Neal, All of this stuff you are talking about in this post.....I would guess that over 90% of democratic voters don't have a clue what you're talking about or care. They just want what't "theirs".

Apparently Obama studied Constitutional law so he could figure out ways to get around it. Wonder if he ever even read the Constitution and if he did he was only looking for loopholes.

Snark:You're essentially saying that you are more knowledgeable regarding the constitution than all of congress, The President, all his advisers and staff, The SCOTUS, and just about every lawyer who works on constitutional law.

Oh no! Believe me I KNOW they are well schooled in the constitution, you have to be in order to twist it to their agenda. That takes a lot of brains.

Getting money for bailouts does not give the government the right to fire the employees of the company taking the money. If it was legal, then we would also have the right to tell welfare queens to live in a hovel and shut up. Instead of putting them up in gated communities with pools. Or tell them and their brood to take drug tests each month in order to get their check.

Car insurance is state, not federal, can't believe you would even go there.

And yes there is a Czar in charge of wages, give him time, it's coming.

We have our head out, you just keep trying to disguise what your buddies are doing to us as "it's for your own good". And frankly, we don't need your help.

Like I said before, we are now down to two elections before all hell breaks loose. The blood will be on your head, you and others like you.

Can ya tell I REALLY dislike progressives? Even more than just regular liberals?

And of course some financial corporations played a part, some still are but now they do it wink wink with the government ok. Goldman Sachs for instance.

Obama and company only dislike the corporations that don't toe their line. Are you honest enough to admit that?

I think this line really underscores how completely out of touch you all are:

'But if you understood the spirit of the constitution"

do you even whiff the arrogance you reek when you go down this road?

You're essentially saying that you are more knowledgeable regarding the constitution than all of congress, The President, all his advisers and staff, The SCOTUS, and just about every lawyer who works on constitutional law.

You're basically no more than a guy in a mask throwing a rock at the police at a g20 summit.

for once - pull out your heads and take a breath. The real world is calling. It's not that bad.

The commerce clause is nonsense? the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the nondelegation doctrine is nonsense? are they , too, not clear on the spirit of the constitution?

-firing CEO's - you dont go sucking on the govt teet and not expect some concessions from taxpayers. ye who bismirch welfare!
-mandating wage limits - really? they did this? they talked about it...but nothing was done. what you have here is orderly revolt from the masses through their representatives. this has happened many times before but usually ends with many heads being removed from their bodies
-mandating purchase of health insurance - or car insurance. when's your court date for refusing to pay for it?...thought so

Sorry folks - the only spirits talking here are the ones you are imbibed with.

You think it's ok for a treaty to trump our constitution? And you ASSUME Congress approved the tire agreement?

Going back:
-firing CEO's
-mandating wage limits
-mandating purchase of health insurance

That'll do for now cause I'm sure you'll run for the commerce clause or some such nonsense. But there is the little "enumeration" thing. If it is not specifically stated, they (congress and Obama) do NOT have the right.

LOL

Right, I'm not middle of the road because I disagree with a viewpoint that sees our current economic decisions as pure socialism?

touche!

me fein "When an entrepreneur is stopped from doing something because the government demands some other action, the government is acting as a part owner, when it actually has nothing at stake. That brings us back to fascism."

LOL! Yeah!...stupid FDA and their "regulations"...

you think we should be on the gold standard and claim to know something about economics? dude... crack those books!

Joyce - I dont claim to know more than mises, just that his viewpoint doesn't apply to our current situation or economics. he was right about socialism when he saw it.

it aint here now.

and to think credit is a somehow evil is so bizarre... do either of you get out of the house? ever?

read on tire tariff -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/business/global/12tires.html

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53986

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090914/ap_on_bi_ge/as_china_us_trade

They all say same:

"The White House said Obama acted under a provision in the U.S.-Chinese agreement on Beijing's accession to the WTO that allows Washington to slow the rise of Chinese imports to give time to American industry to adjust.

The United Steelworkers brought the tire case in April and said annual Chinese tire exports to the United States tripled from 2001 to 2004 to 41 million. It said more than 5,000 tire workers have lost their jobs since 2004 and said annual imports should be capped at 21 million.

After a U.S. panel recommended tariffs, Beijing launched an unusually high-profile diplomatic offensive to head them off, sending a deputy commerce minister to Washington in August to lobby the White House.

Obama's order raised tariffs for three years on Chinese tires — by 35 percent in the first year, 30 percent in the second and 25 percent in the third. "

Now, as far as I can tell, congress authorized this. Which means "we" authorized it.

Is it still unconstitutional? highly doubtful but, heck - Newdow says "in god we trust" in the pledge and on money is unconstitutional...you see where that got him.

Pretty sure SCOTUS has already ruled on trade issues such as this and gives congress pretty wide birth on how they authorize decisions on these matters.

it's similar to arguing this:

"Critics, including U.S. Congressman Ron Paul,[18] allege that according to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, that only the U.S. Congress has the ability

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; [19]

and thus Federal Reserve banknotes are not legal tender, as they were not issued by Congress and the Federal Reserve does not have the authority to print or create money.[20]

However, others contend that, since Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Reserve is constitutional as it was created by Congress and Congress retains oversight over the Federal Reserve.[21] Congress retains the ability to delegate some of its legislative powers to other branches of the government or agencies based on the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the nondelegation doctrine."

and I'd expect a similar result...nada

Perhaps its time for Congress to consider tarrifs on imported goods. The "poor" have been given a free ride for too long.
However, for tarrifs to be enacted on any product that is also made in America, should require deep concession by the labor unions in factories that make the product here.

As our illustrious senator form Tennessee would say, is only going to decrease when we get control of entitlement spending and generate a new boom time for American manufacturing.
Raising or lowering taxes is merely peeing in the wind. America must begin creating capital again and cease squandering it on hopeless causes.

"I dont mean to dissect here but, what is Obama doing to cause long term damage or that is unconstitutional. From my seat, that's looney town."

Try this: Obama put a 35 percent tariff on Chinese-made tires imported to the United States. The Law of the land clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to levy taxes, and tariffs, be they revenue or protectionist tariffs, are taxes. There is nothing in the Constitution that permits the executive branch to impose a tax.

This is not just unconstitutional, it deprives lower-income people access to low-price tires. They will be more likely to put off buying new tires and will drive longer on warn ones, with the obvious results. Yeah, that 0bama, he just loves them po' people.

You said 'what Obozo and company are doing right now will cause long-term damage and is certainly unconstitutional."

I dont mean to dissect here but, what is Obama doing to cause long term damage or that is unconstitutional. From my seat, that's looney town. Please help me understand.

You said "you guys have seen the result and yet the same reasons you hated Bush are now the same reasons you LOVE Obama."

ah yes, I remember the big push to make medicare part D deficit neutral. Or the one where we used increase in tax to pay for our wars...

I didnt like the GOP spending while cutting taxes for no damn good reason. it was insulting to my and my children.

Obama was handed 10lbs of sh** in a 5lb bag and he's making the right moves to fix it - so far.

and based on track records, I have more confidence in a democrat getting rid of the deficit than a republican. history shows this to be realistic.

How can reducing taxes pump more money into an economy that is awash in it? Look at interest rates. Money is practically free. The problem is that Americans aren't buying what Americans are making and Americans are stopping to make.
I'm not saying we should raise taxes, that's not going to help by decreasing incentives to make money.
The problem is that the government is spending too much money that is not doing one damn thing to help the economy to get going again.
I agree with the Keynesian principle of government spending money in order to save capitalism. Yes, Keynes was actually a conservative.
But spending billions on healthcare, welfare, unemployment, and just passing it out on the streecorners doesn't help a bit.
How about spending it on manufactured items made in the US? How about buying new farm machinery for every farmer, a new American made car for every family, a free wardrobe made in the US for every man woman and child? How about building new projects in the inner cities, new bridges, new rail systems?
That will get the economy going again, not all that other stuff Obama has been doing. Cash for clunkers was a pretty good idea except that it should have been paid out for cars made in the US.
Remember that it took out of control spending on US manufactured goods (taks, planes, ships) to get us out of the Great Depression.

Look, rather than trying to dissect my every word into some inane argument, just try and think, please. Common sense tells me that what Obozo and company are doing right now will cause long-term damage and is certainly unconstitutional.

I'm not looking at some ridiculous statistic to make my point.

And I said BOTH parties are responsible so let's stay on topic, ok? Republican VALUES include fiscal responsiblility....but no they sure aren't adhering to that lately...and you guys have seen the result and yet the same reasons you hated Bush are now the same reasons you LOVE Obama.

You said "Just because a president is in power at a certain time does not mean that everything that happens in the country is somehow magically his doing."

oh ok. So, which is it - Is this all obama's fault and I'm right or I'm wrong and what you say is true?

I'm betting your answer will differ from many. But, it's the many that need to wake up.

Taxes - So, by your logic from 93 on - let me guess - it was the fiscally responsible republican congress that brought us lower debt and no deficit, right?

look, Bartlett is right - the GOP cant argue fiscal discipline with any credibility after the last 8 years without putting tax increases on the table.

I agree, we need to cut spending. But without the agreement that, at some point, we're ALL going to have to pay the piper to get rid of this deficit and start reducing the debt is intellectually bankrupt.

canned goods and ammo????

what's that smell???? cordite???????

You said "When the fed artificially drives down the interest rates, this signals that consumers are saving, when in fact they aren’t. This creates a boom"

Look at the data - http://www.bea.gov/BRIEFRM/SAVING.HTM

http://www.harpfinancial.com/InterestRateHistory/FederalFundsRate.htm

please show me the correlation you refer to... I dont' see it.

Take 2004 as an example. personal savings was high and then trailed off at the end of the year.

Fed rates were low at the start of 2004 and then started an up-tick towards the end of the year.

that's behavior that lines up with your theory rather than artificial rate movements misrepresenting the market.

Not even worth my time replying back to you at this point. It is clear you and I are not on the same page. Somehow you are still in la la land even with what we are now seeing going on in the market. I hope you wake up from whatever coma you are in cause I haven't lost all faith in you. I hope that once you understand whatever it is you are missing you will stand up for what is right when the time comes.

"Wealth transfer from poor to rich? I dont understand. can ya help me on that one? How does increasing the supply of available money, thereby decreasing the price of money (interest rates we pay to banks) do anything but provide incentives? "

To understand the wealth transfer, you have to understand the non-neutrality of money. Money doesn't drop from the sky. Someone gets it first. That person, now flush with money, buys goods at the going rate, and in doing so, bids up prices. The recipient of that money does the same, but money is now worth a little less. This goes on until finally wages are bid up, but by this time the extra money is already in circulation and the poor schmuck who gets it last never makes up the losses caused by the increase in prices. Thus the wealth transfer.

Incentives? No, when the fed meddles with the interest rates, it messes up the market signals that indicate consumer time preferences. When consumers are saving money, more money is available to lend and the interest rates go down naturally. This signals that consumers are more interested in future goods and it's a good time to invest in capital. When consumers are not saving, the money available to lend goes down, signaling that consumers want current goods. This signals producers to invest in production, and only the most important capital expenditures are getting loans.

When the fed artificially drives down the interest rates, this signals that consumers are saving, when in fact they aren’t. This creates a boom. Inflation also makes it appear to the producers that they are making more in profits, when in fact they are spending their capital. So the money from the loans is mal-invested, and when the production is finally put up for sale, no one is buying. The boom goes bust.

Don, you said two times that prices return to normal levels and normal profits. I never said anyone was taking a loss, just that the reduction in profits are unsustainable.

cig tax - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=403

I could trend that on a graph for you but, you get the idea...

Raising taxes won't necessarily reduce revenue unless taxes are raised to the extent that the government is taking all of the money created by the economy.
Then there is no incentive to work.
But raising taxes does slow down the economy. And if it is the goal of the statists to convert American capitalism into socialism, reducing the engine by which wealth is created is certainly the way to go.

No, I don't agree. While the profits are reduced, they are not necessarily unsustainable (that entirely depends on the nature of the sale, most do not take a loss)

I did show you an area where tax increases led to a direct lower revenue stream, ie cigarette tax.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/127306-quantitative-easing-money-supply-is-actually-decreasing

You said "Haven't switched over to digital yet?"

LOL!!!

Please show me your digital clock with movement.

"some clocks just never move again so like you, they NEVER get it right."

I'm sure this is where you explain the movement of electrons, right?

oh wise libertarian woman - where did you go wrong?? hmm?

:-P

during my days at B-School. What I do remember him saying is that debt monetarization via quantitative easing is the equivalent of inflating aggregate money supply.

While the Treasury had no other choice given the massive budget deficits we are currently running ($1.8 TRILLION), the practice is irresponsible.
If the velocity of circulation begins to increase, we will see inflation--actually hyperinflation--to the extent that this nation has never seen before.

rejoyce
You said "And TruthIgnorer, some clocks just never move again so like you, they NEVER get it right."

LOL! This just really says all I need to know about your intellectual power joyce.

think about a clock - frozen on say, 12:30. Guess how many times that clock would actually be correct.

thank you joyce - this was classic!!
By snarkybird

Haven't switched over to digital yet?

moron

"you were equating friedman's argument to physical money. not monetary policy - which is what he was referring to."

Picking nits. The fact is the Fed controls the monetary base. It does so through “open market operations.” It buys or sells government securities (U.S. Treasury bills and bonds) on the open market, where banks, insurance companies, and investors buy and sell those securities, too. When the Fed buys U.S. Treasury bonds or bills from banks it gives the banks money in exchange—new money. This money goes into the banks’ reserves and thereby increases the monetary base (of which bank reserves are part).

Bottom line, the amount of money in circulation increases, causing inflation and as a result, a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

This is what the 0bama administration is doing at an unprecedented rate. And you support this?

What this government is doing to the dollar is nothing short of robbery. We are robbing from our creditors by devaluing their investment in us. I am no Harvard economist, and even I can see how this would destroy investor confidence in our system. We are also robbing ourselves as the dollars you hold now are becoming worth less and less. There is no intrinsic value in the money, it only value is tied to the whims of politics.

You play a dangerous game. At first a "weakened" dollar sounds good, it makes our stuff cheaper. I think there is a slippery slope though. We will start paying more for many other things we rely on, ie energy. Plus once the "money" is out there, it is very difficult to stop the tap and pull it back in. I think that sort of timing is very difficult to pull off. We could be looking at very high inflation in the near future.

The last I checked the Yuan is holding very steady against the dollar. Of course the Chinese have a huge stake in maintaining that stability. About a few trillion stakes. But unless they keep loaning us money, whose going to buy their products? Their prices will be going up eventually.
With the exception of the farmers, fishermen, and miners, America has ceased to create capital. Hell, the damn democrats won't even allow us to drill for oil.
The only good thing I can see in the near future is that the prices at Walmart are eventually going to go through the roof and all these old farts that thought the death of downtown was the best thing since sliced bread, will be going directly to the American farmer and fisherman for food and making their own clothes.

I kinda figured you had a typing spasm!!!

Ivan, did you see my post on the new book "America For Sale"? I listened to an interview with the author and did a write up on my blog. These are indeed scary times. If we can't stop this crap in the next two elections, then it's all over. The progressives will crash everything and turn it all over for a New World Order indeed. Many of us will end up in jail for speaking against it as the years go by. Eventually we'll have a war to settle it.

dang I need some meds...

I would hardly say that. I am STAUNCH supporter of the Fair Tax. Hell my entire family is. You won't find a REAL economist or tax specialist that has a problem with the Fair Tax unless they are politically motivated to be against it.

You said "After garnering little things like brand loyalty, and decreasing oversized inventory, they raise the price to pre-sale levels and enjoy the normal profits."

LOL! um, yes... I never said sales didn't have a purpose (or several) just that, people don't have sales all the time for a good reason. You simply outlined that good reason and then said I'm wrong for alluding to it?

brilliant!

Or, was there some purpose to "raise the price to pre-sale levels and enjoy the normal profits." other than sustainability that I'm missing?

My point is, you can spur revenue through cuts in either taxes or prices - but neither gets you very far in the long run without returning to sustainable levels of either.

And of course you'd argue that you can also cut spending or costs to increase margin - true. Can't argue with that.

Which is why I posted the op-ed from Bartlett as a reasonable argument to exactly that in terms of spending.

Lets rename our currency. I think the bushama is a great name. Bush can be on the six bushama note, and Obama on the nineteen bushama note. Other unworthy politicians can have their picture on the other bushama notes. Pelocent can be the name of the currency fraction. Come on now be serious everybody, is there one individual who thinks that George Washington. Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, ULyses S Grant or Ben Franklin would approve of anything that is going on today in Washington.

The issue is not the level of taxes but the level of government spending. Considering our spending and our un-funded liabilities, soon to increase once government health care is passed, we cannot tax people enough to ever pay for it. The argument is moot. We may as well not tax at all and go out with a big blast, because that is where we are headed anyway. Our dollar is in a death spiral because our politicians can only think of one thing...how much money can I spend to buy votes to win the next election. Neither party gives two shakes about what is the best thing for the country.

We should be arguing about the proper role size and scope of the federal government. Right now, both parties are driving the train down the same track. At times maybe the Republicans apply the hand brake a little harder. Inevitably, the train is headed off of the same cliff.

Remember that McCain stopped his campaign to rush to DC & vote for the 1st bailout.

I wonder if Boortz has started wishing he had supported Ron Paul. I wonder if he has woken up to the fact that our government is a bigger threat to our liberties & lifestyle than a few rag-heads in caves in Pakistan...

I'd just like to know the flavor of Kool-Aid Catseye is drinking 'cause it sounds like powerful stuff.

Reality for the realworlders (i.e., producers) is this:

1) My overseas investment portfolio is up roughly 85% from a year ago, no surprise there as the dollar has collapsed thanks to Obozo & Geithner.
2) My domestic investment portfolio is down about 25% from a year ago but will soon be ravaged by inflation so I'm pretty much moving into tax-exempt money markets.
3) My country is a laughingstock, I'm not sure which country Catseye lives in. The foreign press is ravaging Odumbo in case he didn't notice.
4) The value of my home can't be accurately appraised because the hemorraging in the real estate market hasn't stopped--foreclosures went up again in September according to Bloomberg.
5) I'm surrounded by deeply red, highly educated elites who despise deeply blue socialists and I enjoy it.
6) 2012 will be the end of the experiment with the national lampoon kenyan imposter sock puppet--at which point I will throw the biggest victory party ever seen in my neighborhood.

Glad to hear you're doing well TODAY, catseye. TOMORROW will be a different story if you don't plan for it. Your comfort today can be changed in an instant by those that have control over you.

Ivan is a "banker"... LOL!

Could you please give me a hint which bank you work for so if I have my money in it I can pull it ASAP?

did you, say, happen to actually read the article from bloomberg?

"we are on the brink of something huge in the markets"

I love it! the infinite horizon all in. Yes, we are always on "the brink" of "something huge" when you are a paranoid freak who thinks any change is "huge"

your sandwich board is waiting...

1. My investment portfolio is up about 40% from the bottom reached early in the year.
2. I am gainfully employed in a job I enjoy in a company that is doing well.
3. My country enjoys a much better reputation in the world.
4. The value of my home has stopped falling, and in fact home values in my neighborhood are starting to come back up.
5. I have refinanced my home into a crazily low 30-year fixed mortgage.
6. I live in a "deeply blue" county full of educated high-income progressive liberal elites whose company I enjoy.
7. And, most importantly, I have a loving family, all in good health, all doing well.

So, for me, no reason to complain.

Thanks for being the shining example of "those that don't learn from history.." are doomed to repeat it.

You may after all eventually figure it out but it may be too late. :-)

You said "It works in the retail world -- they call it a sale"

yes, and they are periodic for a reason - sustainability.

Those that listen to Neal and read the Nuze each day don't need to be asked that question. We already know the answer. It needs to be addressed to all the robots who are still supporting Obama,despite everything happening. The Citicard lady,Jesse the fry cook from Miami, the old lady who got a free house: They need to be asked that.

"But, let me just ask - who among you is willing to raise taxes to pay it off?"

Snark, I would ask you, who among the useful idiots is willing to cut spending to pay it off?

"you still live in a magical world where lowering taxes raises revenues."

It works in the retail world -- they call it a sale. Taxes add to the cost of everything. Moving left on the cost index increases demand. That's why it's called the law of downward sloping demand. What part of that don't you understand?

Plan your exit strategies. If the American opportunity is dying, it might be time to start looking for the next America. Asia maybe? I might avoid Taiwan, as soon as the US economy collapses the Chinese will be in there pretty quick. Singapore? Maybe. They’re economically more free than the US but have some draconian social laws, and a strange political process. Thailand and the rest of the mainland Asian countries are pretty much cesspools, but might offer a grand opportunity to change them. Australia? Possibly, although they seem to be headed down the same road to hell as the US. Perhaps the United States needs to be broken up into smaller federations? Those that want a more Texan free market and individual liberties can live in one area and those that want a communist nanny state can live in another, without co-mingling of funds. If it came down to a decision of freedom or national power, I’ll take freedom.

Neal, you're using facts, logic and economics to explain what a disaster this guy and his party will be. Sadly, you may as well be speaking Greek when talking about that stuff to his voter base. If you want to see the type of people who voted for and still support Obama and the Dems, go to the web site below. Then tell me if you really think anything you say will sink in to their brain dead heads.

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/10/chaos-at-cobo-up-to-20000-people-turned-out-for-free-moneyactually-an-application-for-fed-assistance.html

Monetary policy doesn't affect actual money. Just ask Snarky.

"America For Sale", Jerome Corsi.

You guys might owe Ivan an apology!

I hear Obama is considering replacing all the presidents' faces on all the money with his own. That way people will LOVE OUR MONEY again. And hey...is that idea really any more ridiculous than his current policies?