by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
March 6, 2011

In the summer of 2008 as McCain and Obama were in the midst of their campaigns to capture the presidency, a series of events dramatically changed the focus of the campaign from Iraq to the economy. From that point on, Obama took the lead and eventually won the presidency. 

Now, a full two years later, the Pentagon has issued a reporton the series of events that led to the 2008 economic crash. Bill Gertz writes in the Washington Times:

Evidence outlined in a Pentagon contractor report suggests that financial subversion carried out by unknown parties, such as terrorists or hostile nations, contributed to the 2008 economic crash by covertly using vulnerabilities in the U.S. financial system

Consider: The economic house of cards started tumbling on June 26, 2008, when Senator Chuck Schumer leaked a memo questioning the solvency of IndyMac bank. This memo precipitated a run on IndyMac which led to its failure. Federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank’s failure. “The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York.”

As I wrote in February of 2009, this event, coupled with the Lehman Brothers collapse in September, marked the beginning of the current economic meltdown and provided the environment that enabled Barack Obama to focus on the economy instead of his position on Iraq – and, not incidentally, resulted in his election as President.

July 12, 2008: The federal government takes control of the $32 billion IndyMac Bank. *

* Six months later, Jan 2, 2009, a seven-member group of investors agreed to buy the remnants of failed lender IndyMac for $13.9 billion. Other investors included a fund controlled by billionaire George Soros’ Fund Management. 

Sept. 6, 2008: Fannie Mae begins its downward spiral, which will end with a crash in November. This crash was avoidable, as the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were identified in June of 2006, when 15 Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee introduced legislation to address the problem. Democrats, led by Barney Frank, killed the reform efforts.

Sept. 15, 2008: Obama and McCain are virtually tied in their race for the presidency. Out of no-where, in the space of less than 2 hours, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the U.S. to the tune of $550 billion. Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania said that if authorities had not closed the banks, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn from US banks, which would have caused the collapse of the US  within 24 hours.

The markets reacted to Obama’s proposal to bail-out mortgages and Senator Christopher Dodd’s talk of nationalizing banks by reaching 11-year lows.

Enter George Soros. The infamous one-worlder, billionaire George Soros adds his voice to the media doomsayers by opining that the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of near-term resolution to the crisis.* 

Suspects include financial enemies in Middle Eastern states, Islamic terrorists, hostile members of the Chinese military, or government and organized crime groups in Russia, Venezuela or Iran. Chinese military officials.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for conservative news site RightBias.com

Originally posted 2010-04-19 22:34:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
April 19, 2010

My liberal friend Pam and I are a perfect example of the class warfare currently being waged in America between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots.’ Also known as ‘the war against the rich,’ or, in a nutshell, socialism.
 
Though Pam and I are lifelong friends, we couldn’t be more different. Pam is the quintessential liberal, quick to espouse views that show America in a bad light. Sarah Palin is evil, Bush is bad and anyone (like myself) that doesn’t base their decisions on feelings is, well, just plain uncompassionate. End of story. I, on the other hand, am a traditional, conservative Christian.
 
Though conservatives have yet to be included under the leftist’s much vaunted ‘tolerance’ and ‘multicultural’ umbrellas, Pam has decided that she will tolerate her renegade friend, as long as that friend doesn’t publicly air any conservative views. Which is becoming a problem for our friendship.
 
Pam is the product of government schools and a culture that ignores merit in favor of any perceived underdog or victim. She is the proud owner of a Masters Degree, which, according to her, validates all of her leftist views – regardless of any facts to the contrary. And its not her fault that, at the ripe age of 57, she has yet to pay off the student loans that paid for her education.
 
Both Pam and I are the end result of the decisions we have made over the course of our lives. Pam’s choices have resulted in her absolute refusal to participate in capitalism, or our free market system. Instead, she survives on a government check, feeling it is her due. And like most who receive something for nothing, she hates the one whose largesse she has chosen to accept. Kinda like all those countries who get aid from America and hate us for it. Hey, no one likes to be acknowledged as being subservient.
 
Fortunately for Pam, her leftists illusions allow her to maintain the moral high ground. Unlike her capitalist friend, who has never asked for or received dime one from the government. I am considered one of the evil ‘rich.’ Pam graciously ignores this fact, at least until she needs another loan.
 
Pam maintains the romantic illusion of being a struggling, misunderstood artist. She exists on a higher plane than Joe Six pack and Susy Homemaker. She is ‘sensitive’ and totally in tune with Mother Earth, victims of capitalism, and all creature great and small. That my tax dollars allow her this freedom is one of those inconvenient facts that Pam has learned to compartmentalize. Meaning she has chosen to ignore (or demonize) any facts that don’t align with her vision of herself.
 
Like most leftists, Pam believes that life is a zero sum game. If someone has a big slice of the pie, that automatically  means that some poor unfortunate has to do with a smaller slice. And all rich people are only rich because they made their money off the backs of those less fortunate.
 
This mind set, while comforting, is not conducive to material success. Which is OK with Pam, as she has spent her whole life eschewing the almighty dollar, choosing instead to allow others, like her ‘rich’ friend and financially stable family members the favor of periodically bailing her out financially. Her only concession to reality.
 
Ever since Obama was elected president, my friendship with Pam has become strained. Though politics was never a part of our friendship in the past, it has now become a factor. Pam apparently feels that Obama’s socialist agenda is the best thing that ever happened to the Oppressive State of America. And since she knows that everyone feels this way, she has no qualms parroting the Dem’s sound bite of the day as fact.
 
Since I know Obama didn’t really cut taxes by $800 billion, it rankles somewhat that Pam believes it. Pam also believes that the government take over of the private sector is long overdue. And that Obama’s take over of the health care system is the only way to ensure social justice. 
 
I don’t blame Pam for her desire for social justice. After all, she just had both hips replaced, courtesy Uncle Sam. And she sees no reason why other misunderstood victims shouldn’t have access to the same free lunch. But her attitude is starting to rankle.
 
Though I am aware of the politically viable yet destructive effect of pitting one class of Americans against another class, I find I am becoming an active participant. I’m starting to resent my friend. I resent her cavalier, tax-payer funded attitude. I am starting to take umbrage at her assumption that her liberal views are the only valid views and any dissent or challenge to her world view is either racist and/or lacking in compassion.
 
I’m starting to resent the fact that people like myself, dirty little capitalists, are required to support deadbeats who have decided to live off the system. All the while, spitting in the eye of those that provide the means. (Sorry, Pam.)
 
Having been allowed the luxury of basing her life on feelings instead of being forced to make a living, Pam now takes great offense should I dare mention any of these inconvenient realities. She will allow no dissent. Our friendship has become political.

Pam wastes no time analyzing my weekly articles as being motivated solely by hate and ‘lacking in compassion.’ She has adopted the proven tactic of continually forcing me to proving a negative. And I just don’t want to do that anymore, especially since I have lost respect for her.
 
With great regret, I realize Pam has become like so many of her fellow leftists. Willing to defend to the death leftists opinions (that are formed by others) and dismissing out of hand any facts to the contrary. If I don’t agree with her, why, there must be something wrong with me. This attitude is not conducive to friendship.
 
Lifelong friendships that have weathered the test of time are rare and should be cherished. That our current political climate has ended this friendship is regrettable. But this case is not unique. Across the nation, friends are pitted against friends, families are dividing along partisan lines and Americans are being encouraged to resent anyone percieved as having more than their (fair)share of the pie.
 
I fear this will continue and become more pervasive under our current president. Raising the distinct possibility of America’s downfall coming from within. The ‘have nots’ and victims are consolidating their premier position at the public trough, forcing others to pay for their ever evolving version of social justice. And considering that fully half of Americans now pay no federal income taxes yet still vote, the chances of changing this through the ballot box are becoming slimmer.
 
I already miss Pam. Our friendship was very important to me and I am saddened that today’s political climate makes it impossible for good friends to agree to disagree. But if the choice is between actively enabling her views by keeping silent or fighting to keep America from turning into a nation of useful idiots, I’ll choose the latter. Without regret.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
 
Article has been published with the author’s permission. 

Originally posted 2009-11-03 22:24:33. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
November 3, 2009
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In the summer of 2008, then presidential candidate Barack Obama delivered  a historic campaign speech in Germany. With the Berlin Wall as a back drop, Obama proudly informed the masses that he was not there as a candidate, but as “…a fellow citizen of the world.”
 
The crowd went crazy and the world rejoiced. Finally, the United States was ready to join the community of man. 
 
In what former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton calls our first post-American President, Obama has bestowed instant cachet on the growing ranks of Americans who revel in the thought of being the first in their own social set to be considered cutting edge ‘citizens of the world.’ Especially since joining this community of global citizens confers upon them automatic (albeit, unearned) virtue, along with instant and unassailable moral stature. 
 
For those of you who just aren’t with it, (like Christians, conservatives and a few Republicans) here are the latest, up to the minute, details on how to gain inclusion in this trendy and politically correct group.
 
To become a ‘citizen of the world,’ you must first and foremost declare your support for the disenfranchised. Preferably in front of a camera in a very public forum. Just pick a group of victims upon whom you will bestow your empathy and support. The only caveat being that they reside in underdeveloped countries ruled by misunderstood men of good will like Uganda, or Cuba, or Somalia, or…well, you get my drift. Oh, and make sure everyone understands that these victims are only victims because of George W. Bush and/or America.

Next, you must ardently advocate the spending of other people’s money in order to help these poor victims. If you’re one of the fortunate ‘non-rich,’ (meaning your income is under $250,000 and/or you receive a government check every month) then a straight party line vote for the Democrats, frequent letters to the editor and a catchy bumper sticker are strongly recommended. In addition, you must make yourself available for the occasional photo-op or rally, and vocalize your support for all of Obama’s policies to every-one you know. (T-shirts are a very cool way to do this)
 
If you’re unfortunate enough and greedy enough to have an annual income over $250,000, your membership entrance requirements are a bit more stringent. The good news is, you can skip right over victims and concentrate on vital issues like global warming or the evils of capitalism.
 
For all you rich guys out there, its recommended that you use whatever influence you have to advocate for whichever policy Obama is currently trying to foist on the American public. Bumper stickers won’t do it, guys. You need to atone big time.
 
Not to worry, just contact DNC.org and they will give you a list of organizations you should  support. And since you’ve made all that money on the backs of the poor, social justice requires that you give back some of your own money, instead of merely advocating the expenditure of other people’s money.
 
A list of approved recipient groups will be provided free of charge. It is recommended that you give early and often. ACORN is the most needy cause as of this writing. But whatever group you decide to donate your bucks to, rest assured, Obama is in the process of making those donations tax deductible.
 
If you happen to be filthy rich and/or an elected official or head of a union, different rules apply. In order to be considered a citizen of the world, all you have to do is believe (faking belief is totally OK) in Obama’s vision of utopia. You must believe, or at least profess to believe, that world peace is possible, that the earth is melting, that diplomacy trumps war and that America is the cause of all the world’s problems. Other that that, the only real requirement is a constant and sustained effort to ensure that global governance trumps American sovereignty.
 
Hat-tip: it wouldn’t hurt if you make known that yours was one of the Swiss bank accounts the Obama administration recently forced the Swiss to disclose. That alone will ensure you are recognized by the right people.
 
There you have it, fellow comrades. If you have followed the above steps, we want to officially welcome you as a new ‘citizen of the world.’ Take a load off. You are now eligible to engage in global groupthink, which means that you will never again be forced to make any moral, financial or life decisions on your own. More membership perks are already in the works, and you guys will be the first to benefit! Kumbaya.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Article has been published with the author’s permission

Related articles by Zemanta

• Has Obama met the hopes of the world?(guardian.co.uk)
• Obama’s year of vitriol and rebuff at home, deadlock abroad. Not a bad start at all | Jonathan Freedland(guardian.co.uk)
• Letter From Washington: A Culture of Business as Usual(nytimes.com)
• Another Self-Inflicted Wound(powerlineblog.com)
• He’s Still No-Drama Obama(usnews.com)
• Divided Republicans hope for big victories in Virginia, New Jersey(cnn.com)
• John Hannah’s Tone-Deaf Political Strategy(themoderatevoice.com)
• “Obama and today’s elections” and related posts(publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com)
• “Bill Owens, Doug Hoffman, New York Congressional Race Live, Winner” and related posts(rightpundits.com)
• Job-Creation Panel Leery of Spending(online.wsj.com)
• By visiting our war dead, Obama passes Dover test(americablog.com)

Originally posted 2009-07-26 19:18:49. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Scott Spiegel
ScottSpiegel.com

Five months after the stimulus bill was passed, we can now say that we’ve witnessed the following under-stimulating results.

Payrolls are falling more than forecast, with employers having cut 467,000 jobs in June, following a 322,000-job decline in May. Factory jobs fell by 136,000 after dropping 156,000 in May.

Unemployment is at 9.5%, the highest level in 15 years, and is projected to exceed 10% by the end of 2009.  Some economists expect it to remain at historically high levels for years.

The average workweek is at 33 hours, the lowest in 45 years.

Average weekly earnings are down to $611.

The national debt is $11.5 trillion.  The Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit for 2009 to be almost $2 trillion and for 2010 to be more than $1.4 trillion.

The Treasury is increasing its sale of debt to pay for spending.  Treasury offered $1 trillion in notes and bonds in the first half of 2009 and plans to offer another $1 trillion by the end of 2009.

Colin Powell, of all people, is alarmed that Obama’s spending orgy may be swelling government and the national debt: “I’m concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them…  [We have] a huge, huge national debt that, if we don’t pay for [it] in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great-grandchildren will have to pay for…”  Now he tells us!

Jared Bernstein, chief economic advisor to Joe Biden, whose office is managing the stimulus, says, “It’s working, it’s demonstrably working.”  According to Bernstein, $200 billion in stimulus money has already been obligated or spent.  Case closed!

Note to Bernstein: In order to demonstrate causality, you have to show that: (1) there was a cause, (2) there was an effect, and (3) the cause influenced the effect.  Defenders of the stimulus bill are still stuck on #1: as of June, only 10% of all stimulus funds had been distributed.  Bernstein’s $200 billion “obligated or spent” figure—eerily reminiscent of the administration’s “jobs saved or created” trope—is untrustworthy, because the administration has already been caught lying about money committed to spending projects.

Given the miserable failure of the stimulus bill, naturally Congressional Democrats want… another stimulus bill!  According to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, “We need to be open to… further action.”  Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said that another stimulus would “probably take place towards the end of the year.”  Second-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin said he would leave any decisions on passing another stimulus bill to “the president’s evaluation”—and we all know how cautious Barack “Fiscal Restraint” Obama will be.  Stan Collender, former Congressional budget analyst, said that another stimulus bill may be possible if the economy gets worse: “Right now it doesn’t seem to be justified…  Come September, it might be.”

The first stimulus package was “a bit too small,” according to Laura Tyson, member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.  Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times, “O.K., Thursday’s jobs report settles it.  We’re going to need a bigger stimulus.”  Biden advisor Bernstein says, “There is no conceivable stimulus package on the face of this earth that would fully offset the deepest recession since the Great Depression.”

Let’s see: the stimulus bill committed a record $787 billion in spending.  Tyson says it should have been “a bit” bigger.  Congressional Democrats and Krugman wanted it much bigger.  Bernstein admits it would have to be infinitely big to work.  Can we give Bernstein the award for inadvertent honesty on this one?

The clincher that the stimulus bill was an abject failure—and that another stimulus bill would be a repeat failure—is the fact that Wall Street has just hit a 10-week low after talk of a second stimulus package recently began.  Amateur analysts suggest that chatter about another stimulus bill is making investors nervous, because—get this—it shows that the economy might not be recovering.  According to Hugh Johnson of Johnson Illington Advisors, “When there’s talk about another stimulus plan, that adds fuel to that fire, it intensifies the concerns about the timing and strength of the recovery.”

Is it possible, just possible, that investors are nervous, not because Congress’ hinting at a second stimulus package implies the economy is not recovering—which I think they can figure out on their own—but because Congress is hinting at a second stimulus package?

If Democrats aren’t persuaded by Republicans’ argument, backed up by ample historical data, that spending vast quantities of wealth not yet created does not stimulate the economy in the long term, could they at least admit their little experiment failed and try the Republican option for a change?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scott Spiegel is the editor of ScottSpiegel.com

Article has been published with permission

Originally posted 2009-07-28 17:17:53. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Rick Sincere
RickSincereThoughts
July 16, 2009

As part of the gargantuan (1,000-page-plus) health care “reform” package introduced by members of the Democratic majority in Congress, the Obama administration proposes to raise taxes through a “surtax” on Americans who earn the most money.

The Washington Post explained this “soak the rich” policy in a front-page article on July 15:

The surtax would start at 1 percent and rise to 5.4 percent on income exceeding $1 million. Combined with the expiration next year of tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, the surtax would drive the top federal tax rate to 45 percent, the highest level since lawmakers rewrote the tax code in 1986.

The Washington Times, for its part, points out that this raises U.S. marginal tax rates to their highest levels since the 1980s:

A new surtax of 5.4 percent in the health care bill, which would apply to married couples’ income above $1 million, would bring the top federal income tax rate to 45 percent.

After consideration of state and local income taxes and the Medicare payroll tax, which applies to all wage and salary income, taxpayers in 39 states would face a top marginal income tax rate of more than 50 percent, according to a study by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax research group based in the District.

“That means government would be taking more than half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers,” said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge. “The lowest tax rate would be 47 percent – and that’s in the nine states that don’t tax wages.”

Businesses say the surtax would hurt the economy.

“The intention of this plan is to tax high-income households, but the real victims would be America’s small-business owners,” said Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Placing a big tax burden on the small-business community would rob them of the resources they need to create the jobs that will lead us out of the recession.”

President Obama would be wise to look to history to see what happened the last time a president made a surtax the centerpiece of his economic program. (Some might object that this is a “health care” program. That’s true, up to a point. The fact that the bill has been referred to the Finance Committee in the House suggests that this is really a revenue bill.)

Advertisement

In Yanek Mieczkowski’s 2005 book, Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s, the Dowling College historian relates what happened when Ford proposed a 5 percent surtax on all incomes above $15,000 (more than it sounds like; remember, these were 1974 dollars) in his first major economic legislative package:

As what he termed “the acid test of our joint determination to whip inflation in America,” Ford pronounced the cornerstone of his new economic program, a one-year, 5 percent surcharge on corporate and personal incomes. The surtax was directed at individuals with yearly earnings of $15,000 or more for married taxpayers and $7,500 for the unmarried. (Taxpayers would have to figure out what they normally owed the government, then add the 5 percent surtax to it.) The advantages of the surtax were that it would be mildly progressive, since the rich would pay more, and temporary, lasting only the calendar year 1975. Nor was it onerous. For example, a single person earning $15,000 would pay a federal income tax of $2,549; the surcharge would add $78. (p. 121)

Despite its modest appearance, Ford’s proposal was met with strong opposition, especially from the Democrats who held a majority in Congress (a majority that would grow substantially after the midterm elections a few weeks after his proposal was announced). Republicans were not too fond of it, either.

Ford took a political risk by proposing a surtax less than a month before congressional elections. Unveiling a tax increase at such a time was like unleashing a skunk at a picnic; representatives and senators ran in the opposite direction, refusing to embrace or even come close to it. Officeholders facing difficult reelection battles, such as GOP senators Bob Dole of Kansas and Marlow Cook of Kentucky, deserted their president rather than support the proposal….

The program itself was a political bomb. The jumble of proposals gave the whole thing an eclectic feel, and the centerpiece — a tax increase — fell flat. One poll showed that Americans opposed the surtax, 58 to 34 percent. Members of Congress resisted it. Just two days after the speech, William Baroody warned Ford that it was “in serious trouble on the Hill and very unpopular politically” and that Congress was in no mood to reduce spending. Two weeks before the election [William] Seidman publicly acknowledged that the surtax faced an uphill struggle on Capitol Hill and called its prospects “uncertain.” The overwhelming Republican repudiation in the ensuing elections turned “uncertain” to “doomed.” Ford’s policy making was off to a rocky start. (p. 124; footnotes omitted)

In one of the more significant parenthetical partial paragraphs of any work of recent history, however, Mieczkowski writes:

(One economist’s skepticism about the surtax generated what later became a mainstay of Ronald Reagan’s “supply-side” economics. Arthur Laffer doubted that the 5 percent surtax would generate much revenue, and while dining at a restaurant with Ford administration members Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, he drew a graph on a napkin to illustrate his belief that tax cuts — rather than increases — would raise more revenue because of increased business activity. His illustration became known as the “Laffer Curve.”) (p. 122)

Apparently other economists caught on, even if they hadn’t seen the napkin. Yanek Mieczkowski writes on page 130:

By November, many economists, realizing that Ford had miscalculated, urged him to drop the surtax proposal and switch his focus to fighting the recession. The president stuck by the surtax and still urged budget cuts.

In the end, the surtax proposal crashed and burned. Mieczkowski notes on page 131:

A political science axiom says that “the president proposes, Congress disposes.” Congress certainly disposed of Ford’s surtax, and quickly. Although he developed a fiscally balanced program incorporating many recommendations from the economic summit conferences, it was also like a multipronged barb that Congress could not swallow. And it soon became incongruous. The deteriorating economy, coupled with the inherent unpopularity of a tax increase, doomed Ford’s first major economic initiative. But that failure was fortunate; as events played out, a surtax would have aggravated the downturn. (emphasis added)

History teaches us, and not just in this example from the mid-1970s, that raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea.

Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have not absorbed this lesson of history and economics. Should they succeed in raising taxes to finance their ambitious program to socialize medicine, they — or, rather, we — will live to regret it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rick Sincere is the editor of RickSincereThoughts

Article has been published with permission