Obama: out of touch

Posted on March 16, 2009 by Joel

According to Obama’s own standards… Obama is out of touch.

WASHINGTON – The economy is fundamentally sound despite the temporary “mess” it’s in, the White House said Sunday in the kind of upbeat assessment that Barack Obama had mocked as a presidential candidate.

What’s worse is that the dow is roughly 2000 points lower NOW than when McCain said the same thing 4 months ago. I wonder how many of McCain’s critics will be equally critical of Obama for essentially identical statements.

Just kidding. Of course they won’t.

via White House says economy is sound despite ‘mess’.

The looming “depression”

Posted on January 28, 2008 by Joel

I just read a really great article on WSJ.com about how bad a shape we are actually in economically. When you look at the mortgage “crisis” in terms of the economy as a whole, it doesn’t even make a ‘blip’ on the radar.

What Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently estimated as a $100 billion loss on subprime loans would represent only 0.1% of the $100 trillion in combined assets of all U.S. households and U.S. non-farm, non-financial corporations. Even if losses ballooned to $300 billion, it would represent less than 0.3% of total U.S. assets.

Are we to believe that our the financial machine that is the U.S. economy can be tanked by the loss of .3% of total U.S. assets? This is madness! This is just irresponsible on the part of our politicians and press to hold the ‘R’ word over our heads day-in and day-out… and for what purpose? Could it possibly be that all this horrible economic news is somehow related to the upcoming election? Could it possibly be that the media have an agenda? This is not just some conspiracy theory here, the numbers don’t lie; and if you are going to start spreading doom-and-gloom based on .3% (not 3%, POINT THREE PERCENT) of the U.S. economy, one cannot help but to question the motives behind such news.

The author goes on to point out that if our economy really could be tanked by a downturn in .3% of our total assets… then our problems are much bigger then any stimulus package could ever fix.

Continue reading →

Tax cuts can benefit the poor… who knew?

Posted on November 1, 2007 by Joel

uploaded by carpe icthus.

If there is one thing we can say with certainty, is that the tax cuts enacted in 2003 have provied both a roboust economy and have increased tax revenues significantly.

[The 2003 tax rate reductions have incrased] tax revenues… Those reductions have raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. Finally, another inconvenient truth is that there have been 49 consecutive months of job growth as a result of the economic expansion induced by President Bush’s 2003 tax rate reductions.

Given this statistical evidence, it is clear that we would have record SURPLUSES were it not for the IRAQ war. Furthermore, it is clear that Democrats cannot claim any responsibility for the record inflows to the federal treasury. Can ANYONE dispute on the basis of these figures that tax cuts lead to greater tax revenue? I think not (although I’d be happy to entertain your theories to the contrary in the comments).

One is then left asking the question: why would Charles Rangel (who recently suggested one of the biggest tax hikes in U.S. history), Hillary (who ‘agrees with Rangel in principle‘), and most Democrats (as a general rule) want to raise taxes if the facts show that lower taxes increases government revenue? In other words, shouldn’t democrats be in FAVOR of tax cuts to fund the social program of their choice? You would think….

I’m afraid the only answer that makes any sense is that Wrangel, Hillary, and the rest would rather soak the rich in principle… regardless of the adverse affect doing so may have on the public at large when treasury inflows dry up. They must conclude that a society equally miserable is more desirable than a tiered but economically healthy society. This is indeed unfortunate, but I can think of no other option.

Actually, I take that back… perhaps the democrats believe in smaller government… (that’s a joke… people…)