The Democrats issue new Lending Regulations to address the Financial Crisis they Created

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 13th, 2013

Week in Review

The subprime mortgage crisis is still a political football.  The Democrats are using the crisis to further regulate the financial markets.  Giving us the convoluted Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  Financial reform.  For apparently there was no financial oversight of the financial markets up until now.  Despite Barney Frank being the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (2007-2011).  And Chris Dodd being the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (2007-2011).  Both of who were responsible for the oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The GSEs at the center of the subprime mortgage crisis (see Mortgage lender rules released by Daniel Wagner, Associated Press, posted 1/10/2013 on The Washington Times).

In the wake of the national housing collapse that helped bring on the Great Recession, federal regulators for the first time are laying out rules aimed at ensuring that borrowers can afford to pay their mortgages.

The long-anticipated rules being unveiled Thursday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau impose a range of obligations and restrictions on lenders, including bans on the risky “interest-only” and “no documentation” loans that helped inflate the housing bubble…

CFPB Director Richard Cordray, in remarks prepared for an event Thursday, called the rules “the true essence of responsible lending…”

Mr. Cordray noted that in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, consumers could easily obtain mortgages that they could not afford to repay.

So, prior to the Great Recession and the 2008 financial crisis we did not have responsible lending.  Which resulted in consumers obtaining mortgages they could not afford to repay.  Why?  Why were people getting mortgages they had no chance of repaying?  Who was responsible for that?  Well, as it turns out it was President Clinton.  Whose administration overhauled the Community Reinvestment Act (see New Study Finds CRA ‘Clearly’ Did Lead To Risky Lending by Paul Sperry posted 12/20/2012 on Investors.com)

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, “Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks.”

Added NBER: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or predominantly low-income and minority areas.

To satisfy CRA examiners, “flexible” lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found…

The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.

CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie’s and Freddie’s so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie.

It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to “assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA).” The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.

But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that’s what they did…

From 2001-2007, Fannie and Freddie bought roughly half of all CRA home loans, most carrying subprime features…

Housing analysts say the CRA is the central thread running through the subprime scandal — from banks and subprime lenders to Fannie and Freddie to even Wall Street firms that took most of the heat for the crisis…

While the 1977 law was passed 30 years before the crisis, it underwent a major overhaul just 10 years earlier. Starting in 1995, banks were measured on their use of innovative and flexible” lending standards, which included reduced down payments and credit requirements.

Banks that didn’t meet Clinton’s tough new numerical lending targets were denied merger plans, among other penalties. CRA shakedown groups like Acorn held hostage the merger plans of banks like Citibank and Washington Mutual until they pledged more loans to credit-poor minorities (see chart).

A Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie?  And Democrats say that Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis?  Funny.  Based on the historical record the Democrat Congress that forced lenders to loosen underwriting standards to meet those quotas are solely responsible for setting into motion the events that led to the 2008 financial crisis.  Not Wall Street.  Not the banks.  It was the Democrat Congress that empowered HUD to destroy good lending practices.  And they bear the responsibility for the 2008 financial crisis.  And the Great Recession.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Keynesian Tax and Spend Monetary Policy will Never Overcome Ruinous Fiscal and Regulatory Policy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 23rd, 2011

No Theory is Sacrosanct in the Scientific Method, Even if it’s Albert Einstein’s Theory

Albert Einstein‘s Theory of Relativity has held in the scientific community for some 106 years.  It hasn’t been accepted as a matter of faith, though.  It has been tested thousands of times in attempts to debunk it.  Right up to today.  Where it now appears we may be close to debunking it (see “Faster than light” particles may be physics revolution by Robert Evans posted 9/23/2011 on Reuters).

“It is premature to comment on this,” Professor Stephen Hawking, the world’s most well-known physicist, told Reuters. “Further experiments and clarifications are needed…”

“When an experiment finds an apparently unbelievable result and can find no artifact of the measurement to account for it, it is normal to invite broader scrutiny….it is good scientific practice,” he said…

Einstein’s theory has been tested thousands of times over the past 106 years and only recently have there been just slight hints that the behavior of some elementary particles of matter might not fit into it…

Ereditato, a physicist who also works at the Einstein Institute in the University of Berne, said the potential impact on science “is too large to draw any immediate conclusions or attempt physics interpretations…”

“Only when the dust finally settles should we dare draw any firm conclusions,” said Professor Forshaw. “It is in the nature of science that for every new and important discovery there will be hundreds of false alarms.”

This is the scientific method.  No theory is sacrosanct.  Even one by the great Albert Einstein.  Even if it’s been around for 106 years.

Quite the contrast to the theory of global warming.  Accepted by government scientists as indisputable fact.  Even though it has never been given serious scientific scrutiny like that given to one of the world’s greatest scientist.  Albert Einstein.

Considering the Economics, Only a Fool would Bet Against the Chinese in the area of Solar Panels

But Al Gore is smarter than Albert Einstein.  For he says that global warming is a scientific fact.  Even though we still call Einstein’s Theory of Relativity a theory after 106 years.  But not the theory of global warming.  No.  That theory is not a theory.  It’s fact.  So certain a fact that world governments have been killing economic activity everywhere to stop the ravishes of global warming.  Even investing in companies that promise to give us renewable green energy of the future.  Like that one that just ripped off the American taxpayer to the tune of half a billion dollars (see Solyndra haunts other government-backed solar firms by Steve Hargreaves posted 9/23/2011 on CNN Money).

At least three other government-backed solar firms face the same challenging market conditions that brought down Solyndra, the now bankrupt solar panel maker that could cost taxpayers over $500 million…

The company’s downfall is generally thought to have been caused by the declining price of silicon.

Solyndra didn’t use silicon. But many of its competitors did — traditional solar firms like Sunpower (SPWRA), Trina Solar (TSL), Yingli (YGE) and Jinkosolar (JKS). Solyndra was banking that high silicon prices would give it a competitive advantage…

Are they also doomed? Experts say that if they can further develop their technology they may have a fighting chance but market conditions in the near-term are working against them…

An Energy Department spokesman said the agency was not worried about these companies failing, saying it conducts rigorous reviews of all the ventures it funds.

Of course.  There’s nothing to worry about these other companies failing.  Because the Energy Department conducts a rigorous review of all the ventures they fund.  Except Solyndra apparently.  Or they did review them rigorously.  And the Energy Department just sucks at its job.

China’s investment in silicon as well as its huge investments in solar panel makers, combined with weaker demand worldwide as subsidies expire in Europe, caused the price of traditional solar panels to plummet.

In the last year alone they fell some 40%.

All across the globe, solar panel makers, especially ones that were developing more advanced technology, are finding it hard to compete with the Chinese as the price of solar panels drops.

I guess the Energy Department just sucks at its job.  I mean, imagine you’re an investor for a moment.  And you want to invest in a store that sells home improvement stuff.  Do you invest in the Home Depot?  Or the mom and pop hardware store?  The Home Depot is much bigger.  Has a greater variety of stuff.  And sells that stuff for 40% less than Mom and Pop.  Which store would you invest in?  Of course, you would invest in the Home Depot.  But the Energy Department, the geniuses that they are, would invest in Mom and Pop.  And then act shocked when they go belly up in the face of that fierce competition.

Considering the economics, only a fool would bet against the Chinese in the area of solar panels.  Then again, no one in Washington seems to understand economics in the least.

Cheaper panels mean more people will switch to the clean technology. Work has been booming for solar installers, project developers, and financiers. Just this week the industry said solar power capacity in the United States jumped 69% in the second quarter compared to the same time last year.

The Energy Department, as part of its plan to fund R&D and commercialization of renewable and clean energy technology, has backed or is considering backing loans to 42 firms across the sector totaling $39 billion in funding.

The manufacturers are taking it on the chin.  But the installers are installing these cheap Chinese solar panels like there’s no tomorrow.  You’d think the Energy Department would be happy that these silly things are being installed and get out of the investment business.  But no.  They’re going to piss away another $39 billion to fund firms that won’t be able to compete against the Chinese either.

By a show of hands who wants the Republican president to abolish the Energy Department in 2013?

One Gets the Feeling that Government Likes Wasteful Spending as it Adds to the Deficit

We really need to cut the government off.  They just aren’t responsible with our money.  If it ain’t throwing money away on solar panels, they’re throwing it away on dead people (see Gov’t paid $600 million in benefits to dead people by Sam Hananel posted 9/23/2011 on the Associated Press).

The federal government has doled out more than $600 million in benefit payments to dead people over the past five years, a watchdog report says.

Such payments are meant for retired or disabled federal workers…

In one case, the son of a beneficiary continued receiving payments for 37 years after his father’s death in 1971. The payments – totaling more than $515,000 – were only discovered when the son died in 2008.

If you owe a dollar in taxes you can bet the IRS will find you wherever you are.  But when it comes to spending our money it’s a different story.  As they are probably afraid of any close scrutiny that might show other mishandled funds.

Last year, government investigators found that more than 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each from the massive economic recovery package went to people who were either dead or in prison.

There’s another $22 million pissed away by Uncle Sam.  $22 million here.  $600 million there.  And $16 muffins.  Where does it stop?  They are so ruthless when it comes to taxing us.  But once they get our money they apparently don’t give a damn about what happens to it then.

One gets the feeling that they like this waste.  As it adds to the deficit.  And the greater the deficit is the greater the need for new revenue.  Higher tax rates.  And getting the rich to pay their fair share.  I say let’s raise the tax rates on those doing such a poor job handling our money.  If they have such a cavalier attitude about taxpayers’ money, let them belly up to the bar and pay for their waste with their own damn money.

If You Want Real Stimulus Repeal Dodd-Frank.  That Alone will Create 30,000 Jobs at One Bank.

So the government is horrible at picking investment winners.  And is about as responsible as a teenager with money.  But Obama is looking to spend another $450 billion in stimulus.  To create jobs.  Unlike that $800 billion stimulus that failed to create jobs.  So they don’t know how to create jobs either.  Worse, they only thing they seem to be good at is destroying jobs (see The Dodd-Frank Layoffs posted 9/13/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

Bank of America appears to have provided part of the answer by announcing yesterday that the nation’s largest bank will cut 30,000 jobs between now and 2014…

The Fed dutifully ordered banks to cut their fees almost in half. Bank of America disclosed in its most recent quarterly report that this change will reduce the bank’s debit-card revenues by $475 million in just the fourth quarter of this year. The new rules take effect on October 1, so BofA seems to have sensible timing as it begins to shed workers from a consumer business that has become suddenly less profitable by federal edict…

But given the real-world results for bank employees, politicians should not be allowed to pretend that there are no consequences when they deliberately reduce the profitability of employers. Mr. Obama proposed last week to spend some $450 billion more in outlays or tax credits to create more jobs, but it would have cost a lot less to save these 30,000.

If they want real stimulus they should repeal Dodd-Frank.  That alone will create 30,000 jobs.  At one bank.  If this happens at other banks you’re looking at hundreds of thousands of jobs.  Now that’s stimulus.

If they really want to create jobs they ought to go big.  Abolish the EPA.  And the Energy Department.  For a start.  With that kind of uncertainty removed just think of the explosion in economic activity.  Creating jobs galore.  Hundreds of thousands.  Perhaps millions.  The oil and coal industries alone would probable wrest this country from recession.

The Economy is not Just Monetary Policy.  It’s Fiscal and Regulatory Policy, too.

So it’s clear the government doesn’t know the first thing about stimulating economic activity.  They just can’t figure that out.  But what they can do is destroy jobs.  They’re real good at that.  And the reason for all of this is that they’re Keynesians.  They worship at the altar of Keynesian Economics.  Despite its horrendous track record.  Almost three years and counting for the current administration.  But they refuse to lose faith.  Instead, when they fail, they just choose to fail again.  By pursuing more of the same failed policies (see Markets tumble after Fed says it will buy longer-term bonds to try to boost economy by Neil Irwin posted 9/23/2011 on The Washington Post).

The announcement that the Fed would buy $400 billion in long-term Treasury bonds immediately achieved its intended effect, pushing rates on these securities and other investments to their lowest level in decades.

But the stock market rendered a sharply negative verdict. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index tumbled almost 3 percent on the Fed’s discouraging statement that its leaders see “significant downside risks” for the economy. Asian markets closed down between 2 and 4.85 percent, and key European indexes were trading more than 4 percent lower at midday.

No one wants to borrow money.  Businesses.  Or consumers.  Because there is just too much economic uncertainty with the Obama administration.  Everybody is hunkering down.  Deleveraging.  And hoarding cash.  Until better economic times.  Times with less uncertainty.  Probably starting sometime after 2012.  When there’ll be a new Republican president.  And hopefully a Republican House and Senate.  To undo those things causing all of this uncertainty.  Dodd-Frank.  Obamacare.  Etc.

The Fed action, which capped a two-day meeting, is focused squarely on lowering mortgage rates in an effort to strengthen the ailing housing market and lighten the load of the tremendous debt weighing on consumers. The move could also make it cheaper for businesses to borrow money for investments and push more dollars into the stock market.

The housing bubble create a surplus of houses that’ll be around for a long, long time.  The country is dotted with empty homes that banks have foreclosed on.  And the banks own a whole bunch more that will be hitting the market soon.  It’s a buyer’s market out there.  But it sure sucks to be a seller.  Especially if your mortgage is under water.  Homes have lost so much value after that bubble burst that anyone selling now will lose tens of thousands of dollars.  So they’re not selling.  Or buying.  No matter how cheap mortgage rates are.

The bond-buying program that ended in the summer, though massive in scale, failed to keep economic growth from sputtering. The disappointing result showed the limits of what the Fed can accomplish at a time when consumers are struggling with enormous debts and the U.S. banking system remains traumatized. The new initiative could face the same constraints.

Quantitative easing 2 failed.  And there’s no reason to think that quantitative easing 3 won’t fail as well.  So why do it?  Because they’re Keynesians.  And their scripture says that’s what you do.  Weak demand?  Why you fix that with cheap money.  But they don’t understand that the economy is not just monetary policy.  It’s fiscal policy, too.  And their fiscal policy is killing the economy.  And what their fiscal policy doesn’t kill their regulatory policy will.

The Only Way to Fix this Economy is to Get Rid of Keynesian Policies

Tax and spend Keynesian policies are strangling the economy.  Stimulus spending doesn’t work.  If it did the economy would be reaching record heights due to that record spending.  But it’s not.  The tax and spend Keynesians explanation for this record of dismal failure?  They didn’t spend enough.

The economic malaise has a lot more to do with uncertainty than weak demand.  It’s that out of control spending.  You eventually have to pay for it.  And every business owner knows that ultimately you pay for spending with taxes.  And they see the Obama administration is hell-bent on raising taxes on anyone earning more than $200,000 a year.  Which will be a tax hike on most small business as their earnings pass through to their personal tax return.

And while they’re waiting for punitive taxes to come down the pike they’re being hammered by regulatory compliance costs.  The big one scaring the bejesus out of them is Obamacare.  And Dodd-Frank is not just for Wall Street bankers.  Not to mention the EPA’s enormous impact on business operations.  They’re being bitch-slapped left and right by these regulations.  And they are terrified by what’s next from this administration.

You see, Big Government Keynesian politicians don’t understand economics.  Or business.  They see business as cash piñatas.  That they can whack at their pleasure.  They have no idea how they make money.  But they assume that they will go on making money no matter what they do in Washington.  And being the Keynesians they are, they believe that businesses make money for government first.  And then, after government takes what they want, what they deem fair, then and only then can they use whatever they earn for their own selfish wants and pleasures.  The selfish rich bastards they are.  Those contemptible business owners.

This is how Big Government Keynesians think.  And this is why they fail miserably at creating jobs.  And economic activity.  The only way to fix this economy, then, is to get rid of Keynesian policies.  And the only way to do that is to get rid of the Keynesians.  At the voting booth.  By voting conservative.  And in our two-party system, that means voting Republican.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘More Taxes, Regulations, Uncertainty and Spending’ is the Mantra of the Obama Administration

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2011

Obama’s Proposed Aviation Fees will Fall Predominantly on the People who can Least Afford It

In Obama‘s deficit reduction plan he plans to tax the rich.  Those who can most afford it.  Rich people.  And by rich people he means anyone who has any money to spend (see Airline groups attack Obama proposals to boost fees for aviation security, air traffic control by Associated Press posted 9/21/2011 on The Washington Post).

The aviation fees are part of Obama’s deficit-cutting plan that was released Tuesday. The plan would:

— raise the passenger security fee — now $5 to $10 per round trip — to $15 by 2017 and give the Homeland Security Department the power to push it higher.

— impose a surcharge of $100 per flight to help pay for air traffic control.

But college students fly.  Middle class families fly on vacation.  Non-rich people everywhere fly to visit family members that have moved away.  A lot of people fly.  And an interesting tidbit about the flying public?  They’re not all rich.

The rich people that Obama wants to tax?  Because they can most afford it?  Those well-to-do folk who fly those private jets?  Well, a lot of them do just that.  Fly private jets.  And, therefore, do NOT fly on commercial planes.  So they won’t be paying these new taxes/fees.  So these taxes/fees will fall predominantly on the people who can least afford it.  Imagine that.

The Air Transport Association, which represents large airlines, said it’s unfair for airlines and passengers to pay for security against terror attacks that target the U.S. and not the airlines themselves. The trade group says a typical $300 round-trip ticket already includes $60 in taxes and fees.

The Regional Airline Association, a group of smaller carriers, said the fees could lead to a loss of flights to smaller cities. The group’s president, Roger Cohen, said the $100 surcharge would cost more than regional airlines earned last year, threatening service to smaller cities.

The groups also complained that some of the money raised from airlines and passengers would be used to pay down the federal budget deficit and not to improve the air-travel system.

The airlines have a vested interest in protecting their planes.  Because they bought them.  And planes that blow up or crash in terrorist attacks don’t help the bottom line.  There’s the loss of an expensive airplane.  And the future revenue from that airplane.  The cost of replacing that airplane.  And the lost business from passengers who tend to shy away from an airline whose planes are easy pickings for terrorists.

So let them hire a security contractor to secure their planes.  Using the Israeli model.  Ask very pointed questions and observe people’s responses.  It works well for the Israelis.  Couldn’t be any worse than what the TSA is doing.  I mean, what passengers are going to complain about being groped less?

The administration estimated that boosting passenger security fees will raise $24.9 billion over 10 years. It proposed to spend $15 billion of that to reduce federal debt.

This is telling.  The airlines did not run up that federal debt. So there’s something really troubling about this.  Taking $15 billion from the airlines under the auspices of national security.  Just so they can continue their irresponsible spending ways in Washington.  This is no different than an addict stealing from his mother’s purse to support his habit.

This is Washington’s problem.  Not the airlines.  Washington has a spending problem.  And they can’t stop spending.  Or simply choose not to.  Instead they look for other people to steal from.  Like an addict.  While denying that they have a problem.  And always blaming others.  Like the rich who don’t pay their fair share.  And by rich they mean anyone that has any money to spend.

Tax Cuts Stimulate, not Keynesian Stimulus Spending Funded by Taxes

So how bad is this spending?  How much of a debt problem has it given us?  That the president is shaking down the airlines for $15 billion (see Committee Searches for Economic ‘Tipping Point’; Prefer Not to Find It by Jim Angle posted 9/20/2011 on Fox News)?

“We know that the debt is now 100 percent — approximately 100 percent of (gross domestic product),” said Allan Meltzer, a professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “That doesn’t include the unfunded liabilities. It doesn’t include (mortgage lenders)Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It doesn’t include a number of other things.”

By unfunded liabilities, Meltzer means entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare alone have $46 trillion in unfunded liabilities, meaning that much more is promised in benefits than the government — and taxpayers — have as a plan to pay for them.

Oh.  It’s that bad.  We owe a dollar for every dollar our economy produces.  But it’s even worse than this.  All of those unfunded liabilities that don’t appear in the official budget.  Fannie and Freddie.  And let’s not forget the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.  Which are filled only with IOUs from Uncle Sam.  Because Uncle Sam spent our money.  That money we put aside with each paycheck.  Those FICA and Medicare withholdings.  That money they forced us to save.  Because we were untrustworthy with our own money.  As they apparently are, too.

Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, argues that U.S. debt is so far out of control that it must be contained soon.

“We’ve had five trillion (in) deficit spending since 2008, the most enormous sort of Keynesian stimulus you can imagine, and yet we’ve had slower growth than any time since World War II. So I don’t think spending helps.”

So the government owes more money than taxpayers can fund.  And yet that didn’t stop them from spending $5 trillion more.  For stimulus.  Which is just code for throwing money at political cronies.  I mean, it’s obvious that it didn’t stimulate anything.  Because the economy is still in the toilet.

And there’s a very good reason for that.  Because tax cuts stimulate.  Not Keynesian stimulus spending funded by taxes.

Meltzer pointed to three “fiscal changes that really did enormous good.” One was the tax cuts from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, the most effective part of which were business tax cuts.

“They got the biggest bang for the buck,” he said.

The second were the Reagan-era tax cuts which came in two rounds and boosted a flagging economy. Meltzer said a completely different option worked well too.

“(The) third policy that gave people confidence were the Clinton tax increases, which assured people that their future tax rates were not going to go up, that they had seen what they were going to have to take, and there wouldn’t be anymore.”

Meltzer said the increases gave people certainty about what tax rates would be, which reassured businesses they wouldn’t go higher, allowing employers to plan and create jobs with confidence.

The Clinton tax increases?  That’s not why the Nineties were booming.  It was because of greedy capitalists.  Looking to strike it rich in the dot-com boom.  The economy was smoking hot because of irrational exuberance.  Not higher taxes.  And the budget went into surplus when all those dot-com people cashed in their stock options.  And they paid a boatload of capital gains taxes.  Before the dot-com bubble burst.  And threw the economy into recession.

But he’s right on the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts.  Both used good Austrian supply-side economics.  Which exploded economic activity.  And similar policies could do that again.  If we would just stop with the Keynesian nonsense.  And the belief that crippling regulations will spur economic growth.

Business Owners Hate Uncertainty because, Unlike Uncle Sam, they can’t Print Money

And speaking of regulation, remember the Dodd-Frank act?  Have you read it?  Probably not.  For I doubt anyone in Congress has read it in its entirety (see Dodd-Frank and Uncertainty by Veronique de Rugy posted 9/20/2011 on National Review).

Remember how President Obama promised that the Dodd-Frank bill would provide certainty, stability and growth…?

It’s 1,623 pages long. It is very heavy. If it could fit it in my purse, I could use it as a protective weapon. Whatever else this will do, however, it will not make lending cheaper or credit more readily available, and it will not protect us from another financial crisis. And it will not protect consumers or taxpayers.

What it will do, and already does, is continue injecting gigantic uncertainty into the economy, paralyzing entrepreneurship and job creation. Imagine how long it will take for all the rules to be written and for U.S. businesses to figure out how they are supposed to operate from now on. The vagueness of the law as written means that even business owners and consumers who have the courage to pick up this book and try to figure out what’s in their future won’t get the answers they are looking for.

Really, is there any doubt that some of the $2 trillion in cash that companies are sitting on is a direct result of this uncertainty?

That’s right.  If you don’t know what tomorrow may bring you save your money.  You deleverage.  Pay down debt.  And hoard cash.  Because cash is king.  It’s the only thing you can pay your employees with.  The only thing you can pay your suppliers with.  The only thing you can pay for your insurance with.  And it’s the only thing you can pay Uncle Sam with.  So if you don’t have enough of it around during bad times you may not be around for the good times.  When they return.  If they return.

Business owners hate uncertainty.  Because, unlike Uncle Sam, they can’t print money.  So they have to be very careful with what they have.  To survive things like recessions.  Depressions.  And Dodd-Frank.

In these Tough Economic Times, it is the People that are Suffering, not Rich Liberals

‘More taxes, more regulations and more uncertainty’ is the mantra of the Obama administration.  And, of course, more spending.  Always more spending.  Is it any surprise the economy is not responding well to Obama’s policies?

There is no way businesses will grow in this environment.  Or create jobs.  And without new jobs the economy will never recover.  People understand this.  That’s why Democrats are losing elections.  Even in New York.  It’s a repudiation of Obama.  And the liberal Democrat agenda.

For though the mainstream media has been a loyal propaganda outlet for the liberal elite, the people aren’t buying it anymore.  For in these tough economic times, it is the people that are suffering.  Because of Obama’s policies.  While rich liberal elitists are living well everywhere.  And continue to fly on their private jets.  While the common people will be paying Obama’s new aviation fees.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,