Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Democrats, Not the Tea Party, Are the Real Extremists (Newsmax) By David Limbaugh Tuesday Sept. 21, 2010...

BS Ranch Perspective:

This story is so true, Look at the Aug 28 Rally that was held in the Mall of America, Washington D.C. There was not a drop of trash, there was three times as many people and the Tea Party, cleaned up after themselves, all because of the respect that they have for the United States of America.

Now you look at the rally that was held and sponsored by the Union's and the Democratic Party, there was mountains of trash left all over the Mall of America!! I could not believe that two thirds less people could leave such a mess!! Where was their respect for our Country?

BS Ranch


Democrats, Not the Tea Party, Are the Real Extremists

By: David Limbaugh

My immediate response to liberals who emerge from their Ouija boards to denounce Christine O'Donnell as a one-time dabbler in witchcraft is: At this point in our history, I'd vote for Elmira Gulch before I'd vote for another statist masquerading as a Republican.

The fact that O'Donnell might have done some things in her past she's not particularly proud of would make her fairly normal. I'm more concerned with where she is now, and she seems like a reliable Christian conservative with her head on straight about both religion and politics. In her television appearances, she's been quite impressive — energetic, articulate, and right on the issues.

But Christine O'Donnell isn't really the issue here. The more interesting and relevant stories arising out of her primary victory are: 1) the liberals' efforts to paint her — along with other mainstream conservatives, including the entire tea party movement — as extreme and, frankly, a bit wacko when the real extremism resides in the Democratic Party; 2) the liberals' efforts to fabricate a major schism in the GOP when, in fact, the real dissension of consequence is occurring in their own Democratic Party; and 3) establishment Republicans disgruntled over their inability to control the selection of candidates going forward, their apparent anxiety about the entire tea party phenomenon as rocking their world, and their resulting collusion with the liberal establishment to discredit the upstarts, who are beyond their power to manage and manipulate.

The mentally sedentary and complacent establishment types haven't figured it out yet; our nation is under a formidable assault that differs in kind, rather than degree, from the gradual liberal march toward statism we've witnessed for the past 50-plus years.

If there has been one upside to the Democrats' firm control over the two political branches these past 20 months, it has been to reveal to America the extreme liberalism of the Democratic Party's governing class. That should be the overarching headline of the day, not the falsely alleged extremism of grass-roots conservatives peaceably protesting the destruction of their beloved America and not this trumped-up anxiety over Republican candidates who don't fit the establishment template yet are resonating with grass-roots voters.

Conservatives are coming together in a way that I haven't seen since the Reagan years, and it's none too soon. I once feared that baby boomers were in jeopardy of forfeiting our liberty because it was mostly handed to us with no requirement of sacrifice in return, but I no longer do. If many did take it for granted, they don't anymore. The flip side of complacency about liberty for having been born into it is that you cherish and will fight for it, especially when someone is trying to take it away.

Liberals have made the mistake of going too far too fast with this bunch of statists currently in power. They would have had a better chance to continue to advance their Utopian schemes had they remained patient in their gradual march. But with their in-your-face excesses, their outright dictatorial abuses of power, their displays of utter contempt for the will of the people, and their recklessly destructive policy agenda, they've awakened another slumbering giant: mainstream, grass-roots America.

Two times more people identify themselves as conservatives than as liberals, so liberals, as usual, are resorting to stridency and vociferousness to characterize the majority as extremists. This time it's not working, because the majority now realizes that it is in fact the majority and, more importantly, that liberals are the ones wreaking disaster on this nation with careless abandon.

So obvious is the public mood against the liberal extremism of Obama's Democrats that even entrenched members of that party are beginning to jump ship. That's where the real dissension is. Some 34 Democratic congressmen are running ads against Obamacare. Where are the mainstream media on that one?

Let the MSM and the Democrats continue to press the fantasy storyline that Republicans are in disarray with splits and tea party defectors, but the fact is that the Democrats are the ones who are imploding with absolutely no coherent agenda around which to rally and no excuse for the manifest recklessness of their disgraceful agenda.

The tea partyers are not splintering or otherwise threatening the Republican Party; they are making it more accountable, more conservative and more effective. It can no longer be said that incumbents in either party are shoo-ins. We're witnessing the healthiest paradigm shift in modern politics, and it is an extremely positive development.

Power entrenchment is unhealthy for the republic because it militates against responsive republican government. As the future unfolds, perhaps we'll see candidates succeeding more because of their positions on issues rather than their connection to power and wealth. I happen to believe that's the way the Framers intended it.

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His new book, "Crimes Against Liberty," which reached No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks, remains high atop the list.


© Creators Syndicate Inc.

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Ex-Obama Official Orszag: Extend Bush Tax Cuts Two Years (by Dan Weil)

BS Ranch Perspective:

If there is an official from President Obama's office that is for the Bush Tax Cuts, then why shouldn't they be extended, or better yet made permanent!! This will be the only way that our Economy will grow! The Government Needs to Stop Spending so much, and they need to cut out a few things, starting with the Obama Health Care Bill!!

I agree that there needs to be some reform in the health care industry, but to take the whole thing over, is a mighty Big Mistake!! The Insurance Companies are marked for failure, and then since the Health Care Bill has passed the Government will simply step in and take over the whole Industry, then there will not be any choices, and the medical care will be metered to those that are considered to be the haves and the have not's will be placed on the back burner only to receive help if there is enough time to taken them in!! Many will simply die waiting for their procedure to come around for approval by the Medical Panel to approve the Operation or Procedure!!

BS Ranch


Ex-Obama Official Orszag: Extend Bush Tax Cuts Two Years

By: Dan Weil

The Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for all Americans to help spur the economy, but even the middle-class cuts should end in two years, former U.S. budget director Peter Orszag says.

That's the best way to solve the country's twin deficits: the near-term jobs deficit and the long-term budget deficit, the recently departed head of the White House Office of Management and Budget writes in a New York Times opinion piece.

"In the face of the dueling deficits, the best approach is a compromise: extend the tax cuts for two years and then end them altogether," argues Orszag, whose views differ from those of his old boss, President Barack Obama.

"Ideally, only the middle-class tax cuts would be continued for now. Getting a deal in Congress, though, may require keeping the high-income tax cuts, too. And that would still be worth it."

Obama supports a permanent extension of the middle-class tax cuts. But Orszag said extending the cuts permanently is not affordable.

"Let's continue the tax cuts for two years but end them for good in 2013," he said.

Without action by Congress, tax rates will revert back to those in place before the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003.

"No one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire as planned," Orszag writes.

The Obama administration has advocated maintaining the tax cuts for most Americans, but letting them rise for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

But longer term, "the tax cuts are simply not affordable," Orszag maintains.

John Taylor, Treasury undersecretary during the (George W.) Bush administration, also thinks the tax cuts should be continued.

"A statement that taxes will not increase on Jan. 1 would be a good stimulus," Taylor, now an economics professor at Stanford University, told Bloomberg.

White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage, responding to Orszag's article, told Reuters that Obama has been "clear about his support for extending tax cuts for the middle class and about ending the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans."

Ahead of the congressional elections on Nov. 2, Republicans are criticizing Obama's Democrats for opposing an extension to the cuts on wealthier Americans, saying doing so would end up hurting small businesses, whose earnings are often taxed through the income-tax code rather than under the corporate rate, Reuters reported.


© Moneynews. All rights reserved.

Sunday, September 05, 2010

Global Currency Crisis (Part 1: CBO Fiscal Crisis Alert) by Craig R. Smith

Global Currency Crisis:
Part 1: CBO Fiscal Crisis Alert
By Craig R. Smith
Chairman, Swiss America
Aug. 10, 2010

If the Fed is telling the truth, gold prices must be lying. The Federal Reserve Board is claiming deflation is the new boogeyman to fear. Yet, if we have such strong deflationary forces at work, the price of gold should have dropped to $800, not run back up near $1200. The sane, thinking world sees inflation ahead.

Since the Fed is notorious for spreading disinformation to achieve its goals, I say ignore the Fed and look instead at the facts from a disinterested third party, the Congressional Budget Office. Its July 27, 2010 report titled, "Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis" warns that another fiscal crisis is coming because of entitlements and excessive federal government spending. It is no longer a question of if, but when.

"Sometimes a chart is worth a thousand editorials. The one we reproduce here, courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office, is one of those. It shows the federal debt throughout U.S. history and the daunting slope of what is likely to happen in the next few decades. The federal debt held by the public -- and, increasingly, 'the public' means foreign governments and investors -- has mushroomed from 36% of gross domestic product at the end of the 2007 fiscal year to a projected 62% of GDP at the end of fiscal 2010. 'Policy options for responding to it would be limited and unattractive.' Debt could be restructured, the currency inflated or an austerity program (tax increases plus spending cuts) implemented," reports The Washington Post.

According to the CBO we will have few favorable options when the crisis hits because the Fed has shot most of the bullets in its financial gun. These options would be as follows:

Option 1) The federal government could renegotiate the terms of the $13.5 trillion debt by offering longer maturity times, changing the rates or by defaulting outright. Default may seem impossible, but tell that to the investors who lost billions in the Asian currency crisis, the crushed LTCM hedge fund or the folks in Argentina after Juan PerĂ³n's socialist reign.

Option 2) The federal government could initiate massive austerity programs by slashing spending and lowering entitlement payments on Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security as well as extending age requirements on these programs, currently 65-70, to 70-75. The magic number for slashing would be 15% of all government services to achieve the effect necessary to avoid fiscal crisis. We would also require tax increases on all Americans, not just the rich. While an increase on the top 2% would generate $700-800 billion, middle class tax increases (back to pre-Bush tax cut rates) would generate around $2.3 trillion.

Option 3) The federal government could increase the money supply (inflate) and monetize the debt, making the debt far easier to pay off with devalued dollars. Deflation would make paying off the debt much more onerous as wages and prices fall, as opposed to inflation, which causes the value of the debt to decline.

I see no political will to reduce spending or, more importantly, to address the long-term crippling liability of entitlements. It is the third rail of politics. If we were even to suggest default or attempt to renegotiate the debt, bonds would collapse and the dollar would plummet. So the only politically expedient option is to increase the money supply dramatically - causing severe inflation. Inflation will steal the value of earnings and savings from the average citizen, but monetizing the debt would help inflate government's debt away.

Germany and France both employed this approach after WWI. While difficult for the citizenry, it kept both countries at virtually full employment. Inflation also provided an ever-expanding economy as their products became very attractive to other countries due to lower prices; a result of their weaker currency. Inflation ultimately allowed central banks to eliminate the war debt and, in the case of Germany, also allowed them to renegotiate war reparations.

In our current crisis, the Europeans are decreasing spending and want America to mirror their austerity plan. In my opinion President Barack Obama has looked to history to determine a way out of this crisis and has concluded that the United States will take its chances on the German model. His policies will severely inflate our currency. Congress and the Obama Administration have both certainly shown that they have no interest in taming government spending or decreasing the debt.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke knows inflation is much easier to start, stop and control than deflation. Deflation is very unpredictable and virtually impossible to stop, especially with the limited tools currently in the Fed's arsenal. Congress would need to enact new powers to fight deflation.

Over the last 4 years, we've doubled the money supply! Bernanke is $3 Trillion behind, with 0% interest rates. Our immediate debt is $13 Trillion. Our long-term debt is over $100 Trillion. We are so out of balance right now, that if we inflate the currency and create inflation in the 12% range, annual U.S. revenue wouldn't be sufficient to allow us to pay off the principal alone on our debt! "Central banks may now need to talk about the necessity of inflation...before it is too late." ( 7/16/10)

Fed. Chair Bernanke is shocked that we haven't seen inflation yet. It is a phenomenon nobody understands. In fact, we can't even determine if we're inflating or deflating right now. However, eventually, inflation will win out. You can be assured that the slingshot is loaded and the tension on the band is severe. At the first sign of rising prices, millions will rush to spend the backlog of dollars they have been saving because of uncertainty. When that happens, inflation could explode.

The tremendous increase in the quantity of currency caused by the printing of money benefits the economic status of the country printing it, but it decreases the standard of living of a large proportion of citizens. In effect, the massive printing of money hurts the people, but conversely helps the economy.

But this has a cost. According to the CBO, each 1% increase in projected inflation would increase the debt by $ .7 Trillion! In other words, if inflation is projected at 2%, and its actual rate is 12%, the additional debt that would be created is $7 Trillion!

I see no other viable choice except for the federal government to monetize the massive debt we now have, which is increasing at a yearly rate of $1.4 trillion. It is expected to continue doing so over at least the next five years unless major policy changes come out of Congress. This analysis is why now is the time to convert your soon-to-be-inflated dollars into gold.

What do we know for certain?

On July 21, Fed Chairman Bernanke said the U.S. economy faces "unusually uncertain" prospects. Six days later, the CBO stated that, absent a change in policy, further increases in federal debt "almost certainly lie ahead," and, without spending restraint, will cause debt to rise to "unsupportable….unsustainable levels."

The CBO projects that federal debt "will stand at 62 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2010, having risen from 36 percent at the end of fiscal year 2007." (Only once has the figure exceeded 50 percent - shortly after WW II.)

With the aging of the population and rising health care costs, it is hardly a stretch to assume with very high likelihood that government spending will not significantly decrease, and that government revenues will not significantly increase. So what are our available options and the likely outcomes of those implemented options?

A fiscal crisis in the United States is imminent. We've seen significant fiscal hemorrhaging at the state level for the past two years. Bonds, as a reflection of investor confidence, are returning well below 3%.

Prior to the start of the market meltdown in 2008, total U.S. wealth was $100T. Although not ideal, our debts at that time were around $100T. We could have continued to live that way. Although our lifestyles would have eventually eroded, we were not in danger of a complete collapse.

Today the current value of our combined wealth is only $50T. We still have over $100T in debt. Good luck getting a loan from your local bank with that scenario, I don't care how brilliant your business model looks!

To put such amounts in perspective, let's say you started a business on the day Jesus was born 2000 years ago. Business wasn't very good for your start-up, so you lost $1 Million that first day. In fact, business did not improve at all. Your company continued to lose that same $1M every day -- 365 days each year -- until the present day. If that were the case, it would take ANOTHER 700 YEARS before you would have lost $1 Trillion. Still think we're going to "grow our way out" of this mess?


BS Ranch Perspective:

This is very serious, the Federal Bank needs to make changes along with Congress, as they are the ones that seem to not know the problems that they are creating for the United States Government. Not just the government, but the Citizens in the republic, as they are not properly representing us, since they are not doing the proper book keeping to make sure that the Government will be around for the next three hundred years!!

We need to Elect Members of the House and Senate that will CUT SPENDING!! and LOWER TAXES for the American Taxpayer! Not only that but a straight flat tax would be most beneficial to the government, they would get more money, and we would have less paper work to manage each year!!


BS Ranch