Chambliss Responds To The State Of The Union

The following press release was issued this evening by Senator Saxby Chambliss:

WASHINGTON – In response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., tonight made the following statement:

“I am pleased to hear the president say he is going to do whatever is necessary to help create jobs and reinvigorate the economy. It’s pretty obvious the stimulus package did not help reduce unemployment, so we need to go in another direction. And it is imperative that we work in a bipartisan manner to do so.

“Likewise, I am pleased the president wants to put a freeze on federal spending. Freezing spending at the fiscal year 2009 levels would make a greater impact, as there was a 21 percent increase in spending during the 2010 budget, but it is a good step in the right direction.

“I look forward to working with the president to address these issues which are weighing heavily on the minds of people across the country.”

81 comments

  1. Republican Lady says:

    Well, I guess I need to beg and plead with everyone to help me find a full-time job in this frozen market so I can give up my part-time teaching gig to have money to pay for these changes.

    • polisavvy says:

      Amen, Republican Lady, amen! Just keep telling yourself, only 1,013 days until this sham of a president is finished; unfortunately, that 1,013 days still gives him and his cronies more than enough time to screw things up even worse. I am sorry about your situation. It’s happened to a lot of people. It’s like I was telling a friend last night, those of us that were smart enough to be educated voters were all put on the guest list of the Titanic because of uninformed and misinformed voters. It’s sad, but true.

        • polisavvy says:

          You can shake your head if you’d like; however, I am truly sick of ALL of the people in Washington (Republicans and Democrats alike). I think that career politicians should become a thing of the past and feel that term limits might actually start helping BOTH parties try to work with one another. That’s just my opinion, for whatever it is or is not worth. As for the voters, well, that is something I actually saw from voters the age of my children. They all jumped on the bandwagon for President Obama; but, if you asked them one policy he was in favor of or one thing he would like to accomplish (other than health care) besides HOPE and CHANGE, they could not give you a concrete answer. I think everyone is free to vote for whomever they choose; however, I think that they should do more than just listen to words and promises, and be spoon-fed by the media. A little effort by research would be nice. That was the point I was trying to make. If I happen to not feel the way you do, then I apologize.

          • griftdrift says:

            Yep. That’s all I do. Get spoon-fed by the media about hope and change. Count me as one on the uninformed, misinformed, unintelligent people that’s just dragging all you producers down.

            No apology necessary.

          • Republican Lady says:

            Actually, I think term limits may be the way to go to get rid of career politicians. I realize the rationalization behind longer terms but I think 12 years total for senators and representatives is enough. Presidents have four to eight years to get their jobs done, why let Congress have longer?

        • polisavvy says:

          Don’t worry, none would be given. It’s obvious that you and I have differing viewpoints. That’s fine with me because that’s what this country is all about (the differing opinions, differing political affiliations (by, the way, I never voted for a Republican until “W”). The fact that you and I can be civilized in our disagreement is also a very good thing, in my opinion. Hope you and I will be “friends” because there is no reason to be “enemies.”

  2. gt7348b says:

    I don’t post here much, but having been to the past several months of GDOT board meetings where they reveal through the lettings report of which projects will be let and how they are funded and, until the Feb letting this past Wednesday, over 50% of the lettings and usually more in the range of 70-80% of the lettings were funded by ARRA, I have no idea how Chambliss can legitimately say with a straight face that the stimulus has not preserve or created jobs. Without the stimulus, there would be no road construction companies in Georgia.

  3. Baker says:

    One surefire reason the stimulus didn’t work is because they didn’t spend the darn thing. Keynes didn’t say “pass a huge spending bill that pisses people off, then withhold over two-thirds of the money for re-election years.” Keynes may have been on to something, but what he didn’t count on is the large majority of politicians are only looking out for Numero Uno.

    • polisavvy says:

      If you have had a chance to see CNN, you can see where the money has gone. I mean really? $400,000 for the study of robots! Well, that certainly has created a lot of job. Three to be exact (for college student stipends). Having had a child be the recipient of college stipends, that’s way over inflated. He worked 20 hours a week for $750.00 a semester. The math’s not there, and neither is the stimulus to the U.S. economy. That’s just one example.

      But, my all time favorite one is for the remodeling of a bathroom for $500,000. It’s only a two stall facility. Having a husband in the construction industry, he said that even if they were remodeling for handicapped accessibility, that there is absolutely no way that a bathroom remodel would cost $500,000, unless the toilets ‘were “paved” with gold.” That job employed three people and took three months. You do the math. The numbers aren’t there and neither is the stimulus to the economy.

      As an aside, I thought ‘Ole Joe was overseeing all the stimulus money and making sure it was spent wisely. Guess it was too much for him to handle!

      • BubbaRich says:

        If that was really for 3 students, it was grad student stipends, for at least 3 years, unless there’s a substantial materials budget. I’m currently supporting my family on a grad student stipend and a part time job as a tutor. I’m researching how the brain works, with professors at GaTech and Emory. Your brain sounds like a fascinating example, could you tell me a little more about how it works?

        • polisavvy says:

          Wow, was that really necessary? I just happened to hear the report on CNN. I did not hear the word grad student; however, I don’t believe that your average grad student makes that kind of money. If so, you probably wouldn’t have to have a part time job. By the way, congratulations on your achievements, and best of luck to you and yours in the future as you pursue your degree. Great job!!

          • ByteMe says:

            I think what got lost in translation was that the $400K was likely for 3 years of 3 people, not one year of three people. So that kind of work for that little money might turn out to be better than spending it on, say, a bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

        • polisavvy says:

          You are so funny! The bridge to nowhere – ha, ha, ha, ha!! Thanks for the correction, at least you aren’t snide (to me, anyhow).

  4. AthensRepublican says:

    Senator Chambliss will issue a more forceful response taking issue with many of the things the President said as soon as he finds out so many of us were not impressed by the speech.

    • BubbaRich says:

      If Saxby couldn’t figure out that mouth-breathing GA wingnut supporters would complain about the President’s speech, then he really is too dumb for his job.

    • Republican Lady says:

      I think he was busy watching the Channel 2 report of his Hollywood trip in 2007 with a doctor friend of his. When the reporter asked him for evidence of who paid what he said something to the effect that he wasn’t in the habit of opening his personal checking account to reporters and that politicians don’t have enough privacy from the media as it is, which is true. I mean, should the media report politicians’ transgressions? I for one say yes.

      Ox you are making it easy for Karen to win, keep it up. Oh and by the way, she is higher than 5% in the polls so do you plan to debate her next Thursday night?

  5. Lawton Sack says:

    This is not a step in the right direction. It is a continuation of failed financial policy. Common sense and basic economics tell us that freezing federal spending at a deficit level will not work. It does not matter if the freeze is at the 2009 or 2o10 level.

    Where is the leadership? Where are the elected officials that are brave enough to say that this will not work? Why do they feel like they have to accept the situation? Do they not realize that there is an alternative? Is a balanced budget considered impossible or taboo?

    The lessons I learned from the past few years, Ross Perot, and my High School economics teacher are that you have to spend less than you make and that you must save for a rainy day. Yeah, you may have to eat a hamburger when you want a steak, but you still get to eat.

    • polisavvy says:

      Lawton, I was trying to think yesterday as to when the budget was actually balanced. Can you recall? I agree with you, Ross Perot, and your high school economics teacher. Funds for rainy days are always best and doable. Why doesn’t anyone else find it even remotely possible to balance the budget? I was amused as to the freeze particularly after hearing that many of the budgets were increased tremendously last year by this administration. Something like a 23% increase to some departments. If that is the case, then, of course, they could be okay. That’s a fairly significant figure. However, at the end of the day, these people should be trying to balance the budget and get us out of debt with China. Instead, they are going down life’s highway and not even attempting to do the responsible thing — balancing the budget.

      • Lawton Sack says:

        It matters who you ask, what accounting tricks they use, and what Party they are from. 🙂

        I consider a balanced budget one that also lowers federal debt.

        The last time that the federal debt was lowered was in 1957.
        Date–Federal Debt Level
        06/30/1957 — $270,527,171,896.43
        06/30/1956 — $272,750,813,649.32

        The U.S. reported at $236 billion dollar budget surplus in 2000, but the federal debt went up, though slightly ($18 billion or so from 1999 to 2000). Democrats will say that was because Clinton was in the White House, while Republicans will say it is because they had the majority.

        • IndyInjun says:

          Yeah, Lawton, you nailed that. Last year the “Republicans” (as opposed to REPUBLICANS – the ones who actually meet party principles) in Congress started denying that Bush nearly doubled the debt and bleating how Obama was doubling in in a single term when I happened to notice they were using the term “publicly held” to qualify their statements.

          As it turns out, $trillions of debt are rolled into the SS Administration and are not “Publicly-Held”

          Are GOP Senators and Reps using this propaganda going to say to the people that SS will not be paid? That would be the inference if those SS bonds can be ignored as debt.

          I hate lies and deceit, be it from “Republicans” or Democrats.

          They can only use such crap because the public is so stupid.

      • ByteMe says:

        The closest in a long time was in FY1999 and 2000 and it was only a few billion short of completely in balance. From there on, it was all downhill once the Bush Tax Cuts kicked in.

        But life was TERRIBLE in 1999 and 2000, there was huge unemployment and businesses were failing all over the place all because of the high tax burden…. oh, wait. I may be misremembering that.

      • Republican Lady says:

        http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

        According to the Cato Institute…Let us establish one point definitively: Bill Clinton didn’t balance the budget. Yes, he was there when it happened. But the record shows that was about the extent of his contribution… Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years… Skeptics said it could not be done in seven years. The GOP did it in four.

        Bill main problem was the budgeting his sex life.

    • IndyInjun says:

      Why Old Indy just laughs in their faces when “republicans” ridicule his vote for Perot in 1992

      A prophet he was, yet folks rejected him because he was short, had a twangy voice, and big ears.

      If you doubt that he was run out of the race by Bush dirty tricks, read REPUBLICAN author Kevin Phillip’s book American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush

      Old Ross and 20 million voters like me scared the Dems and GOP into balanced budgets, that is why we had them, not a GOP Congress or a Clinton Presidency.

      The coming total collapse has been well-earned by the majority of the people.

      • Lawton Sack says:

        To be fair, Perot was leading in the national opinion polls as late as June, 1992: 39% for Perot, 31% for Bush, and 25% for Clinton. People liked his message.

        His numbers dropped when he dropped out, then jumped back in. He did end up with 19% of the popular vote, though he received no electoral votes.

        • IndyInjun says:

          Yeah, a lot of folks thought Perot was nutty for complaining about the Bush interference with his daughter’s wedding. Perot cared more for family than even country and that was his weakness. The Bush gang was adept for decades for seizing the opposition weakness then ruthlessly exploiting it.

          The Bushes are about as REPUBLICAN as I am Obama’s twin brother.

          Perot was a hero. Not many of the young folks know about him.

  6. Joshua Morris says:

    Since when is it the President’s job or Congress’ job to create jobs? The market creates jobs on its own when it has the freedom to do so. Jobs have been going away because the market is strangled due to overwhelming taxes, tight credit, and lack of cash flow in the economy. If Washington would stop spending recklessly and stop taxing businesses into oblivion, private industry would create jobs.

    I think Keynes had no idea how inefficient government employees could be.

    • polisavvy says:

      Excellent post! How could Keynes not know how inefficient government employees could be? We all know (and some have probably experienced directly) how inefficient they are, as a general rule.

    • Glen Ross says:

      Keynes never intended deficit spending to create layers and layers of bureaucracy. His idea was public spending for privately run ventures. This prompted his famous quote in front of a room full of liberals, “I’m the only Keynesian here”

      • ByteMe says:

        Sort of like the stimulus package being spent on roads, with the work done by private firms overseen by a government entity?

        I think many people really don’t understand what Keynes was saying and are going with the caricature created by the Friedmanistas. What they don’t get were both were right… and both were wrong. It just depends on the economic moment.

      • IndyInjun says:

        About the only defense I have of Keynes was that he favored massive government spending when time were bad and surpluses when times were good.

        For 70 years Keynesian spending was used every time that there was a bump in the economy, so that an insurmountable debt mountain accumulated. Every incident produced less GDP growth per $ of borrowing.

        The 2001 Keynesian spending binge took us to the brink – to the limit of debt. Less than a decade later we found ourselves back in deep trouble. Now all rational bounds have been exceeded so that there is no capacity left when the next crisis comes. It won’t be long in coming, either.

    • Republican Lady says:

      FDR decided to make it his responsibility to create jobs during the depression but I don’t think he meant for some of the programs to have lasted as long as they have .

  7. polisavvy says:

    Thanks for the info, Lawton and ByteMe. I was just wondering. So, my question is if it is even possible to do in 2010? And, if so, how?

    • ByteMe says:

      Can the budget be balanced while we commit billions to two wars, have a recession that drives down revenue and increases the number of people needing government aid — unemployment insurance, Medicaid, etc….?

      In a word: No. You run a surplus in good times and a deficit in bad times. Except we didn’t do that. We ran a deficit throughout most of the largest GDP expansion and bull market EVER (28 years!) and now we are in a bear market and we have to print money to keep the economy bumping along.

      We bought our economic expansion on credit and have an entire generation raised on the novel idea that we can have it all with no cost whatsoever.

      And just to let you know that I’m pretty pissed at both parties on this topic: freezing discretionary spending doesn’t do jack sh*t. That’s peanuts and eliminating discretionary spending wouldn’t dent the deficit at this point. The only real answer is either to blow up the big pieces of the government — defense, old-age entitlements — or raise taxes to cover what we the people claim we want the government to do (which is more than many people here realize).

      • polisavvy says:

        So very true, ByteMe. If you cut defense, old-age entitlements, etc. you will have a group screaming up and down (so to keep people happy and to be a career politician, you succumb to that group). If you raise taxes, you will have a group screaming up and down (so to keep people happy and to be a career politician, you succumb to that group). Now, my question is simple: If you can’t cut defense, old-age entitlements, etc. and you can’t raise taxes, in order to remain a career politician, what can be done? I don’t have an answer to the question; however, I do think that it is waaaaaaay past time that we start thinking about term limits. Congress seems to be a HUGE problem in getting a damn thing solved, regardless of which side of the aisle you sit, just because these goobers care more about their position or status, than they do us. I’m sick of all of them. Regardless of party, you put them in a bag and shake it up and dump them out, and they all come out the same.

          • ByteMe says:

            Legislation has been tried and the Supremes found it unconstitutional, because it took away Congress’ power to set spending levels. An amendment is one answer, but more of a one-size fits all answer. In other words, you need exceptions like times of war (but would that include what we’re doing now overseas?).

            Term limits sounds good, but unless we change the structure of the way Congress operates, only rich people will be able to afford to go to DC for 6-12 years and then leave with no marketable skills except lobbying the new people in Congress.

        • ByteMe says:

          My guess is that you have a better chance to raise taxes back to 1997 levels than you do eliminating the DoD or old-age entitlements, just because you at least have a chance to sell it with a level of authority — 1997-2000 were outstanding times for the economy even if the tax rate was slightly higher, whereas there’s no way you can sell wiping out SS or DoD to pretty much anyone other than a very small minority.

          Either way, it takes guts to run in a popularity contest and then do something that’s going to be unpopular and have an unknown expiration date on that unpopularity.

          • Lawton Sack says:

            I would be curious to find out what the numbers would look like with the 2010 spending level and calculating the revenue using the 1997 tax rate for 2010 incomes.

          • ByteMe says:

            I can’t tell you that, but I can tell you this: the FY 2009 budget as computed by the Bush White House showed a revenue surplus starting in 2012 if the Bush Tax Cuts were allowed to expire (and deficits for 10+ years out if they were allowed to be extended). I looked that up a while back.

            It didn’t take the mother of all recessions and tanking banks into consideration, of course, since that hadn’t happened yet. I doubt there’s any way to keep the banking system propped up and run a surplus right now.

    • Lawton Sack says:

      The budget they are discussing now would be for 2011. Without looking at all the numbers, I don’t know if it is possible to balance the budget in 2011. I am frustrated that the Federal Government is not making plans to move towards a balanced budget.

      To keep it simple, the only ways to balance a budget are either:

      1. Decrease spending, while including some kind of debt servicing plan, to to a level that is below revenue intake.

      OR

      2. Increase revenue to a level higher than spending (including debt servicing plan). Would still hope for a decrease in spending.

      True revenue (I’m not counting loans, bonds, other “borrowing” methods, etc.) by the government is normally generated by taxes, fees, interest, fines, lotteries, or however else they can get it from citizens. Very rarely does the government may make a profit on an endeavor, which would also be revenue.

      So, for a balanced budget to happen in Fiscal Year 2011, the government would need to bring in more money than they spend, either by raising the revenue streams or by lowering spending. I don’t see a tax increase in an election year and I don’t see a spending decrease, especially with the entitlement spending, in an election year.

      From my personal experience in helping people create a budget for their family, I personally believe that spending should be cut first. It is very difficult, though, for a politician to make cuts that will have an impact on their voters. They want to get re-elected.

  8. IndyInjun says:

    100% of the population has an unfunded or underfunded entitlement and every single person will want to kill at the suggestion that theirs doesn’t stand #1 in the order of payment.

    A cataclysmic crash comes that will settle everyone’s entitlement.

    Humans are incapable of fixing the problem.

    The simple mathematics will fix it.

    Soon.

  9. GOPGeorgia says:

    I liked the part of the speech where he talked about closing Gitmo, trying the Christmas Day bomber as a criminal, and allowing some of the terrorists of 9/11 to be tried in court in New York.

    Scott Brown ” In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”

  10. Three Jack says:

    saxby ran without gop opposition and this is what we deserve — a wimpish, meager little go along to get along guy who cares more about his next lobbyist sponsored golf trip than standing up to the lies spewed by obama.

    the gop gets a mulligan if a worthy candidate steps forth to challenge isakson.

  11. IndyInjun says:

    Today, January 28, 2010 – a date that will live in infamy- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by its senatorial forces in league with the Empire of Goldman. By a vote of 70 to 30, traitorous Democratic and Republican senators reelected Benjamin Shalom Bernanke to continue his insidious and unrelenting attack on the frugal, the savers, and those on fixed incomes throughout our land.

    Among the dastardly lot who commited this foul deed were counted Chambliss, Saxby and Isakson, Johnny senators from the once great state of Georgia, a state that once sent giants to the senate and now seemingly has two pygmies.

    Why is Bernanke so evil, you ask? After all he is a “Republican.” isn’t he?

    His Fed bailed out a private entity AIG to the extent of 100% of its unreserved credit default swaps, when counterparties were willing to settle for less than 50 cents on the dollar, thereby blowing an incredible $90 billion of taxpayer money without even a vote of Congress. This was done so that the money could be funneled directly to Goldman Sachs a firm that issued nearly-worthless mortgage securities to its customers while at the same time shorting the same instruments, a firm at the epicenter of the financial crisis.

    Bernanke fueled two bubbles with near zero interest rates, then failed to recognize his mistake until financial markets were on the verge of collapse. Indeed the man crowed about the “strength” of the housing market and described the big banks as “well capitalized.”

    Under his orders the Fed has completely violated its charter by buying mortgage backed securities and other toxic assets.

    There are undisclosed buyers in equity and bond markets of such unlimited funds that the Fed can be the only conceivable source. Such interference in markets makes losers out of investors who otherwise would have made sound, informed investment decisions and won.

    The Fed is destroying the value of savings, pensions and 401k’s by eliminating all sources of safe investments providing reasonable returns. The bank fraudsters’ earnings are attributable to rape of savers and institution of Mark to Fiction fraudulent accounting standards championed by Isakson and Chambliss.

    The vote for Bernanke came in the midst of hearings on the financial crisis that directly implicate high Fed officials in apparent violation of securities laws. Testimony and emails implicate Bernanke in misleading Bank of America into buying Merrill Lynch by hiding the true extent of ML’s liabilities.

    Our “conservative” “republican” senators today voted for an arguably insane man who once vowed to drop money from helicopters if he deemed it necessary to halt deflation. Within the last year and a half this demented idiot has created an astronomical $24 TRILLION in various ‘facilities’ that rage out of control and without independent oversight.

    If you do not fear this, think again, for money creation of this magnitude devalues your savings and if left unchecked will destroy the power of your earnings, too. The Fed can destroy both at its pleasure.

    Now whatever happens, whatever calamity this madman brings down on Georgians is clearly at the hands of Isakson and Chambliss, a duo who have shredded every principle of the GOP over their terms in the U.S. Senate.

    Remember this day,

    I won’t forget it and neither should any of you.

    We shouldn’t be surprised. Georgia needs two REPUBLICAN senators, but we have two impostors with a voting record of near total perfidy to everything REPUBLICANS claim to represent.

    • seenbetrdayz says:

      One year ago, gold was selling around $900 an ounce; today, it’s around $1,100/oz. I don’t know what plan (if any) Bernanke has to prevent hyper-inflation, but he’d better think of something other than printing more money to bail out his buddies and lowering interest rates to “free money” (0)%.

      Ultimately though, it doesn’t matter who is in charge of the Federal Reserve. It is the Federal Reserve system that is fraudulent. The best argument we can make against it is to continue letting it do what it does worst, even though it is painful to watch, time and time again.

      As for Saxby, I tried to prevent him from doing stuff like this back in Nov. 2008, but I was only able to help force him into a run-off. Isakson’s ticket is coming up, though.

      • ByteMe says:

        There is no hyperinflation in the system. Not even close. Current risks are tilted heavily toward deflation, which is often worse than inflation. Hyperinflation can’t exist without asset and wage inflation and where do you see that happening?

        Gold is more expensive now than before for exactly the same reason our exports are higher now than before. The dollar is worth less, compared to certain other currencies. It’s something that needed to happen to bring our current account into balance.

        As for Isakson, anyone else notice he voted AGAINST adopting pay-as-you-go rules for new expenditures? What a liberal. Who else voted against it? Oh, right, every single Republican in the Senate. Good thing they’re not in charge any more.

        • John Konop says:

          ByteMe I agree we are looking at deflation on the macro. It all comes back to supply and demand. If real wages keep dropping and unemployment stays high, people will have no money to buy on a macro.

          And even if interest rates go up, which I think will happen, than values go down ie housing, cars….. via affordability of payment.

          That is why I am holding on to cash because I do think values have hit the bottom. And that is another reason why investments and lending is tough because nobody knows if we hit bottom yet.

          What will eventually break the cycle is major money is on the sidelines and eventually they will put it back to work. The next question is how we start producing things on a macro instead of just consuming. And if that is not dealt with it will be have and have not type recovery.

          • ByteMe says:

            because I do think values have hit the bottom

            I agree that you should be mostly in cash or some bonds right now… or temporarily shorting the stock market, which appears to be on the next downleg now. Values will continue to fall in this environment.

            You’ll know we’ve hit bottom when people throw in the towel. They haven’t yet. I expect bottom is still about 4-6 years away.

          • IndyInjun says:

            Bottom is 2 years or less away.

            There are major hurtles in 2010.

            The inflation/deflation debate going on is silly. The $trillions being thrown into the fray don’t precisely mesh with where the damage is being inflicted.

            Mine was the good fortune in 2002 and 2003 to go into gold significantly and stay put. I sold my gold holdings in October and am in cash. The current pull-back will be a reentry point.

            The sovereign debt of ROW is going to scare the entire world back into the $US. At that time markets will crash below the lows of last March.

            We never have stopped falling. The data is totally manipulated to paint a rosier picture and an “unknown player of UNLIMITED resources” is propping up the markets.

            Can they print to infinity like Bernanke pledges to do? Yes. And eventually he will ignite the fires of inflation.

            To continue to allow securitizations is sheer madness. Securitizations are fractional ownership on steroids. To keep churning them out when there is NO existing market other than the Fed is insane. All of the economic value is extracted in fees and what is left becomes a welded together mess of good and bad that costs $$$$$$ to untangle and rectify.

          • IndyInjun says:

            Ok Tyler. It seems that Saxby’s office must have read my post of Thursday from the email he sent out yesterday.

            The reconfirmation vote of Chambliss and Isakson will be like an ugly tattoo on an already ugly record.

            Before this is done the entire profession of economics will be utterly exposed as the fools that they are.

          • Tyler says:

            Are you saying that every high-profiled economist within the United States, as well as every major university system, has gotten economics wrong?

          • John Konop says:

            ByteMe

            Bonds could be scary especially municipal with the debt loads, tax revenue down and future benefits due.

            With all that said I am not as down on the economy as my friend Indy. I just think it will be hard 3 to 5 years and people will eventually have to give on entitlements ie Medicare, SS……..

            The key is the country keeps going and does not need retirement money like an individual. But I do think that unless we bring back manufacturing the spread between rich and poor will widen.

          • Ken in Eastman says:

            Byte Me and Indy,

            Bottom is 2 years or less away
            I expect bottom is still about 4-6 years away.

            I’m sorry to say it, but it depends on what happens in Washington AND the other major world capitols. We owe so much debt to overseas creditors that their ability to continue to finance our revolving (and increasing) debt is as much of a factor as the actions of our own lawmakers.

            Our welfare may depend upon the ability of the economies of China, Japan and Russia and their ability to continue to lens us money.

            “Hi my name is Uncle Sam.”

            “Hi, Sam!”

            “I’m a debt junkie.”

          • ByteMe says:

            Ken, you are correct. I’m assuming a steady state on the current debt/debtor relationships with the USA, but if the dollar keeps tanking, that may not be the case in a few years. China’s not happy that their dollar-denominated debt holdings aren’t holding their value.

            That said, look for a dollar rally now, since there’s currently a 90% inverse correlation between the dollar and the stock market and the market is at the beginning of a correction to its recent 40% gain.

        • IndyInjun says:

          Tyler, that has already been proven.

          All that is left now is to find out how much damage they will inflict trying to overwhelm a crisis none of them saw with more of the toxins that poisoned the system in an effort to prove they weren’t insane, after all.

          Every hiccup, every recession, since the 1930’s has been met with ever-increasing government and concomitant debt. These fools think they can borrow and spend without limit like Bernanke intimated in his helicopter speech.

          Now they have reached their Minsky Moment. It is their Little Big Horn. Custer lost his scalp. They have lost their relevance and credibility.

          The econ blogosphere is ripping them to shreds with superior data analysis.

  12. John Konop says:

    Tyler,

    I do not think all economists are wrong, but being a contrarian against popular thought is not easy. I can show many well respected economist I read, who like I did not understand how you can live on debt and have declining production.

    My mentor in business gave me great advise if does not make sense do not do it. And if someone cannot explain the concept on the back of a bar napkin how we make money off the deal run!

    • IndyInjun says:

      ….if someone cannot explain the concept on the back of a bar napkin how we make money off the deal run!

      When I started querying bank managers about securitization in 2006 and discovered what they had done, I was horrified for this very reason.

      Nearly 2 years after this mess started, they are still doing securitizations, AIG et al are still writing credit default swaps, the Too-big-to-fail banks are even bigger and $10’s of trillions in liabilities have been trundled off on you and I.

      The US Congress has been hijacked by a criminal gang of oligarchs. Now even the poor black folks who supported Obama know this.

      Blowback is going to be brutal. The more of the corrupt pols still in office when it collapses, the better.

      I would not want to be in their shoes.

  13. IndyInjun says:

    Konop – I read somewhere this weekend that Sonny is in my camp, saying the next governor will have $2.5 billion gap to fill. $2.5 billion out of a $17 billion or so is MUCH worse than the $2 billion out of $21 billion when this meltdown started.

    Entitlements will yield, but it will take a collapse to get the political will.

    Manufacturing will come back and the globalists aspirations will die.

    Keynesian economics will be discredited for at least a century.

    Georgia’s 2 senators will be lampooned for even longer when political economists realize that their progression of votes were deliriously wrong.

    • John Konop says:

      IndyInjun,

      I do not disagree we have some issues, but I just think after some tough medicine it will work out. And the longer we do nothing the bigger the pill.

      • IndyInjun says:

        The patients would rather die than take the pill.

        100% have one or more entitlements that they won’t give up this side of government default.

        Yes, this remains a nation of great resources, but it will take a decade or more to get back any semblance of normalcy. The people need shick therapy and it is coming.

  14. IndyInjun says:

    Ken,

    Foreigners are not buying US debt, the Fed is.

    Aggregate trade deficits with the rest of the world are $500 billion a YEAR. Debt sale requirements are getting to be $250 billion to $350 billion a MONTH, including roll-0ver (US debt has a 30 month average maturity thanks to Clinton)

    Analysis of Fed data shows that the catch all category of “Households” increased their purchases 32 FOLD in the last year. Bear in mind these are the same “households” assailed by 17% U6 unemployment. Inquiry found that “households” was a “plug” category.

    Analysis of what drove the 40% bear market rally shows heavy after hours trading of options did it and that there are unidentified major buyers who have $10’s of billions (nearly unlimited) in funds.

    Gee, wonder who has unlimited funds that can be created with one-legged accounting to the tune of $trillions.

    The Fed severely needs auditing.

Comments are closed.