Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

The haunting beauty of the welfare state evident in Greece as pedophiles awarded state disability pensions

The collapse of Greek society can't come quickly enough with news like this hitting the (virtual) presses:

There is a silver lining to America’s fundamental transformation into a replica of the bankrupt socialist basket case Greece. A least more people will qualify for special privileges and free handouts by being official victims. Greeks have extended that cherished status to pedophiles, exhibitionists, and kleptomaniacs, all of whom are now regarded as “disabled.”

The National Confederation of Disabled People called the action “incomprehensible,” and said pedophiles are now awarded a higher government disability pay than some people who have received organ transplants.

Also joining the ranks of the privileged: pyromaniacs, compulsive gamblers, fetishists, and sadomasochists.

Pyromaniacs and pedophiles are eligible for disability pay up to 35%. That beats being diabetic, which may only get you 10%.

Let this be a lesson to anyone who favors giving Greece one red cent of American money. They will flush it down the toilet, then use their utter helplessness as a weapon to morally mug us for more. Some derelicts are unworthy of charity until they repent and reform. The same goes for derelict nations.

Hell, I'm not worrying about paying Greek perverts (I'm sure Turbo Timmy will find a backdoor way to pull that off).

I'm worried about this delightful graph, which illustrates America's "fundamental transformation" into a social welfare state.

We are fast approaching Greece-level debts and, at the current trajectory of deficit spending, only three or four years will doom our financial system.

But at least we have warning signs.

The European socialist welfare states are collapsing before our eyes. What we are seeing in Europe is a preview of the Obama-Democrat agenda writ large. Socialism can't work, won't work, and has never worked in all of human history.

2012 may very well be our last chance to save this precious Republic.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done. --Ronald Reagan



Hat tip: Vicki.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Chart: The Price of Gold Since... The Year 1265 A.D.

Tyler Durden offers the following graph courtesy of the Bank of England, which reinforces the notion that what goes around comes around.

We have often seen requests to show the price of gold going back as long as possible. Tonight we can oblige, with a gold price chart, indexed in 2010 British Pounds, going all the way back to 1265...

...To the surprise of many, the early 1980s gold price surge is not the only time in history when gold exploded. It appears that based on the surge in gold back in the late 15th century, there was actually quite a serious need for Columbus to go forth and find a source of gold, because last we checked Ferdinand and Isabella did not have Bernanke's money printers back then. And yes, as Goldman says, there were no ETFs back in the 16th century to draw demand away from the real deal and into make believe exposure.

Ben Bernanke could not be reached for comment at press time.


Related: Introducing the Obama Financial Anxiety Index Level™ (O-FAIL for short)

Monday, January 09, 2012

A Letter to My Former Employees [Papa B]

Papa B writes, "This is a real letter (see Snopes) written by a businessman to his former employees, who he was forced to lay off during the ongoing economic downturn."

October 5, 2011

To All My Former Valued Employees:

You are the best of the best.

It took me years to attract a talented group of engineers like you and build this company into what it was. Like other small businesses that have struggled through this economic plague, we were forced to trim our workforce. Now it’s just me. I hope you are all well and I sincerely miss the good days when we were working together.

My goal as an employer was to give you a great place to work, a good salary, benefits, and good projects to work on that would challenge you intellectually. I think we accomplished this. We built a very comfortable office with a full kitchen where we would take turns cooking on Fridays, we went deep sea fishing twice a year, the company treated employees and wives or girlfriends to dinner once a month, and we all even went on a cruise together one year. Some business owners would not have done most of these things, but my goal was to have the best employees and to provide a great place to work. And, it paid off well. Together we were a great company, we were profitable, and I thank you for your efforts.

When the economy started to decline I held on to you guys. I probably held on for too long, but finding great employees was difficult. Back in 2008 we kept saying things would get better "after the election". Ironically, we are saying the same thing in 2011

because the country is no better off now than we were then. In fact, things have gotten worse. I know where each of you has landed, and I am happy that you are all well.

Unfortunately, the regulatory climate in this country simply isn’t conducive to anyone starting or growing a business. That means I won’t be hiring you back, or anyone like you, anytime soon. Simply stated, business hates uncertainty. The regulatory climate in this country and the attitude of our lawmakers breeds uncertainty. I have no idea what hiring an employee is going to cost me in taxes and medical insurance.

I have no idea what my personal tax situation is going to be. The banking system has crawled into its shell in fear of additional regulations. They aren’t lending any money to anyone — despite the money — our tax dollars — that the government gave them. There is just too much uncertainty, and there is absolutely no incentive for guys like me to try to break out and grow. That is precisely the wrong attitude that we should have in times like these when unemployment is so high. I employed 15 people a few years ago. A drop in the bucket? Maybe. But I had 15 great employees that earned good wages. A couple of you got married, bought a house, and started a family during the time you worked for me. Certainly that helped the economy. If hundreds or thousands of small business across the country had enough confidence to hire and expand, think of the immediate and beneficial effect that would have on you, me, and the country.

I started my first company 17 years ago. I worked from home, and my wife supported us, took care of the family, and paid off my student loans while I worked on the business. Any small business owner will tell you that it takes hard work and dedication to make a company succeed. This one was no different. My office was in my house, making working long nights and weekends the norm. We seldom went on vacations because with me out of town the company stopped operating. I didn’t leave the office for fear of missing a phone call. When we made enough money to get cell phones we were able to "relax" as the office was now extended to the car, or wherever I happened to be. Days were spent in meetings while evenings were spent drafting, doing design work, and scrambling to meet the next days’ deadlines.

Any small business owner will tell you that you never leave work. They are right. Everything depended on my ability to produce. You never leave your work "at the office". Employees have the luxury of walking away at 5:00, but the owner is still working late into the night, and then stays awake at night worrying about the next day. Family life suffers. Sometimes your health suffers, but you can’t afford to be sick. One day, God willing, you get successful enough to add employees. My first employee worked in my house. That worked for a little while but you just can’t have employees working in the same small house that you and your family live in. Luckily we were able to rent a small office and move out of the house. That simple move changed a lot of things. Suddenly you go from just doing the work to being a property manager, office manager, and payroll manager, along with all of the other tasks you were already doing. Those long nights you put in working from home are now a long lost luxury since you are now putting in long nights away from home.

Why do we do this? Because someday it will all pay off, or so we keep telling ourselves. My finest moments were hiring a staff of good engineers like you. I felt a sense of accomplishment when I was responsible for the livelihood of 10 engineers, being able to offer up to 15 of us a good salary, good benefits, and being able to give bonus checks at the end of a banner month or year. It felt good to be able to share what I had built with you guys, and to see genuine appreciation in your faces and in the way you worked hard every day.

So what went wrong? For my part, I should have let you go years earlier than I did. If I had, I might have made it through the storm a little better. I’ve already told you why that wasn’t possible for me. My worst day was when I had to invite you into the conference room to tell you that your employment with me was over.

The government says we are in this mess because Americans went on a spending spree they couldn’t afford. People bought houses they shouldn’t have and brokers packaged up all the risky loans into cool and lucrative new investment vehicles. If you listen to the government, what went wrong is totally our fault.

I think they, being the politicians, forget that it was government programs that encouraged people to get into homes they couldn’t afford. It was government ignorance of many publicly stated warnings against mortgage backed securities that allowed these vehicles flourish. I guess if you consider that it was us that elected these guys then they are right: it’s our fault.

In 2008 this country needed the best President in history. The country needed leadership. We bought "hope and change" believing that the new administration would bring an end to politics as we knew it and focus on America to bring the economy out of the worst decline in recent history. What we got was more of the same. It amazes me that the administration blames the other party for not being able to get any legislation passed when that same administration had control of the House and Senate for two years and still couldn’t get anything passed. We need leadership. The needs of the country demand it...

...Since the 2008 election we have spent ... billions of dollars in failed stimulus efforts, and put legislation into place that has scared the business community from expanding or hiring additional staff. Where is this money coming from? The Republican leadership is criticized for asking that same simple question, and then demonized for simply asking the government to match additional spending with cuts elsewhere. Small business owners understand budgets, being frugal, and controlled spending. We know that we can’t spend more than we make. The result is called bankruptcy. Why can’t the government understand this? What is so wrong with expecting the Government to spend within its means? What is wrong with demanding that the government clean up the wasteful spending that is both inherent and chronic in Washington?

I have always said that if every American had to write a check on April 15th to pay their taxes, this country would have a drastically different tax code. Instead of actually writing a check, most Americans have taxes withdrawn at every paycheck and they simply lose track, or get immune to the deduction. The biggest joke is the "refund". Wow! Bonus money in April. Can people really be that immune to what they are actually paying that they are tricked into thinking they are getting something free? I can assure you that I have never received a “refund” from the government.

I am one of the 50% of Americans that actually pay taxes. You heard that right: 50% of Americans don’t even pay taxes. As a small business owner, tax season is generally a bloodbath. It is amazing what I have paid in taxes. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that every American should pay for the privilege of living here and should share the cost of running this government. But when you actually see the amount you pay, you really start to wonder what you received in benefit for the money you paid.

Did I get any benefit at all from the stimulus package that I contributed to? Absolutely not. Am I going to benefit from Obamacare, which will eventually cost me a pile of money if I ever intend to hire employees again? Absolutely not. Do I get even a fraction of that money back in government services? No way. Since I am not a user of (or eligible for) government programs where I could get free stuff, I am simply forced to pay for others that are. A more fair way to would be for the government to charge for the services you use. That will never happen. But what is so wrong with a flat rate tax code? Everyone pays the same rate regardless of what you use. While the imbalance will still be there between those addicted to government handouts and those of us that aren’t, at least all Americans would pay something and everyone would have the same obligation.

The current focus on taxing the rich really cracks me up. Who defines rich? The current administration keeps sliding that number around. One day its people who earn $1 million per year, the next it falls to $250,000, and I’ve even heard numbers as low as $100,000. Some 70% of tax revenues in this country come from the top 20% of wage earners. So the current administration wants them to pay more? Wants them to "pay their fair share"? Are we to now believe that they aren’t paying a fair share of the burden? That’s crazy. It’s these people that have struggled like I have to build a good life and a good company. We’ve put in our time and we actually share the rewards with our employees and through the taxes we already pay. How about the other 50% that pays nothing? Should the top wage earners — and job creators — continue to pay for those who have managed to pay nothing?

So what went wrong? We bought hope and change and got despair and continued partisan bickering. We wanted leadership and we got none. We wanted a savior but we didn’t get one. So what went wrong? We did, and we had better get it right in 2012. The country simply can’t survive another 4 years of incredible spending and lack of leadership.

So what can we do? Vote, and pray. We need to vote for lawmakers that will stand up for the ideals that will bring this country back to the place of prominence it once was. America has lost the moral high ground, its place of prominence technically, and the strength of a thriving economy. We need to vote for lawmakers that will solve our problems today, and not pass them along to our children and grandchildren in the form of astronomical debts. We need a government that will live within its means just as we are expected to live within ours. We need a President that will rise above politics to lead different groups of interests to a solution that is best for the country. Most of all we need to unite as Americans and demand that our government fix the mess they have helped to create.

And then, we should pray. I am a Christian and I believe that Jesus Christ died on a cross to take the punishment for sin so that we wouldn’t have to. Because of sin, we couldn’t enter Heaven unless a sacrifice was made on our behalf, and Jesus made that sacrifice for us. The Bible tells us that in order to get to Heaven we must believe. And we must pray. We must pray that God helps us through these hard times and that this great country can be great once again. Whatever your faith, whatever your beliefs, we must pray.

Sincerely,

Michael A. Crowley, PE
Crowley & Associates, Inc.
Professional Engineers
Wake Forest, NC 27587


Malkin: Should the Secret Service be at all concerned that those Hollywood stars never showed up in the White House visitor logs?

You've probably heard by now that President and Mrs. Obama threw a crazily over-the-top, Hollywood-style Halloween Party in 2009, during the depths of the ongoing national recession. Alice in Wonderland director Tim Burton transformed the White House into a reproduction of the movie set; and stars Johnny Depp and Mia Wasikowska appeared in costume.

Of course, a compliant and docile legacy media reported none of this for fear of a political backlash.

But America's best independent investigative reporter, Michelle Malkin, noticed something interesting: none of the big Hollywood stars appeared in the White House visitor logs. The logs, of course, are all part of the administration's "commitment to government transparency."

Well, I’ve just finished scouring the White House visitor logs.

Regular readers know I seem to be one of the few in the media who actually does such a thing.

Regular readers also know that I’ve pointed out time and again that the logs are incomplete, misleading, obtuse, and designed to make it as difficult as possible to figure out who has visited and when.

So, it is no surprise that neither director Tim Burton nor actor Johnny Depp — hosts of the big 2009 Hollywood Halloween bash at the White House — show up in the visitor logs.


Perhaps the spokes-idiot Jay Carney will blame the Cheshire Cat; you know, that it used its cloak of invisibility to render Tim Burton, Johnny Depp and Mia Wasikowska invisible to the Secret Service.

So much for even the last shred of credibility the White House had regarding "transparency".

The accuracy of the White House Visitor Logs appear to be roughly equivalent to that of the rest of President Obama's promises. Which is to say, every one of this administration's pledges are backed by the full faith and credit of a Greek 20-year note.


Pictures: Big Journalism.

Sunday, January 08, 2012

White House threw secret Halloween recession bash -- and I'll refrain from the obligatory Chewbacca jokes

Here wookie, wookie, wookie... c'mon, good wookie...*

A White House “Alice in Wonderland” costume ball — put on by Johnny Depp and Hollywood director Tim Burton — proved to be a Mad-as-a-Hatter idea that was never made public for fear of a political backlash during hard economic times, according to a new tell-all.

“The Obamas,” by New York Times correspondent Jodi Kantor, tells of the first Halloween party the first couple feted at the White House in 2009. It was so over the top that “Star Wars” creator George Lucas sent the original Chewbacca to mingle with invited guests.

The book reveals how any official announcement of the glittering affair — coming at a time when Tea Party activists and voters furious over the lagging economy, 10-percent unemployment rate, bank bailouts and Obama’s health-care plan were staging protests — quickly vanished down the rabbit hole.

“White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans — or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care — that the event was not discussed publicly and Burton’s and Depp’s contributions went unacknowledged,” the book says.

However, the White House made certain that more humble Halloween festivities earlier that day — for thousands of Washington-area schoolkids — were well reported by the press corps... ...Unbeknownst to reporters, the State Dining Room had also been transformed into a secretive White House Wonderland.

Tim Burton decorated it “in his signature creepy-comic style. His film version was about to be released, and he had turned the room into the Mad Hatter’s tea party, with a long table set with antique-looking linens, enormous stuffed animals in chairs, and tiered serving plates with treats like bone-shaped meringue cookies,” reports the book, which The Post purchased at a Manhattan bookstore.

“Fruit punch was served in blood vials at the bar. Burton’s own Mad Hatter, the actor Johnny Depp, presided over the scene in full costume, standing up on a table to welcome everyone in character.”

With all the vacations and golf the Obamas enjoy, it's a wonder they have any time for parties.


* As long as you keep your hands away from the wookie's mouth while it's eating, you should be okay.


Saturday, January 07, 2012

America's Most Hypocritical Earmark King Is... Ron "The Representative From Stormfront" Paul

Only a true Beltway insider -- and a cynical one at that -- can claim to be a "fiscal conservative" while loading up his district with pure pork.

One of the odd things I hear about from time to time from many of my libertarian colleagues and friends is their perception that Texas Republican Ron Paul is a rare model of purity in a political pigsty...

I have many issues of agreement with Paul, particularly on health policy, and I've defended him publicly in the past on many of his calls for government reform. But this perception of Paul as a principled crusader who serves only the Constitution is at odds with his wholehearted embrace of typical pork-barrel politics - a difference which is all the more stark in the wake of House Republicans' voluntary ban on earmarks last year. The record on this is available to the public, but it attracts scant attention...

...Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members...

Among Paul's earmarks are boondoggles like $38 million to "encourage parents to read aloud to their children", $18 million for a light rail study, $4 million for a "Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative", $11 million for an ACORN-like "Community-Based Job Training Program", $2 million for a "clean energy" pilot project, and many, many more.

All of the above earmarks can be found on Paul's own congressional website... Paul typically will make the earmark request, but then votes against or abstains from voting on final passage, so he can maintain his claim to have "never voted for an earmark", even the earmark requests he himself made.

So not only does Paul embrace the suicidal national security views of Dennis Kucinich, but his claims to be a fiscal hawk are as plainly fraudulent as his assertions that he never read his own newsletter.

How stupid does Ron Paul think Americans are? Uhm, for you Paul drones, that's a rhetorical question.


Update: The Mental Derangement of Ron Paul’s Campaign

500,000 Military Layoffs Planned As Obama Argues for Federal Pay Hikes and Need for $103K/year "Invitations Coordinators"

"The then-press secretary Robert Gibbs was apparently often dispatched to placate Mrs Obama when limits were put on the amount she could spend on clothes or White House redecoration, as well as to explain why she could not take private holiday while on state visits." --Raf Sanchez

The Washington Post reported yesterday that President Obama has proposed pay increases for federal employees.

The White House effort comes despite reports in USA Today and other media outlets that the federal workforce -- which has grown substantially under the Obama administration -- is already grossly overpaid compared to the private sector. Please consider the following snippets of articles from USA Today:

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts: "At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn... Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis... The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year."

Federal workers starting at much higher pay than in past: "Newly hired federal workers are starting at much higher salaries than those who did the same jobs in the past, a lift that has elevated the salaries of scientists and custodians alike... A 20- to 24-year-old auto mechanic started at an average of $46,427 this year, up from $36,750 five years ago... A 30- to 34-year-old lawyer started at an average of $101,045 this year, up from $79,177 five years ago... And a mechanical engineer, age 25 to 29, started at $63,675, up from $51,746 in 2006..."

This sort of waste, fraud and abuse is exemplified by jobs like a $103,000-a-year Invitations Coordinator for the so-called "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau". The compensation package includes 10 paid holidays, 13 days of sick leave, and [up to] 26 days of vacation time each year (i.e., more than five weeks).

Furthermore, the Obama administration plans to lay off 500,000 military personnel.

The mighty American military machine that has for so long secured the country’s status as the world’s only superpower will have to be drastically reduced, Barack Obama warned yesterday as he set out a radical but more modest new set of priorities for the Pentagon over the next decade...

...Mr Obama’s blueprint for the military’s future acknowledged that America will no longer have the resources to conduct two such major operations simultaneously.

Instead, the US military will lose up to half a million troops and will focus on countering terrorism and meeting the new challenges of an emergent Asia dominated by China. America, the President said, was “turning the page on a decade of war” and now faced “a moment of transition”.

Why the egregious disconnect?

Why the abdication of the Commander-in-Chief's most important duty -- protecting the United States of America?

Because, my friends, federal bureaucrats pay union dues, which end up recycled into Obama's campaign coffers. Our Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen don't pay union dues, which helps explain why our critical national defense assets are being slashed as federal paper-pushers continue expanding their already ridiculous compensation packages and their unconstitutional control over every aspect of our lives.


Infographic: The Independent [UK].

Friday, January 06, 2012

Obama Labor Politburo Now Publishing Patently Bogus Unemployment Propaganda

Sure, "the unemployment rate dropped to 8.5%". And a unicorn-riding leprechaun is sprinkling gold nuggets like BaconBits™ on my front lawn at this very moment.

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to grasp the fudging the BLS has been doing every month for years now in order to bring the unemployment rate lower: the BLS constantly lowers the labor force participation rate as more and more people "drop out" of the labor force for one reason or another. While there is some floating speculation that this is due to early retirement, this is completely counterfactual when one also considers the overall rise in the general civilian non institutional population...

...In order to back out this fudge we are redoing an analysis we did first back in August 2010, which shows what the real unemployment rate would be using a realistic labor force participation rate. To get that we used the average rate since 1980, or ever since the great moderation began. As it happens, this long-term average is 65.8%...


It won't surprise anyone that as of December, the real implied unemployment rate was 11.4%... basically where it has been ever since 2009 - and at 2.9% delta to reported, represents the widest divergence to reported data since the early 1980s.

...And because we know this will be the next question, extending this lunacy, America will officially have no unemployed, when the Labor Force Participation rate hits 58.5%, which should be just before the presidential election.

In other words, if the Obama Labor Propaganda Bureau (which is the name they prefer, I hear) used a reasonable labor force participation rate, the real unemployment rate would be:

11.4%

To pull this off, they've been forced to use the lowest labor force participation rate that America has seen since... 1984. Which seems, eh, appropos.

As my wife asked the other day: "I wonder whose mortgage I'm paying when I clock in for work?"


Thursday, January 05, 2012

Is Rick Santorum Really a 'Big Government' Guy?

That's the line being spouted by the establishment Republicans in an effort to offer covering fire for Mitt Romney's, eh, schizophrenic policy positions.

So Rick Santorum's really a 'Big Government' guy?

Santorum has a legislative record. Check it out.

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

I'll say this:

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President. His speech on Tuesday night was truly inspirational. Almost Reagan-esque, if it's not too trite to say that.

He is opposed by the Beltway establishment -- who has pre-ordained a Mitt Romney/Barack Obama faceoff in 2012. But they don't get to say who the GOP candidate is. You and I do. I urge you to support Rick Santorum for President, who has built a successful campaign out of sheer will, character and faith.

Four years of Barack Obama will have seen roughly $6 trillion added to the national debt -- with $10 trillion more to come on this trajectory in short order. Based on these spending levels, the Congressional Budget Office told Paul Ryan that they could not run their computer models another 25 years because the models collapse. The amount of debt they project simply cannot be rolled over -- there isn't enough money in the world.

Are you or your kids going to be around in 25 years? If so, I'd recommend you support someone who is a true Conservative, who believes in a Balanced Budget Amendment, fair taxation rules for all, and the will -- the fight -- to strip away the federal leviathan that dictates how much water your toilet tank holds, what kinds of light bulbs you're allowed to buy, how much mileage your car must get, and what kind of health care you'll receive.

Or we can continue kicking the can down the road and wait until the last possible minute to try to fix things, right before the civil society unravels.

It's now or never, folks.

If you feel the same way, I urge you to support Rick Santorum today.


Others writing about Santorum: Marathon Pundit ("The real Santorum web site is RickSantorum.com"), Mental Recession ("Here's the Real Rick Santorum Website") and Fausta's Blog.

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Yikes! Total amount of debt that must be refinanced in 2012 equal to... only about all of the cash in the world

The global Ponzi scheme needs some fresh fish new recruits -- desperately:

Developed economies will see $7.6trn worth of debt mature this year, with Italy towards the front of the refinancing queue at a time when its borrowing costs remain elevated.

The $7.6trn figure for the G7 economies and the BRICs is up from $7.4trn last year, according to Bloomberg, and comes at a time of slowing global growth and higher bond yields for many countries.

Japan and the US, which will have to rollover $3trn and $2.8trn worth of debt respectively in 2012, saw borrowing costs drop in 2011 as investors fled to safe havens.

But Italy, which remains at the epicentre of the eurozone crisis, has to rollover $428bn this year. This is the third highest amount, followed by France with $367bn and Germany on $285bn.

Italian 10-year bond yields continue to hover around the critical 7% mark, the figure currently standing at 6.88%, and the country had mixed fortunes with two debt auctions at the end of 2011.

But wait -- that's not all!

Turns out that there's another $1 trillion in corporate debt that must be rolled over this year as well.

All-in-all, the debt loads are becoming awesome and face what Bloomberg describes as a bad combination:

"The buyer base for peripheral Europe has obviously shrunk at the same time that the supply coming to the market is increasing, which is not a good combination," said Michael Riddell, a London-based fund manager at M&G Investments.

...but we agree with the following that it will be mid-year (March onwards) that the real problems of excess supply hit (and pre-judging when this gets (or how much of this is) priced into forwards is anyone's guess):

Investors should be most worried about the period after the ECB’s second three-year longer-term refinancing operation scheduled in February, according to Ignis’s Thomson... "The amount of liquidity that has been supplied by central banks, with more to come from the ECB in February, suggests the first couple of months will be a sort of phony war as far as the supply is concerned."

But, wait -- I'm not done!

Care to guess how much short-term consumer credit card debt needs to be rolled? According to CreditCards.com, there's about $800 billion in revolving debt on Americans' plastic.

In short, it would appear that the world needs to find someone to loan it about $10 trillion this year alone.

And how much cash is there in the world?

While it's difficult to say with any certainty how much cash and cash equivalents are floating around at any given time, the last estimate by Mike Hewitt in 2009 produced a figure of around $12.3 trillion.

So, basically, we need almost all of the cash in the entire world to fund this year's debts (and don't ask about the next few years).

The good news: if Paul Krugman can pull off that alien invasion he proposed a few months ago, we could find some new marks investors in the global Ponzi scheme.


Monday, January 02, 2012

Odd Coincidence: Soros-Affiliated Brazilian Company Looks to Win Major DOD Contract Over U.S. Competition

For some reason unbeknownst to me, legacy media has chosen not to report this particular story. Go figure.

It seems after investing around $100 million in this project, Hawker-Beechcraft has been excluded from a contract, worth almost $1 billion, to build a new light air support plane.

What intrigues me is the Brazilian company Embraer, the likely contract winner, is currently under investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Justice Department, for possible violations of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act...

Well, amigo, that certainly seems curious. I wonder how that might have happened?

...it seems George Soros has a connection to Embraer through Harbin-Embraer Aircraft a Chinese-Brazilian joint venture, and Hainan Airlines, which Soros owns a significant stake in.

Surely that must be a coincidence.

...[There may be] nothing sinister going on behind the scenes.

It’s troubling, however, that Hawker-Beechcraft was given no real explanation for this decision. It’s also troubling we’d buy a military aircraft from a foreign manufacturer, under any circumstances. As bad as Americans need jobs, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Never mind the national security factor.

Hawker-Beechcraft isn't giving up.

It's still a mystery... but it's one that Hawker Beech intends to get to the bottom of... Hawker Beechcraft has confirmed that they will file a suit with the Court of Federal Claims following notification late last week that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has declined to review its protest of the decision by the U.S. Air Force to exclude the company's Beechcraft AT-6 from the Light Air Support (LAS) competition.

The company still has no concrete reasons for the AT-6's exclusion, having been denied explanation by the US Air Force on two occasions. The LAS contract is valued at nearly $1 billion of U.S. taxpayer money and exclusion of the AT-6 could result in a de facto award to a non-U.S. company.

Hawker says that keeping the contract in the U.S. would preserve 1,400 jobs at 181 companies around the U.S.

But leave it to President Obama -- who "will not rest" until every American has a good job -- to outsource the construction of military aircraft.


Hat tip: Winter Soldier.

Nice: Occupy Movement Crashes Rose Parade with 70-Foot Octopus "Float" That Pins Economic Woes On... Well, You Know

Yeah, you remember that conspiracy orchestrated by those greedy, corporate, Wall Street globalists?

Planning to walk behind the nationally-broadcast Rose Parade Monday demonstrators against Wall Street 'greed and corruption' have constructed a 70-foot-long octopus entirely from recycled plastic bags... The octopus is said to represent the tentacles 'that reach into your pocket to get your money and a tentacle to get your house,' activist Mark Lipman told the Los Angeles Times.

...During a dress rehearsal of their plastic creature in November outside City Hall, activists carrying signs reading Teacher, Home Owner, Retiree and of course, 99 per cent, one-by-one stepped into grabbing point of the activist-raised arms pulling them in.

Say, where have we seen that octopus symbolism before?

Oh, yeah, that's right:

Are people so afraid to stand up against the hatred, public hatred broadcast for the entire world to see? The image of the octopus has been used in attacks on the Jews for over a century. Here's a roundup on the Jewish conspiracy octopus at the Coordinating Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism.

And the local organizers didn't even try to hide their hatred.

People keep saying that the Occupy movement is all about fairness and "getting money out of politics."

Right.

This is the modern Left in action. It tries to divide Americans against one another: rich vs. poor, black vs. white, union vs. non-union, urban vs. rural, you name it.

This kind of rhetoric defies American tradition and, furthermore, it's downright dangerous. Nothing good can come from demonizing arbitrary groups of Americans.


Sunday, January 01, 2012

The EPA: Enemy of Civilization

I can come to no other conclusion that Lisa Jackson and the rest of President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency are bound and determined to de-industrialize America. And I can prove it. Please consider the following panoply of headlines from around the country:

• West Virginia: End EPA War Against Coal


"[The EPA] sprang a terrible Christmas "present" on West Virginians, Ohioans and ...other Americans. In mid-December the agency - merely doing the bidding of its boss, President Barack Obama - announced drastic new regulations aimed primarily at industries such as coal-fired power plants... the EPA's new rules will force utility companies to close at least 32 power plants...

...Obama's goal, in which top EPA officials and liberals in Congress cooperate enthusiastically, is to wreck the coal industry... One especially outrageous aspect of the rules - but, ironically, one cause for hope - is that they are the EPA's attempt to overrule Congress. Even under Democrat domination of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, the Obama administration's "cap and trade" proposal was rejected. His response was to tell the EPA to plow ahead without lawmakers' approval."

And all this time I thought Bush was "the imperial president".

• Wyoming: The EPA's CYA Move


"It all started when Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said something never before stated by the EPA... In comments to a Bloomberg TV news show, she said the oil and gas industry practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, may have been responsible for the contamination of water at Pavillion, home to a few hundred people in west-central Wyoming.

...[Congress then demanded] she provide evidence to support what she had claimed. The next day the EPA announced it would release the report draft that very tentatively connected fracking with contamination in Pavillion, and then did so several hours later... It felt rushed. It felt like something that happens when an agency is trying to CYA, or to put it respectably, cover its butt.

...This time, the agency’s credibility — far more important than its chief’s butt — is on the line. Can the agency be trusted to do something important the right way? For many people, particularly in the oil and gas industry, that answer is already no."


So the EPA wants to destroy the coal, oil and gas industries. Gee, I wonder what they'll use to power those big, heavy government Suburbans?

• Oklahoma: EPA policy consistently incorrect


"The EPA has been consistently incorrect through the years, as with the Alaska pipeline and the Tennessee snail darter, to name a few, costing taxpayers billions. Now they plan to force coal-powered electrical plants to spend billions that will drastically increase electrical rates...

Their stated justification includes prevention of 11,000 premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks annually. How does one determine who died prematurely? How do they separate the air pollutants of coal-powered plants from the many other air pollutants such as volcanoes, internal combustion engines, natural waste from mammals, forest fires, exhaust from home heating/AC systems and more?"

Dude, didn't you hear? The science is settled!

But there is a little bit of good news:

• Texas: Federal court stays EPA’s CSAPR


"A federal court Friday put on hold a controversial Obama administration regulation aimed at reducing power plant pollution in 27 states the Environmental Protection Agency contends contributes to unhealthy air downwind... [The] EPA’s unrealistic timelines for unspecific regulations have forced company orders to idle units in both plants, threatening their respective power grids, and potentially increasing utility costs to customers.

...So, the stay will be a bit of a reprieve."

Two good quotes to tie a bow on things


1. Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, said the stay was a "first step to setting it right. The underlying rule was the subject of hasty process, poor technical support, unequal application and substantial threat to jobs, power bills and reliability."

2. Nebraska A.G. Jon Bruning stated, "this stay means Nebraskans will not have to foot the bill for unnecessary modifications mandated by the EPA. We will continue to fight these job-killing regulations by an overreaching federal government run amok."

If you want to live in a third-world country that has an unstable electric grid, then -- by all means -- please vote for Barack Obama in 2012.

But if you've gotten used to having electricity in your life, then my recommendation would be to vote against every Democrat you possibly can. In fact, do it for the children.


Spy Photo: Nancy Pelosi in Bikini; Also 'Occupy Hawaii' Protesters Rally at Pelosi's Hawaiian Resort

It turns out that Nancy Pelosi -- who empathizes deeply with "The 99 Percent" -- is enjoying her ill-gotten gains hard-earned IPO profits at Hawaii's Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Ka'upulehu in Kona. Cub Reporter Biff Spackle -- on assignment in Kona -- captured this spy photo of the dynamic former House Speaker enjoying the beach in a flattering bikini.

Okay, I admit it: this is a Photoshop.

But in all seriousness, Occupy Hawaii protesters are rallying near Pelosi's resort to express their discontent with the crony Marxist progressive princess.


The Graph That Proves President Obama Truly Is 'Historic'

But not in a good way:

Over the past 50 years, 10 U.S. presidents have made annual budget requests to Congress, projecting deficits both big and small. But no other president compares to Barack Obama when it comes to the size and scale of the current budget deficit facing the United States.

The country is facing an 8.3 percent estimated average national deficit of a two-term Obama administration — the biggest of the past 50 years. By comparison, the current estimate for Obama is nearly double the percentage under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — and they were fighting the Cold War.

...So what does the current trajectory mean for the United States? We’re certainly no longer looking at a continuation of manageable deficits in the years to come. This is a dramatic change in the magnitude of annual shortfalls at the federal level. That’s one reason Heritage came up with a plan to fix the debt crisis.

And for the drones out there who point to President Clinton's "budget surplus", I'd like to remind you of one simple fact: the House of Representatives -- and specifically Speaker Newt Gingrich and Rep. John Kasich (now governor of Ohio) -- pinned Clinton's shoulders to the mat in order to force a balanced budget on the spend-happy Democrats.


Saturday, December 31, 2011

Bummer: Seven State Unions Sue New York Over Obamacare

When you've lost the public sector unions... oh, and please note -- this article was written from the perspective of a drone Obamacare supporter named "Melissa Freeman" (if that is her real name):

Seven New York state unions have filed federal lawsuits against the state over what they claim is an unconstitutional increase in health care costs for retired workers. This is not a promising beginning for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), now that Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has given more power to the states in implementing the law.

HHS announced Dec. 16 that individual states will be left to select their own “benchmark” minimum health insurance plan under the national law. As a key step in defining universal health care in the U.S., determining minimum standards of health care should be done on a national level. Sebelius’ choice to delegate this duty to states is a cowardly attempt to evade tough decision-making, leading to a less efficient and effective policy of accommodation rather than full national change, and decreased federal accountability for the outcome of the ACA...

...By delegating this responsibility to the states, Sebelius has also deflected federal, mainly executive, responsibility for the plan’s possible failure, though assuredly not its potential success. The unfolding details of the law will undoubtedly draw many critics: The greater the benefits, the higher the costs; yet the lower the benefits, the less successful the law – a trophy of Obama’s first term. With its validity and effectiveness questioned early on, the ACA is already in a weak position to affect change. Sebelius has further weakened it by giving up the federal government’s ability to establish a major component of how the law will affect the millions of uninsured people across the country...

...With the passage of the ACA as a move towards universal health care, the national government needs to be more involved in establishing the standards that will detail the bill’s vaguely stated requirements. Allowing states to determine their own benchmark plan is a disappointing indicator of the ACA’s potential to bring about actual change...

Hey, genius: we don't have a "national" government. We have a federal government, established by the Constitution. You know, that's the document your pathetic Democrat hack politicians take an oath to uphold and promptly spit upon. And it's the same document that enumerates the federal government's powers.

And, last time I checked, there was no "Obamacare" clause in the Constitution. Or maybe it's hidden next to the "Abortion" clause.

Finally, Ms. Rocket Scientist, please list just one time in the history of mankind that a tiny authoritarian cabal of masterminds were able to centrally-manage an economy.

I'll wait here while you check, Einstein.


The most terrifying economic chart of 2011

Of 'the 11 most disturbing economic charts of 2011' presented by Tyler Durden, this particular graph struck me hardest:

Why is this single graph so horrifying?

Please note what occurred to the labor force participation rate when Barack Obama took office.

Not when "the Great Recession" hit. When Obama took office. After he took office, the labor force participation rate went into freefall.

And please note the coincidental rise in food stamps and government assistance at the exact same time; free money to stay unemployed, dispensed with leaf-blower-like efficiency throughout the country:


This, my friends, is the inevitable result of President Subprime McDowngrade's expansion of the welfare state: a new class of individuals so enriched by government largess that they have lost all motivation to work.

But it's not all bad news: at least the USDA is aware of how food stamps are being used and is highly efficient at stamping out waste, fraud and abuse.

Oh, wait. They're not - they don't even know what kind of things are getting purchased with your tax dollars.

Talk amongst yourselves.


Friday, December 30, 2011

The Coming Tidal Wave... of Crime

Caution: this is not a snarky post. Zero-percent snark. I want to connect a few dots for you. Additional caution: you may want to sit down.

* * * * * * * * *

 1  USA Today headline: Record number in government anti-poverty programs

Government anti-poverty programs... now serve a record one in six Americans and are continuing to expand... More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor...

...More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years...

...Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits. Caseloads peaked at nearly 12 million in January — "the highest numbers on record," says Christine Riordan of the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers.

More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase during the recession...

In February 2009 Robert Rector, quoted in the London Sunday Times, predicted that the Obama Democrats' expansion of welfare, food stamps and unemployment would be disastrous.

One of the few undisputed triumphs of American government of the past 20 years – the sweeping welfare reform programme that sent millions of dole claimants back to work – has been plunged into jeopardy by billions of dollars in state handouts included in the president’s controversial economic stimulus package...

...Robert Rector, a prominent welfare researcher who was one of the architects of Clinton's 1996 reform bill, warned last week that Obama’s stimulus plan was a “welfare spendathon” that would amount to the largest one-year increase in government handouts in American history... Despite dire warnings that reduced benefits for single mothers and deadlines on entitlement would create a social calamity – one liberal senator warned at the time that children would be “sleeping on grates” – the 1996 reforms cut welfare rolls from more than 5m families in 1995 to below 2m a decade later without a discernible increase in hardship.

In other words, the Obama 'Stimulus' program was intended to massively expand the welfare state. But wait! There's more!

* * * * * * * * *

 2  Increasing welfare and food stamps leads to more kids born to unwed mothers

The statistical link between the availability of welfare and out-of-wedlock births is conclusive. There have been dozens of studies that link the availability of welfare benefits to out-of-wedlock births.

One study found that a 50 percent increase in the value of AFDC and foodstamp payments led to a 43 percent increase in the number of out-of-wedlock births.

A 1996 paper describes the correlation in ominous terms.

...Out-of-wedlock births are strongly related to welfare dependency. A 1 percent increase in the welfare dependent population in a state increases the number of births to single mothers by about 0.5 percent...

...Welfare dependency reduces employment. A 1 percent increase in the dependent population increases the number who are not employed by about 0.1 percent... An increase in welfare benefits reduces employment by increasing the number of welfare dependents. An increase in AFDC benefits by 1 percent of average income increases the number who are not employed by about 0.5.

In other words, if you ratchet up welfare benefits, you get reduced employment and more single-parent families.

Now, why am I telling you this?

* * * * * * * * *

 3  Single-parent families correlate to higher crime rates

In 1995, Dr. Patrick Fagan wrote a seminal summary of the situation: "Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers... High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers... The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers...

"Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods... Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. By contrast only 10 percent of children from unsafe, unstable homes in these neighborhoods avoid crime... Criminals capable of sustaining marriage gradually move away from a life of crime after they get married."

Of 23 peer-reviewed U.S. studies since 2000, 20 found that family structure directly affects crime and/or delinquency.

"[R]esearch strongly suggests both that young adults and teens raised in single-parent homes are more likely to commit crimes, and that communities with high rates of family fragmentation (especially unwed childbearing) suffer higher crime rates as a result."

For example, a 23-year study found that nearly 90% of the change in violent crime rates can be attributed to the change in percentages of out-of-wedlock births (divorce rates, on the other hand, had no relationship with crime).

In The Atlantic Monthly, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead noted that the "relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime."

Let me repeat the most important statement -- "controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime."

Single-parent families generally lead to increased levels of crime; and there are no significant differences between blacks, whites, or any other race when it comes to this simple fact.

* * * * * * * * *

 4  Recap:

• Fact: There are a record number of Americans dependent upon government anti-poverty programs thanks to the Obama Democrats
• Fact: Expanded access to welfare and food stamps greatly increases the number of children born to unwed mothers
• Fact: Single-parent families correlate to higher crime rates
Conclusion: with the unprecedented increase in welfare, food stamps and unemployment, we will also see an unparalleled increase in violent crime within the next dozen or so years.

Obama and his Democrat sycophants in Congress will have created hundreds of thousands of single-parent families. These kids, born out-of-wedlock, will find themselves trapped in lives of criminality at far higher rates than kids from two-parent families.

Fast forward a dozen years, give or take a couple, and we will see a true Obama Crime Wave. I predict that we will see an unprecedented increase in crime. In fact, you could call it historic.

And the question is not whether it will happen. The question is just how bad it will be.


Thursday, December 29, 2011

Obama P.R. site Politico, which fixated endlessly on Sarah Palin's wardrobe, ignores FLOTUS' over-the-top clothing, jewelry and meals

The news equivalent of Media Matters, sometimes referred to as Politico, has a curious double-standard when it comes to public figures involved in politics. Jim Nolte explains:

Personally, I don’t care what Michelle Antoinette wears on her taxpayer-funded lavish Hawaiian vacations with her husband President FailureTeleprompterDuffer. Thanks to an autobiography that was probably ghost-written by domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, Obama’s a millionaire and more power to him. If the First Lady wants to lord over the peasantry her fashionable dresses and skirts and purses that cost enough to feed about 500 hungry families, that’s Our Champions Of The Poor’s business. The same is true with what the GOP chooses to spend their money on during a campaign. The attacks directed at Governor Sarah Palin over the clothes supplied to her during the 2008 election were silly, stupid intentional distractions ginned up by Obama’s MSM Palace Guards...

...What isn’t silly and stupid is that the left-wing, journOlist-infested institution known as Politico was obsessed with Palin’s wardrobe in ‘08 and one of the prime drivers of that narrative. Just for starters see here, here, here, and most especially here...

...And now for the news that will surprise no one. A good faith search has revealed that the left-wing, journOlist-infested institution known as Politico isn’t at all interested in Michelle Obama’s pricey wardrobe. Nothing here or here...

...In their defense, however, Politico has been awfully busy.  Why, there’s White House spin to spread, those hundreds of articles necessary to cover 15 year-old harassment claims against Herman Cain, strategic memos to craft in order to get Obama’s Occupy Wall Street allies back in the 2012 game, and the frantic journOlisiting necessary to protect Obama from critics of his excessive golfing...

C'mon, Jim - cut Michelle and the brown-nosers at Politiho a break. After all, doesn't flouting a $42,000 bracelet cheer the little people up?

Doesn't wearing a $2,000 sundress resonate with the unemployed?

And can't you give her some credit for the one-woman stimulus package that's keeping haute couture designers employed?

Yes, that's right, Jim.

Democrats stand for the little people.


Sounds sustainable: Philadelphia councilwoman will 'retire' for one day, collect $478K union pension, then return to work on Monday

Consider this Exhibit 5,394 in the ongoing saga of public sector unions and their Democrat toadies sucking the life out of the private sector.

Marion B. Tasco, who has been described as being “politically savvy,” will retire from her sixth term as councilwoman, collect $478,057, and then be sworn in on Monday to serve her seventh term, Catherine Lucy and Chris Brennan of the Philadelphia Daily News.

...Tasco, along with many of her fellow Council members, is enrolled in Philadelphia’s Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP)...

...DROP allows city workers to collect salary and build up pension money during the last four years of their employment, writes Aaron Kase of Philadelphia Weekly.

...Naturally, when DROP was originally introduced, it was touted as being “revenue neutral.” It’s been anything but that. SInce its introduction, Philadelphia’s DROP program has cost the city $258 million in extra pension costs over a decade, according to a 2010 Boston College study...

Gee, it's so odd and unpredictable that a "revenue neutral" pension program designed by Democrat-slash-union hacks could cost the city a quarter of a billion dollars in only 10 short years.

And greatly enrich the same strain of said Democrat-slash-union hacks at the expense of the taxpayers.