http://www.theblaze.com/stories/epa-to-issue-new-climate-rules-without-congress/
Sunday, September 5, 2010
TheBlaze.com - EPA to Issue New Climate Rules Without Congress
White House Now Encouraging Doctors to Prescribe Drugs for Fat Kids
Let's face it.
They're socialists.
Via Breitbart TV and The Blaze:
Sent from my iPhone
Ben Bernanke's monetary policy poverty | Chris Payne
The White House is floating a new stimulus, though the Fed chief seemed to rule it out. But does he have any other tools?
Everyone was pretty glum about US GDP growth between March and June, when it was thought to be 2.4%. But due to the wonders of statistical revision, it now turns out that it was only 1.6%. Of course, those out of work do not care what the statistics say because they know exactly what the economy feels like to them now. All the same, these numbers are no doubt confirming people's fears that the dreaded second dip (of on-going depression) is on the way.
Coinciding with the revised GDP numbers, though, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has announced that he is going to do all that he can, using all the tricks available, to fight deflation. So, what are those tricks and how successful might they be?
Trick number one: continue with quantitative easing (QE). In layman's terms, this means that he will continue to buy securities in the market place in order to keep their price up, and he will create funds (with the press of a button) at the Fed in order to pay for these purchases. This is good old-fashioned money-printing, and the Fed had already made it clear that it is what they intended to keep doing. Their aim with this policy is ensure that bond prices do not fall, because, if they do, private banks will find their asset base falling, their capital adequacy declining; and if one thing led to another, we would all find ourselves back in the financial maelstrom.
Necessary as this policy is, it is not a "stimulus", for this "high-powered money": that the Fed is creating is not, in fact, very high-powered at all; it does nothing to incentivise banks to lend and nothing to stimulate entrepreneurs and consumers to borrow and spend. It is a desperate policy to stop things getting worse.
Trick number two: tell everyone that you intend to keep rates low for a long time. Well, everyone knows already that the Fed is committed to fighting deflation and ensuring that banks' assets do not fall in value too much. A commitment by the Japanese to keeping their interest rates low (at almost zero) has not helped them in the past 10 years.
Trick number three: paying no interest on the private banks' excess deposits of money at the Fed. Well, the Fed is already only paying 0.25%, so cutting to zero is not going to make much difference. If these low returns are not incentivising banks to lend at the moment, this "change" in policy is going to make no difference at all.
Trick number four: targeting higher inflation. The chance of higher inflation would be a fine thing! One can target any number one likes, but if the current policy of printing money and setting policy rates at near zero is having no effect on consumer prices (which are rapidly heading towards deflation territory), then what use is a new target going to be? In fact, I can only imagine that it would be counterproductive; after all, how better to signal the fact that essentially you have no new tools left and are unable to fight deflation than to demonstrate clearly that you have no ability to hit your own targets.
So what does all this mean? It means that unless the Fed plans to print money and actually start buying real housing stock and real goods and services (because that would be a sure way of bringing inflation; probably hyperinflation, in fact), there is nothing left for them to do. Except what they have been doing, which is helping to ensure that the banking system does not implode again.
In other words, monetary policy is, for the time being, over. Either you believe that the private sector will recover in due course of its own accord or you believe that what we really need is a proper fiscal stimulus, the likes of which we are yet to see.
Obama Wants You to Bailout Your Neighbor Again
The Obama administration on Tuesday will launch its most ambitious effort at reducing mortgage balances for homeowners who owe more than their homes are worth.
Officials say between 500,000 and 1.5 million so-called underwater loans could be modified through the program, the first initiative to target homeowners who are current on their mortgage payments but are at risk of default because they have no equity in their homes. Some experts are warning, however, that the same knots that tied up prior initiatives could do so again.
Under the new "short refinance" program, banks and other creditors that write down mortgages to less than the value of the property can essentially hand off the reduced loan to the government. The process involves refinancing borrowers into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration.
While the program puts taxpayers at risk—officials estimate one in five loans in the program could default—the government has set aside $14 billion previously earmarked for housing aid from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to cover losses.
The new program, which was announced in March, is starting as the housing market shows signs of renewed trouble and as the Obama administration's signature Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, falls short of its goals of helping three million homeowners. Half of the 1.3 million borrowers that enrolled in temporary loan modifications have fallen out of HAMP because they didn't qualify. Only one-third has received permanent modifications.
The initiative also comes as mortgage rates fall to their lowest levels in more than 50 years. Average rates on 30-year fixed-rate loans dropped to 4.43% last week, down from 4.55% during the previous week, according to a survey published Wednesday by the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Robert Reich: Raise Top Tax Rate to 90%
Can you imagine what would happen to the economy if top wage earners were taxed at 70 to 90 percent?
Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich can, and he thinks it's a great idea.
To be sure, many Americans were concerned that giving Democrats control of the executive and legislative branches of our government during an economic crisis could usher back in socialist tendencies first seen in this nation during the Depression.
Fears of such a leftward shift sparked a new powerful movement called the Tea Party.
With this in mind, Reich's op-ed [1] "How to End the Great Recession" published in Friday's New York Times validates these concerns:
The rich spend a much smaller proportion of their incomes than the rest of us. So when they get a disproportionate share of total income, the economy is robbed of the demand it needs to keep growing and creating jobs.
What's more, the rich don't necessarily invest their earnings and savings in the American economy; they send them anywhere around the globe where they'll summon the highest returns - sometimes that's here, but often it's the Cayman Islands, China or elsewhere. The rich also put their money into assets most likely to attract other big investors (commodities, stocks, dot-coms or real estate), which can become wildly inflated as a result.
Meanwhile, as the economy grows, the vast majority in the middle naturally want to live better. Their consequent spending fuels continued growth and creates enough jobs for almost everyone, at least for a time. But because this situation can't be sustained, at some point - 1929 and 2008 offer ready examples - the bill comes due.
And how does Reich see "us" paying that bill? If you said "higher and higher taxes," give yourself a cigar:
THE Great Depression and its aftermath demonstrate that there is only one way back to full recovery: through more widely shared prosperity. In the 1930s, the American economy was completely restructured. New Deal measures - Social Security, a 40-hour work week with time-and-a-half overtime, unemployment insurance, the right to form unions and bargain collectively, the minimum wage - leveled the playing field.
In the decades after World War II, legislation like the G.I. Bill, a vast expansion of public higher education and civil rights and voting rights laws further reduced economic inequality. Much of this was paid for with a 70 percent to 90 percent marginal income tax on the highest incomes. And as America's middle class shared more of the economy's gains, it was able to buy more of the goods and services the economy could provide. The result: rapid growth and more jobs.
Sent from my iPhone
School Tells Student: Remove American Flag From Truck | The FOX Nation
Obama to propose permanent research tax credit - m.NYPOST.com
Job losses strike deeply in Birmingham, Huntsville and Mobile | al.com
DEMOCRATS PLAN POLITICAL TRIAGE TO RETAIN HOUSE - Inside Bay Area
DEMOCRATS PLAN POLITICAL TRIAGE TO RETAIN HOUSE - Inside Bay Area