Thursday, August 9, 2012

Obama digs for dirt on VP picks

Barack Obama campaign

US President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies aren't waiting for Republican Mitt Romney to reveal his vice presidential choice.

They're already trying to scuff up those considered by political insiders to be most likely to join the GOP ticket.

The president's campaign started swinging at the potential Republican running mates this week while urging home-state Democrats to chime in about the shortcomings that - as emails to donors and supporters put it - "Americans need to know."

The pre-emptive strikes are an effort to define a possible No. 2 in a negative light and reflect a sense that time is precious to sway opinion in a stubbornly close presidential race dashing quickly toward November.


I think that this may backfire on the Left, helping to weed out poor potential candidates and promoting the most publicly palatable VP candidate. The harder they push, the more the people push back. 


More: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/obama-team-gathers-dirt-on-vp-picks/story-fnd11ay0-1226447172078

Friday, August 3, 2012

Obama Wants Your Beer Money!

obama-beer
The Obama campaign is desperate. Actually that is an understatement. They have already requested that people send their mothers a Mother’s Day Card about Obamacare, have their wedding guests send money to his campaign on behalf of the bride and groom and now lo and behold, the campaign sinks to new depths. Obama Tweeted requesting that you send that $5 you were going to spend on a beer or other adult beverage to his campaign. After all, it’s to “help this campaign win.”
While they had hoped they would raise $1 billion, it seems now they aren’t even going to make the drastically slashed amount of $750 million.
One thing is for sure, Obama is doing so poorly that he donated $5,000 of his own money to his own campaign.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

Obama Campaign Sues to Restrict Military Voting

soldier_5
While Barack Obama and the Democrats like to give lip service to our men and women in uniform, it’s what they do they betrays their rhetoric. He likes to get his picture with troops even though behind closed doors they are giving him the finger and sleeping during his speeches. This all makes things quite interesting when both the Obama campaign and the Democrat party are suing to restrict the military’s ability to vote in the upcoming election.
Breitbart.com reports,
On July 17th, the Obama for America Campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party filed suit in OH to strike down part of that state’s law governing voting by members of the military. Their suit said that part of the law is “arbitrary” with “no discernible rational basis.”
Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as “arbitrary” and having “no discernible rational basis”, I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty.
The National Defense Committee reports:
[f]or each of the last three years, the Department of Defense’s Federal Voting Assistance Program has reported to the President and the Congress that the number one reason for military voter disenfranchisement is inadequate time to successfully vote.
So now we see the Democrat playbook come out again. We see the praise of the lips while they drive the knife into the back of our service men and women that they are using abroad in unconsitutional wars. While I disagree with Mike Flynn that they “have more right to vote than the rest of us,” I emphatically agree that they have the right to vote and that right should be defended by those of us at home.
[...]

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

Obama Claims It's None of Your Business

Barack Hussein Obama never so much as operated a corner lemonade stand, but his perspective on free enterprise is certainly getting some traction.
Invoking the two pillars of his re-election campaign, tax "fairness" and class warfare, Obama first focused on the tax piece, asserting, "I'm not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy."
In ObamaSpeak, "gut the investments" translates as "cut taxes," and "grow the economy" translates as "grow the government." This remark was a smokescreen in regard to Democrat efforts to let the across-the-board Bush tax rates expire, which, in effect, will raise taxes on all Americans who earn a living rather than live on the dole.
To that end, Obama's Senate lap dog, Patty Murray (D-WA), served up this ultimatum: "If we can't get a good deal -- a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share -- then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus."
Of course, EVERY aspect of her classist rhetoric requires a secret decoder ring.
"Good deal" means "raising taxes" and "balanced deal" means "more spending." If the Demo-gogues were serious about balancing anything, they'd do precisely what "middle-class families" do during tough times: cut expenses.
"The wealthy" means "tax payers rather than tax consumers." As for paying their "fair share," the producers and job creators who earn $250,000-and-above (which is the target for Obama's looming tax increase) while constituting just two percent of the population already pay 43.6 percent of all federal income taxes. Obama is also keenly aware that the top 25 percent of income earners already pay more than 84 percent of income tax revenues and the top 50 percent of earners now pay almost 98 percent of all income tax revenue collected -- which means he's all but created a voting majority who pay little or no federal income tax.
Clearly, Democrats don't represent the "99 percent." Instead, they pander to the 50 percent who are the beneficiaries of confiscated and redistributed wealth from the other 50 percent. I invoke again the timeless words of George Bernard Shaw: "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
Continuing with the translation exercise, Murray says Senate Demos won't "lock in a long-term deal," meaning "extend tax relief for tax payers," and "throwing middle-class families under the bus" is what Obama and his Socialist Democrats do best.
Every dollar paid into the bloated federal coffers is one less dollar to be spent or invested in the private sector -- where all those "middle-class families" Obama and his cadres use for cannon fodder -- are barely making ends meet.
Post Your Opinion
After pitching his plug for tax increases, Obama then got way off his teleprompted script with the most pointed classist and collectivist rhetoric he has yet to regurgitate: "If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. ... If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Of course, in the context of his socialist agenda, "somebody else" is his collectivist euphemism for "government," a.k.a. Hillary Clinton's "village."
Finally, he asserted that collectivism is responsible for the existence of the middle class: "So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That's how we created the middle class." (As a half-truth, he may be partially correct. More middle-class folks could be wealthy if socialist government taxes and regulation weren't holding them back.)
According to Obama, then, we owe all that we are and all that we own to government.
Notably, after having presided over four years of a flat-lined economy, despite spending trillions of dollars with nothing to show but trillions of dollars in debt, Obama's chronic Narcissistic Personality Disorder enables him to completely ignore reality.
[...]
National Review's Rich Lowry summed up Obama's theory of economics: "Behind every successful businessman, there is a successful government. Everyone is helpless without the state, the great protector, builder, and innovator. Everything is ultimately a collective enterprise. Individual initiative is only an ingredient in the more important work when 'we do things together.'"
Ronald Reagan observed, "Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States."
We still are, and Obama and his Leftists despise nothing more than self-sufficiency, which is the antithesis of the government dependency they promote.
More: Patriot Post

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Big Lies in Politics

It was either Adolf Hitler or his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, who said that the people will believe any lie, if it is big enough and told often enough, loud enough. Although the Nazis were defeated in World War II, this part of their philosophy survives triumphantly to this day among politicians, and nowhere more so than during election years.
Perhaps the biggest lie of this election year, and the one likely to be repeated the most often, is that the income of "the rich" is going up, while other people's incomes are going down. If you listen to Barack Obama, you are bound to hear this lie repeatedly.
But the government's own Congressional Budget Office has just published a report whose statistics flatly contradict this claim. The CBO report shows that, while the average household income fell 12 percent between 2007 and 2009, the average for the lower four-fifths fell by 5 percent or less, while the average income for households in the top fifth fell 18 percent. For households in the "top one percent" that seems to fascinate so many people, income fell by 36 percent in those same years.
Why are these data so different from other data that are widely cited, showing the top brackets improving their positions more so than anyone else?
The answer is that the data cited by the Congressional Budget Office are based on Internal Revenue Service statistics for specific individuals and specific households over time. The IRS can follow individuals and households because it can identify the same people over time from their Social Security numbers.
Most other data, including census data, are based on compiling statistics in a succession of time periods, without the ability to tell if the actual people in each income bracket are the same from one time period to the next. The turnover of people is substantial in all brackets — and is huge in the top one percent. Most people in that bracket are there for only one year in a decade.
All sorts of statements are made in politics and in the media as if that "top one percent" is an enduring class of people, rather than an ever-changing collection of individuals who have a spike in their income in a particular year, for one reason or another. Turnover in other income brackets is also substantial.
There is nothing mysterious about this. Most people start out at the bottom, in entry-level jobs, and their incomes rise over time as they acquire more skills and experience.
Politicians and media talking heads love to refer to people who are in the bottom 20 percent in income in a given year as "the poor." But, following the same individuals for 10 or 15 years usually shows the great majority of those individuals moving into higher income brackets.
The number who reach all the way to the top 20 percent greatly exceeds the number still stuck in the bottom 20 percent over the years. But such mundane facts cannot compete for attention with the moral melodramas conjured up in politics and the media when they discuss "the rich" and "the poor."
There are people who are genuinely rich and genuinely poor, in the sense of having very high or very low incomes for most, if not all, of their lives. But "the rich" and "the poor" in this sense are unlikely to add up to even ten percent of the population.
Ironically, those who make the most noise about income disparities or poverty contribute greatly to policies that promote both. The welfare state enables millions of people to meet their needs with little or no income-earning work on their part.
Most of the economic resources used by people in the bottom 20 percent come from sources other than their own incomes. There are veritable armies of middle-class people who make their livings transferring resources, in a variety of ways, from those who created those resources to those who live off them.
These transferrers are in both government and private social welfare institutions. They have every incentive to promote dependency, from which they benefit both professionally and psychically, and to imagine that they are creating social benefits.
For different reasons, both politicians and the media have incentives to spread misconceptions with statistics. So long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

Big Lies in Politics

Monday, July 23, 2012

The Fed Has Destroyed LIBOR

bernanke gun

Intentional distortions of one of the world's most important financial benchmarks has sparked a worldwide scandal.

What's more, suggestions that central banks knew about manipulations of the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and looked the other way have led many to accuse central banks of failing in their duty of keeping the financial markets working properly.

Manipulations of the LIBOR rate, while minuscule to most individuals, had much more substantial effects in the money markets, where banks go to borrow money from each other and hedge against changes in lending and interest rates.

These central banking cartel manipulations prevent private financial institutions from lending at rates which are competitive in market economies. That intervention by maintaining artificially low rates encourages lenders to loan to borrowers when they would not otherwise. This creates an inflation in the market which will lead to a burst of not equilibrated in the short term. 

Everyone should get free healthcare...

The chief strategist of a firm that specializes in brokering deals on Eurodollar futures contracts told Business Insider that blaming bankers for manipulating LIBOR misses what's really happening in money markets; LIBOR is still being distorted, and on an official basis.

That's why, he argued, the old way of monetary financing—and with it, LIBOR fixings—has been destroyed in the wake of the financial crisis.

"It didn't seize up [during the crisis]. It ceased to exist," he told Business Insider.

Understanding what he means takes some understanding of how LIBOR works and what its fixing affects and is affected by.

LIBOR isn't really based on a tangible number; it's based on a compilation of bank responses to the question, "At what rate could you borrow funds, were you to do so by asking for and then accepting inter-bank offers in a reasonable market size just prior to 11 am?"

Banks need to find money to settle transactions denominated in other currencies or involving transactions abroad. Therefore they use instruments like Eurodollar futures, which allows them to borrow or lend dollars at banks outside the United States for a certain period of time.

The effects of any central bank action are felt directly in these markets. When the Federal Reserve wants to lower the federal funds rate, it uses open market operations—this means it states its intention of depositing more money in banks' accounts at the Fed, making it cheaper for other financial firms to get dollars.

In the years leading up to the financial crisis, the relative stability in rates allowed algorithmic traders to take advantage of very minute changes in LIBOR at various maturities, like those mentioned by Barclays traders in documents released by European regulators. The Fed and other central banks could control that rate by adjusting interest rates, but LIBOR moved pretty much in tandem with the federal funds rate.

(Click for larger image.)

overnight libor versus effective fed funds rate


"My colleagues and I, we say that [LIBOR] is 14 bps over the federal funds rate...as a joke," the trader told Business Insider, pointing to the uncanny correlation between the two rates up until 2007 and since 2009. When the rate at which banks lent to each other began to jump in late 2007, however, "the system couldn't take it at all," he added.

In the lead-up to and during the financial crisis, real interbank lending for any length of time beyond overnight practically stopped. Thus, saying that banks were pushing down their reports of the prices at which they could borrow is at best misleading, because the demand for lending long-term was nonexistent.

"We submitted a hallucination," said the source.

Central banks responded to the credit stress by offering massive lending facilities, which allowed banks to to access money—in particular, dollars—through a vehicle outside the traditional private money markets. That has changed the way the markets work.

The trader explained, "Since the crisis, banks don't fund themselves [through the traditional money markets] because they don't want to. It's really now about old contracts," that were purchased ahead of the crisis.

But while markets may have exited the crisis credit crunch, markets for securities determined by LIBOR have not, the trader told us. Instead, he says there's an implicit push by the Fed to keep the lending rate low, even though it should be much higher now.

By releasing interest rate projections and jumping to non-standard measures like quantitative easing and dollar facilities, the Fed destroys the incentive to actually exchange money via Eurodollar contracts. This means the Fed is refusing to let LIBOR function as a true, independent indicator.

"If you're long the TED [you believe there will be more financial stress] in a time of trouble, you buy T-bills and take the money offered to you, so you sell a Eurodollar." Essentially, you believe you'll be profiting off of higher lending costs for banks in the future. But if the LIBOR is kept artificially low, then you lose money on a Eurodollar futures contract.

But now, the Fed has become so committed to keeping interest rates down indefinitely—and has jumped so quickly to measures that distort the market—that it has completely destroyed any faith or interest in new contracts.

The trader believed that central banks have recognized that disaster happens when the LIBOR begins to deviate from its general relationship to the federal funds rate, and therefore the Fed (and perhaps other central banks) have suppressed it to make sure rising rates don't generate fear while it develops another money market system.

"I think what they want to do is make sure the system doesn't go crazy." Otherwise, he argues, "You're not just embracing a fantasy. You're embracing a fantasy that created the great credit bubble."

Central bankers will meet in September to discuss changes to the LIBOR system, and it is believed that they could use this moment to develop a complete alternative to rate, and thus the money markets it governs.

It's all gone Pete Tong...


Original Page: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheMoneyGame/~3/yKWB-y5kcDY/expert-end-of-libor-2012-7

Left and Right are both Wrong

Every time we peek behind the GOP curtain it's always the same: hate, intolerance and lies.

There, fixed that for you:
Every time we peek behind the political curtain it's always the same: hate, intolerance and lies.

Take away labels like Liberal, Conservative, Left and Right, and I honestly have a hard time telling them apart. We don't have a two party system, it's just one group, and it's a private party. We the People are not invited to participate, but we are paying for our negligence and complacency. 

Friday, July 20, 2012

Obama Believes Big Government Regulation Has Helped the US Economy

http://patriotupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/red-tape-cartoon.jpg
Last wednesday, Mitt Romney was speaking in San Antonio and he criticized Obama for his regulatory strategy. The Washington Post characterized Romney’s speech this way:


He [Romney] said the administration has driven up the price of energy and made it harder for U.S. businesses to sell goods and services overseas. He said the health care overhaul has stopped businesses from hiring more workers. And he said businesses were being hurt by the “ever-growing intrusiveness of federal regulations.”
Comparing Bush to Obama is not as useful as one would think. They are very similar in much of their policy. Regulations just being one of them.

What is missed often in a discussion of regulations is that they favor larger corporations and less diversity in the market. This makes it inherently more unstable. Smaller companies and family businesses can't afford to compete and often shed jobs. These are the known job creators, and we are tying one hand behind their back.


One day we will realize that the most regulated sectors create the monopolies we despise. The banking sector is so highly regulated that we produce banks that are 'too big to fail'. We should let them fail and free up the smaller ones to take over.

The issue of Obama’s regulatory record came up most powerfully about a year ago, and now it’s just one talking point among many. The charge is that Obama has over-regulated the economy and that this attitude toward regulation has killed jobs. The record is much more complex, and some of it was debated by Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulator, in an op-ed a while back.


The record however, as evidenced by this report, is that Obama has benefitted U.S. citizens with regulation, primarily through environmental regulations, and before one starts to go off on environmentalism, it’s worth noting that the previous Bush did the exact same thing.

[...]

President Obama Big Government Regulation Has Helped the US Economy

It doesn't really make sense does it? Regulation that stifles growth and even survival of smaller businesses that can't afford lobbyists is somehow what promotes it's existence? That doesn't make sense on any level. Heavy regulation kills jobs, kills growth, and kills markets for services and products.

http://ferrellgummit.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/obamanomics-101.jpg

Mitt Romney's Lame, Uninspiring Campaign

Mitt Romney must be trying to bore the American people into electing him this November. There is no real bold, inspiring vision behind his campaign other than "Obama sucks". Nor should we really expect anything bold from a man who has been on both sides of most political issues. Romney's campaign also shows an unwillingness to buck the conventional Beltway wisdom and propose any bold solutions to our nation's problems. Mitt Romney is running a "safe" campaign, but I fear he maybe running too safe of a campaign to defeat Barack Obama in November.

More evidence of how safe (ie. dull) of a campaign that Mitt Romney is running is who has already been excluded from speaking at the GOP convention in Tampa next month:

Texas congressman Ron Paul isn't the only prominent Republican to be denied a speaking role at the upcoming Republican National Convention in Tampa. Here's another high-profile snub from the Mitt Romney camp… Nope, the woman who was the HIT of the 2008 Republican National Convention — not to mention the party's VP nominee — Sarah Palin, has not yet received an invitation to speak at the 2012 shindig. Must be stuck in, ahem, e-mail. But, as Palin told The Daily Beast, she wasn't surprised. And not because she hasn't endorsed her party's nominee, Mitt Romney, other than to tout him someone who isn't President Obama and has a pulse.

I understand that Ron Paul is not the most disciplined or the most articulate speaker possible and I understand that Sarah Palin is a very controversial figure. However, both people speak to a constituency of independent conservatives and libertarian-leaners that Romney must not only win, but have rally around him and he must motivate to do the campaign volunteer grunt work such as canvassing and phone banking that will be needed to try and match Obama's excellent grassroots efforts.

With the overwhelming support for Paul even as an independent without the GOP nomination (and despite massive manipulation of polls and debates), it's surprising that Romney wishes to exclude that base which is more against Obama that for any alternative. 

To snub both speakers is Romney's way of taking grassroots conservatives and libertarians for granted and telling them that he's not really interested in their votes and their sweat and shoe leather. I really hope the Romney campaign reconsiders this decision or invites other speakers like Rand Paul or Mike Lee that can also speak to this constituency.

[..] 


Original Page: http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/10585-mitt-romneys-lame-uninspiring-campaign

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Oklahoma Lawmaker Drafting Bill To Jail Enforcers of Obamacare?

Ah, the Tenth Amendment, the one that reminds us that we live in a nation which is built of people, not politicians, and that everything distills down to individuals. States are above nationalism, and individuals above all else. Obama declaring his mandates as the word of gods is a mite trite. And even proposing legislation such as this is a gentle reminder to despots that the power in society is in the hands of the collective individuals, and that the breakdown in liberty only stretches so far before patience snaps. 

By The Watchdog | July 18, 2012 President Obama will not like this. He thinks his word alone is law. He thinks the American people must submit to his achievement called Obamacare. Despite the mass protest and phone calls flooding capital hill saying to our elected congressmen saying "do not pass this bill into law". [...]

Original Page: http://pprnnews.prepperpodcast.com/oklahoma-lawmaker-drafting-bill-to-jail-enforcers-of-obamacare/

Neil Cavuto Excusing 'You Didn't Build That' Comment by Obama


If Mitt Romney hadn't brought up President Obama's "you didn't build that" crack about business owners, the mainstream media wouldn't have reported on it, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell told Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto on his Your World program today.

What a tool. I hadn't even heard Romney commented on it (not that I have a fuck to give), so Cavuto is just showing media bias in action.

"This was a bombshell story. Now look at the coverage.  You cannot-- this is a classic example of the two-sided nature of this campaign where the so-called news media are concerned," the Media Research Center founder noted.  "When Barack Obama said what he said it took NBC 94 hours before they reported it. It took ABC and CBS another 24 hours before they reported it." [MP3 audio here; watch the full segment below the page break]

read more


Original Page: http://newsbusters.org./blogs/matt-vespa/2012/07/19/brent-bozell-neil-cavuto-discuss-media-ignoring-excusing-you-didnt-build

Someone Else's Dream

Entrepreneurial Voters

Did I do that?

Interesting Entrepreneurs

You Didn't Do That, Someone Else Did

Other People

Uncle Sam

You Didn't Build That