Archive
POTUS: Hey, let’s talk about energy policy but don’t mention the BP oil spill
We can’t have Obama-led government incompetence suck up all the oxygen in the room now, can we?
That wouldn’t be prudent:
In the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama today summoned a bipartisan group of over 20 senators to the White House to push for energy and climate change legislation.
But one thing the President did not want to talk about at the meeting was the BP disaster, a Republican source told ABC News. And that, the source said, led to a pointed exchange with GOP senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee.
“The priority should be fixing the oil spill,” Alexander told the President, according to the source. “That’s what any meeting about energy should be about.”
But when Alexander tried to interject the BP leak into the meeting, the source said, the President told the senator, “That’s just your talking point.”
Retorted Alexander, “No, it’s my opinion.”
Senator Alexander made the critical mistake of highlighting a situation where government is not only not a solution, but impeding progress towards a solution.
Given that the Barack Obama is all about bigger and intrusive government, bringing up such issues are verboten. Government, and by extension, Barack Obama, can only do good things.
Once again, it’s all about Obama. Narcissism prevails in this White House.
Dylan Ratigan is really ticked off!
The former Bloomberg reporter/CNBC host is mad as hell by golly, and he’s not taking it anymore:
On most cable newscasts, the people who are writing new financial regulations are called congressmen. But on “The Dylan Ratigan Show” on MSNBC, some are called “banksters.”
That term, a twist on gangsters, tells viewers a lot about Mr. Ratigan, a financial news apostate who has transformed himself into an outspoken opponent of too-big-to-fail banks and the politicians whom he calls their servants. In the recent fight over financial reform, he lent a megaphone to people who wanted an end to “too big to fail,” and he called on viewers to lobby the Senators in his imaginary Bankster Party.
All this from a man who, until recently, hosted a stock-picking show on CNBC, the cable personification of Wall Street. Now Mr. Ratigan, who labels himself a taxpayer advocate, rails against the “vampire” banks who “have assumed control of our government.”
[…]
Mr. Ratigan underwent a “Lou Dobbs-like transformation,” from sober-minded journalist to all-out advocate, said Andrew Leckey, the president of the Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism at Arizona State University.
In a nod to his old network, Mr. Ratigan said that CNBC “does more good than bad,” because it “still shines the light on the debate about ideas in the financial markets.” But MSNBC seems to be a better platform than CNBC for a political crusade against corruption, said Mr. Ratigan, 38, whose one-year anniversary at MSNBC will come on Tuesday.
Good grief. Doesn’t this all smell of crass opportunism? A lame attempt by MSNBC to get themselves a shrill, pseudo-populist for their network?
If there’s any question about the reasons behind the downfall of the MSM, look no further than Dylan Ratigan–man of the people!
Such bull.
About that war in Afghanistan…
The Rolling Stone article aside, perhaps there was something more to the McChrystal firing last week:
…[T]he “campaign overview” left behind by General McChrystal after he was sacked by President Barack Obama last week warned that only a fraction of the areas key to long-term success are “secure”, governed with “full authority”, or enjoying “sustainable growth”. He warned of a critical shortage of “essential” military trainers needed to build up Afghan forces – of which only a fraction is classed as “effective”.
He pinpointed an “ineffective or discredited” Afghan government and a failure by Pakistan “to curb insurgent support” as “critical risks” to success. “Waning” political support and a “divergence of coalition expectations and campaign timelines” are among the key challenges faced, according to the general.
It was this briefing, according to informed sources, as much as the Rolling Stone article, which convinced Mr Obama to move against the former head of US Special Forces, as costs soar to $7bn a month and the body count rises to record levels, because it undermined the White House political team’s aim of pulling some troops out of Afghanistan in time for the US elections in 2012. In addition to being the result of some too-candid comments in a magazine article, the President’s decision to dispense with his commander was seen by the general’s supporters as a politically motivated culmination of their disagreements.
The comments made in the article by McChrystal’s inner circle were reason enough to be rid of the general. But I can never underestimate the ulterior motives of this President. He will never admit that the commander he chose for the campaign in Afghanistan was coming up short, and by extension so was his administration.
Just another shell game by the Obama administration.
FinReg bill just a ruse. Really.
It’s amazingly sad that the majority of the commentariat in the media and the blogosphere see the new regulation as actual “reform” with teeth, as something other than political theater:
Analysts pored over the specifics of the deal as they emerged on Friday and expressed a wide array of views about the impact it would have. Some saw the bill as more of a political statement than a practical measure that could prevent another financial meltdown. Others said banks’ costs would increase, but banks would pass the increased costs along to consumers.
[…]
Richard Bove, a banking analyst with Rochdale Securities, said the bill would not severely curtail banks’ operations.
“I don’t see there being a tremendous clampdown on the ability of banks to make money,” he said.
“The banks will have numerous methods of getting around the most onerous provisions in this bill to maintain their earnings growth,” he added. “But the things they will do will increase the cost of banking to everybody in this country.”
For instance, Mr. Bove pointed to last year’s credit card bill, which led banks to push up rates pre-emptively or reduce customers’ credit limits.
“You’re going to get a letter from your bank saying you now have to pay $1 to $15 a month to pay for this bill,” he said. “The banks are going to get the money back because the consumer is going to pay for the bill, and that’s the killer for the consumer.”
Every decade or so, a bubble happens, irrational exuberance reigns and markets overreach. Bubbles and bull markets, although not synonymous, are inevitable in free markets. It’s the nature of the beach. And whenever they burst or correct, politicians cry foul and demand bigger and “better” regulation. It happened after the crash of ’29, it happened after the dot-com bubble, and it’s happening again.
And every time it happens, chest-thumping politicians claim they are sticking up for the average American, when in fact, most of the time, the new regulations are superfluous and useless. What’s more, the average American is usually worse off.
Apparently, we’re on that ride once again.
USA advances in dramatic fashion
Ninety minutes of fruitless attacks and blocked shots, plus yet another questionable call by a FIFA referee denying the USA a goal, and in the 91st minute Donovan punches one in:
If you can watch that goal and not get excited for World Cup soccer, then you’re hopeless.
New home sales plunge most since…forever
Thank goodness Obama and the Democrats are really on the ball when it comes to the economy:
Sales of new homes collapsed in May, sinking 33 percent to the lowest level on record as potential buyers stopped shopping for homes once they could no longer receive government tax credits.
The bleak report from the Commerce Department is the first sign of how the end of federal tax credits could weigh on the nation’s housing market.
The credits expired April 30. That’s when a new-home buyer would have had to sign a contract to qualify.
“We fear that the appetite to buy a home has disappeared alongside the tax credit,” Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics,” wrote in a note. “After all, unemployment remains high, job security is low and credit conditions are tight.”
New-home sales in May fell from April to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 300,000, the government said Wednesday. That was the slowest sales pace on records dating back to 1963. And it’s the largest monthly drop on record. Sales have now sunk 78 percent from their peak in July 2005.
Analysts were startled by the depth of the sales drop.
“We all knew there would be a housing hangover from the expiration of the tax credit,” wrote Mike Larson, real estate and interest rate analyst at Weiss Research. “But this decline takes your breath away.”
It’s almost as if the Federal government was subsidizing market behavior and created an artificial floor in the housing market.
Nah. That couldn’t be.
North Korea gives up on totalitarian economics
If this is true, then there’s good news coming out of North Korea:
Bowing to reality, the North Korean government has lifted all restrictions on private markets — a last-resort option for a leadership desperate to prevent its people from starving.
In recent weeks, according to North Korea observers and defector groups with sources in the country, Kim Jong Il’s government admitted its inability to solve the current food shortage and encouraged its people to rely on private markets for the purchase of goods. Though the policy reversal will not alter daily patterns — North Koreans have depended on such markets for more than 15 years — the latest order from Pyongyang abandons a key pillar of a central, planned economy.
With November’s currency revaluation, Kim wiped out his citizens’ personal savings and struck a blow against the private food distribution system sustaining his country. The latest policy switch, though, stands as an acknowledgment that the currency move was a failure and that only capitalist-style trading can prevent widespread famine.
Over the past year or so, as debates here in the States raged about whether government control over aspects of the economy were favorable or not, I’ve heard people say things to the effect of “maybe [aspects of] socialism aren’t so bad” and “what’s wrong with the government guaranteeing this social benefit or that subsidy”.
Actually, everything’s wrong with command economies, where the motive for economic gain and self-sufficiency are out of the equation. North Korea may have realized this too late. Better late than never, I guess.
Who’s talking…