$4,616,000,000,000 vs. $3,920,000,000,000

Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion

Read More...

Summary only...

Please Sir...May I Have Some More

Newt Gingrich gives a depressing look at "his view" of the near future if Obama wins the Presidency. "His view" is based on statements from Pelosi, Frank, and Obama but it is quite possible. A possible $1.45 in new spending within 6 months. I don't want this, I will vote against this but I fear it will be to no avail. But if the people of the US of A want a spend all(spend all-even-if-we-don't-have-it-and-have-to-borrow-it-so-future-generations-have-to-pay-for-it) then we deserve what we get don't we? Sometimes it takes a screw-up for a generation to see for themselves what doesn't work. Unfortunately the ramifications may not be felt immediately. Just like when you live off of a credit card you don't feel the problem immediately. You only feel the pain when you can no longer make the payment. If our government spends and spends by borrowing and borrowing...we may not feel the pain until the bills can't be paid any longer.

Check out the conservative "Human Events" blog and read Newts article.

A Disturbing Look At a Very Near Future: Tax Cuts Vs More Spending at the Special Session
by Newt Gingrich
10/28/2008
We have a choice between two futures.

For the first, fast forward 23 days. It’s November 17. Congress convenes for a special session with a veto-proof Democratic majority Senate, an expanded Democrat majority in the House and a Democrat in the White House.

The sole item

on their agenda is to pass the $300 billion government spending package promised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi back in October. There is no mistaking what is coming. Even before Democrats won sweeping, one-party control of Washington, they had made their intentions to increase taxes and spending clear.

Originally pegged at $150 billion, Pelosi’s spending package ballooned as time went on.

With 11 days to go before the election, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) fleshed out some details of the massive spending package. Frank called for a 25 percent cut in defense spending and conceded that Democrats will raise taxes to pay for new government spending. If they couldn’t get the votes in November, Frank was confident that they would have them in January.

And long before the election, President-elect Barack Obama had expressed his preference for wealth redistribution over wealth creation both on the campaign trail and in a startling radio interview in 2001, in which he claims the Warren Court was not radical enough. (Bill Whittle does an excellent job of dissecting this interview at National Review Online )

“You Can’t Say We Weren’t Warned”

The newly empowered Democratic majority passes the massive spending bill, confident that even a veto by President Bush can and will be overridden by their new Senate majority in January.

Before President-elect Barack Obama even takes office, government spending increases by $300 billion, bringing the grand total for the last six months of 2008 to $1.45 trillion.

And all center-right Americans can do is shake their heads and think, “You can’t say we weren’t warned.”

There is a Different Future: Make the Election About Big Spending Vs Big Economic Growth

For candidates, campaign managers, and consultants who are disturbed at this look at the very near future, there is another way.

But that way begins now. Today.

To avoid defeat on November 4 and avoid an out-of-control spending spree in the new Congress, the voters have to be given a real choice on Election Day.

• A choice between robust government spending and robust economic growth;
• A choice between higher spending and lower taxes;
• A choice between spreading the wealth around and increasing it through rapid economic recovery.

Because when Americans are asked to make these choices, our answers are clear and unequivocal.

We trust the private sector to grow the economy more than government. We favor keeping our money over giving it to Washington. We favor creating more wealth over redistributing the wealth we’ve worked for and saved.

We just have to be given the choice.

Three Times More Americans Believe In Tax Cuts Over More Government Spending

Newly released polling data show just how out of touch with Americans the REPO Team (Reid-Pelosi-Obama) pre-Christmas spending spree is.

By 60%-20%, Americans believe lower taxes, not higher government spending, will best ensure economic recovery, according to a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll.

By 86%-9%, Americans believe government should focus on jobs and economic growth over income redistribution, according to a New Models/Winston Group survey.

By 71%-25%, Americans believe that if you cut taxes on small business it will create new jobs, according to the New Models/Winston Group poll.

So What Are We Waiting For?

So what are we waiting for? To counter the Reid-Pelosi-Obama massive $300 billion government spending spree, Republicans should offer a $300 billion tax cut package.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has proposed a rapid economic recovery program that should be the centerpiece of the campaign going forward. Instead of marrying new deficit spending with liberal special interests like the Reid-Pelosi-Obama plan does, the Boehner plan marries sound economics with the small government, free market values of the American people.

Here are some of the reforms in the Boehner rapid economic recovery plan:

• Energy Independence: Creating jobs and reducing energy and food costs by enacting an “all of the above” energy plan. For more information, watch my new movie “We Have the Power” (watch the new trailer here and buy the movie here ) and read my new book Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less .
• Creating Jobs: Bringing American jobs back home by lowering the tax rate on profits that companies bring back to the United States.
• Restoring Home Values: Encouraging home purchases by easing capital gains rules for homes purchased in the next 18 months and held for at least five years.
• Spurring Economic Growth: Immediately suspend the capital gains tax on individuals and businesses for equities purchased during the next two years.
• Encouraging American Companies to Assist in Recovery: Lower the tax rate on business income so American companies have an incentive to invest in distressed assets.
• Protecting Retirement: Suspend rules that require individuals at age 70½ to begin withdrawing from their Individual Retirement Accounts. This would spare investors from being forced to sell their stocks at just the time when the market is hurting the most.

I will have more to say about what we can do now to avert this impending massive government spending spree at an event this Friday at the American Enterprise Institute entitled “Energy, the Economy, and the Special Session of Congress.” For more details, go to www.aei.org.

In the meantime, there is no time to waste. Republicans and center-right independents and Democrats can give the voters a real choice in the election, or we can lose our choice in the congressional special session to come.

Either way, you can’t say we weren’t warned.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich


P.S. Healthcare reform is a monstrous undertaking, but if we break it down to metrics - not financial discussions - we can see progress. And the best example of what I am talking about comes straight from baseball. To learn more, check out my op-ed co-written with Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane and Senator John Kerry at www.healthtransformation.net.


P.P.S. As I travel across the country, it has been encouraging to see more and more young people getting involved in politics and finding solutions to the challenges facing our nation. I met Ryan Minarovich this summer after a speech and he told me about his plans for a new blog called theunder30view.com that will engage more young Americans to be more active. It launched recently so I encourage all young Americans to take a look.

Read More...

Summary only...

Uncle Sam, Can You Spare a Dime...or 700 Trillion of Them?

So the banks don't want to use the $700 billion to make more loans? Well that may be an exaggeration but there is an underlying rumbling. They don't want to make loans, at least not with all the money. Can you blame them? It's a shaky market out there! Actually they will make some loans but they also want to use the money to pay dividends, give raises and bonuses and...get this...buy distressed banks! So your bank has screwed up so much that you need to get a handout from the government and you want to use theses funds to buy banks who the government deemed were so bad that they didn't warrant a bailout. PNC Financial Services Group Inc is receiving $7.7 billion and is turning around and buying National City Corp. for $5.58 billion. This is, as predicted, becoming a mess. Instead of spurring more loans, the government, once again, is setting up a welfare program.

Do you remember how your Senators and Representatives voted...do you care?

Uses for $700 billion bailout money ever shifting

By JOHN DUNBAR

WASHINGTON (AP) — First, the $700 billion rescue for the economy was about buying devalued mortgage-backed securities from tottering banks to unclog frozen credit markets.

Then it was about using $250 billion of it to buy stakes in banks. The idea was that banks would use the money to start making loans again.

But reports surfaced that bankers might instead use the money to buy other banks, pay dividends, give employees a raise and executives a bonus, or just sit on it. Insurance companies now want a piece; maybe automakers, too, even though Congress has approved $25 billion in low-interest loans for them.

Three weeks after becoming law, and with the first dollar of the $700 billion yet to go out, officials are just beginning to talk about helping a few strapped homeowners keep the foreclosure wolf from the door.

As the crisis worsens, the government's reaction keeps changing. Lawmakers in both parties are starting to gripe that the bailout is turning out to be far different from what the Bush administration sold to Congress.

In buying equity stakes in banks, the Treasury has "deviated significantly from its original course," says Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the top Republican on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. "We need to examine closely the reason for this change," said Shelby, who opposed the bailout.

The centerpiece of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is the "troubled asset relief program," or TARP for short. Critics note that tarps are used to cover things up. The money was to be devoted to buying "toxic" mortgage-backed securities whose value has fallen in lockstep with home prices.

But once European governments said they were going into the banking business, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson followed suit and diverted $250 billion to buy stock in healthy banks to spur lending.

Bank executives hinted they might instead use it for acquisitions. Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, said this development was "beyond troubling."

Sure enough, a day after Dodd, D-Conn., made the comment, the government confirmed that PNC Financial Services Group Inc. was approved to receive $7.7 billion in return for company stock. At the same time, PNC said it was acquiring National City Corp. for $5.58 billion.

"Although there will be some consolidation, that's not the driver behind this program," Paulson recently told PBS talk show host Charlie Rose. "The driver is to have our healthy banks be well-capitalized so that they can play the role they need to play for our country right now."

Other planned uses of the bailout money have lawmakers protesting, although it is only fair to note there is nothing in the law that they just wrote to prevent those uses.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. questioned allowing banks that accept bailout bucks to continue paying dividends on their common stock.

"There are far better uses of taxpayer dollars than continuing dividend payments to shareholders," he said.

Schumer, whose constituents include Wall Street bankers, said he also fears that they might stuff the money "under the proverbial mattress" rather than make loans.

Neel Kashkari, head of the Treasury's financial stability program, told Dodd's committee this past week that there are few strings attached to the capital-infusion program because too many rules would discourage financial institutions from participating.

As the bank plan has become a priority, the effort to buy troubled assets has receded from the headlines. Potential conflicts of interest pose all kinds of problems in finding qualified companies to manage that program.

"Firms with the relevant financial expertise may also hold assets that become eligible for sale into the TARP or represent clients who hold troubled assets," Kashkari said.

The challenge was made plain when the Treasury hired the Bank of New York Mellon Corp. as "custodian" of the troubled assets purchase program. The bank will conduct "reverse auctions" to buy the toxic securities on behalf of the Treasury. The lower the price they set, the better chance sellers have of getting rid of the devalued securities.

On the same day it hired Mellon, the Treasury also picked the company to receive a $3 billion investment as part of the capital-infusion program. The same bank hired to help manage part of the economic rescue plan became a beneficiary of it.

With the Nov. 4 election nearing, lawmakers decided it was important to remind the government officials running the bailout program about parts of the law aimed at helping distressed homeowners by offering federal guarantees to mortgages renegotiated down to lower monthly payments.

"The key to our nation's economic recovery is the recovery of the housing market," Dodd said. "And the key to recovery of the housing market is reducing foreclosures."

Sheila Bair, who heads the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., responded that her agency is working "closely and creatively" with Treasury officials to "realize the potential benefits of this authority."

Read More...

Summary only...

Bearish or Bullish? or Bullish on Bears?

Since many more people are tuning in to the ups and downs of the stock market, a lot may be wondering what do the terms "Bull Market" and "Bear Market" mean. It's simple...a "Bull Market" is one that is increasing or going up and a "Bear Market" is one that is in decline. To find out the origin of these terms check out "Hot for Words" on YouTube. If you've never seen her vlog before, give it a shot. She has a lot of interesting bits of knowledge. If you watch Fox News you'll probably recognize her since she pops up there often.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sometimes It Can Feel This Way

How does the big financial bailout...buyout...wayout...whatever... make you feel? Forget about the merits for the moment just think how the basic premise makes you feel. Over at Sinfest comics they have done a wonderful job of putting a thousand words (or is it 800 billion words) into a picture.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Very Simple Financial Planning Lesson...at a big price!

If everyone would heed this advice we wouldn't be in this mess. Everyone includes us, businesses and the big ol' government!

Read More...

Summary only...

Economy Bailout Song: AIG, Freddie Mac, Lehman Bros

Read More...

Summary only...

Hey Uncle Sam! Can you make that bailout $85,000,440,000?

You are an executive at AIG and you have royally messed up your company. Of course you don't blame yourself there are plenty of others who are at fault. But lets not play the blame game; let's work together with the government to fix this. $85 billion should do the job. And when the government says sure, why not; you roll up your sleeves and get to work right? Nope, you and a few other execs spend a week at a spa at a cost of $440,000! Maybe Las Vegas for the next bailout! It's a sign of the times...stupidity. Did they really think that this would'nt leak? Did they not know how this would look? It doesn't matter. The company will still get its $85 billion and the execs will still get their salaries or parachutes. There are consequences to AIG and to Congress for this debacle. And there are consequences to our inaction in taking responsibility for our own futures.

Check out the ABC article for more on the story.

Less than a week after the federal government committed $85 billion to bail out AIG, executives of the giant AIG insurance company headed for a week-long retreat at a luxury resort and spa, the St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, California, Congressional investigators revealed today.
Two AIG CEOs testify to Congress about their use of taxpayer bailout money.

"Rooms at this resort can cost over $1,000 a night," Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) said this morning as his committee continued its investigation of Wall Street and its CEOs.

AIG documents obtained by Waxman's investigators show the company paid more than $440,000 for the retreat, including nearly $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 in spa charges.

"They're getting their pedicures and their manicures and the American people are paying for that," said Cong. Elijah Cummings (D-MD).

"This unbridled greed," said Cong. Mark Souder (R-IN), "it's an insensitivity to how people are spending our dollars."

Appearing before the committee, Martin Sullivan, the AIG CEO until June, said the company was overwhelmed by a "financial global tsunami," and that "no simple or single cause" was to blame.

Read More...

Summary only...

Hurry up and Wait

In President Bush's radio address today he said that this bailout (you remember that little $800 billion package that had to be approved the day Secretary Paulson requested it...oops, well how about by the end of the weekend at the latest...oops, well how about by the end of the next week for sure) will take time to implement. So if that's true then why was it so important for this huge bill to be passed with very little discussion, discretion, or scruples? He also stated that, "The Federal government will undertake this rescue plan at a careful and deliberate pace to ensure that your tax dollars are spent wisely." I wish that tact was used for passing this bill as well. But I guess the government has our money now so what can we do? Well...how about we REMEMBER THIS! I am not, nor do I advocate a one issue decision when choosing who I vote for, but we now need to look beyond our pet issues and look at how these politicians will safeguard us for the long term and whether they have the character and strength to follow through. We don't need wussies in government anymore. We need people with backbones! So remember this when we vote. Who got us to the brink...how ramrodded this bill through...who kowtowed to pressure? Then ask yourself, who allowed them to?

Read More...

Summary only...

mmmm...Pork....does a body good!

Looks like the $700 billion financial rescue bill (along with over $100 billion in nothing-to-do-with-the-bailout items) has passed the Senate (and the House (263-171)and will shortly be signed into law by the President. Let's see how some of our Florida Congressmen voted:

Sen. Bill Nelson (D) no
Sen. Mel Martinez (R) yes
Rep. Cliff Sterns (R) no
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R) yes

and of course both McCain and Obama voted for it.
Thanks guys!

Read More...

Summary only...

Christmas in October! Pork as Usual from OUR Representatives?

Politicians can't help but be politicians and if you don't believe that look at the latest bill from the Senate. A $700 billion bail out...that's $700,000,000,000...bailout that they claim is need in this time of emergency to save America is a perfect opportunity to sneak in some good ol'fashioned pork. And with over $100 billion...that's $100,000,000,000...they can buy a lot of pork. Now to be fair, I don't know if all these items are really pork or not...it just wanted to add a little hyperbole. The point is...the Senate is pushing a huge spending bill of $700 billion through with very little discussion. A 451 page document was created and in less than a day Senators were supposed to read it, analyze it, and vote on it. Needless to say, most would not read the whole thing. In a time of "emergency" such as this why would you throw in over $100 billion in spending that has nothing to do with the bailout? Of course you want to seize an opportunity to get your agenda passed with out having an honest discussion on the issue. It's like asking a drowning man "Do you want me to get you a life jacket and take $100 bucks from your wallet?" What is the drowning man going to say? That is why they are politicians. That is why they lack character. But do we really care? Do Americans really care? Will we remember this when it comes time for reelection. I don't care if what they were asking for would benefit me or my state directly or not; it was cheap, sleazy, backroom politics and they need to be held accountable. Unfortunately both Obama and McCain vote for it and Bush likes it. Here is a list of some of them:

* $223M for Alaskan Fisherman
* $192M for Rum Producers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
* $128M for Auto Racing
* $33M for companies operating in American Samoa
* $10M for film & TV production
* $6M for producers of Wooden Arrows
* Tax credit for employees in Hurricane Katrina disaster area
* Tax incentives for investments in poor neighborhoods in D.C.
* Increased rehabilitation credit for buildings in Gulf area
* Reduction of import duties on some imported wool fabrics, transfers other duties to Wool Trust Fund to promote competitiveness of American wool

Here's an interesting bit...the Bush bill was 3 pages long, the House's bill was 100 pages but the Senate not wanting to be outdone decided to add 350 more pages!

Read More...

Summary only...

How they voted

Here's how our Florida Representatives voted on the House's $700 billion bailout of Wall Street:

Yea
Boyd (D)
Brown (D)
Hastings (D)
Klein (D)
Mahoney (D)
Meek (D)
Wasserman Schultz (D)
Wexler (D)
Crenshaw (R)
Putnam (R)
Weldon (R)

Nea
Bilirakis (R)
Brown-Waite, Ginny (R)
Buchanan (R)
Diaz-Balart, L (R)
Diaz-Balart, M (R)
Feeney (R)
Keller (R)
Mack (R)
Mica (R)
Miller (R)
Ros-Lehtinen (R)
Stearns (R)
Young (R)
Caster (D)

Read More...

Summary only...

A Common Sense Fix for the Economy

On Dave Ramsey's website, he lists a 3 step plan to fix the current financial debacle. It involves much less in government involvement and the cost is estimated at $50 billion, compare that to $700 billion (yes I know the 700 isn't a true cost.) It basically has the government insure the bad mortgages rather than buying them. It places restrictions on the companies that seek insurance and provides some small relief to the consumer. The second step involves a change in accounting procedures but it's the third step that's the kicker. The capital gains tax needs to be removed completely! Overall it seems like a good plan...it at least appears on the surface to be better than a government wholesale purchase of mortgages. I don't want the
government to become the landlord of the land. Most importantly, he reminds us to pray. Pray for our leaders. Even those that we disagree with or dislike. They need wisdom and the Lord is wisdom. Sometimes (or is it a lot of times) we forget to do this, or if we do, its just so we can check it off our prayer list. Ask God for wisdom on our own behalf and then earnestly pray for our leaders, for wisdom, strength, and perseverance. Here is the complete plan and check out Dave's site.

"Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following three steps:

Common Sense Plan

I. INSURANCE

A. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an
underlying FHA-type insurance. Government-insured
and backed loans would have an instant market
all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.

B. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance,
they must do two things:

1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three
months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.

a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or
legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners
current and allows them a chance to keep their homes.

b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage
refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off
the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short
sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any
deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages
mortgage companies to go the extra mile while
working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures
and ruined lives.

2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING
and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as
long as the company holds these government-insured
bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming executives
from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.

C. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—
a small fraction of the current proposal.




II. MARK TO MARKET

A. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two
years on only subprime Tier III bonds/mortgages.
This keeps companies from being forced to artificially
mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the
underlying mortgages and real estate.

B. This move creates patience in the market and has
an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and
ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.




III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX

A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors
will flood the real estate and stock market in search
of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and
immediate—liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs
the taxpayer nothing.

B. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically
because many will say it is helping the rich. The
truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their
money that stimulates the economy. This will enable
all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement
investments that go up instead of down. This is not
a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics.
It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to
stand up, speak out, and fix this mess."

Read More...

Summary only...