Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 30, 2013


Eric Cantor is a piece of garbage...

 (See: Newsbite #1)

Posted by at

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://nbclatino.com/2013/07/28/dream-9-in-solitary-confinement-as-immigration-activists-step-up-pressure/

* FIRST... LOOK AT WHAT I'M LINKING TO - NBC LATINO. NICE... LET'S RESEGREGATE! SPECIAL INTERESTS UBER ALLES!

(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)

* DIVISIVE AS HELL IS WHAT I CALL IT.

Immigration reform supporters...

* NO! AMNESTY SUPPORTERS! LET'S BE HONEST... BECAUSE WITHOUT HONESTY... WHAT'S THE POINT OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE?

...continued to push for action this weekend, with both legislators and activists taking to the streets to further their cause.

* NOTICE... "ACTIVISTS" WHOSE "CAUSE" IS "REFORM." (ALL VERY TOUCHING... aka: PROPAGANDA - NOT JOURNALISM.)

Families gathered on Saturday to keep pressure on the House to support a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.

* ACTUALLY IT'S BETWEEN 11 MILLION AND 20 MILLIONS...

* AND BY "UNDOCUMENTED" THEY MEAN "ILLEGAL."

The families, who worked with the advocacy group the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM), protested in the home states of several key GOP leaders including Speaker Boehner of Ohio, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia.

* BOTH PIECES OF GARBAGE... BUT FOR PURPOSES OF THIS NEWSBITE LET'S FOCUS ON CANTOR.

“Our demand is simple,” said FIRM spokesperson Kica Matos. “Pass an immigration reform bill in the House by August 2 that one includes a path to citizenship and that two keeps families together.”

* BY "KEEPS FAMILIES TOGETHER" THEY MEAN A CONSTANT INFLOW OF THEIR FAMILIES ABROAD COMING HERE TO THE AMERICAN WELFARE STATE.

Meantime, some of the very leaders the families sought to pressure were traveling to other states to push reform forward- including Rep. Cantor.

Cantor was part of a bipartisan group of lawmakers who went on an immigration “pilgrimage” this weekend along with Sen. Robert Menendez...

* ROBERT MENENDEZ...

* FOLKS... THAT TELLS YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CANTOR. MENENDEZ IS A CORRUPT SEXUAL PREDATOR... AND CANTOR GOES ALONG ON A "PILGRIMAGE" WITH HIM. DISGUSTING. BEYOND THE PALE. CANTOR IS A TRUE PIECE OF GARBAGE.

July 30, 2013 at 11:12 AM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/29/weiner-didnt-declare-costs-for-lavish-2010-wedding-to-long-suffering-wife/#ixzz2aSt2epsf

Anthony Weiner may have violated federal law when he failed to disclose his lavish six-figure wedding in his financial disclosure forms, says a government accountability group.

* WHY WOULD HE HAVE TO DISCLOSE HIS WEDDING EXPENSES...??? (READ ON!)

The cost for the ceremony was at least $100,000 but probably ran closer to $250,000 including all accommodations, clothing and extras. Neither Weiner nor Abedin had the resources to pay for the ultra-expensive wedding, yet neither recorded gifts on their Financial Disclosure Reports for that year.
Ads by Google

* HOW DO WE KNOW THAT NEITHER WEINER NOR ABEDIN HAD "THE RESOURCES" TO PAY FOR THE WEDDING? BOTH HAD SIX FIGURE JOBS... WE'RE TALKING ADULT PROFESSIONALS...

(*SHRUG*)

Even though there is an exemption for gifts from personal friends, the Ethics in Government Act requires written permission from the House Ethics Committee for any Congressman getting gifts worth more than $250. Weiner had no such written permission.

* AHH...

* BUT I'M GUESSING THAT WE'RE TALKING NOT JUST THE GIFTS... BUT WHO FINANCED THE WEDDING IF WEINER AND ABEDIN DIDN'T!

NLPC was preparing a complaint to the House Ethics Committee in 2011 against Weiner for filing a false Financial Disclosure Report when Weiner resigned from Congress after the first of his many sexting scandals, leaving the Committee without jurisdiction to take up an investigation.

* AND OF COURSE THE IRS WAS TOO BUSY TARGETING CONSERVATIVES...

(*RUEFUL SNORT*)

Ethics watchdog group National Legal and Policy Center Chairman Ken Boehm stated, “Knowingly filing a materially false Financial Disclosure Report not only violates the Ethics in Government Act but also the False Statements Accountability Act, a federal criminal statute. The public is entitled to know who paid the hundreds of thousands of dollars it apparently cost for Weiner to pay for such an extravagant wedding reception. Weiner is not above the law.”

* AHH... BUT OBVIOUSLY HE IS. CERTAINLY ABEDIN IS. CERTAINLY THE CLINTONS ARE.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

July 30, 2013 at 11:38 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

* LISTEN... FOLKS... AMERIKA 2013 IS A NATION WHERE BOB MENENDEZ AND CHARLIE RANGEL ARE SERVING MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE RESPECTIVELY! JON CORZINE IS NO LONGER UNDER INVESTIGATION... THOUGH SOMETHING LIKE $2.5 BILLION IN ASSETS WHICH WERE HIS RESPONSIBILITY ARE STILL "MISSING." BILL CLINTON IS A REVERED ELDER STATESMAN! HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON IS THE ODDS ON FAVORITE TO BECOME AMERICA'S NEXT PRESIDENT... FOLLOWING THE SECOND TERM OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA...!!! THIS COUNTRY IS TOTALLY FRIGGIN' SCREWED; THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW.

House rules allow a waiver for wedding gifts but there must be a written waiver request and there must be disclosure on the Financial Disclosure Reports. A Member can seek a waiver of the disclosure reports but that request is open to the public.

Abedin and Weiner were married in Oheka Castle on Long Island in 2010, which was “Long Island’s most expensive wedding venue,” according to Newsday in January 2011. “The average wedding cost — $100,000 — does not include flowers, photography, band and hotel rooms.”

Abedin’s wedding dress may have been almost as expensive as the wedding. Made by world-famous designer and dressmaker to Hillary Clinton, Oscar de la Renta, the custom dress would have gone for over $50,000.

* YEP... THESE FOLKS ARE "JUST LIKE ME AND YOU."

Another Clintonite, Bryan Rafanelli, was the wedding planner, some three weeks before he did Chelsea Clinton’s nuptials. The event was officiated by Bill Clinton, even though according to state law Clinton could not legally perform the marriage.

(*JUST THROWING MY ARMS UP IN THE AIR*)

Abedin made only $135,000 annually working for the State Department, according to financial disclosures. Anthony Weiner made $175,000 as a congressman.

* "ONLY." (WOW... WHAT JADED FUCKS THESE "JOURNALISTS" ARE...)

What is not known is how much Abedin made while working as a consultant and when that work began. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton created a controversial arrangement for Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department. Abedin has rejected attempts by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa to ascertain how much she was paid and by whom.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Abedin also worked for Teneo, a strategic consulting firm, which was founded by Doug Band, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton.

She also worked as a consultant to the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation...

...and worked in a personal capacity for Mrs. Clinton, a cozy relationship that watchdog groups like CREW have questioned.

* I WONDER WHAT HER PUBLIC SALARY AND BENEFITS PACKAGE TRANSLATED TO IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF MINUTES... SECONDS... SHE ACTUALLY SPENT WORKING FOR "WE THE PEOPLE" IN HER "OFFICIAL CAPACITY" AS A "GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE."

July 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/29/cbc-recommends-sheila-jackson-lee-homeland-securit/

Just two weeks after Janet Napolitano announced her resignation as Secretary of Homeland Security, the Congressional Black Caucus has suggested Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston fill her spot.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* FOLKS... ANYONE NOT FAMILIAR WITH MS. LEE SHOULD DO A BIT OF GOOGLING.

* HELL... ANYONE NOT FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE "BLACK CAUCUS" SHOULD DO A BIT OF GOOGLING ON THAT... er... "HONORABLE"... BODY.

(*SNORT*)

July 30, 2013 at 11:48 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/152931

This past week in Galesburg, Illinois, President Obama gave his first speech on his [latest] plans to reinvigorate a still stalled economy at Knox College.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

The speech itself received little press coverage — so little, in fact, that the Sunday New York Times ran a puff-piece on it to build interest in his next speech, on a similar topic, scheduled for Tuesday, July 30 in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

In these speeches the president is using the bully pulpit to argue for redistributive, pro-regulatory, pro-union policies that he claims will serve the middle class.

* THEY WON'T.

But his all too familiar remarks are likely to continue to fall on deaf ears, as the public imagination turns its attention to real events, including the Securities and Exchange Commission’s indictment of SAC Capital Advisors and the public fight over who will assume the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve at Ben Bernanke leaves. Will the President choose the oft-impolitic Lawrence Summers, who is suspicious of the stimulus, or the cautious Janet Yellen, who supports it?

* OF TWO BAD CHOICES, SUMMERS IS THE LEAST BAD.

The President’s speech at Knox College needs some close deconstruction because it sheds harsh light on a problem that has dogged his domestic policy agenda from the beginning: intellectual rigidity. The President, who has never worked a day in the private sector, has no systematic view of the way in which businesses operate or economies grow.

* RE-READ THAT LAST BIT, FOLKS; IT DOES EXPLAIN A LOT.

The President never starts a discussion by asking how the basic laws of supply and demand operate and shows no faith that markets are the best mechanism for bringing these two forces into equilibrium.

* UNFORTUNATELY THIS APPLIES TO FAR TOO MANY POLITICIANS.

Because he does not understand rudimentary economics, he relies on anecdotes to make his argument. He notes, for example, that the Maytag plant that used to be in Galesburg is no longer in operation — it closed in 2004 — but he never asks what set of forces made it untenable for the business to continue to operate there. (He never mentions that Maytag’s relocation of its manufacturing operations to Mexico may have had something to do with a strong union presence or the dreadful economic climate in Illinois.)

Unfortunately, our President rules out deregulation or lower taxes as a way to unleash productive forces in the country. Indeed, he is unable to grasp the simple point that the only engine of economic prosperity is an active market in which all parties benefit from voluntary exchange. Both taxes and regulation disrupt those exchanges, causing fewer exchanges to take place — and those which do occur have generated smaller gains than they should. The two-fold attraction of markets is that they foster better incentives for production as they lower administrative costs. Their comparative flexibility means that they have a capacity for self-correction that is lacking in a top-down regulatory framework that limits wages, prices, and the other conditions of voluntary exchange.

* OBAMA DOESN'T BELIEVE THIS... OBAMA DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS SO... OBAMA DOESN'T CARE THAT HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND...

Instead of suggesting policies to reduce the impact of government on production, Obama reverts into a lament for the lost middle class.

* NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FORMER LEADS TO THE LATTER...!!! (FOLKS... OBAMA IS APPALLINGLY ILL-EDUCATED FOR A MAN WHO GRADUATED FROM IVY LEAGUE SCHOOLS.)

July 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/us/bradley-manning-verdict.html?hp&_r=0

A military judge on Tuesday found Pfc. Bradley Manning not guilty of aiding the enemy...

* FOLKS... COMPARE AND CONTRAST THIS REALITY TO EVERYTHING YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THE CASE AND MANNING FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES AND GOVERNMENT-FRIENDLY MEDIA SINCE THE STORY BROKE.

(*SHRUG*)

...but convicted him of multiple counts of violating the Espionage Act.

WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE ESPIONAGE ACT...?

(*SHRUG*)

July 30, 2013 at 1:43 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578615713874809602.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The conventional critique of the Federal Reserve's policies of near-zero interest rates and massive monetary expansion is that they risk kindling excess aggregate demand and high inflation. Yet inflation world-wide remains low...

* FOLKS... WHAT DID YOU PAY PER GALLON THE LAST TIME YOU STOPPED FOR GAS? HOW MUCH DO YOU PAY FOR GROCERIES IN THE AVERAGE MONTH? HOW MUCH DEBT DID YOU TAKE ON (OR WILL YOU TAKE ON) TO SEND YOUR KID(S) TO COLLEGE? HOW'BOUT INSURANCE PREMIUMS... HOW'RE THEY TREATING YA THE LAST FEW YEARS? FEES... TAXES... SURCHARGES... TOLLS...?

* I KNOW... I KNOW... THE AUTHOR'S POINT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A THROWAWAY LINE; IT'S NOT, THOUGH; IT'S BASICALLY A LIE.

Nevertheless, artificially low short- and long-term interest rates can still distort the financial system and hold the economy back. And modest increases in interest rates to more "normal" levels could lead to more investment without an inflation risk.

* YEP!

* HERE'S THE PROBLEM, THOUGH - RAISING INTEREST RATES WOULD ALSO LEAD TO A HUGE INCREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT AND DEFICITS AS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WAS FORCED TO PAY OUT MORE OUT TO CREDITORS DUE TO HIGHER INTEREST RATES.

For an example of how near-zero short-term interest rates can inhibit private investment, consider a bank that accepts deposits and makes new loans of three-months' duration. The traditional spread between deposit and loan rates is about three percentage points. With this spread, banks can lend to small- and medium-size enterprises, the so-called SMEs—making loans that carry moderate risks and higher administrative costs per dollar lent. To increase the safety of its overall loan portfolio, the bank can also lend greater amounts to larger, more established corporate enterprises.

* GOT THAT...? (RE-READ IF NECESSARY...)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

July 30, 2013 at 8:02 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

However, as short-term interest rates are compressed toward zero, larger corporate borrowers find it more advantageous to raise money by selling short-term commercial paper directly to other corporations, pension funds and money-market mutual funds. This leaves smaller banks in particular with a riskier portfolio of loans to SMEs, and the need to raise more bank capital to support riskier liabilities — so they may instead shrink the size of their loan portfolios.

* GOT THAT...? (AGAIN... RE-READ IF NECESSARY...)

Also, smaller banks can't easily borrow funds from other banks to lend out to companies when interest rates are near zero. These other banks aren't inclined to lend their excess reserves for a tiny yield, especially in the presence of even a moderate counter-party risk. They will instead just hold excess reserves.

* MAKES SENSE, DOESN'T IT?

As interest rates fall, money-market mutual funds will buy highly rated commercial paper and other short-dated financial instruments. However, if short-term interest rates approach zero, these money funds fear "breaking the buck."

* OK... READ ON... IT'S NOT COMPLICATED... (JUST THINK "CASH FLOW" IN YOUR OWN PERSONAL SITUATION.)

Even a small negative random shock to the mutual fund's portfolio from a client failing to repay could jeopardize the fund's ability to cover interest payments to depositors. This means that depositors might only get 99 cents back on each dollar invested. Sponsors of these money-market mutual funds, often banks, are paranoid about the reputational costs of breaking the buck so they may either close them or limit new deposits to the funds.

(*NOD*)

Despite the difficulties in an ultralow interest environment in getting short-term financing, can't larger, well-known corporations still get the investment funds they need by selling longer-term bonds?

* WELL...???

The problem here is that as banks and other financial institutions get used to near-zero interest rates and accumulate low-interest bonds for some years, they end up in a trap from which escape is difficult. And this trap has negative implications even for corporations that seek direct, long-term financing. The trap was revealed for all to see after Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke's suggestion, in congressional testimony on May 22, that the central bank might slow down its huge purchases of long-term Treasury bonds and other long-term securities—purchases designed to keep long-term interest rates low. Mr. Bernanke carefully hedged his statement. He said that certain preconditions of the economic recovery, notably a sharp fall in the unemployment rate to 6.5%, had to be met before tapering could begin. But markets ignored these caveats. Long-term interest rates rose from 1.5% to 2.5% in the U.S., and stock markets crashed around the world in the four days that followed.

* OOPS!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

July 30, 2013 at 8:03 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

A chastened — and trapped — Mr. Bernanke [then back-tracked and] said in a June 19 press conference that money will remain easy for the foreseeable future. But the trap matters for the efficiency of the long-term bond market.

What have central banks wrought?

As Andrew Haldane, a top official at the Bank of England, declared in June of his own institution, "the biggest government bond bubble in history."

The Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and European Central Bank all have used quantitative easing to force down their long-term interest rates. The result is that major industrial economies have all dramatically increased the market value of government and other long-term bonds held by their banks and other financial institutions. Now each central bank fears long-term rates rising to normal levels, because their nation's commercial banks would suffer big capital losses — in short, they would "de-capitalize." But the potential turmoil in bond values also makes it more difficult for corporations seeking to raise long-term financing. Indeed, bond-market dealers in the U.S. are currently paring their inventories because of the risks associated with high volatility.

In 2009, when the Federal Reserve initiated quantitative easing, the prices of bonds and equities rose as long-term interest rates fell so as to buoy the economy. Now, after a low-interest-rate "equilibrium" for some years, the potential for exiting its quantitative-easing program means high volatility in bond markets — a volatility that inhibits new bond offerings for domestic investment.

Mr. Bernanke's tapering speech illustrates how that can happen: New bond and equity issues are put on hold.

By trying to stimulate aggregate demand and reduce unemployment, central banks have pushed interest rates down too much and inadvertently distorted the financial system in a way that constrains both short and long-term business investment.

The misnamed monetary stimuli are actually holding the economy back.

The way out is for major central banks — the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank — to begin slowly increasing short-term interest rates in a coordinated way to some common modest target level, such as 2%.

Coordination is crucial to minimize disruptions in exchange rates.

They should also phase out bond buying so that long-term interest rates once again become determined by markets.

Paradoxically, such modest increases in interest rates could actually stimulate investment and growth in all four economies.

July 30, 2013 at 8:03 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)