WH Climate Adviser: 'A War on Coal Is Exactly What’s Needed'...

Obama unveils plan that skirts Congress...

Liberal supporters get speech before public...



The War on Coal continues; what an incredible waste.

Change we can believe in ...

SCOTUS rules favorably on fair voting - that is, you have to prove you are an American citizen to vote. Obama camp decries the decision.

http://news.investors.com/062513-661264-obamacare-database-hub-creates-privacy-nightmare.htm


Simply chilling.


Change we can believe in ....

QuakerOats;1462650 wrote:http://news.investors.com/062513-661264-obamacare-database-hub-creates-privacy-nightmare.htm

Simply chilling.

"The federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic,

LOL, bigger than Project Narwhal - Obama's campaign database? Doubtful.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100844365?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=100844365%7CObamacare%20Challenge:%20Youn

This probably deserves its own thread, but perhaps people will realize that we all act rationally, even young people.

Obamacare screws the young people (that voted him in). They don't need "health insurance", they only need catastrophic coverage. Yet this program will force them to pay more in order to pay for the people that actually need medical services (and ironically the people that put us in our current economic situation).

To analogize Obamacare to real insurance, this would be like the government forcing a 50 year old driver with a perfect safety record that drives a Buick to pay an additional premium to help cover for the higher premiums for young, dangerous drivers with multiple violations.

This could be the largest regressive tax in the history of the U.S.

Manhattan Buckeye;1462775 wrote:Yet this program will force them to pay more in order to pay for the people that actually need medical services (and ironically the people that put us in our current economic situation).

Yeah, but we pay SS for like 45+ years before we get any benefit at all, so by comparison Obamakare isn't the worst.

[h=3]First Quarter GDP Revised Sharply Downward.[/h]Bloomberg News (6/26, Chandra) reports that the Department of Commerce released its latest look at Q1 GDP growth on Wednesday, sharply revising it downward from a 2.4% annual rate to a 1.85 annual rate. The drop was driven by a sharp decline in household spending, which fell from a originally-reported 3.4% rate to a 2.6% rate. Household spending accounts for about 70% of economic activity. Bloomberg says that the decline reflects “less spending on services by consumers who were trying to make ends meet after taxes rose.”
The Wall Street Journal (6/27, A2, Portlock, House, Subscription Publication) notes the contribution of household spending to the decline, and also notes that estimates of business investment were revised sharply downward. The Journal says that numbers show the economy was already losing steam even before growth slowed in the last few months.




The assault on jobs and economic growth continues. Between tax increases and obamaKare and the War on Energy we are simply killing ourselves.

QuakerOats;1463769 wrote: The assault on jobs and economic growth continues. Between tax increases and obamaKare and the War on Energy we are simply killing ourselves.

Just like Barry's Regime planned it out in the 2008 campaign..."Fundamental change is coming". The fastest way to a centrally-planned government based economy is to destroy the quasi-capitalist economy we enjoyed for centuries.

QuakerOats;1463769 wrote:First Quarter GDP Revised Sharply Downward.

Bloomberg News (6/26, Chandra) reports that the Department of Commerce released its latest look at Q1 GDP growth on Wednesday, sharply revising it downward from a 2.4% annual rate to a 1.85 annual rate. The drop was driven by a sharp decline in household spending, which fell from a originally-reported 3.4% rate to a 2.6% rate. Household spending accounts for about 70% of economic activity. Bloomberg says that the decline reflects “less spending on services by consumers who were trying to make ends meet after taxes rose.”
The Wall Street Journal (6/27, A2, Portlock, House, Subscription Publication) notes the contribution of household spending to the decline, and also notes that estimates of business investment were revised sharply downward. The Journal says that numbers show the economy was already losing steam even before growth slowed in the last few months.




The assault on jobs and economic growth continues. Between tax increases and obamaKare and the War on Energy we are simply killing ourselves.

Does QuakerOats know that he is acknowledging that this is evidence that fiscal policies aimed at deficit reduction in a depressed economy is contractionary like I have argued for several years???

BGFalcons82;1463824 wrote:Just like Barry's Regime planned it out in the 2008 campaign..."Fundamental change is coming". The fastest way to a centrally-planned government based economy is to destroy the quasi-capitalist economy we enjoyed for centuries.

Deficit reduction which you have desired for years is now destroying our quasi-capitalist economy we've enjoyed for years. Got it.

In actuality, you might not be far off. When hard money fetishists and debt-demagogues stand in the way of expansionary fiscal and monetary policy that is what lays the groundwork for the real horrific leftist revolutions that come to power in their wake.

BoatShoes;1463832 wrote:Deficit reduction which you have desired for years is now destroying our quasi-capitalist economy we've enjoyed for years. Got it.

In actuality, you might not be far off. When hard money fetishists and debt-demagogues stand in the way of expansionary fiscal and monetary policy that is what lays the groundwork for the real horrific leftist revolutions that come to power in their wake.

No No No. Do not make up shit and say I said it. Barry is NOT practicing deficit reduction nor austerity. How do you get that? Has spending decreased? Have government subsidies been reduced? They are NOT his plan and you know it. There is not one shred of deficit reduction in his nearly 5 years at the helm.

He's destroying the economy with massive tax increases, spending on a historically high level both in actual dollars and as a percent of GDP, a healthkare plan that is defined as a "train wreck" by its author, and now an all-out assault on coal because he thinks he's emporer.

Regarding your second comment, I agree when the government tit dries up and those who've made a life out of suckling the manna are suddenly cut-off, the revolt will come from the Left. At that point, the socialists and statists that drank all of the ObamaAid will come begging for the gun-toting, Bible-thumping, neanderthal, redneck, TEA Party types to save our country. How rich.

Audit confirms IRS targeted conservatives, not liberals...

Targeted 292 Tea Party groups, just 6 progressive groups...



The Tyranny Tour in full swing .......... change we can believe in ...

BoatShoes;1463829 wrote:Does QuakerOats know that he is acknowledging that this is evidence that fiscal policies aimed at deficit reduction in a depressed economy is contractionary like I have argued for several years???

Tooooo tooooo funny ............ go find yourself a chart of government spending; we'll help you read it.

You are so out of touch with Main St business that I am embarrassed for you.

BGFalcons82;1464086 wrote:No No No. Do not make up shit and say I said it. Barry is NOT practicing deficit reduction nor austerity (Demonstrably False). How do you get that? Has spending decreased? Have government subsidies been reduced? They are NOT his plan and you know it. There is not one shred of deficit reduction in his nearly 5 years at the helm. (Demonstrably False)

He's destroying the economy with massive tax increases, spending on a historically high level both in actual dollars and as a percent of GDP, a healthkare plan that is defined as a "train wreck" by its author, and now an all-out assault on coal because he thinks he's emporer.

Regarding your second comment, I agree when the government tit dries up and those who've made a life out of suckling the manna are suddenly cut-off, the revolt will come from the Left. At that point, the socialists and statists that drank all of the ObamaAid will come begging for the gun-toting, Bible-thumping, neanderthal, redneck, TEA Party types to save our country. How rich.

You are incorrect in several of your statements:


"Deficit is Shrinking Quickly"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324216004578483223631771366.html

A rapidly shrinking federal budget deficit is upending bipartisan talks to reach a federal budget deal, illustrating the conundrum Washington faces with an improving near-term fiscal outlook but continued longer-term pressures tied to aging baby boomers. The Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday the federal deficit is expected to shrink to $642 billion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, narrowing from the agency's estimate of $845 billion three months ago and sharply lower than last year's $1.087 trillion shortfall.

But yes, higher taxes and lower spending are both creating drag on our economy as they take money out of people's pockets who would've spent it.

The Confidence Fairy argument was a myth. We have certainty about what tax rates are and certainty that Obamacare is being put into place and certainy that that the sequester is in effect and certainty that the deficit is reducing as a percentage of gdp....yet markets freak when Ben Bernanke makes any hint that he's going to take away the punch bowl before the party starts and allow the confidence fairy to take hold.

You're distorting what Max Baucus really meant but yes at the margins it's affecting the supply side and we should've just went with Medicare for All. It is pro-business, pro-capital and pro-worker. Businesses shouldn't be in the business of providing health insurance but it's better than the alternative.


The revolt from leftists comes when widespread economic stagnation and unemployment persists and it would look like Occupy on steroids don't think Tea Partiers will want any part of that. That is why Marx lamented social insurance after all because it got in the way of the proletariat discovering their common interests and uniting to overthrow the government and the capitalist class.

QuakerOats;1464193 wrote:Tooooo tooooo funny ............ go find yourself a chart of government spending; we'll help you read it.

You are so out of touch with Main St business that I am embarrassed for you.

As you can see government spending has begun to go down and this is without the sequester being included in this graph.

Edit:

Better Graph here:

Thanks for proving my point. We have spent an extra $6 trillion and it has had no positive impact and now we are realizing that in a few short years the extra $6 trillion will increase our debt service to levels we cannot afford especially as rates rise, and that will be the final nail in the coffin; we will have spent ourselves into depression. All the government spending in the world will not solve our problems so long as we have anti-business, anti-taxpayer, anti-capitalist policies being heaped upon us by a radical marxist regime. It's like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole ....... and you liberals keep hammering away and the situation gets no better ---- quite comical in its own way.

QuakerOats;1464291 wrote:Thanks for proving my point. We have spent an extra $6 trillion and it has had no positive impact and now we are realizing that in a few short years the extra $6 trillion will increase our debt service to levels we cannot afford especially as rates rise, and that will be the final nail in the coffin; we will have spent ourselves into depression. All the government spending in the world will not solve our problems so long as we have anti-business, anti-taxpayer, anti-capitalist policies being heaped upon us by a radical marxist regime. It's like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole ....... and you liberals keep hammering away and the situation gets no better ---- quite comical in its own way.

You have no point. As evidenced by the reduction in spending and increases in taxes...are GDP is beginning to slow again. What you should ascertain from this information is that the $6 trillion worth of net financial assets into the economy from deficit spending was good and that we need more...not less.

You are still worried about problems that we don't face while the clear and present danger is mass unemployment because the government keeps taking money out of the private economy and threatening to do more! Stop being afraid of the national debt when the FED can always set whatever interest rate it wants!

It boggles the mind how Boat can look at those graphs and blame virtually non-existent growth on the gubmit not spending enough. Economic growth has clearly decoupled from govt spending. Why? Maybe there's an answer in the growing stockpiles of corporate cash. In other words, the massive flushing of govt money is probably a combination of crowding out effects and corporate welfare. There's been no multiplier - that dollar from the govt basically just gets hoarded on the corporate balance sheet and is producing no growth effects.

Truthfully the multiplier effect here is virtually non-existent and we are literally just flushing money down the toilet. That's why govt spending has gone up and down recently but the economy remains tightly range-bound in a slow, subpar growth. At a certain point, because of diminishing returns the muted multiplier gain is offset by the waste and inefficiency of govt spending.

gut;1464297 wrote:At a certain point, because of diminishing returns the muted multiplier gain is offset by the waste and inefficiency of govt spending.

So at what point does the corporate cash hoarding become less attractive than retooling and reinvestment to create more demand?

Once most consumers become largely or fully dependent upon the gubmint tit to survive, there will be far less demand for the products and services the corporations provide because the cash flow simply won't exist.

Sooner or later the cash hoarding will be detrimental to profitability. Or will it? I've said it before, I'm a financial lightweight so I can only guess at the financial realities.

Still I gotta believe that what goes around comes around. It always does.

If we had pro-growth, pro-business, pro-taxpayer policies, there would be far greater investment by the private sector. But with this regime running roughshod over private enterprise THERE IS NO CONFIDENCE and there is NO INCENTIVE to re-invest; ergo, cash hoarding. Look at the radicals in this administration; look at what they are doing, (and imagine how much more damage they would wreak if the republicans did not hold the House); it is scary and it is threatening, and that is why no rational being is putting their funds at risk.

Growing government is NOT the answer; it never has been, and never will be. And the charts above prove that ..... AGAIN.

believer;1464864 wrote:So at what point does the corporate cash hoarding become less attractive than retooling and reinvestment to create more demand?

Likely when confidence is restored after the economic lightweight occupying the WH turns his focus to building a library.

But basically cash hoarding can be attributed to two fundamentals of classical theory:
1) increasing cash and ROI in anticipation of future tax increases
2) muted investment because lowered future expectations of an economy weighted down by a bloated govt

gut;1464297 wrote:It boggles the mind how Boat can look at those graphs and blame virtually non-existent growth on the gubmit not spending enough. Economic growth has clearly decoupled from govt spending. Why? Maybe there's an answer in the growing stockpiles of corporate cash. In other words, the massive flushing of govt money is probably a combination of crowding out effects and corporate welfare. There's been no multiplier - that dollar from the govt basically just gets hoarded on the corporate balance sheet and is producing no growth effects.

Truthfully the multiplier effect here is virtually non-existent and we are literally just flushing money down the toilet. That's why govt spending has gone up and down recently but the economy remains tightly range-bound in a slow, subpar growth. At a certain point, because of diminishing returns the muted multiplier gain is offset by the waste and inefficiency of govt spending.

This means that the government is not injecting enough net financial assets into the private economy either because taxes are too high or government spending is too low in comparison to the private sector's desire to save! If the deficit is not large enough to overcome savings desires and spur investment the government needs to be putting more money into the hands of potential customers! That is why we see the paltry growth getting even worse when our nominally large deficit starts getting smaller!

These funds are sitting idle. The cutting taxes or raising spending to put more financial assets into the economy does not crowd out private corporate investment when it is sitting idle. Rather it gives the entrepreneur an economy he can work with and crowds in that investment and cash that is sitting idle.

Of course businesses are going to sit on cash when customers are severly demand constrained, having their taxes rise, losing their benefits, losing their government jobs, when businesses whose customers have government jobs are getting fired, when the private sector has large debts on their balance sheets.

Basically your argument that there's "no multiplier" is really making my argument for me that we need to be putting more into the economy because we're not overcoming savings desires and import desires and (of course) the higher taxes and lower government spending that are all causing demand to leak.

And, we know that if the government were to start running a higher deficit again, it wouldn't cause interest rates to rise just like before and that's not going to crowd out capital formation either!

You're so concerned about "waste in government spending". How bout a full payroll tax cut then?? Payroll tax rise was the worst thing that could've happened!

believer;1464864 wrote:So at what point does the corporate cash hoarding become less attractive than retooling and reinvestment to create more demand?

Once most consumers become largely or fully dependent upon the gubmint tit to survive, there will be far less demand for the products and services the corporations provide because the cash flow simply won't exist.

Sooner or later the cash hoarding will be detrimental to profitability. Or will it? I've said it before, I'm a financial lightweight so I can only guess at the financial realities.

Still I gotta believe that what goes around comes around. It always does.

Somebody has to spend more than their income to put enough net financial assets in the economy to generate demand. The foreign sector has a huge surplus and spends way less than their income (our spending on imports...Hondas, Red Bulls, French Wine, etc.)...our huge trade deficit that isn't going anywhere. The private sector is spending less than its income (corporate cash hoarding because of low demand....private consumer and household balance sheets that have a lot of debt and low wage rises and so they are paying down that debt i.e. saving).

And now, the government is still spending more than its income (deficit) but it is rapidly reducing while the private sector and the foreign sector both are in surplus at the moment....so this is disastrous because the government is draining the means of exchange out of economy....OF COURSE THERE's GOING TO BE LESS EXCHANGE.

The government has to put enough money into the private sector so that the private sector's aggregate savings desires are satiated and so that savings can become investment to fulfill demand.

gut;1465154 wrote:Likely when confidence is restored after the economic lightweight occupying the WH turns his focus to building a library.

But basically cash hoarding can be attributed to two fundamentals of classical theory:
1) increasing cash and ROI in anticipation of future tax increases
2) muted investment because lowered future expectations of an economy weighted down by a bloated govt

According to classical theory (which doesn't match the reality of an economy with a money monopolist setting the price of the means of exchange anyway and doesn't apply to our economy) the budget deficit and borrowing is decreasing and projected to decrease and so if they have rational expectations based on ricardian neutrality they should not be expecting future taxes and shouldn't be saving for them and they shouldn't be expecting an economy being weighed down by a bloated government as publicly forecasted deficits have decreased as well as long term healthcare spending.

If neoclassical models heading toward general equilibrium based on perfect competition, ricardian neutrality and rational expectations in any way matched the real world we should be seeing an increase in investment and spending by households and consumers and businesses at these interest rates.

Yet, that's not the world we're living in. We've got a world wherein a monopolist undersupplies the means of exchange and interest rates can't match the real wicksellian interest rate when it is negative with normal humans, the majority of which, couldn't tell you who Ben Bernanke is or who Jack Lew is.

QuakerOats;1465003 wrote:If we had pro-growth, pro-business, pro-taxpayer policies, there would be far greater investment by the private sector. But with this regime running roughshod over private enterprise THERE IS NO CONFIDENCE and there is NO INCENTIVE to re-invest; ergo, cash hoarding. Look at the radicals in this administration; look at what they are doing, (and imagine how much more damage they would wreak if the republicans did not hold the House); it is scary and it is threatening, and that is why no rational being is putting their funds at risk.

Growing government is NOT the answer; it never has been, and never will be. And the charts above prove that ..... AGAIN.

A bunch of panty waste entrepreneurs in America afraid of a week president and would pass up an opportunity to make money when they can nearly borrow money for free. Where are those people in the neoclassical model? LOL.

ROMNEY was the confidence fairy after all! LOL.