Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. The feral government does not know how to do anything except spend, so a-spending they will go. But where will the money come from? As David Limbaugh points out in his article Are They All Democrats Now?:
As the Heritage analysts point out, when government spends $1 billion on highways, for example, hiring road builders and purchasing road materials, “It must first tax or borrow $1 billion from other sectors of the economy — which would then lose a similar number of jobs. In other words, highway spending merely transfers jobs and income from one part of the economy to another.”
(There is a third option, of course, which is to simply print more money. But money, like history, is a myth agreed upon. When we stop agreeing on the myth, we get hyperinflation. Our paper money is “fiat money.” It has no intrinsic value whatsoever.)
This is not to say that infrastructure projects are not worthwhile. That our interstate highway system is beneficial to the “general welfare of the United States” is undeniable. I would, however, prefer to see an emphasis on railroad expansion and improvement, rather than highways.
The issue is that such projects will not, in themselves, stimulate the economy. As Mr. Limbaugh points out, spending did not work for FDR, either:
Almost at the end of FDR’s second term, the economy was getting worse, with unemployment at more than 20 percent. Folsom cites the words of FDR’s treasury secretary and one-time confidant, Henry Morgenthau Jr., to make his case. These words should serve as a chilling reminder to all politicians even considering jumping on Obama’s FDR big-spending bandwagon:
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot.”
So we must ask ourselves, if government spending cannot create wealth — what can?
First we must define what wealth is, before we can create it. Economically speaking, wealth is the possession of things one wants and creature comforts. In that regard, there is productive labor and unproductive labor. The latter is not meant to be pejorative, only descriptive. A carpenter can make a chair from lumber, and customer can buy that chair and later sell it to another. The value of the chair over the value of the lumber from which is was made if the produce of the carpenter’s labor. The labor of a barber, however, loses its value immediately. A customer, having gotten a haircut, cannot then go sell his haircut to someone else, nor can he trade it for a can of beans. So a barber does not contribute to the wealth of the nation. That said, barbers do contribute to the well-being of the nation. At some point, one just has enough stuff, and spends on luxuries. One can spend $10 feeding the family a steak dinner, or spend $50+ at a restaurant.
There is nothing wrong with a service economy, or being part of the service economy. Both the service sector and the manufacturing sector contribute to our standard of living, but the base must be manufacturing. If we all work in retail or service, and produce nothing tangible, then we must get our food and clothing from other countries. But if we produce nothing, what will we give them in return? So we must produce at least as much as we consume, or we will, as a nation, become materially poorer. We do not need to produce all that we consume, but we do need to be able to trade for it. So far, we have been able to do that.
So, what produces wealth is, not surprisingly, production. But not simply production, but production of tradable products. Government policy should either facilitate such production, or at least not hinder it. Corporate income taxes hinder production, and should be eliminated. Most government regulations hinder production, and should be examined carefully to see whether and how they should be changed. Jacking up the minimum wage certainly didn’t help matters, either.
Cannot government spending, rather than corporate investment, produce the same results? No. First, the money must be collected, either by taxes or loans or by printing more money, which is nothing but a hidden tax. That money, capital if you will, must then be funneled through the feral bureaucracy, which is the epitome of unproductive labor. So for every dollar the government takes out of the economy for its “stimulus,” it can probably spend only fifty cents producing something. Stimulus checks sent directly to individuals don’t produce anything at all.
If our congresscritters are serious about stimulating the economy, they will eliminate the corporate income taxes, and reduce the onerous regulatory burdens, let power plants be built, and allow us to drill for our own oil.
Good article. You’re learning. But I don’t see why you think paying workers more money will not result in more production. Our best minds have been running to Wall Street to make big easy money without thought or consideration to how they make it instead of becoming engineers and scientists.
This economy became import dependent based on projections we would always come out with the best slice of bread. Now we’re falling behind the curve but are still importing like mad while the work force is being incentivized to produce lazy good for nothing bureaucrats and businessmen who are simply selling your proverbial chair a hundred times before anyone sits in it. And it is just a fucking chair.
Why not change the course of money directing it to pay workers letting them climb the ladder of success developing skills that are tangible rather than getting degrees that allow men with strong back and minds to sit around in classrooms only to graduate to sitting around in offices.
I mean for you to address barbers as not being a contributors while failing to mention all these fucking losers who move money around all day is ludicrous. It’s like you’ve been here debating for the last few days but the most important defense you needed to give me to support your side of the argument shot right passed you.
If all the bankers and money managers on Wall Street became barbers tomorrow, the economy would boom, that is if everyone in Washington became hair dressers along with them. It’s like we agree on principle but you think Wall Street should be the government instead of the government. I want to send them all to hell, and will.
“But I don’t see why you think paying workers more money will not result in more production.”
With what money would you pay them? One option is to reduce profits. Do that, and the investors will take their money out and put it into an investment that will provide a better return.
“Capitalism” is called that for a reason. Let us say that there is no money. Workers still need to eat. So a farmer agrees to give a cobbler food for his family and his workers’ families, and leather to make the shoes, with the understanding that they will be returned, with interest, at a later date. (The cobbler will trade the shoes he made to other farmers to return the food and leather he borrowed.)
If the cobbler agrees to return the “stock lent at interest” plus 10% in a year, why would the farmer lend to another cobbler who, because he is feeding his employees better, will only give him 5% return?
The farmer worked to raise his crop. Should he give it away? Will his taking only 5% return instead of 10% make the cobblers’ workers more productive? The cobbler’s workers also agreed to work for the wage they are paid. If the cobbler and the workers agree, who are you to say they are wrong? If paying the workers more made them more productive, then the employer who paid his workers more would get a larger profit!
Now, I never said that barbers were not contributors to our well-being. They are NOT, however, contributors to our wealth — by which I mean tangible assets.
Neither do the money managers contribute to our wealth. However, they are also necessary. Bankers facilitate the transfer of capital from the investors, such as the farmer with extra food, and producers, such as the cobbler and his workers.
Businessmen decide where to best employ the capital. They, also, are unproductive labor. But they are necessary nonetheless. Adams does not mean the term “unproductive” to be pejorative, nor do I. It is descriptive. Some people produce goods. Their labor is productive. Others merely facilitate that productive labor. If the farmer could not sell to a grocery store buyer, he would have to spend the time to sell his crop to individuals. The commercial buyer’s labor is not itself productive, but it frees up the labor of the farmer to produce more.
Sorry guys, but it is bigger than any of this.
Remember the line from Tom Clancy’s books: “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”
Nowadays a few billion from the government is government for pikers.
H.E. is right. We don’t even have an inkling of the eventual effects of what our government has been doing.
It just seems like if the ones at the top were making what they are worth rather than billions more than they are worth, then all that money they pay themselves would be paid to the people who earned it and everything would work. I mean you tell me why this person or that person is needed but you don’t explain why the ones at the top need to be paid all the money that the ones at the bottom earned. I just have this idea that if the ones at the top made their fare share instead of ripping everyone off, while the ones at the bottom could expect to make enough money to survive, even comfortably, it would make a lot more sense.
I mean why the **** are we letting or economy crash around housing, fuel, food, and bullshit like that anyway. Those are hygiene issues. Why haven’t we started to settle outer space? The way I see it, our leaders are rewarding themselves as if we were already a few galaxies away from here in our conquest of time and space when these ************ can’t even be talked into changing a dirty diaper. It’s bullshit, total bullshit. It doesn’t work because the people running it are morons.
You are explaining how it worked yesterday. But it is not yesterday anymore sir, it is today while they are playing me and you like we were born yesterday. I look at the equation they hold and see nothing but endless possibilities with what we know how to do now.
Did you read what I did to these stupid ***** in my pardon petition? And that is just half of the story, not even half. I did that, me, one guy, a high school drop out who lived homeless on the streets for twelve years. I did that to them so what does that say about who they are? Maybe you’re right, maybe your way makes sense on paper. I am not saying it doesn’t. So does communism. But the people running the system you believe works are morons so it wouldn’t matter if the system works or not because nothing can work for those kinds of people. And its time for something new anyway so maybe this io just Gods way of saying it is time to move on. I mean come on dude, if I agree that this is the best there is, could you consider there might be something better?
From where we’re sitting now, what would it hurt to look for new ways to get things done. It’s like you think the arena of ideas is for debating everything but what you say works when the world is on the edge of surviving because what you say works is so obviously broken. If the brakes on your car kept failing, wouldn’t you either want a new and better designed car or to try to amend the ones you have so they work. But even after we keep running off the road, this time even fatally, you keep telling me this is how brakes are supposed to work, by failing, that they are supposed to fail which demonstrates that they are working properly so I shouldn’t worry about letting my children drive it to school.
You gotta rethink this thing Jack, you’re smart enough but you just don’t seem to want to face the reality that change has to come. That is why we elected a liberal to run the White House and both branches of congress, because you old conservatives won’t let any new ideas come about so now we risk a socialist backlash. Luckily it’s looking like Obama is more in the middle than on the left. But we don’t know yet do we? People like you better hope and pray that he is not as bad as you make him out to be because if he is, you have no one for us to blame but you for not seeing it coming knowing that the time for change of direction came a long while back.
I have been trying to get a word in edgewise with you people for a long time. The only reason you are polite enough to listen to me now is because the shit has hit the fan so you are ready to listen to anyone who might have a clue how to clean it up. But you still won’t admit that there’s shit all over the floor so what the **** am I to do but keeping pounding these keys looking for the mantra that breaks the spell you are under or walk away and see if the other side of the isle is making any sense yet.
Sooner or later, you will all makes sense. But not before you all take a good hard look in the mirror and tell yourself honesty what the **** it going on, which I will finds a way to do if for you if you can’t bring yourselves to doing it without my foot in your ***
First of all, Fontaine, can the Anglo-Saxon. I just went in and asterisked your filth. This is a family blog (my children DO read it), and if you cannot articulate your argument without resorting to expletives, then you don’t have a good argument.
If you actually have been reading this blog for a while, you would know that we listen to all points of view. The reason we tolerate you is that many people are similarly mislead on economics. We are trying to rationally address your misconceptions, and you do rant and rave because you have no logical or factual basis for your arguments.
The people at the top get there in several ways. Some actually start and build companies, which create jobs for those laborers. People who start and build companies generally risk their own money, and put in very long hours. Most fail. The risks and rewards are commensurate. Some are hired to be executives and are paid very well. Who pays them? The owners of the companies! Companies are not in business to lose money. If the hire someone for $10M per year, it is probably because they think his knowledge, expertise, and connections can bring in more than $11M per year. Who are you to say that they are spending their money unwisely? Don’t like it? Then put YOUR money into the game. Buy stock in a company, and you will get to vote for the directors who hire the CEO. Go to the shareholders meetings and voice your opinions. Better yet, start your own company. Then pay your employees more than the prevailing wage and see how it works out.
Well, let’s look at executive compensation. The Business Week 50 list shows the median CEO total compensation to have been about $5M per year in 2004. The total compensation was $402M. Now, those companies had 1,161,419 employees. If the CEOs were all paid NOTHING, and gave that all to the workers, that would be less than $350 for each worker per year. Whoopie.
Do you believe the is the best there is?
The thing is, you’re looking at an old way — socialism/communism — which is worse. It may be that you are closer to anarcho-syndicalism. I don’t know. Both have the same flaws.
Speaking of flaws, you make the following analogy:
The flaw is that your analogy equates the laws of economics to a man-made system. They are not man-made, and they cannot be unmade by government decree. A better analogy might be an airplane. Gravity is one applicable physical law. The Bernoulli Principle is the other. Now, equate gravity to the need to labor to produce. I can make everything myself — walk wherever I want. I can buy things to make that easier and faster — a bike or a car. Up to a point, the more I spend, I can go faster or in more luxury. To go farther and faster, I need a plane. We’ll call that a company. The Bernoulli Effect that allows the plane to fly is the Division of Labor. Larger and better wings (a longer aspect ratio improves performance) can lift larger planes, just as more division of labor allows a company to be more efficient. Shorter wings (less division of labor) allows the plane to be faster and more maneuverable, but requires more power.
So why should a CEO be so well paid? Because he designs the craft for better performance — whatever that performance objective may be. Although some certainly fail, in general they benefit both the owners (stockholders) and employees — a growing company provides more and better jobs.
Now, if you desire to attempt to apply your foot to my derriere, I know a boxing gym we could use.
The bottom line in rough numbers.
2000 Federal Budget 2 trillion
2008 Federal Budget 3.5 trillion
In 8 short years we added 1.5 trillion to the size of our federal government. Now the incoming Obama administration wants to add at least 1 trillion a year.
Try to imagine where we will be in 4 years from now.
All BS, smoke and mirrors aside we have a spending problem. Obamas plans to spend his way to prosperity is suicide. Because the Bush administration and republicans on Capitol elected to play ME TOO and become partners in the spending orgy does not justify this continued track.
We are on a glide path to implosion.
It is SPENDING stupid.
I believe 0bama said that the deficits would be over one trillion dollars per year, not that he wanted to increase them by one trillion dollars.
If CEO’s were making to provide quality of product and services like in the good old days when the mantra of the market was ‘he consumer is always right” then maybe we wouldn’t be in this fix. But the new sound bite for the economy that came long in the eighties becoming mainstream in the early nineties is “caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.” This was the result of 401k plans that put the consumer in business with the market, a complete conflict of interest with every working market principle ever developed. Now everyone is paying the price for that mistake but still you want to keep cutthroats running corporations who put profits and investors before customers when history tells us that that the two are not mutually exclusive of each other if the market gives the consumer what they want and need.
And I do not have a model for economic change so you can call me anything you want but you can’t call me to class because I never went to school. I have ideas for how to get us out of the bottomless pit people like you still think is the only way it can be and don’t appreciate ideas for how to get us out of here.
OK, look, instead of you telling it like it is, which is not how it is. It is how you thought it was but it all fell apart. But tell us how to fix what is there now and lets see if it sounds like it will work, because all I hear is how nothing anyone wants to do will work. In fact it is more that that, it’s how everyone is in a communist or socialist plot to take away your freedom by trying to clean up the mess you made.
What would be your plan to get us out of here and prevent us from coming back in the future? If I think it is a good idea, I will support it. And I do very much appreciate your comment. I was considerate and well thought-out. Thank you. And don’t go thinking I am a faggot for being cool. I have put a lot of time in here the last few days. I would like to see something constructive come out if it. Joe told me that everyone here gives everyone a hard time because most of them are at work and bored. So it is all in good fun.
But you are really talking like you want to get something tangible out of this. Tell us what that would be and lets see if we agree with it or are their points open for debate where in the end, we come away having figured something out; that is of course unless you are saying there is nothing to figure out, nature is running its rightful course, that is expect for all the things that are being done to try to force it to do otherwise.
“If CEO’s were making to provide quality of product and services like in the good old days”
Most modern day consumers aren’t all that interested in product or service quality, They look for the lowest price.
In the good old days, CEOs had much less government regulation to worry about. If today’s companies took the money they spend on regulation compliance, and defense against BS lawsuits, and rolled that into R&D and product manufacturing, I believe that the quality of their products would be much better than it is today.
“But tell us how to fix what is there now and lets see if it sounds like it will work, because all I hear is how nothing anyone wants to do will work.”
PRECISELY!! When nothing will work, do NOTHING!
That is exactly what I want the government to do: NOTHING.
I do not want it to tax corporations, capital gains, or dividends. I do not want it giving money to corporations or individuals. It was the government’s forcing banks to lend money to those who were not creditworthy to buy a house they could not afford that caused Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — both government-created entities — to crash and burn.
dan – I agree with that. That is where all the problems started and it was liberals who started it. And I understand people are pissed about it. But Democrats have been forced to retool their image and now it is time for the Republicans to do the same because now they have fallen into the trap of being part of the problem. Maybe we need to shorten terms in office to two years but still allow for two terms, but not consecutive.
I think it is the eight years in office that does it. 8 years of Clinton killed liberalism. Now 8 years of Bush has killed conservatism. Reagan did it right. No one can ever argue different. The rest of these boobs are worthless. You know, and you will probably think I am crazy for saying this, but Hillary is a quite a respectable moderate force to be reckoning with when she is debating on the senate floor. But man when she is on the campaign trial want the bigger office, out comes the liberalism. She might have even been able to win this thing if she didn’t have the nasty habit of turning into a freak show when running for president.
Thank God for Barack Obama is all I have to say. At least he brought Blacks and whites closer together. I mean think about it when you cringe, you could have lost to Hillary. I can’t even think about it without making my head spin. Can you imagine what it would have been like getting up this morning if Hillary was coming in. At least with Obama, we don’t know, he might be alright, he might even be great. We don’t know anything about him, that’s what I always liked about him. If he hasn’t been around Washington long, he hasn’t been corrupted. That and Blacks will support him if we wants to make bold moves that the government or Wall Street resist where a white guy would be surrounded by people who want the status quo to stay the way it is.
“If he hasn’t been around Washington long, he hasn’t been corrupted.”
This might be true, if we did not have Chicago..
More hogs at the bailout trough :
Adult Entertainment Industry Wants a Bailout
With the financial industry, auto makers and more getting assistance from the federal government to stay afloat during the recession, the adult industry decided it would try to get something as well.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/adult-entertainment-industry-wants-bailout/
Did they contribute to the Clinton Library I wonder..
“First of all, Fontaine, can the Anglo-Saxon. I just went in and asterisked your filth. This is a family blog (my children DO read it), and if you cannot articulate your argument without resorting to expletives, then you don’t have a good argument”
Jack…like I always heard it…
“Profanity is the crutch of the inarticulate mother******”
dans,
“More hogs at the bailout trough :”
C’mon, you can’t take either of those two seriously, they’re about as loony as Ahmadinejad, the three of them are some bizarre mix of political satire and no-good opportunists. That clip reads like a blurb in The Onion or Mad Magazine.
Kevin, Mad is still around after all these years ? You are not surprised by all the outstretched hands ?
I think you are probably right on the entertainment industry, Kevin. Couldn’t bear the thought of my tax dollars going to those two schlumps.
I heard just recently, however, that Governor S in California may be casting an eye on the bailout program. Add some other cash-strapped states and municipalities to that; and you get a real large elephant in the room. Bailouts plus stimulus programs. Somebody with a keen understanding of budgets and debt ought to start calling for at least a temporary application of the brakes so we can get a better handle on this whole thing.
Im not against all bailouts per se but I would like somebody to show me this miraculous, seemingly bottomless pot of gold we appear to have discovered before we start spending it. I would hope that one of Obama’s first actions might be to give a public lecture with simplified X’s and O’s on the inflow and outflow involved in all this. I do believe that the eyes of the public are beginning to glaze over — never a good thing. The upside is that Obama seems to have the communications skills to give an effective lecture of this kind.
dans,
I don’t know if MAD is still around. No, I’m not surprised that those two clowns will do anything for publicity, including political satire. I wouldn’t exactly consider them the “Adult Industry” either. Causing a stir is the only way Larry Flynt seems to know how to make money. He’s lovin’ the FOX story, I’m sure. Drive to Washington in a hybrid! Big Dummy. But it sure got someone’s attention.
Woof,
With regards to the bailouts, all of them, I really don’t like them and my sentiments pretty much match yours.
I don’t think you have to worry about your tax dollars going to those two schlubs. Can you imagine? Maybe Craig would have voted for it but. . .
Kevin, I do not believe this is the end game for them. I smell a lawsuit when they are declined, which could put a lid on the whole bailout mess.
Monk,
#16 is a hoot
Joe, did you bring us this nutjob to make us miss Zimzo and Puffalump?
Monk, #16 is one of the best lines I’ve ever heard, one I definitely plan to employ.
Jack, I have no idea how Fontaine found us, I am guessing via google.
YOU let him post here.
“It was the government’s forcing banks to lend money to those who were not creditworthy to buy a house they could not afford that caused Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — both government-created entities — to crash and burn.”
Jack, this is just plain wrong. Can’t you quit the right-wing, anti-disadvantaged crap?
The “not creditworthy” folks had less defaults than the “rich” folks. It wasn’t their fault, and it wasn’t Freddie and Fannie’s fault. The fault was the get-rich-quick corporate heads that decided to loan TOO MUCH money to everyone. No matter how rich you are, if you buy the maximum house with a negative-equity loan, you’re likely going to be in trouble. Since this worked for a number of years, all the high-risk exec’s got promoted and kept it up. Then the bubble burst.
Let’s get real and understand that the problem was a LACK of regulation, not too much of it. You seem to lack a basic understanding of economics when you want the government to get out of everything. Laissez-faire only works at a macro level with an infinitely-sized market. And, by the way, bubbles and depressions are natural outcomes of pure capitalism. They occur MORE the less government interference.
I know, you’ll say “that’s not what they teach you in Economics 101″. That’s true. You need more advanced courses to understand more advanced economics. So quit the tired B.S. and get your head out of your ass.
Show me.
“Jack, this is just plain wrong. Can’t you quit the right-wing, anti-disadvantaged crap?”
Look, Insanity…look up the Carter legacy…the Community Reinvestment Act. Then add Clinton’s personal touch, threats to bring the Justice Dept. down on those banks who did not comply with the very loose loans…and you’ll have an explanation. It’s all very much a set of inconvienant truths, isn’t it?
“Let’s get real and understand that the problem was a LACK of regulation, not too much of it.”
And on May 2005, WHO WAS IT THAT VOTED NOT to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac??? Oh…that’s right. Dodd, Frank, and a whole host of other Democrats….a majority in fact.
Rah, rah, rah for Monk’s #16!!!!!!!
“And on May 2005, WHO WAS IT THAT VOTED NOT to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac??? Oh…that’s right. Dodd, Frank, and a whole host of other Democrats….a majority in fact.”
You’re right! That’s because the Repubs (with Gramm spearheading) had been all over themselves creating the damn crisis by deregulating banks and letting them get into all sorts of high-risk businesses. Then when they wanted to regulate only those folks that tend to vote Democrat, OF COURSE the Dem’s balked. Just like you Repubs, screw the poor and let the rich walk all over everybody. Now we’ve given many 100’s of billions to the same rich bastards that screwed it all up.
Sanity, have you ever lost a home because you couldn’t afford to pay the mortgage? Have you ever wanted to sell a home because you couldn’t afford to keep it, or you needed the money to live on, but you couldn’t? Have you ever bought ANYTHING that was over-priced, but you bought it because some salesman made the deal look good? Why is this a good position to put poor people in when it’s not necessary?
In 2003, the Bush administration tried to increase regulation on Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&scp=1&sq=%22barney+frank%22&st=nyt
Increasing appropriate regulation for these institutions would not have been regulating only people who tend to vote Democrat (as if they were being targeted). If appropriate regulation of these institutions was wrong, then can you please provide data supporting the notion that the economic crisis we’ve experienced would have occurred without the loan defaults. What else has been the primary fuel for this crisis?
Giving people access to loans when they can’t afford to maintain the payment, or maintain the home, is about as destructive to a community as you can get. I’ve lived in communities affected by this poor economic policy and it’s not a functional model. I would prefer just giving homes away than putting people in loans that have them spending a ridiculous percentage of their take-home pay on a home they may not even be able to maintain.
The really strange thing about this is that you don’t seem to realize that homeownership is EXPENSIVE. Period. Families who can’t afford a standard mortgage would be much better off renting, saving their money, and buying a home when they not only can handle the mortgage payment, but the upkeep as well.
I believe it was Obama that sued Citibank so that the low income and underprivileged were given mortgages. It was the beginning of Obama spreading the wealth.
The Super Liberals including Clinton had a mission to make sure that the nations poor all owned a home.
When McCain (can’t stand him) brought the impending crisis to the forefront in 2005, they (worthless leadership)said everything to him but go to hell. I saw the tapes and they found every excuse but the correct one for problems that had already been exposed at that time.
They made it appear that he was racist, that he didn’t want the poor in their own homes and it virtually disappeared because McCain couldn’t and still can’t stand up to anyone. He is a puppet and a follower, he goes with what is popular at the time but usually with what the democrats want.
Also, Illegal Aliens were given many thousands and thousands of mortgages with no social security number or credit record, all they needed was a ITIN number. There was one that bought a $600,000. home and she only made $8.00 an hour. Thank Bank Of Mexico, and a few others.
Obama Appointee Wants Soviet-styled Media
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-appointee-wants-soviet-styled-media.html
“Years of foolish policies have left us with a choice: We can bail out journalism, using tax dollars and granting licenses in ways that encourage robust and independent reporting and commentary, or we can watch, wringing our hands, as more and more top journalists are laid off,” she wrote in her parting column on April 9.
The Usurper and his cohorts won’t be happpy until they control every aspect of our lives.
Keep ‘em coming BHO!!!
HE, Per #33, is this the case you refer to, where Obama was a junior member of the legal team ?
clearinghouse.wustl.edu
Don’t think this shoe fits..
Not even a year ago, Obama was still saying that subprime loans were a “good idea.” Now that things have turned so negative, he demonizes Wall Street.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-obama-ca.html
Hear Obama say the subprime mortgages started off as a “good idea to help Americans buy homes who couldn’t previously afford to,” discussion of trillions of dollars of mortgages Freddie and Fannie guaranteed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FewmvkaTXHU
oh and hey, only $3 million from the stimulus to go to 200 citizens of Northern Mariana Islands (that’s only $15,000 each…)
Michelle Malkin is writing about it….
“That’s because the Repubs (with Gramm spearheading) had been all over themselves creating the damn crisis by deregulating banks and letting them get into all sorts of high-risk businesses.”
Huh. You mean the Financial Services Modernization Act? Of, uh, 1999? During President, uh, Clinton’s term?
Interesting how the same names come up again and again and again — from a NY Times piece on the bill’s passage:
“The breakthrough in today’s legislation came in a backroom meeting at the Capitol soon after midnight, when a group of moderate Senate Democrats — led by Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Charles E. Schumer of New York — forced a compromise between Mr. Gramm and the White House over the legislation’s effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-discrimination law intended to encourage lending to minorities and others historically denied access to credit.”