senate. It currently provides a 9% tax deduction from net income for businesses engaged in "qualified production activities" in the U.S.

* "PRODUCTION..." NOT SIMPLY "OIL PRODUCTION!"

Those activities include manufacturing a product, selling, leasing or licensing it, and engineering and software activities related to that production.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

The deduction was intended to encourage domestic manufacturing, and in the hope that the tax break could provide a slight competitive advantage against foreign competition.

The oil and gas industry, especially in its extracting and refining, is heavily involved in U.S. manufacturing. Congress already penalizes the [oil] industry by only giving it a 6% deduction, rather than the 9% that other industries receive.

* ONE... MORE... TIME...

Congress already penalizes the [oil] industry by only giving it a 6% deduction, rather than the 9% that other industries receive.

(*SIGH*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 3, 2013 at 5:30 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

But whatever the percentage allowed, this isn't a special deduction for oil and gas. Many other manufacturing industries — including farm equipment, appliances and pharmaceuticals — take the deduction. Mr. Van Hollen's bill refers to the disqualification of two industries from these benefits as a "Special Rule for Certain Oil and Gas Companies." In terms of fairness, it's like telling oil company workers that they can't take the home-mortgage deduction anymore because they work for politically targeted companies.

* FOLKS... FORGET THE ANALOGIES... JUST REMEMBER THE KEY POINT: THE DEMS HAVE BEEN LYING ALL ALONG ABOUT THESE "SPECIAL OIL COMPANY TAX BREAKS." THEY SIMPLY DON'T EXIST!

Mr. Van Hollen also draws a bead on the last-in, first-out accounting method known as LIFO. Those who had accounting classes will recall that there are several widely accepted ways to value a company's inventory. LIFO is one of them. It assumes that the last inventory in is the first used, sold or distributed — an accounting method often used by commodity-type industries. Mr. Van Hollen proposes to reduce those inventory options available to the oil and gas industry, even though they are, and will remain, widely available to most U.S. companies.

* ONE... MORE... TIME:

Mr. Van Hollen proposes to reduce those inventory options available to the oil and gas industry, even though they are, and will remain, widely available to most U.S. companies.

* FOLKS... MY PROBLEM ISN'T "TARGETING" OIL... (THOUGH I OPPOSE TARGETING OIL!)... MY PROBLEM IS THE LIES... LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE... TOLD BY THE DEMS AND PASSED ALONG AS GOSPEL BY A LIBERAL MEDIA THAT FAR MORE OFTEN THAN NOT PLACES IT'S THUMB ON THE SCALES OF PRESENTATION IN FAVOR OF THE DEMOCRATIC POSITION - WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TRUE!

Critics of the industry claim that there are other ways of appraising oil and gas inventory that would result in a higher value, and thus companies would have to pay more taxes. But that's like offering individuals the choice of taking the standard deduction or itemizing on their returns, and then demonizing a subset of people who choose the approach that minimizes their income tax obligation.

(*NOD*)

The third provision of Mr. Van Hollen's bill seeks to change the foreign tax-credit rules — but only for integrated oil and gas companies. American companies operating in foreign countries have to pay the taxes imposed by those governments. The U.S. government generally gives companies operating in foreign countries a tax credit to offset the foreign taxes paid, so the companies are not taxed twice on the same foreign income. That generally includes royalties paid to foreign countries. Mr. Van Hollen's way of repealing this tax break for one particular industry is to assert that the royalties cannot be called a tax when they apply to that industry: "[A]ny amount paid or accrued by a dual capacity taxpayer which is a major integrated oil company to a foreign country or possession of the U.S. for any period shall not be considered a tax." If an oil company can't call a foreign royalty a tax, then it can't get the foreign tax credit.

* GEEZUS...

Ironically, USA Today just published the top ten list of companies that paid the highest U.S. income taxes as of 2012, and oil industry companies took three of the slots. Number one was Exxon Mobil at $31 billion, followed by Chevron at $20 billion, and sixth was ConocoPhillips at $8 billion.

That is about $60 billion in taxes among them, more than the other seven companies on the list — including Apple and Microsoft combined.

* ARE... YOU... READING... THIS...?!?!

Don't look for a presidential attack on Apple or Microsoft anytime soon.

April 3, 2013 at 5:31 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/04/03/white_house_attacks_the_drudge_report_as_obama_continues_his_effort_to_eliminate_all_political_opposition

* YOU FOLKS SHOULD READ THIS... (RUSH IS RIGHT; AS HE USUALLY IS!)

April 3, 2013 at 5:50 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/where-did-money-700-million-katrina-relief-money-112137424.html

Where did all the money go?

“Your guess is as good as mine,” David Montoya, the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, says of $700 million in missing taxpayer money that Louisiana homeowners were given in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to elevate and protect their homes from future storms.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

A new report released from the inspector general’s office shows that more than 24,000 homeowners who received grants of up to $30,000 to elevate their homes either misspent or pocketed the money.

* YEP... THOSE FINE UPSTANDING CITIZENS OF... er... THE CHOCOLATE CITY. (HEY! DON'T BLAME ME! I DIDN'T COIN THE PHRASE! AND OBVIOUSLY I'M USING IT SARCASTICALLY...)

“The fact of the matter is that the money they received was for a specific purpose and the specific purpose was to elevate these homes to avoid future catastrophes,” Montoya tells Power Players.

He rates the home elevation program as little more than a complete failure.

* HEY... THIS WAS UNDER BUSH FIRST AND THEN OBAMA... (*SHRUG*)... THE POINT BEING THAT GOVERNMENT JUST CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO BE EVEN REASONABLY COMPETENT AND RESPONSIBLE. MONEY IS THEIR "AMMUNITION." WE MUST DISARM THEM!

“Considering there was just under $1 billion earmarked for this particular program and there's $700 million that wasn't used for that, I’d give it a very low D,” he says.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

But the lessons learned from the failed home elevation project provides a useful roadmap as Congress moves to offer recovery funds to victims of Hurricane Sandy.

“Clearly, to give money out on the front end right after a disaster, when many of these people lost everything, with a promise to do something down the road, I think is counterproductive to what the program was designed to do,” says Montoya. Montoya says his office will recommend that, for future disaster relief programs, funds are disbursed to individuals only after the project has been completed.

* SO... WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THAT CHANCES ARE... HUGE AMOUNTS OF HURRICANE SANDY "AID" WAS SQUANDERED AND MISAPPROPRIATED (STOLEN FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES) AS WELL. BRAVO! JUST... BRAVO!

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

April 3, 2013 at 5:59 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040213-650124-chicago-dead-last-in-federal-gun-prosecutions.htm?p=full

A murdered Chicago teen's mother attends the president's speech on gun control, not knowing federal gun-crime prosecutions have - in fact - dropped on his watch, with the Windy City bringing up the rear.

(*SMIRK*)

Cleopatra Cowley-Pendleton, the mother of murdered 15-year-old Chicago teen Hadiya Pendleton, was one of 20 mothers who lost children to criminal violence who were at the White House last Thursday to hear President Obama speak once again on the need for gun control.

Obama met with her and some of the others in a small group before his formal remarks and told them "how serious this issue really is and something needs to be done about it," she said.

But President Obama did not tell this group that Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) shows that the Northern Illinois district ranked 90th out of 90 in prosecutions of federal weapons crimes per capita.

(*SNORT*)

David Burnham, co-director of TRAC, states their analysis says that according to case-by-case U.S. Justice Department information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, there were 52 federal gun prosecutions in Illinois North (Chicago) in 2012, or 5.52 per million in population. By this measure, compared with the 90 federal judicial districts in the U.S., the prosecution rate in Chicago was the lowest in the country.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

Considering that there were 522 people murdered in Chicago in 2012, one would think that the documented lack of enforcement of existing gun laws by a president seeking more of them would be a national scandal.

* NOPE. ONE WOULDN'T THINK THAT AT ALL. INDEED, ONE WOULD THINK THIS REALITY WOULD BE IGNORNED... SWEPT UNDER THE RUG... SO AS NOT TO EMBARRASS OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS.

* CYNICAL...? WELL... HAVE YOU READ THIS STAT ANYWHERE ELSE...???

"Why doesn't NBC News start with: 'Shocking news on Chicago. Of all the jurisdictions in the country, Chicago's dead last on enforcement of the federal gun laws?'" the NRA's Wayne LaPierre recently asked NBC host David Gregory, who once famously waved a banned ammunition clip on his show.

Federal prosecutors in Chicago are challenging the report, claiming most gun cases here are left in county or state courts where offenders can get higher sentences.

* SO... LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT... ONLY CHICAGO THINKS THIS IS THE WAY TO GO... ALL THE OTHER 89 FEDERAL DISTRICTS ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG...??? UH-HUH.

The Syracuse study also showed that nationally federal gun crime prosecutions hit a decade low in 2011 under President Obama, down 40% from their peak under President George W. Bush in 2004.

* HMM... INTERESTING...

The number of federal weapons prosecutions fell from about 11,000 in 2004 to about 6,000 under the Obama administration in 2011, before ticking up to 7,770 in 2012.

Prosecutions for making a false statement when buying a gun are down 29% from five years ago, while prosecutions for illegal possession fell 14%, according to federal data.

President Obama didn't explain to Hadiya Pendleton's mom — or to the other mothers assembled — that while he pushes for universal background checks (which career criminals will ignore) there is only a slightly higher chance that you will be prosecuted for an actual federal gun crime (1.7 in 10,000 according to the Syracuse study) than you will be struck by lightning (1 in 10,000 according to the National Weather Service).

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

In light of the administration's record on prosecuting gun crimes, its complaints about gun show loopholes, assault weapons bans, and universal background checks ring hollow.

Perhaps President Obama is too focused on disarming potential victims to worry that the nation's existing federal gun laws are not being faithfully executed.

April 3, 2013 at 6:15 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_disability_is_the_new_welfare_eIopPX2jsOGxU3kYcqcq8J

The British government recently asked everyone receiving an “incapacity benefit” — a disability program slowly being phased out under new reforms — to submit to a medical test to confirm they were too disabled to work. A third of recipients (878,000 people) dropped out of the program rather than be examined.

Of those tested, more than half (55%) were found fit for work, and a quarter were found fit for some work.

But that’s Britain...

Americans would "never think" of taking advantage of the taxpayers or misleading the government.

(*GRIN*) (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

Well, except for the couple dozen people who have pleaded guilty to scamming the LIRR’s federal disability system in a $1 billion fraud scheme.

* 1,000,000,000.00

A billion bucks would pay for a lot of White House tours.

(*PENSIVE SMILE*)

Though hardly isolated, the LIRR scandal is an obvious black-and-white case of criminality. The real problem resides in a grayer area.

In 1960, when vastly more Americans were involved in physical labor of some kind, 0.65% of workforce participants between the ages of 18 and 64 were receiving Social Security disability insurance payments.

* ONE... MORE... TIME...

In 1960, when vastly more Americans were involved in physical labor of some kind, 0.65% of workforce participants between the ages of 18 and 64 were receiving Social Security disability insurance payments.

Fifty years later, in a much healthier America, that number has grown nearly nine-fold to 5.6%.

* ONE... MORE... TIME...

Fifty years later, in a much healthier America, that number has grown nearly nine-fold to 5.6%.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 3, 2013 at 6:38 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

In 1960, 134 Americans were working for every officially recognized disabled worker. Five decades later that ratio fell to roughly 16 to 1.

Some say these numbers can be explained by the entry of women into the workforce, the aging of baby boomers and the short-term spike in need that came with the recession. No doubt those are significant factors, but not nearly so significant as to explain why the number of people on disability has been doubling every 15 years (while the average age of recipients has gone down) or why such a huge proportion of claim injuries can’t be corroborated by a doctor.

* YOU'RE FOLLOWING THIS, RIGHT, FOLKS?

Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute and the Harvard School of Public Health notes in his recent book “A Nation of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic” that 29% of the 8.6 million Americans who received Social Security disability benefits at the end of 2011 cited injuries involving the “musculoskeletal system and the connective tissue.” Fifteen percent claimed “mood disorders.”

It’s almost impossible, Eberstadt writes, “for a medical professional to disprove a patient’s claim that he or she is suffering from sad feelings or back pain.” (And that’s if a doctor wants to disprove the claim.)

In an illuminating and predictably controversial exposé for “This American Life,” NPR’s “Planet Money” team tried to figure out why, since 2009, nearly 250,000 people have been applying for disability every month (while we’ve averaged only 150,000 new jobs every month).

* O*B*A*M*A...!!!

The answers fall on both sides of the gray middle. One factor has to do with what correspondent Chana Joffe-Walt calls the “Vast Disability Industrial Complex.” (These are the lawyers who fight to fatten the rolls of disability recipients. These lawyers get a cut of every winning claimant’s “back pay.” The more clients, the bigger the take. That’s why they run ads on TV shouting, “Disabled? Get the money you deserve!”) Then there are the doctors. Joffe-Walt profiles one rural Alabama doctor who signs off on disabilities for pretty much anyone lacking a good education on the assumption their employment prospects are grim.

* AND WHERE'S GOVERNMENT REGULATING THESE DOCTORS... REGULATING WHERE IT'S RIGHT AND PROPER FOR THEM TO REGULATE BECAUSE IT'S TAXPAYER MONEY AT STAKE?!

That points to the even bigger parts of the story. As the nature of the economy changes, disability programs are sometimes taking the place of welfare for those who feel locked out of the workforce — and state governments are loving it. States pay for welfare, the feds pay for disabilities.

* ONE... MORE... TIME...

State governments are loving it. States pay for welfare, the feds pay for disabilities.

(*GNASHING MY TEETH*)

There are those who are quick to argue that this is all bogus, there’s nothing amiss with the disability system that greater funding and a better economy won’t fix. Maybe they’re right. One way to find out would be to ask every recipient to get a thorough examination, just as they did in Britain. Maybe the results here in the United States would be interesting too.

* SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN!

April 3, 2013 at 6:38 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/344531/stockton-s-racket-and-ours-kevin-d-williamson

Words of wisdom from an investment adviser: "When it comes to municipal bonds, the ones you want - you can’t get; and the ones you can get - you don’t want."

Assured Guaranty and other large holders of bonds issued by the city of Stockton, CA., got a sharp reminder of that on Monday when a federal judge ruled that the city was entitled to file bankruptcy under federal law to gain protection from bondholders and other creditors.

The bondholders’ suit was probably never going to stand up: The city is plainly insolvent. Faced with a choice between screwing its bondholders and reneging on the pension benefits it owes to union goons, Stockton’s leaders clearly calculated that at this point they have little to lose by shortchanging bondholders.

(Stockton's credit rating is already so low that it’d have a hard time financing a used Hyundai with $5,000 down.)

And that while creditors may sue, complain, and caterwaul, they do not get to vote.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Moody’s responded by downgrading the credit on the pension-obligation bonds of nearby Solano County.

* CONNECT THE DOTS, PEOPLE... CONNECT THE DOTS...

(*SIGH*)

Pension-obligation bonds fall under a special class of idiocy. Municipalities with large unfunded liabilities for employee pensions wipe those obligations off the books by selling municipal bonds, investing the proceeds in stocks or other investments in hopes of earning a spread that will make the whole thing work out for them. Noted bond speculator Jon Corzine once called the maneuver “the dumbest idea I ever heard.” (Make a note: Too stupid for Jon Corzine is a rarified kind of stupid.)

But even if large losses are imposed on other creditors, Stockton, like many cities and states, probably cannot afford to meet its pension obligations.

(*SHRUG*)

Down the road a bit, the fools and miscreants who run the city of San Bernardino, CA., have stopped making their payments to CALPERS, the state’s public-pension giant.

The situation presents a few interesting problems.

California law says cities have to meet their pension obligations.

Federal law says cities may seek bankruptcy protection.

Math says that no matter what the law says, there probably isn’t enough money to honor the pension obligations.

What will happen is anybody’s guess.

* BONDHOLDERS WILL GET SCREWED FIRST... THEN TAXPAYERS - PERHAPS STATE... DEFINITELY FEDERAL.

(*SHRUG*)

But relatively speaking, the cities’ cases are straightforward, because there exists such a thing as bankruptcy law for municipalities.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 3, 2013 at 6:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

There is no bankruptcy law for states.

The state of California, like the criminal state of Illinois, also has obligations that it almost certainly cannot afford to discharge. But there is no legal provision for them to do so.

* FEDERAL TAXPAYERS... OH, FEDERAL TAXPAYERS... HERE, HERE, FEDERAL TAXPAYERS... COM'ON OVER... BE GOOD BOYS AND GIRLS...

There are a few obvious conclusions to be made: States and municipalities bet big on the real-estate bubble; they succumbed to the rosiest of expectations about their investment earnings; they promised their unions far more than they could actually afford to pay; and they will continue to do so until they have completely depleted their resources. For an approximate model of the method of operation at work here, I recommend this short discussion: “Evolution from a Virus’s Point of View.”

(*CHUCKLE*)

Illinois and New Jersey before it are unusual in that the states were in fact indicted for their crimes, with the SEC charging them with specific instances of securities fraud for misleading investors about the true state of their finances.

* NONE OF THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE GO TO JAIL... OR EVEN HAVE THEIR PERSONAL FORTUNES STRIPPED FROM THEM... IN THE END ONLY THE TAXPAYERS PAY.

But the unindicted governments are largely indistinguishable from criminal organizations, too. People sometimes joke: “If I ran my business like the government does, I’d be in jail.” The thing is, that’s not a joke.

* NOPE. NOPE, IT'S NOT. (ONLY... IT IS... MORE'S THE SHAME... MORE'S THE PITY...)

Businesses are expected to account for their liabilities. Lying about your liabilities is a crime. You can go to jail for that. Government at every level lies about liabilities, from the halls of power in Washington to third-rate burgs such as Stockton and San Bernardino. But as somebody once said, “When the president does it, that means it isn’t illegal.”

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Some investment professionals have suggested to me that bondholders are fools for entrusting their money to the likes of Stockton and San Bernardino. I agree. But the bondholders at least had a choice in the matter. If they’re fools, what does that make taxpayers?

* SLAVES. (*SHRUG*) VICTIMS TO BE EXPLOITED AND ROBBED BY AN OUT OF CONTROL TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

April 3, 2013 at 6:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/03/cancer-clinics-are-turning-away-thousands-of-medicare-patients-blame-the-sequester/

Cancer clinics across the country have begun turning away thousands of Medicare patients, blaming the sequester budget cuts.

* BULLSHIT.

Oncologists say the reduced funding, which took effect for Medicare on April 1, makes it impossible to administer expensive chemotherapy drugs while staying afloat financially.

* OBAMACARE TOOK HALF A BILLION DOLLARS OUT OF MEDICARE ADVANTAGE AND "REALLOCATED" IT TO OBAMACARE. OBAMACARE ALSO DELIBERATELY EXPANDED MEDICARE ELIGIBILITY. LAST BUT NOT LEAST... AGAIN... OBAMA SUPPORTED LAST YEARS "GRAND BARGAIN" OUT OF WHICH CAME THE SEQUESTER WHEN ALL THE POLITICIANS - BOTH DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN - WHO HAD SAID "TRUST US, WE'LL WORK IT OUT" DIDN'T WORK IT OUT.

* FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... YOU'RE READING MY COMMENTS AND HOPEFULLY THEY'RE JOGGING YOUR MEMORY. THE AVERAGE READER OF MAINSTREAM REPORTING SUCH AS THIS SIMPLY BUY IT AT FACE VALUE. AGAIN... IF YOU DON'T MIND BEING LIED TO, MANIPULATED, AND "MANAGED," THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH "REPORTING" SUCH AS THIS. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU EXPECT TRUE NON-BIASED REPORTING FROM THE LIBERAL MEDIA... WELL... THEN I'VE GOT A BRIDGE TO SELL YOU!

After an emergency meeting Tuesday, Vacirca’s clinics decided that they would no longer see one-third of their 16,000 Medicare patients. “If we treated the patients receiving the most expensive drugs, we’d be out of business in six months to a year,” said Jeff Vacirca, chief executive of North Shore Hematology Oncology Associates in New York. “The drugs we’re going to lose money on we’re not going to administer right now.”

* UNDERSTAND, PEOPLE... IN THE REAL WORLD... THE GOVERNMENT'S PROMISES ARE WORTHLESS. JUST ASK THE OVER 5,000 CANCER PATIENTS WHO VACIRCA'S CLINICS WON'T TREAT.

(*SHRUG*)

Legislators meant to partially shield Medicare from the automatic budget cuts triggered by the sequester, limiting the program to a 2% reduction — a fraction of the cuts seen by other federal programs. But oncologists say the cut is unexpectedly damaging for cancer patients because of the way those treatments are covered.

* WHICH IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT SAYS THEY MUST BE COVERED!

* FOLKS... DON'T YOU SEE THE SCAM HERE...?!?! READ THE DETAILS FROM THE ARTICLE... IT'S CHILLINGLY FASCINATING.

* SERIOUSLY... READ THE FULL ARTICLE FOR YOURSELVES. THEN ASK YOURSELVES... IS IT EVEN REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT OBAMA WASN'T BRIEFED MONTHS AGO THAT THIS WAS COMING.

April 3, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)