There’s lots of sobering news on the economy these days, but this piece competes for the most sobering of the summer:
America Sliding Into a Pit of Foreign Debt.
The graph below shows the United States net foreign debt. It hit an unprecedented $3.5 trillion, 24.3% of our GDP, at the end of 2008, according to a report issued on June 26 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Ever since taking office Obama has been expanding U.S. government borrowing from abroad. On April 15, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, intent on borrowing more money from China, issued a report to Congress which pretended that China does not manipulate its currency, despite the fact that China had already collected about $1.7 trillion dollars of our debt as a byproduct of its non-existent currency manipulations.The latest numbers show U.S. manufacturing employment declining in June to 11,854,000 workers, down 136,000 since May, down 786,000 since President Obama took office in January and down 5,260,000 since President Bush took office in January 2001.
What’s the solution? Despite DC rhetoric, evidently it’s furious deck chair reshuffling. For example, on the 14th we learned that in the depression of 2009, Goldman Sachs Posts Record Profit, Beating Estimates, but today we find that Goldman Sachs VaR Reaches Record on Risks Led by Equity Trading. (Of course, we remember GS from a previous outing). Then, in another verification of vaunted Administration transparency, Citi close to secret deal with regulator. Not to be outdone: BofA operating under secret regulatory sanction: report.
CIT chimes in:
CIT Group’s ‘Capital’ Was All Talk, No Trousers: Investors watched yesterday as yet another major financial- services company angled for a government bailout — this time unsuccessfully — while still sporting U.S. banking regulators’ highest capital rating. It’s a sure thing CIT won’t be the last.
Mysteriously, Barney Frank could not be reached for comment on any of these occasions, possibly because he was still working on relaxing Fannie and Freddie lending standards. These things do take time.
There’s more: Spitzer Says Banks Made ‘Bloody Fortune’ on U.S. Aid. Yes, Spitzer.
Spitzer said rules proposed by President Barack Obama’s administration are irrelevant because agencies failed to enforce existing regulations.
“Regulatory agencies already had the power to do everything they needed to do,” he said. “They just affirmatively chose not to do it.”
Let’s get back to strangling foreign debt and plunging economic health at home. How to fix it? Not more output, more heroin: Geithner Says U.S. Can’t Afford to Put Brake on Growth Prematurely.
I hope Geithner means the growth of credibility. Yes, interest in Fed accountability does remain high but not without resistance. Before you click, ask yourself who.
It becomes clearer and clearer that for years we’ve been manipulating currency and calling it prosperity instead of ensuring our best long-term economic interests by maintaining a free, profitable, world-class production base, one that operates without government encumberances because that’s the only way free, profitable, world-class production bases remain such. The problem wasn’t lax regulation of honest output, it was lax monetary policy and its end game. We’d trampled a free, concrete, hands-off economy years ago…which is how today business as usual meets the Administration that based its campaign for office on change.
Maybe Geithner refers to the growth of hope for change. Maybe Obama did too, because right now Obama looks like the cartooned neocon he was thought to have replaced.
Comment by KingShamus on 7/16 @ 6:46 am #
Would it help if I said “YES WE CAN” in a call and response rhythmic cadence? Cuz I was told that kind of magical thinking would fix the country.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 6:59 am #
“On April 15, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, intent on borrowing more money from China, issued a report to Congress which pretended that China does not manipulate its currency…”
Which anybody who’s cognizant of gobal real-economics realizes is complete and utter BS! The Chinese have been manipulating their currency for years, and the Boooooosh! administration complained many times to the WTO about it; but since the WTO is the UN of trade, the Chinese denied it, and nothing was ever done…
Tony Blankley:
“A growing body of leading experts believe that the Chinese refused to allow their exporting strength vis-a-vis the United States to be reflected in a true value of their basic monetary unit, the yuan (also known as the renminbi). By pegging it to the dollar, they ran up huge surpluses and recycled the money back to the United States…”
In english, he’s saying that the Chinese government has artificially kept it’s exchange rate low, hence, even if all things were equal, goods manufactured there simply cost less; it’s a strategy designed to fuel exports, build industry on the back of other nations consumerism, and accumulate huge cash trade surpluses…
And in addition to that major factor, what amounts to essentially extortion by the labor unions, and excessive taxes on corporations and businesses, all these things combine to explain why actual production only makes up 1/3 of our GDP…
Comment by JHo on 7/16 @ 7:05 am #
Mr Obama, tear down this wall!
Comment by alppuccino on 7/16 @ 7:07 am #
All my money’s in pitchforks.
Comment by sdferr on 7/16 @ 7:10 am #
Industrial production and capacity utilization #’s through June, tabulated with comment, from the Fed.
Comment by sdferr on 7/16 @ 7:12 am #
A quote from the Fed piece [emphasis added]:
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 7:20 am #
“ Goldman Sachs Posts Record Profit, Beating Estimates…”
Then why did they need TARP money? To float some juicy stock deals? On Goldman? I just say, “curioser and curioser” while marveling at their ability to
buywin politicians and influence government institutions DESPITE who’s in charge in Washington…“ Goldman Sachs VaR Reaches Record on Risks Led by Equity Trading.”
zOMG!1!1!!eleventy, WE NEED A NEW GOLMAN SACHS DEDICATED REGULATOR!11!1! THEY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO
TURN A PROFITTAKE ANY RISKS!11!1!ELEVENTYAnother fascinating “nuance” to the GS story is, that in addition to making record profits, they paid virtually no tax!
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2009/01/05/tax-freedom-day-for-goldman-sachs-has-already-happened/
http://dennisthepeasant.typepad.com/dennis_the_peasant/2008/12/more-trouble-with-our-dickie.html
And even the Libs are pissed, wear saftey goggles for these:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2008/12/18/maddow-frustrated-lower-goldman-sachs-tax-rate-leaves-words-out-bank-s-ea
http://firedoglake.com/2008/12/16/goldman-sachs-to-pay-1-tax-rate/
And, recall that GS employess donated big money to Obama and the Democrats last cycle…
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000085
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Coincidence, well, you make the call!
Comment by Salt Lick on 7/16 @ 7:24 am #
All my money’s in pitchforks.
Last night I started reading W. Shirer’s “The Nightmare Years: 1930-40″ and my wife had to slap me when I started cheering for the various French fascist groups (Commies and Nationalists) when they rioted and tried to storm the Chamber of Deputies to beat the puke out of incompetent, corrupt politicians.
The problem with this post’s fine words is that for most people it’s just that — words. Hell, most Americans can’t tell you the difference between the debt and the deficit. They aren’t going to react until they lose their jobs or security, and right now they are giving the Dems their “chance.” And they think they’ve been through this before, when cries of “deficit disaster” rang in 1992 (remember a crazy little f*cker named Ross Perot?), and then low and behold we had surpluses by 2000 (thanks to the 1994 realignment), so they say, “what was the big deal?”
And would some of you who know economic stuff go over here and explain why that guy’s reasoning is wrong when he writes:
…to put it plainly, we’re in a period in the economic cycle when you are supposed to lard up with debt. Normally, you’d spend accumulated savings at a time like this but we can’t do that because of Republicans who spent us into oblivion over the last eight years. All we have left is to borrow and there’s more than enough capacity for us to do so. [bolding mine]
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 7:29 am #
“Mr Obama, tear down this wall!”
Well don’t hold your breath. Obama admires China’s functioning fascism of low-level capitalism with high-levek central planning; and the totalitarian governments complete control of the information flow comes as a bonus!
We need to get the production/services ratio back closer to 50% in our nation. Although Ideally a production number higher than 50% would be nice since it would mean we were exporters again, the high wage structure demanded here by relatively low education/low skill workers will make that a difficult goal to achieve…
Especially since we’re going to impose death by Union/government control to 2/3 of one of the largest production sectors of our economy…
And I don’t want to derail the thread, but can’t resist positing; what will happen
ifwhen we commit national sepuku by enacting cap-n-tax…Comment by sdferr on 7/16 @ 7:32 am #
Oh, and boo on the Messrs. Richman for playing the “manufacturing jobs loss” game. That alone is enough to toss them into the no-trust pile of economic commentators.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 7:37 am #
Salt lick,
Without even going there I can tell you that he’s probably just repeating the meme, “Clinton balanced the budget and had us racking up surpluses, until the Rethugs! came in and blew it all”. It’s one of the last election cycle’s hottest connivances, one designed to imply that the Democrats have become the NEW! party of fiscal austerity and resposibility…
In addition to Barry O! disproving all of that, the meme itself is phony since Clinton went back ti mixing social security witholding revenues into the general fund to magically produce his budget “surplus”, aided by the R4thugliKKKanz in Congress and gutting the defense department. In doing so he violated the short term “fix” that Reagan and O’Niel had worked out for social security and hastened the onset of it’s insolvency; one of the coming budget disasters in the offing…
Comment by Danger on 7/16 @ 7:40 am #
“And I don’t want to derail the thread, but can’t resist positing; what will happen ifwhen we commit national sepuku by enacting cap-n-tax…”
And also not to mention; National Healthcare, the (soon to be) gift that keeps giving /s
Comment by JHo on 7/16 @ 7:41 am #
Despite the bipartisan makeup of those finally blowing the lid partly off this systemic fraud — and yes, that means primarily US monetary policy — there’s an equally apolitical ignorance of just how significant the problem is. This post is an insignificant little effort to highlight just a few of the infinite number of facets of what is really our demise. By ‘demise’ I mean that this isn’t another cycle; this isn’t another regular, expected episode of economic down time. This is dropping entire cylinders in the machine that’s been dropping cylinders for decades.
Three things will turn us around: Honest money, small government, and competition. Too bad they’ll occur far more likely in reconstruction than they will in the DC status quo, regardless of the majority party.
Just as this post barely touches on the points that somehow made the news over the last few days, collectively we won’t realize how deep we’re in until we look back on it all, wrecked and burning in the street. Hindsight may give us a sense of just how foolish it was to trust centralized power and most importantly, centralized money and banking. About government’s fiat systems Jefferson was right, as were dozens of others who merely pointed to history.
There have been no fiscal or monetary conservatives of significance or influence in US government for decades. There have been relatively conservative Republicans and even a few Democrats, but there have been no classical liberals of consequence. This is all a failure of reason and a failure of integrity. This is a resounding indictment of politics and politicians.
In other words, the lie has permeated politics for a very, very long time, as if we needed reminding, which apparently we did.
Comment by JHo on 7/16 @ 7:42 am #
Cap-n-slave. FTFY.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 7:45 am #
sdferr,
What are you alluding to when you speak of “playing the ‘manufacturing jobs’ loss game”? And why do you feel this hurts their economi credibility?
Just curious…
Comment by sdferr on 7/16 @ 7:46 am #
Think of the employment (jobs) in agriculture in the 1830’s vs. today Bob. Measuring by the number of “jobs” is horse-pucky. Productivity must be accounted for.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 7:48 am #
“the (soon to be) gift that keeps giving.”
It’s good for what ails ye! But for your wallet? not so much…
I guess we’ll have to change that old milk commercial, ‘cuz our kids will soon be saying, “when I grow up, I’m going to be…BROKE!”
Be Cool!
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 7:55 am #
“Too bad they’ll occur far more likely in reconstruction than they will in the DC status quo…”
JHo, you’re scarin’ me bro. That sounds a little Bonesteel-esque…
I keep praying that well get it together as a nation in all facets of governance and socio-economics, and get back to our small givernment-big freedom roots…
People talk about the current deflationary trend as if it’s something to be terrified of, when the truth is that many capital items become over-valued due to the easy-peasy liar loan culture; all riven by the fed’s money policy…
If values would realign, while painful in the short term, in the long run it might lead to greater economic strength as well as facilitate the return of our manufacturing base.
Comment by sdferr on 7/16 @ 8:02 am #
A Cafe Hayek post on manufacturing from Sept, 2007 (in other words, from not so long ago). And a follow-up from April, 2009.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 8:04 am #
sdferr,
You have a point, but don’t you think it might be better if we made a greater share of the goods that are consumed here? It would definately reduce the trade deficit and at least stem the flow of dollars flowing overseas a bit…
Also, unfortunately, there is always going to be a segment of the populace that chooses against education or training themselves, folks who would prefer simple jobs that don’t require “investment” in themselves so to speak; you know, the crowd that’s more interested in “American Idol” than in their own government, and more interested in just collecting their paycheck than in how their relative productivity, or lack thereof, will play a role in their company surviving so that they will still have a job…
They are the economic and productive analogue to low information voters, in other words…
Anyway, these people will always need jobs, and mightn’t it be better if a greater percentage of them were making goods for domestic consumption, and possible export, than working at McDonalds, or other service related business?
I don’t want any government enforced mandates, but I do think it would be better if we had a more even balance of production vs service in terms of job allocation…
Best Wishes
Comment by sdferr on 7/16 @ 8:12 am #
I’ve made no comment on the relative proportion of goods produced vs goods consumed Bob. So where I might come down on that issue can’t be derived from my complaint against the Richmans. (See JHo’s first link) Their manufacturing jobs graph shows a decline in absolute numbers of manu. jobs through a period where the US manufacturing output is rising to an all-time high. If the theory of comparative advantage is to have any force at all, we wouldn’t want to lower relative productivity for the sake of employing people in make work jobs.
“…better balance…”?
How is the “proper” distribution of jobs to be accomplished (according to me, say?)? Through competitive market forces would be my answer. It makes no sense to me to set out some arbitrary employment rate for the low-information worker and then jerry-rig the economy to fit that goal.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 7/16 @ 8:21 am #
“…the low for this series, which begins in 1948, was 68.6 percent in December 1982.”
Which would be, what, right about when the Reagan policies started kicking in and started to wring the Democrat Carter’s malaise out of the economy.
Funny how that works.
Comment by JHo on 7/16 @ 8:21 am #
I’m on board with #18, Bob, but the unknown component is the voter idiot ratio. There are signs of healthy intolerance but when we can’t agree on why we’re in these straits and when the MSM is hostile to anything that challenges Teh Won & Teh Won Dogma — even as Teh Won goes all, er, neocon on us all — we can’t expect sudden mass enlightment.
I don’t have an apocalypse wish, just a cynical take on too many of my fellow Americans. We still think we live this large because of who we are, because of what we’re owed, because of who manages our lives, and because we’re “liberal”, and not because we’ve hocked ourselves a hundred years forward — the big perspective numbers call some two hundred fifty trillion dollars of debt and unpaid obligations into view. We’re living today on what we’ll pay for over decades, if ever, and that with mountains of interest.
And we think it’s all somebody else’s problem. I remember Kudlow over at NRO years ago going on about how migrating our production overseas and going all FIRE was natural and good.
The Chinese are working many times our population in workers well forward with the benefit of a huge trade surplus and vastly lower expectations than our own — our only card is that they seem to depend on us. So far. We’re only now thinking about what’s wrong, how to fix it w/o compromising our personal wealth, while leaving the corrupt in charge, while loading up on the socialism, and doing it with each of us owing up to a hundred grand before we take another step. I just don’t see it turning around because, you know, recessions always magically turn around. Printing is fundamental.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 8:33 am #
sdferr,
I didn’t understand your point, my apologies; of course I agree that the highest level of productivity is desireable. And I believe the point I was making was stated poorly. I’m not advocating an employment balance of manufacturing vs. service jobs, only a desire for the GDP to be more balanced in that same regard; and that there would be various unintended benefits to such a balance, in my humble opinion.
As for the low-information-workers? As I mentioned, I wouldn’t really want any government mandate for emplyment by sector. I was only speculuating that if a greater share of GDP came from manufacturing, then more of these folks would be employed in those industries rather than in serfice jobs.
Trust me when I say I’m a market forces guy, and agree that these should be natural and not mandated trends. I was simply opining that if we manufactured a greater percentage of the goods we consume, it might lower our trade deficits as well as provide some stable employment for low-peronal-investment workers. And who knows, we might become a net exporter again at some time in the future, and collect cash surpluses from our trading partners instead of paying them…
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 8:46 am #
I don’t agree with the FIRE economic point of view; it’s artificail in many ways and the real estate and financial aspect sof it are too subject to the effects of fed policy. I’m conviced that for strategic reasons we need a healthy manufacturing base in this nation, in terms of all manner of production…
I’m annoyed by the DOD buying stuff from overseas-ally or not. Today’s ally may just as easily bear you emnity tomorrow…
And our trade deficit has been an annoyance to me my whole life! I hate to think of our dollars flowing out of the country; a fact that’s often obscured by the cost of the oil we import…
I’ll stick with my opinion that the fed needs to soak up the extra trillions it has essentially put into circulaton and allow the deflation to occur. And as far as the “global” effects? I really don’t care; especially if China’s weight of bank issued debt collapses on itsef if the export income rug is suddenly pulled out from under it. And I won’t lose a wink of sleep for those Wall street types who are overexposed to the Chinese market…
But I’m harsh like that…
Comment by sdferr on 7/16 @ 8:46 am #
The trick is how to get distortionate government policies out of the functioning of the markets I guess — the $64 trillion dollar question. How the comparative advantages across the globe would fall out can’t be predetermined however. It could prove to the disadvantage of the US worker, for instance. No a priori assumption of economic superiority is allowed. Any actual advantage has to show up in the competitive washout, with consequences to flow therefrom. We could look to Yoda: “Either do or do not do.”
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 9:03 am #
I’ll but that sdferr,
I still think that for strategic reasons though that there is a minimum level of capacity that we need domestically; for defense related products at least…
Perhaps I’m a strategic defense snob, but until better stuff is made overseas than that which can be made, under liscence if necessary, here at home, a defense oriented outlook will continue to influence my opinion.
I don’t want to rely on others for our national defense; then we’re really waltzing down the modern path of the declining Roman empire.
Take it easy
Comment by sdferr on 7/16 @ 9:14 am #
In general terms Bob, I don’t think the US ought to rely on other nations productive capacities for national defense (and in still more general terms, I don’t think we allocate enough of our limited federal budget to our defense as it is…). Though reliance on allies isn’t in itself a necessary evil (see Gr. Britain 1939 – 45, for instance, where they properly relied on us). Sometimes it can’t be helped and yet still works out to the good.
The lingering question however is what part of the productive capacity of the US economy is to be devoted to the defense of the nation vs what that portion would do for the manufacturing base of the economy as a whole. It could be it would contribute a lot. It could be very little. I don’t know one way or the other, except to say that the “for the sake of which” it is committed ought to be to the ends of defense and not to the separate purpose of raising the manufacturing base.
Comment by Old Texas Turkey on 7/16 @ 9:31 am #
Goldman is being set up as the fall guy if things go sour. Remember how they set up the Commercial Banks (Citi, BofA) for the credit crisis? That is what is going on here. They own the former bad guys now, so they can;t really blame them. But Goldman, the only uber-kapitalist IBank (with commercial bank status) still left on the street is being framed for the coming fall. The media have been given their marching orders. CNBC (NBC nee GE) is on the forefront, passing out the pitchforks. They blame the banks. Ha. Laugh in their faces when you hear that. They blame Arizona Republicans for not letting them give Arizona its money back. You see the pattern.
Yeah Goldman donated to Obama, but the tale of the Scorpion and the Frog is instructive here. Buffett, Dimon, have already come to the realization that its a scorpion on their back and they are halfway across the pond. Goldman will be thrown under when the next decline comes, so will Dimon and JP Morgan. Buffett will die a poor(er) man.
Fuck the tea parties. Most have no idea who they are dealing with here.
Put your money in credit unions.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/16 @ 9:39 am #
“I don’t know one way or the other, except to say that the “for the sake of which” it is committed ought to be to the ends of defense and not to the separate purpose of raising the manufacturing base.”
100% agreement here, and the limit of my desire for any kind of government mandate/intervention. I’m a market forces kind of guy…
And you were right earlier that the best of all worlds would be to get governments to stop meddling globally, but I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one!
Comment by SDN on 7/16 @ 10:41 am #
The tea parties may not have any idea of who they’re dealing with here, but they are at least trying to get people organized to do something politically about the problem.
Also, why would you think credit unions are less vulnerable to government manipulation?
Comment by Seth on 7/16 @ 11:52 am #
Tangentally related, from Obama’s recent interview on NBC about his health-care push:
Obama: So, self-responsibility is going to be critical. This is probably not going to be something that’s legislated.
Got it? Self-responsibility probably isn’t something that’s going to be legistlated. Probably not…but maybe. Here’s a hint: if it’s legislated, it’s not self-responsibility anymore.
Comment by Spiny Norman on 7/16 @ 12:24 pm #
OTT,
As a general rule, that may be true, but be careful: my credit union was seized by the Feds (because they had millions in construction loans go bad).
Comment by happyfeet on 7/16 @ 1:20 pm #
so who are the new government-obeisant piece of shit directors at Bank of Dirty Socialist America?
Comment by happyfeet on 7/16 @ 1:21 pm #
here’s four of them
Comment by geoffb on 7/16 @ 2:01 pm #
Re: #8
All I need to know is that he quotes Krugman and Robert Reich as if they were god handing down the tablets carved in stone. If he used Al Gore, James Hanson and Trofim Lysenko as his Science experts then I would know right there that his ideas were false. Same for these economic “geniuses”. GIGO.
Comment by geoffb on 7/16 @ 2:17 pm #
As for loading up on debt owed to other nations, I wonder if they are using that as a way to make us more into a transnational society and away from sovereign nationality. Thinking “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. Along the lines of,
Of course you also have to neuter the US military and the 2nd amendment or another verse might come into play.
Comment by Salt Lick on 7/16 @ 3:40 pm #
All I need to know is that he quotes Krugman and Robert Reich
I understand, geoffb, but what I asked, perhaps poorly, is how do we convince the general public that there is NOT more than enough capacity for us to [go so deeply into debt at the present time]?” Because lots of them think we might just pull it off, like when we disappeared the deficit under Clinton.
Comment by Salt Lick on 7/16 @ 3:41 pm #
Supposed to be italics off after time]?
Comment by Salt Lick on 7/16 @ 3:47 pm #
And you know what else? That Dow Jones thingee that is trending upward, it doesn’t help.
Me: “God, how can the economy stand all the debt?”
My Cousin: “Well, my 401K looks a lot better now, so that works for me.”
[A real conversation.]
Comment by B Moe on 7/16 @ 3:48 pm #
The point I generally try to make, is that it isn’t just the going in debt, it is what are we going in debt to fund?
Say you had a kid living at home, working at MacDonalds. He works his ass off, is very frugal, and saves up 10 or 15 thousand bucks in a couple of years. If he wants to use this money to make a down payment on a $150,000 dump truck, and go into business hauling gravel, that is a lot different than using it to buy a $150,000 Ferrari to drive to his job at the MacDonalds.
Obama and Co. are going in debt to finance such folly.
Comment by geoffb on 7/16 @ 4:13 pm #
I think they are using that “10 or 15 thousand bucks “more along the line of the kid buying guns and some muscle to start a gang to rob others and deal drugs.
The money is funding power for the Left elite. Buying their gang. One difference is they stole the 10 to 15K from that kid who earned it originally. That kid is now broke and is forced to work for the gang as their slave paying the “vig” on the money they stole.
Comment by geoffb on 7/16 @ 4:23 pm #
Salt Lick. The perversion and twisting of language makes refuting them difficult. They sprinkle their fairy dust words on all and expect that reality will bend to their words. It will not.
So they will back up the words with force, purchased with stolen funds. They operate as a criminal enterprise. One which is trying to be a “water empire”. Healthcare, energy and jobs will be the “water”.
Comment by Salt Lick on 7/16 @ 4:48 pm #
Wow, and right on cue – maybe if Joe Biden says this enough times…
“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that’s what I’m telling you.”
Comment by meya on 7/16 @ 5:27 pm #
“The problem wasn’t lax regulation of honest output, it was lax monetary policy and its end game.”
More than just monetary policy, but also financial policy.
Comment by JHo on 7/16 @ 5:40 pm #
You know what’s funny, Salt Lick? Biden’s right. As with the they’ll-test-the-POTUS remark, Joe’s broken clock just chimed again. The only way to keep the system from collapsing now is to kite it out until then, when it’ll fall down maybe when Joe’s not around.
It’s all going up the curve because it has to. Our handlers have let us down.
Comment by Salt Lick on 7/16 @ 6:01 pm #
Joe’s broken clock just chimed again.
Cuckoo?
Pingback by “Perverse incentives that distort the market”. [JHoward] on 7/17 @ 8:13 am #
[...] the money policy that drove the nation off a cliff, the government — led by our fabulous new Neocon in Chief — is creating new money policy to drive the nation off the [...]
Comment by tony0506@yahoo.com on 7/19 @ 3:19 pm #
I know this has nothing to do with the post… NE ways, Obama is a socialist. The only way socialism can ever succeed is if it kills poor, black and hispanic babies. That is why abortion needs to continue to be legal. So that the socialist government of Obama won’t have to support the poor with welfare and other government aid. Imagine this, if our taxes had to support millions upon millions of poor black and hispanic people – the government would go bankrupt… Genocide of the poor and the weak – that’s the Obama story. He’s the Black Hero… LOL
Trackback by Oxycodone. on 7/25 @ 3:10 am #
Snorting oxycodone….
Oxycodone….
Comment by chang564335 on 7/25 @ 3:33 am #
http://chang110.yourblog.in/
http://chang120.bloggerbite.com