The Crime of the Century (General Motors)

  America, You’ve been had!!!!  When GM went (according to this chart by Tom McMahon with assistance from Larry Kudlow) “bankrupt” the outstanding funded debt of the corporation was $27 Billion.  If you add the portion of the UAW retirement & medical benefit program that was “underfunded” you have another $10 Billion.  Added together this is a total of $37 Billion.  This debt was not really of comparable nature.  The $27 Billion that was owed the Bondholders was senior to the unsecured and junior UAW liability.  In a bankruptcy all senior obligations must be met in full before you move down scale to more junior obligations.  In short, the bondholders should have received all the company, at least all the company that was divided between the bondholders and the UAW; however, GM only got 10% of the stock of GM (in lieu of debt) for $27 Billion while the junior and unsecured UAW liability of merely $10 Billion received 40% of the stock of the company.  When the bondholders were cheated the effect was to steal money from the savings and retirement accounts of Americans.

This is a crime of monumental proportions and can be explained only as a political payoff to the unions since the labor movement was the single largest contributor to the Obama and Democrats political campaign.  It would have been an interesting news item if 40% of the company had gone to Haliburton.  This is an advantageous distribution to the UAW over GM Bondholders by a ratio of 10.8 to 1 (which itself does not take into consideration the seniority of the bondholders).  It would be nice to receive a favorable distribution as compared to other creditors by the ratio of 10.8 to 1 when legal precedent dictated that you (UAW) would receive zero.  This favoritism cannot be explained as anything but cronyism and political payoff.  This is the crime of the century.  But, what do the Democrats like to keep telling us?   ….”elections have consequences”  [and those consequences can be criminal when you have a “free” press in the tank with the administration.]

June 8, 2010 | Filed Under American Left, Democratic Hypocrisy, Economics, The Left | 2 Comments 

Another Jobs Summit Fantasy

  Another wasted day and another dollar down the drain.  As unemployment increases the only response that Obama has is another “Jobs Summit.”  [You may remember this past June’s Senate Democratic” Green Job Summit.”]  It would have been interesting if some of the participants had actually ever created any.  This group was woefully lacking of people that know how to create jobs and the organizations that make a living by figuring these things out like the US Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Business and National Association of Manufacturers weren’t even invited.  Early reports indicate that not much happened short of more policy wonk talk and pontification.  Here you have an Administration that has made 92% of their appointments from those that never worked in the “private sector” organizing a meeting to discuss how to create jobs.  All this from a crowd that never had to “make a payroll?”  This is a world class irony.

I did notice that Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) was proposing a “jobs tax credit” and I am sure that the Administration would try and take credit as a “tax cutter” if they ever implement one but they shouldn’t (implement one), let me explain.

First this particular iteration of the “jobs tax credit” was designed by the Economic Policy Institute which has a Board largely formed by Union Leaders, College Professors and a retread executive of the failed Lehman Brothers, in short a rich mixture of Democratic partisans who themselves never had to make a payroll.  In their collective wisdom they were recommending a “jobs tax credit” of 15% in 2010, 10% in 2011 and falling to 0% in 2012 and beyond.  In short if you hired someone presumably in 2010 you could take a tax credit of $7500 for a $50,000 job in 2010, $5000 in 2011 and of course nothing in 2012.  This means it actually costs you 85% in 2010, 90% in 2011 and 100% in 2012 and beyond along with all related “overhead” cost of employment such as insurance, retirement and whatever.  They “project” that this will create between 2 and 5 million jobs.  This is fatutously amusing.

I have been in the position over my career of having to “make” payrolls, hire people, prepare tax returns for those taking the tax credit and yes even taking said credit myself.  (thank you Uncle Sam)  I can honestly say that not on a single occasion did I or anyone I worked with even consider the “jobs tax credit” in making the “hiring” decision (maybe in the budgetary process).  This is not an anomaly, it is the bottom line.  I am certain that these “jobs tax credits” are not on their own responsible for a SINGLE reasoned job hire. 

When you read statistics each month and you read something like “employment shrank by (lets say) 495,000 jobs.”  This actually means that more people were “let go” than “hired.”  In every economic environment (good or bad) SOME people are hired and SOME are let go.  In good times the numbers favor the hiring and in bad times the numbers favor the firing.  The employers of those that are hired will take the jobs tax credit for sure and the government will take the credit for creating (as opposed to saving) jobs.  The result, however, is no impact on job creation but a huge cost to the Treasury to reward companies for hiring people that they would have been hired anyway.  NOBODY will hire somebody and pay 85%, 90% then 100% of salary plus “overhead” based on that nominal savings.  They must FIRST have confidence that they will need them in the long run, which is discouraged with every breath out of the administrations mouth continually promising tax raises for those making over some “arbitrary” limit ($250K i.e. small business), regulations and daily increasing the burden of government mandates.  If employers are convinced they will need new employees in the long run they will hire them regardless but they will pick up the boot along anyway.  Anyone that hires someone based on a jobs tax credit should be summarily fired, and somebody that doesn’t recognize this is fool.

This is not some esoteric business theory but Basic Business 101.  The only problem is that nobody in the Obama administration has taken that course in academia or more importantly real life.  I am shocked  that it isn’t intuitive to them anyway.  Senator Gillibrand has now also made it abundantly clear that she is a lightweight and I will impart to her along with others the title “fool.”  They are just trying to look like they care and are doing something until something else just happens.  This is sort of like re-arranging the furniture on the Titanic.

December 4, 2009 | Filed Under Economics, Fiscal Policy, Politics | 2 Comments 

Michael Moore’s preferred 95.6 % Income Tax Rate

  I saw Michael Moore on Hannity the other night and maybe some of you did as well, but I decided to put his (Moore’s) demeaning comments to Hannity down on paper mathematically.  If you watched the show you know that he was talking down his nose to Hannity all night suggesting that he didn’t care about the “poor” at all.  When Hannity asked Moore to define what his tax plan would be he said the following below.  Please bear with me as I transcribe his comments into real values.  Also my assumptions are not assumptions at all, but based on “taxing the rich” as Moore prefers.

 

Since we are talking about the rich and both Hannity and Moore could be described as “rich” with each making income in the million’s I am going to make this analysis based on the Maximum tax bracket in both the Federal and State model and I am going to ignore the slight impact of the lower brackets since it is insignificant within the class of the rich.  I am also going to “assume” for the purposes of this analysis that the “rich” in question here are “self employed” people since most of them are such as Moore himself, Hollywood Stars, Rock Stars, etc.  These are the rates effective for 2009.  

 

Mr. Moore said that both he and Hannity could afford to have their tax rate “doubled” and that this should happen and would be disappointed if Obama didn’t do this.  Although Hannity took him to mean doubling ALL their tax rates I believe that there was a disconnect between Hannity and Moore on this point.  I am going to assume the conservative approach and say that Moore was only referring to the Federal Income Tax Rate (if I am wrong and he is suggesting what Hannity thought he heard, watch out, that is a combined tax burden exceeding 100% of income).  Since the maximum Federal Tax Rate (effective on income above $372,200 for Married Filing Joint) is 35% Moore’s “doubling” of the Federal Tax Rate would bring his practical “Federal” tax rate to 70%.  He went on to state that it was a scandal that “high earners” paid Social Security Retirement tax only on the first $106,800 of earnings with the rest being untaxed.  He thought that this was an abuse of the lower earners and a shame on the higher.  (He didn’t mention that through the IRS taxation of Social Security Earnings that by far that most of the Social Security payments are made to the lower income earners.)  So adding this tax to not only the first dollar but the last dollar of earnings as well brings this component of tax up to 15.3% on all income.

 

In addition to this we can assume (though Moore didn’t state) that the State Income Tax is still part of the “overall” tax package as it affects the tax payer.  States vary in such rates, but since most of the noise on the matter is coming from California, I’ll use their tax rate as the example in this model.  That “maximum” tax bracket is 10.3%.

 

Adding this all up you will get a combined 95.6 % (70.0 % Federal Income Tax, 15.3 % Combined Social Security & Medicare Tax, and 10.3 % State Income Tax-CA).  

 

This 95.6% is simply those taxes based on income and do not recognize Real Estate nor Sales Tax.  (Of Course in addition to “income taxes” the Democrats through the voice of Nancy Pelosi are now considering a “National Sales Tax” (VAT) on top of it all.

 

So, lets take a great income of $10,000,000 for these “filthy rich” celebrities, stars, Entrepreneurs, business owners, etc.  So here you have a Gross Income is $10 million and after deducting the taxes that Michael Moore and his ilk have in store for you, your “take home pay” (i.e. after tax income) is $440,000 and you may say “gee that is a good income and so right you may be, but this the amount before further reduction due to sales taxes and Real Estate taxes on those expensive houses, and with that you will probably be in the S300’s take home range.  If you are not so talented and only making $5 million per year you can count on a take home pay before sales and real estate taxes more in the low $200,000 range and this is before putting anything aside for Retirement or children’s education (assuming we ignore the VAT tax on top of this all being considered by the Democrats right now).  I have to believe that the Jet Fuel for this class of liberal is more than $200,000 per year alone.

None of this analysis begins to approach the element of “risk” that the “rich” must confront in order to develop a business that will earn them a profit of $10 million, $5million or even less.  When you take this into consideration you have a situation where nobody would take the risk to develop the jobs that the country needs.  At the 10 million level of pre tax profit you might have a Gross business of $100,000,000 with a 10% pre-tax profit (which would be great) and if you were fortunate enough to obtain a rate of return on your invested capital of the lofty number of 20% this would mean that you had “at risk” capital of $50,000,000 to fund this type of operation.  In short you are risking $50 million with the hopes in a good year of making maybe $300,000 take home pay.  Not me……..and I doubt you would either.  I’ll just keep the $50 million risk free and you can look for your jobs elswhere.

Now this is change you can not only believe in, but that you are going to get………………….

October 10, 2009 | Filed Under Administration, American Left, Economics, Taxes, The Left | 3 Comments 

“Collective” Praise by School Children

  Now back at the Florida Headquarters from Ohio then Nashville (nearly adjacent to the EIB network) J

I wanted to post a personal email I sent to a couple of friends last night that are occasional readers and commenters here at NSL, though not on the flattering side.  I have taken the liberty of nominal editing and redaction of some actual personal numbers in this republished letter, but you can trust that they were just the same significant, at least to me.

I’d hope that while the left is taking a page out of the Mao Tse-Tung songbook of “collective” praise by school children for the leader (mmm, mmm, mmm) that some might read the article (below) about the “real world” and learn something about how finance actually works, but then again that is why they say about SOME teachers: ”those that can do, do …. while those that can’t do, teach.”  New York is worried and perplexed about why the income tax revenues from the recent piled on tax of the “wealthy” this year is not meeting expectations even after adjustment for the recession.  The truth is (and to their future and intensified dismay) because it was enacted just this year the “wealthy” have not yet been able to implement their “end game” economic plans.  This year down 20% but look out for additional exodus from New York that will not only erode some of the planned increase, but take money off the table that previously existed under the prior tax structure.  You might say, “well, that is a state problem,” but they can’t run away from the Federal Government.  This is the naiveté of the left.  These people are the primary employers in the country and just watch them move investment & production offshore because of this type of stuff and cap & trade, etc.  [Just like Obama did in 2008 with the proceeds of his book sales income invested almost entirely in foreign investments.]

 

Though just a small player in the financial world, I am a “tax refugee” from Ohio myself.  I make most of my income from stocks and the stock market.  My margin cost (i.e. investment interest) can run to 50% of my gross proceeds (and has been 80% in the past).  Ohio is one state that does not recognize the legitimate expenses of producing income and wants to tax the gross not the net.  Even the Federal Government allows this type of expense though be it “below the line” as they say and then they also have an “unfair” “run off” of Schedule “A” deductions and of course taxing the gross through AMT outrage.  Any self respecting “progressive” won’t see anything wrong with this at all and others will justify it by accusing and citing what they personally didn’t like about George Bush or some ad hominem comment like that, but the bottom line is this is costing governments “revenues” and they just can’t seem to grasp that.

One example is that I myself now file as a Florida resident (and you can be sure I am dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s religiously on the residency game).  I went ahead and calculated my hypothetical OHIO taxes for 2008 (just for personal humorous entertainment since I became a refugee in 2007).  Well, I laughed when the computer gave me the answer.  Even though the rate is about 30% lower than CA, if I were an Ohio resident in 2008 I would have sent them a check for $XX,XXX.  If they had responded favorably and reasonably to my petitions to have margin or investment interest deductible against investment income, I would have only had to pay around $XX,XXX in taxes.  A couple of Republicans proposed this legislation (which I think I may have influenced) but the “progressives” shot it down.  Their “progressive” ignorance not only cost them the $XX,XXX extra tax they wanted from me but the amount I would have paid if they had allowed investment interest deduction as well.  In short they lost it all.  You say “no big deal” but remember I am not the only one.  I meet “tax refugees” down here all the time.  Ted Turner is one by his own admission. (though I didn’t meet him)

 

If teachers or people want their children to learn something that will be of value apart from some inane mantra about the leader however creepy it may seem, they should teach them the lessons of this article (just think how delicious the response would have been if it were George Bush they were singing about 2001-08).  Since people still have certain freedoms the schemes of the left are doomed to failure, but I think they know this and realize that they will have to deal with what we once thought of “as” our freedoms.  [just for starters take note of the Baucus health care bill requiring the young & healthy to buy health insurance or pay $3,800 +/- “tax” under penalty of fine and imprisonment in the gulag (most likely un-constitutional now ….. pending future vacancies) in order to subsidize health care for the older and other uninsured (which now looks like will include “illegal aliens” by simply declaring them legal).  Just think what a world wide health care magnet that will make us…….we’re so wonderful]

 

About the article below, read it, memorize it and don’t forget it…………. They already tried this with the aviation and marine industries during Clinton and it failed so badly that Teddy Kennedy led the repeal himself. But along the way it cost untold thousands of jobs and was a “net income loss” for the Treasury.  The Democrats bragged about it being a luxury tax on the rich.  No “rich” person paid the tax and none were denied luxury yachts or private jets or non-jet aircraft, yet they (the rich) still created a lot of jobs…….overseas.  What is it they say about what the deffinition of insanity is?  But what the hell, change is coming.  (heard that before too)  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090927/ap_on_re_us/us_taxing_the_rich

September 28, 2009 | Filed Under Administration, American Left, Economics, Health Care, Political Correctness, Politics, Taxes, The Left | 1 Comment 

Blood for Votes (and other musings)

  Obama claims that he doesn’t want to nationalize U.S. businesses, but as I see it, Obama has been in office a little over 4 months and he has turned our legal system upside down and stole the property that belongs to the “secured” and senior lenders to GM and Chrysler in order to essentially “give” those companies to the unions, his largest political financial supporters which are junior and unsecured.  Nice payback payoff ……what is it they say; “elections have consequences.”  This is more adept than the Russian Revolution of 1917.  Remember the misery this brought Russia and others for nearly a century following that little experiment?

To the surprise of the executives in the car industry and dealers, he has dictated the closing of many car dealers nationally without a mechanism to insure that the survivors are not Political Favorites of Obama while many “successful and profitable” dealers are being closed outside of the parameters set up by the auto industry for continued existence.  The only significant justification that you can deduce from this is that they are (as most in fact were) Republican supporters.  He fired the head of GM and replaced him with an “Obama friendly” retired communications executive, Edward E. Whitacre Jr., who claimed on the day of the announcement that he “doesn’t know anything about cars.” Go figure.

Now he is running the banks and deciding how much their executives can earn.  He has even hired a salary “czar” to establish their pay grade.  He likes this idea so much that he is looking into expanding this to other industries.  Steve Ballmer, CEO and co-founder with Bill Gates of Microsoft has been a supporter of Obama but stated that they will move Microsoft “offshore” if Obama continues down this punitive path of taxes and making companies non-competitive in foreign markets.  While attacking US corporations that do business overseas and receive tax benefits for it and wealthy taxpayers not paying enough tax, he himself (according to his published personal taxes for 2008) almost exclusively invested those millions of book royalties U.S. Tax Exempt offshore companies and tax exempt bonds….check it out yourself.

We passed a $800 Billion pork laden program under the guise of “emergency stimulus” to save us from the “Bush economy” [see my link HERE on Obama and the “Community Reinvestment Act” that I posted this past October revealing the real cause of the financial meltdown] and used this urgency as the cover to violate his own campaign promise of posting legislation for 48 hours on the White House website so all could see its contents.   He called it his “new transparency.”  Instead he delivered the 1,000 page bill to the Republicans for first review at 11 PM with a final vote scheduled on it the following morning at 9 AM.  Is this the transparency he promised?  The only thing transparent is that we were played for fools.

The way we know that this bill has nothing to do with “emergency stimulus” (even as it was designed and written) is the fact that 2/3rds of it wouldn’t be spent until 2010 and 2011 with most of that being in 2011.  But it couldn’t wait another 48 hours on the website for proper disclosure.  After it was shot gunned through Congress, Obama took a vacation and didn’t even sign it till mid (the following) week.  Heck, not even the rank and file Democrats had a chance to read it.  But this has all turned out even worse than that because they have only spent 5% of it to date, but you probably recall that part of its sales pitch was that we had plenty of “shovel ready” projects ready to go to effect an immediate stimulus……….not so.  The economy is now beginning to recover without much Federal Stimulus money and even though it will likely be a protracted recovery, maybe we should revisit this spending and cancel it and save our children and grandchildren much grief.

He further emphasized the urgent need of the “stimulus” package in order to avoid the unemployment rate from going over 9% this year.  Well, that strategy worked and that ill designed “stimulus” package did pass and almost exclusively by Democrats but the unemployment rate already hit 9.4% last month.  Now just yesterday he has fired the Inspector General who investigated some suspicious illegal activities of a crony of his own.

Every despot in the world is testing Obama and they are learning that they can get away with anything and they include not only Iran and Venezuela but N. Korea as well.  N. Korea tested nuclear bombs and missiles in contravention of US and UN warnings and yesterday the UN passed a resolution permitting UN member countries to “interdict” N. Korean vessels suspected of caring weapons.  Obama stated yesterday that he intends to challenge such vehicles on the open seas, but wouldn’t use force to board them…………  Do you see what I see here?  He has essentially neutralized even the weak action of the UN and stated IN ADVANCE that we wouldn’t actually stop them.  What kind of leadership is this?  Do you think N. Korea will be inclined to cooperate with the “spirit” of the UN action since we have notified them that we won’t enforce it?

He has been on a world wide tour apologizing for the “misdeeds” of America without mention the countries we saved, the poor people we have fed, etc. and he has even unilaterally stated to the nations of the world that the United States is NOT a Christian nation.  Ok, I can live with that maybe if he let it go at that, but then he goes onto Moslem soil and states that the United States is one of the largest Moslem nations.  Truth is, even by those metrics we are not.  We would be far down that list.  You may have noticed that he managed to exempt his own culpability from all these woes that America has brought on the world.

Obama and his party are doing everything to release real terrorist that we have captured while simultaneously strategizing to prosecute real Americans that protected us from them.  Now Pelozi wants to release photos that even she agrees with U.S. Generals will cost American’s lives.  People don’t understand why she would do that, but it is an easy assessment.  She is playing to the political left in San Francisco that is demanding this.  She has placed her reelection and position ahead of Soldiers lives.  The Deomcrats once (often) said “Blood for Oil” as they criticized Republicans.  I think this is much more clearly Blood for Votes.  (You can’t come up with any other analysis of it.)

What is the cost of all this…………..?  Essentially every economist (eliminating those with a White House connection) feel that the Obama program will bankrupt the country and leave our children with an insurmountable debt at a time they will already be going broke over the existing Social Security and Medicare problems.  Obama said last week “you ain’t seen nothin yet.”  With Cap & Trade and Cap & Tax he will permanently make the US non-competitive with the rest of the world so we can be seen as “politically correct” in solving a problem (global warming) that either doesn’t exist or is not caused by people.  The primary Charlatan and Elmer Gantry of our era is Al Gore.  He has already made $100 million propagating his junk science that he won’t debate with opposing scientists and he is on the threshold of making Billions by becoming the primary “broker” of carbon offset credits.  Understand this is a Ponzi scheme that moves around the production of carbon but doesn’t reduce a single pound of emissions.  Did I tell you that C02 is NOT a toxic substance and is necessary in the photosynthesis process?  You breathe C02 in and out with every breath.  If you didn’t you’d be dead.

Let me conclude and say I smell that Obama is on the threshold of betraying the Israelis in a fundamentally existential fashion and he is headed in the direction of being the biggest elected disaster in the history of the country………..stay tuned.

June 13, 2009 | Filed Under Democratic Hypocrisy, Economics, Global Warming, Muslim/Islam, Political Correctness, Politics, Taxes, U.S. Constitution, War on Terror | 6 Comments 

Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful

  I am going to say little here and let the most successful stock investor in American History say it for me.  This is an Op-Ed in today’s New York Times by Warren E. Buffett one of the two richest Americans.  He made his fortune by investing in the stock market.  He comes to the conclusion to buy American stocks now after many years of not buying any American stocks.  I really recognize the truth in his statement replicated as this posts title.  I’ll leave this post up as long that the New York Times does not object to my printing it in its entirety.  I’ll provide the link HERE 

      CAVEATS:  This bullish scenario may be well tempered by the unknow tax horizon.  The value of equities are based on investors best “after tax model” calculations.  Even those securities held by tax deferred accounts such as Pensions, IRA’s and 401-K’s are subject to this ultimate valuation model since the wall street traders trade even these stocks based on this valuation model.  Many extremely qualified market analysts already feel the anticipated increase in the cost of investment (increase in tax on Dividends and Capital Gains) and related impact on capital formation is taking its toll on the stock market.  Also, Buffett is a buy and hold (long-term) kind of guy and to him long-term can be an exceptionally long-term, but his view cannot be overestimated.  caveat emptor

Buy American. I Am.

By

WARREN E. BUFFETT, Omaha

     THE financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy, and the leaks are now turning into a gusher. In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.

     So … I’ve been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I’m talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.     Why?

     A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

     Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.

     A little history here: During the Depression, the Dow hit its low, 41, on July 8, 1932. Economic conditions, though, kept deteriorating until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March 1933. By that time, the market had already advanced 30 percent. Or think back to the early days of World War II, when things were going badly for the United States in Europe and the Pacific. The market hit bottom in April 1942, well before Allied fortunes turned. Again, in the early 1980s, the time to buy stocks was when inflation raged and the economy was in the tank. In short, bad news is an investor’s best friend. It lets you buy a slice of America’s future at a marked-down price.

     Over the long term, the stock market news will be good. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.

     You might think it would have been impossible for an investor to lose money during a century marked by such an extraordinary gain. But some investors did. The hapless ones bought stocks only when they felt comfort in doing so and then proceeded to sell when the headlines made them queasy.

     Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.

     Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky’s advice: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”

     I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: “Put your mouth where your money was.” Today my money and my mouth both say equities. Warren E. Buffett is the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway, a diversified holding company.

October 17, 2008 | Filed Under Economics | 1 Comment 

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (a white paper)

     The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) which was designed to encourage mortgage credit though all areas not just wealthy areas was passed during the Carter Administration and subsequently managed by Jack Kemp during the Reagan Administration.  It was not designed to insure credit was made available to unqualified borrowers.  It wasn’t until 1994 during the Clinton Administration that this Act of Congress became a useful tool for activist organizations like Acorn (which is facing criminal investigation in many states) and Community Organizer Lawyers like Barack Obama to leverage it to the advantage of their political and activist goals.  Janet Reno staked out the new policy of the Clinton Administration which was to be a policy of rigorous enforcement: 

“No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”     

     The way the law was implemented was to deny banks the ability to grow or buy out other banks unless they were in deemed to be in “compliance” with the CRA and individual ad hoc groups were authorized and encouraged to bring legal action against the banks to enforce this action.  The lawsuits that were filed against the banks could literally bring all plans to a “standstill” on mergers or expanding their capital base.  The litigious nature of these groups caused many banks to “play ball” with them and approved very questionable loans and to concede to financial contributions in the multi-millions of dollars to organizations like Acorn to keep peace.  It was in reality a sort of a “protection” plan administered by the activist groups (especially Acorn) much like the Jesse’s Jackson’s Operation Push shakedown.  You had to pay up or they would drag you through the coals and label you as a racist.  In short the shoddy loan practices of the banks were forced upon them through this process, not corporate greed as advertised.

     In 1994 a Lawsuit against CitiBank was brought by Acorn (and soon to come association with activist Chicago lawyer named Barack Obama) in: 

Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/InsuranceDocket / Court 94 C 4094 (N.D. Ill.) FH-IL-0011 State/Territory Illinois,

and in 1995 such suit was granted “class action” status and Barack Obama joined the suit with his own clients in the following three Illinois cases he was personally representing against CitiBank and remained as a page one named attorney in the class action suit representing ACORN, et al.:

FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000.

     This case was to force CitiBank to abandon their loan policy of not making loans in risky markets and to risky borrowers.  The political pejorative for this was Red Lining.

     In 1997 CitiBank “settled” out of court after the Democrats in Congress at the behest of Acorn forced a reduction in mortgage loan standards for banks through coercion on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and then began “donating” large sums of money to ACORN and reversing their practice of “red lining” districts and borrowers that were not qualified for loans.  Enter James Johnson.

     James Johnson was the Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae after previous political activity as serving as the Campaign Chairman of Walter Mondale’s failed 1984 Presidential bid.  It was during his tenure that the goals of Acorn and many activists in Congress such as Maxine Walters, Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank we’re supported by Fannie Mae by providing the ultimate backstop for Citibank’s agreement to issue what were risky loans by agreeing to guarantee those loans and in fact purchase the loans in many circumstances from CitiBank.  (We know now that  those loan guarantee and purchases resulted in the ultimate demise and conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008.)

     During this time (1991-1998) that Johnson was Chairman and CEO of the quasi Public organization (Fannie) he and Fannie reported that he was paid $6-7 million (wow for a quasi public corporation) but it was discovered by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) in 2004 that Fannie Mae had deferred $200 million in expenses in 1998 through the accounting techniques identical to that of Enron and WorldCom (I can say this being an accountant) to enhance the appearance of profits.  Since the current crowd of operators initiated a “bonus” program that was based on profits, millions of dollars of fraudulent bonuses were made available to Johnson, his successor Franklin Raines and Raines’ ultimate deputy Jamie Gorelick (Both Raines and Gorelick were Clinton appointees).  OFHEO also found that Johnson had misrepresented Johnson’s compensation as $6-7 million after the audit and found that it was actually $21 million (talk about Public Servants).  Johnson (along with Chris Dodd D-CT Chairman of the powerful Senate Banking Committee who originally said he didn’t know Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial) received special “below market” loan approval on a private personal loan directly from Mozilo of Countrywide who was the first major domino to fall in the Sub-Prime housing market.  It was found that Mozilo had a personal list of people under his direct authority for obtaining special loan approval.  It was called his VIP list.

     It should be noted that Johnson subsequently served as Chairman of the John Kerry Vice President selection committee and was providing similar advice to Barack Obama after he secured the Democratic Presidential nomination.

     When Johnson left Fannie Mae in 1998  Franklin Raines was appointed by Bill Clinton as Chairman and CEO and took the financial scam to new heights.  He appointed as his deputy a loyalist from the Clinton Administration that had not one minute of financial education or experience Jamie Gorelick (the author of the Clinton policy of the “absolute wall of separation” between U.S. intelligence organizations which had substantial impact on the proverbial left hand not knowing what the right had is doing issue leading up to our intelligence gaffs on bin Laden and 911.  The US Government was not allowed to share intelligence information between the CIA, FBI and other intelligence gathers………….think about it and how devastating that result was.)

     With the settlement of the Class Action Lawsuit against CitiBank (the largest in the USA) and Fannie & Freddie taking all the loans you can present, banks like Citi and others based on these precedents wrote zillions in mortgages to unqualified buyers knowing that the Federal Government would “guarantee” re-payment and even purchase the loans.  Purchasing the loans became the game of the day at these quasi federal agencies since Raines had taken his remuneration package to the Board to have it tweaked to the number of loans that were written with the sweetener to obtain agreement by the Board of Directors was an offer of increase in their pay.  As a result during Raines tenure he was able to take out $90 million in bonuses and Jamie Gorelick (deputy) took out and additional $25 million.  Raines later settled out of court on a civil case for “cooking the books” but most of the settlement (about $3 million) was paid for by an insurance policy (paid for by Fannie) and a few hundred thousand dollars of other costs while allowing him to keep nearly all the $90 million.  [It is time for criminal charges to be pursued.]  You should know that Raines is today a financial consultant to the Obama campaign though after initially bragging about it they now deny it.

     The purpose of this “White Paper” is to shed light on what really was the template for the ultimate collapse of the mortgage industry in this country since thousand upon thousands of these unqualified loans were written.

     Barack Obama is still going around blaming Wall Street greed for the financial fiasco while the truth is that Wall Street bought into this program through the pressure of Freddie and Fannie when Freddie and Fannie took packages of these loans and turned them into “securities” that they could market to Wall Street.  This was all the result of a series of events of which Barack Obama played a significant role early on.  Wall Street (i.e. the investment banking community) bought into the commercial banking products because they had been pressured and they were told they were “riskless” by Franklin Raines (I heard the tape where he told the Congressional Banking Committee when asked about the degree of risk they represented he answered “riskless”).  The more they could securitize and push to the investment banking community the more cash they would have to buy more loans from the lenders and increase “bonuses,” and I should add that Obama was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae, only being topped by Christopher Dodd (Democrat-CT) Chairman of the powerful Senate Banking Committee.

      During House Financial Services Committee hearings in 2003 when the BUSH administration was becoming aware through OFHEO there were real problems with Fannie and Freddie and proposed regulatory legislation, a major row occurred in the House Committee by the minority leadership Barney Frank where he read the administration the riot act and as reported at that time by the New York Times (9-11-2003) the following statement:

Bush today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.  Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill.  Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders (of course) and the Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies. 

And in the direct quotable words of Barney Frank (ranking Democrat-MA on the Financial Services Committee)

“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,”  “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” 

     Don’t you find it interesting that Barney Frank and his cohorts in the House and the Senate are blaming the Bush administration for “lack of regulation?”  It didn’t start there nor end there.  In January of 2005 the Senate introduced a bill titled “Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 S. Bill 190.  This bill could well have brought the practices of Freddie and Fannie into check and regulation.  This bill had 3 Republican sponsors including John McCain and zero Democratic sponsors, but in the Senate you need 60 votes to move legislation and the Democrats made it clear (on party lines) that they would not support this legislation. [But of course the lie being told is that it was Bush, McCain and the Republicans that resisted regulation of the financial industry.  They only need to repeat this lie 29 more days to where it won’t matter so much when the truth finally comes out.     It is time for the Republicans to get with it and start to defend their conduct over the past 10 years on this issue and illustrate that it was nearly a 100% operation of the Democrats to thwart regulation which is directly opposite of what they are saying now.  There are many other instances where the administration attempted to bring these matters under control and were thwarted by the Democrats.     This financial disaster is the direct and proximate result of the bastardization of the Community Reinvestment Act by the Democrats in the 1990’s in order to extend their “social engineering” to the financial markets.     Please serve as a counter force to the largest and most sinister scam, in my opinion, that is being thrust on the American public.  Share this narrative about the “bailout” (which I supported) as a direct result of the Democratic meddling in the mortgage community and Congressional Oversight role for the past 10 years.  They would have you believe they are trying to help out Bush after his financial policies failed.  The biggest financial problem we have ever had since the Great Depression is a direct result of socially engineered housing policies of Clinton and Banking Oversight Policies of the Democrats in Congress…………..period.  The Democrats are flat out lying about this every day and it needs correction.  And I’ll tell you that any body that knows what actually went on will not want to debate this issue.

October 5, 2008 | Filed Under American Left, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Politics, Presidential Politics, The Left | 16 Comments 

The Stalinists are Lecturing the U.S.A.

  Don’t you just love it when the idiots that structured nearly every failed financial system in the world in the past century are lecturing the U.S. on economics?  Russia has pronounced that the Credit Crisis marks the end of U.S. economic domination in the World,……ouch.  Their economically expert leadership is declaring that the crisis in the United States should be taken as a sign that America’s Global Economic Leadership is drawing to a close.  The Russian President, Dimitri Medvedev (Putin’s Puppet) said concerning the credit crisis, “the times when one economy and one country dominated [sic] are gone for good.”  Not so fast Demo…….are you aware of the numbers? 

Economic Powerhouses of the World (GDP): 1)  U.S.A. $13.8 trillion,   2)  Japan $4.3 trillion,   3)  Germany $3.7 trillion,   4)  China $3.3 trillion,   5)  United Kingdom $2.8 trillion,   6)  France $2.5 trillion,   7)  Italy $2.1 trillion,   8)  Spain $1.4 trillion,   9)  Canada $1.4 trillion,   10)  Brazil $1.3 trillion,   11)  Russia $1.3 trillion.

     These numbers are expressed in U.S. dollars and based on 2007 performance and were calculated when the value of the U.S. Dollar in international exchange was valued at nearly its’ lowest.  If these same statistics were recalculated at today’s increased value of the Dollar the differentials would be substantially more dramatic.  Did you notice that the economy of Russia with a substantially greater population than the U.S.A. is less than 1/10th of the US even based on a “cheap dollar” calculation earlier this year.

     It is just during this time of economic financial crisis that the Dollar has rallied because the “markets” see that the U.S. Dollar and U.S. Treasury Bills are the safest “economic” harbor in the World, exactly the opposite of what Demo’s thesis would be even if he understood his own words.  Need I say that the U.S. Stock Market at this time is down about 22% +/- THIS YEAR depending on your index approach while the Russian Market was down 50% LAST WEEK. So even though the socialist world would have you believe the opposite, Capitalism is still the best place to be and if we had keep the “social architects” out of the legislation and regulation for “affordable housing” you would have not even seen this credit crisis gather such steam.  [You have an opportunity on November 4th to see that they (BHO and his crowd) don’t get back in office]  It was the emphasis and mandate of these social engineers that created the vacuum for the Banks to fill with their own greed as it was then handed off to the Quasi Public agencies such as Freddie and Fannie (which was financially corrupted through Clinton/Democratic cronyism) which in turn securitized them and also handed them off to the Investment Banking Community (worldwide).

     I might add that during even this past week $52 Billion in Net Private Capital left Russia with most finding it’s way to U.S. Treasuries (comparably that would be equivalent to $520 billion leaving the USA in one week).  So Demo…………you get an F on your economic acumen.  You should thank God (I know that is sort of an oxymoron for your type) that you guys can remain in power because you control most the guns.  For the complete story on this post from the New York Times “International Herald Tribune” check HERE.

October 4, 2008 | Filed Under Economics, Marxism, Politics, Presidential Politics, Russian Resurgence | Leave a Comment 

The SuperModel Barometer

  Lets just call this the SuperModel barometer.  Actually it is sort of a contrarian thing.  But here is how it goes.  Due to the fact that the media and its’ compadres have berated America throughout the world, even SuperModel’s are flexing their economic muscle and requiring payment in foreign currency not US currency as previously had been the form of currency within the SuperModel industry.

Point in question is Gisele Bundchen, a Brazilian Citizen, who is considered to be the world’s riches SuperModel (I don’t know if that would include the proceeds from Christy Brinkley’s divorce or not) is now demanding to be paid in almost any currency besides the U.S. Dollar.  I love it when people decide to make the switch on commodities “after” the revaluation has basically already occurred.  The actual really smart people (i.e. savvy Europeans) are flocking to the U.S. right now (even as we talk) and looking to buy some really depressed U.S. Real Estate with some really cheap U.S. Dollars (that they can purchase at an impressive discount) thus giving them a strong potential for maybe an historically attractive “double play” in U.S. investments.

This is a more learned and quite a diametrically opposite view than that of Gisele’s, though maybe not as politically correct.  And……..all of this because she and other celebrities have concluded that America, under George Bush (don’t you just love this predicate) is living beyond its means.  And just think, this criticism comes from someone that has gotten rich promoting among other things “flip-flops” at $250 per pair.  I guess this came to light last week at a time when the U.S. Dollar reached $1.4528 per Eurodollar, a record low.

So this may indeed signal market exhaustion (to coin some previous market terminology of my prior days) and could well signal the low or near low of the dollar.  So I wouldn’t bet my last nickel that Gisele and some of the other “forward” looking celebrities are getting on the right horse at the right time.  Time will only tell if she is a genius or an idiot.  You know where my money is.  FOOTNOTE:  I wonder if in the fullness of time it is possible that we will learn that George Soros (that world renown currency speculator) is more behind the collapse of the US dollar than George Bush.  MORE

November 6, 2007 | Filed Under American Pop Culture, Economics | 15 Comments 

Frank Cerabino, Palm Beach Post

 I entered a discussion with Frank Cerabino an award winning columnist here in Florida with the Palm Beach Post.  It has been obvious to me from his writing that he is most definitely of the Liberal slant.  Frank is a former military person and graduated from the Naval Academy (1977) and later obtained a Masters Degree in Journalism from Northwestern University.  (It is too bad he didn’t spend that time studying economics.)

Frank said something in a column HERE that I took as more of the same tired left wing diatribe about “tax cuts for the rich” where he stated that these funds were coming from the have-nots and going to the rich, and he framed the discussion around the Megayachts that regularly sail in and out of the Palm Beach area.  He went on to conclude his article by stating (as an anchor to his overall conclusion) that “more tax cuts for the rich are in the pipeline.”  I know better than that so I wrote him asking him to point to his back up for these statements.  This launched quite a number of exchanges throughout the day where he would simply dip to an ad hominem belittling of me and totally avoid the “merits” of his own thesis.  (If you read the exchange you will clearly see why).  As you read below you should note that the comments in Red are by me and the comments in Black are by Frank.

Read this for a real life illustration of how influential people in the media want to level charges but not deal with metrics of a discussion about them.  I think Frank is a nice guy, but misguided by his own self-assumed brilliance like so many other liberals in the media that they expect you to accept their “pronouncements” and basically resent being questioned about them…….steve

————————————-Frank, In your article Megayachts prove not everyone is in the same boat, you mentioned tax cuts for the rich twice and the second time when you were wrapping up and summarizing your article you mentioned that tax cuts for the rich were in the pipeline.  You article didn’t actually reference these, could you elaborate.  I would be very interested to learn of what you are referring.
 
Thank You,  Steve————————————–Hi  Steve:
   These tax cuts, as you can see from story, run through 2010.
   Thanks for reading.
   Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says —FrankNOTE: For the sake of space Frank pasted a long article by another columnist regarding the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010 in response to part of my initial question.——————————-Hi Frank, Oh those tax cuts.  I believe that those tax cuts skewed the income tax burden to the upper end of the tax spectrum, not to mention delivering us from the Clinton recession.  But you mentioned additional tax cuts in the pipeline, which are those.  You really don’t do yourself service discussing tax and matters that you aren’t really up to speed on and to do so with such a bias spin as though somebody is doing something wrong, but I suppose it sells newspapers.   I am sorry to sound somewhat hostile here, I really am not, but really encourage you to look deeper into tax policy and consequences since you are in a position of influence. Steve——————————————The consequences of our tax policy, my dear FoxNews hound, is that the people who need relief the least are the people who get the biggest break. Yes, wealthy people pay a lot of taxes. But the percentage drop in the taxes they pay is the highest of any income group during the Bush years.  In other words, the burden was shifted more to the bottom, not the top, as you somehow managed to think.
     In fact, the tax cuts favoring of the rich have been touted by the administration as a wise move, because giving money to the rich is supposed to result in magically making everybody’s life better, through investment in the economy. But what it has done has widened the gap between the haves and the have nots.
   Clinton recession? I seem to remember a budget surplus, a booming economy, and the recent praises of Alan Greenspan, who in his new book, has the highest praise for Clinton’s stewardship of the economy. (By the way, Greenspan regrets being a cheerleader for those Bush tax cuts that haven’t panned out as advertised.)
     You don’t sound hostile, Steve, you just sound like somebody who has been conditioned to believe that we all do well when government takes from the poor to give to the rich.
     – Frank  

————————————————-

Frank,  (I have interlined his  statements above with my response in red)

 

    The consequences of our tax policy, my dear FoxNews hound, is that the people who need relief the least are the people who get the biggest break. Yes, wealthy people pay a lot of taxes. But the percentage drop in the taxes they pay is the highest of any income group during the Bush years.  In other words, the burden was shifted more to the bottom, not the top, as you somehow managed to think.

You seem to confuse rates with burden.  You are errant about this.  The burden of tax receipts shifted more to the upper bracket after the tax cut.  This is unequivocal.  If you are so sure would you like to pick up an easy $1,000? I put that up against yours and then I’ll prove my point.

Fox News Hound?  A little ad hominem don’t you think? …..I am a tax practitioner and specialize in tax and fiscal policy.  And since you are talking about the Bush Tax Cuts let me say that the people you say need relief don’t actually pay income taxes…at all….cummon, you know that.

     In fact, the tax cuts favoring of the rich have been touted by the administration as a wise move, because giving money to the rich is supposed to result in magically making everybody’s life better, through investment in the economy. But what it has done has widened the gap between the haves and the have nots.

Tax cuts always favor the people that actually pay them.  The important question is impact on the economy.  History is rife with examples of this and you might want to get off your Democratic “talking points.”  Do they do much of your writing?  By the way, economic policy is not magic and history points to the soundest course of action.  Nothing will make everybody’s life better.  The goal is to deliver the best for the most at the least (cost).  That is where egalitarianism misses the boat (no pun).  You wouldn’t want to live in the decaying society where all were equal once you realize what the least common denominator would be. Clinton recession? I seem to remember a budget surplus, a booming economy, and the recent praises of Alan Greenspan, who in his new book, has the highest praise for Clinton’s stewardship of the economy. (By the way, Greenspan regrets being a cheerleader for those Bush tax cuts that haven’t panned out as advertised.)

BTW you obviously haven’t either read Greenspan’s book or listened to his rebuttal to the point you and others are trying to make.  He does not claim that the tax cuts didn’t pan out, but that the spending should have been curtailed.  That’s his gripe.  Bush was wrong here, but I am sure his loose spending was applauded by you and the Democrats at that time.  I personally believe it was a misguided strategy to endear himself to the Democrats in Congress in the spirit of compromise……..I could be wrong………but Tax Policy and Spending Policy are separate issues and you won’t get away with trying to blur that distinction with me.

The Budget Surplus followed the people that control the spending in Congress, which came into office in 1994 and you know who that is, and I’ll add that the single biggest contributor to low inflation and economic growth was technological advancements resulting in productivity gains in that evil concept called “private enterprise.”  (of course you know this I’m sure) I suppose you didn’t realize that the 1st quarter of negative growth in the US economy nearly occurred in the 3rd quarter of 2000 the final year of the Clinton administration (still not the classical definition of Recession) and slightly rebounded in the 4th quarter of 2000 (Christmas impetus).  Any armature can look at the graph (see below) and see the economic growth was clearly headed down throughout all of 2000 while bottoming out after the 1st quarter of 2001.  By the time the recession was confirmed in March of 2001 Bush had been in office two months.  Are you telling me that you don’t know that it takes many month for economic activity to be affected by fiscal or monetary policy.   The stock market began its plummet approximately 13 months before Bush and that is typically the most common leading indicator for the economy.  Again, you aren’t suggesting that the fiscal policy of Bush during February and March of 2001 is what Greenspan is hanging his hat on for the recession are you?  In short it actually is a the Clinton/Greenspan era recession and many believe that Greenspan’s slow response to a contraction of the economy was in part responsible.  He’s isn’t going to make that eminently clear do you suppose. Common……tell it to the masses, but you can’t blow that by me.  This canard that you and others in the media try a propagate that it was a Bush recession (I’ve even heard some Democratic elected officials say “made worse” with the tax cuts……how preposterous, but I suppose it only matters in the context as to who they lying to, anything to stir up the base) is nonsense and shame on you and others.You don’t sound hostile, Steve, you just sound like somebody who has been conditioned to believe that we all do well when government takes from the poor to give to the rich.

I believe the facts will bear out your pre-conditioning, not mine. So, how about that $1,000 wager.  I’ll even accept the burden of proof to establish that the burden of income taxes (not rates) has shifted even more progressively under the Bush tax cuts, after all your argument is about fairness not mathematics.  If you are interested further in my explanation that taxes policy should be established to optimize federal revenue and not to fund pet programs (or social goals) you can check the latest post in my blog (and there are others). http://nextstoplauderdale.com/  B-T-W immediately following that particular blog post is another that criticizes of one of those fearful FOX pundits, Bill O’Reilly. One further point…..  Since your original article was about Yachts, you might be interested to know that the last time the official powers that be (Democratic Congress with Clinton) and not newspaper columnists tried to settle the score with the rich and add big taxes to yachts and airplanes they essentially killed both industries (this is not in dispute) in the USA yet these same evil rich people purchased their yachts and planes overseas without said tax.  The Democrats had to relent and reverse this tax after costing tens of thousands of blue collar jobs.  Is your objective to optimize federal revenues and economic stability and growth or merely a evnious and fool hard attempt to balance outcomes in society?   And ……….. you still owe me an explanation of what “additional taxes” where the have-nots give to the rich are “in the pipeline” as you claimed in your article or do I sense a retraction? –Steve   

————————————

Oh, my.  You’re also one of those people who don’t want to face up to global warming.  I’ll say you’re for “free enterprise.”   (Frank)

———————-

Oh I believe in global warming, just not necessarily the nonsense you’re amen chorus is buying into.  To bad you aren’t for free enterprise.  It probably has made you what you are.  What about that retraction………is it coming? Steve——————————-Steve, we could go round and round forever. Just this last message is enough to tie up another chunk of time to set you straight. But I’m calling it quits here. Good luck to you.   ———————Frank, Ok, and good luck to you, your loss not mine.  I was looking for a way to put a cool grand in your pocket, but I understand that this is not without risks.  I’ll go back to the books and look up those forthcoming tax cuts (in the pipeline) for the VERY RICH since you clearly don’t want to let me know the basis of the following statement that anchors the concluding comments of your article: 

Sure, you may be anxious over keeping your finances afloat, but the megayacht business is booming, more tax cuts for the very rich are in the pipeline, and you have a ringside seat to the grand parade.

 This is not only indefensible, but obviously so recognized by you.  :)  I will conclude by stating that you would be well served to re-read my comments here and at NSL with more of an open mind and a less an ad hominem attitude especially in your position as a public commenter.  I think you have a duty to your readers to be better informed.  It is clear that you don’t want your facts challenged and when they are you refuse to discuss the merits (or lack) of those points.  I know it is easier that way, but that is for people outside the public arena…….. Anyway, good luck and try to keep an open mind. Steve

October 27, 2007 | Filed Under Economics, Taxes | 9 Comments 

Next Page »