I agree with the overkill in Fed Depts. If this country was like Bear Stearns, we would be deemed bankrupted and corrupted...oh crap, we are like them. SS is a good thing as long as it is not run by the Government. The Democrats raid anything they can to get money for the promises that they made so they can stay in power. :barf:

The more I read the paper and blogs, the more I seem to think I am in the minority who think that people place a REALLY disproportional amount of attention on these elections in the context of the economy or the stock and bond markets. Look at the big picture for a minute...the U.S. economy is $14 trillion. The Federal budget accounts for a a very small part of that. Nearly half that budget goes to defense and war spending. The amount of money that the govt could target to boost the economy is tiny. Certainly not anything close to being enough to reverse a decades long slump in wages and job growth that hit the wall 10 years ago now.

Look at this way, taxes today are lower than they have ever been in recent memory. Google is paying 2% in taxes through perfectly legal measures. Warren Buffett challenged any of his wealthy friends to a $100,000K bet if anyone of them could show an effective tax rate that was higher than that of their own secretary.
Corporate taxes as percentage of GDP have fallen by 50% in the last 30 years.
Today, even after two years of Obama-Pelosi-Reid you have never payed less in taxes as an hourly worker, a salaried worker, a investor or a a Wall Street private equity partner (who pay a mere 15% on their carry). On top of that we had something in the order of $300 billion in tax incentives, larger than either the 2001 or 2003 tax cuts. Trillions upon trillions of dollars NOT collected in taxes and what has that produced as far jobs and wage growth? ZILCH. In other words reducing taxes is certainly better than raising taxes but it will not move the unemployment needle from 10% to 5%. That's become abundantly clear now. We're now into a full decade of these low tax rates with nary a whiff of inflation and the jobs did not come.
Clearly other things are at play here. It's not what the govt chooses to do or not..but what consumers are choosing to do. They whine about govt not doing enough to create jobs and then head for the Apple store to buy a $700 Ipad from a company that employs 1 U.S. worker for every 10 it hires. That's one way to increase profits 70% during 10% unemployment! But apple consumers are not alone...not by a mile. You simply have to be living in Bizzaro land to think that 24/7 consumption of foreign goods would not catch up to us sooner or later. Well this is that reality. And don't think that putting up all these Wal-Marts and Costcos wasn't going to put a seriuos dent in the number of small biz retaliers either. .. 10% unemployment would have come sooner but we had a nice 5 year binge of bundled and securitized credit to keep the faux wheels of consumption turning. That air bag support under our feet has been gone for two years now.

At any rate. Elections are almost pointless in the context of economic turnarounds. The govt is not gong to save you. It is your own every day consumer choices. We are barking up the wrong tree while giving those who do have the ability to hire Americans (Fortune 500s) a pass. It's an interesting knee-jerk reaction that prevalent today: the economy is bad? Well let's start talking about Congress and Obama. Huh? If unemployment is 10% that's because it's perfectly fine with Wal-Mart, Coca-cola, Johnson & Johnson, Exxon, Yum, Merck, Altria and all the others sitting on trillions in excess cash. They make money just same since their customer base has now exploded with Asian and South American consumers now accounting for greater than 50% of sales. And the stock market is back to its pre-bubble normal, they're not too worried about anemic U.S. worker wages. Has anyone stopped to think that 8-10% unemployment is now the new normal?

Okay now as far as the political soap opera that has little to do with reality,
The election was a bit of a double-edged sword for the Republicans. It surprised me in that this was the first time that the House flipped without the Senate. Tha's a red flag for something not being okay with the disgruntled voters. The Republicants and Dimocrats due as they always do, vote in lock-step. Elections are decided by independents. They distrust Republicans as much as they distrust Obama. The latest polling I read in the WSJ said they gave 55% to the Repubes and 45% to the leftys. That's interesting given the state of the economy. I would have pegged it at close to 70% for the GOP. But when you consider that 2/3's of independts considered themselve moderat to liberal (more like fiscal conservative-social liberals) it becomes a little clearer. About a 1/3 are solidly against Obama. The President is currently polling at 44-48% If he can reel in a 1/3 of the left leaning indys he'll be very close to 50%. If the Republicans come up with no good ideas, particularly ones that don't move jobs higher, at least 40% of the indys will move to Obama and that will for sure put him above 50%. The problem is that the GOP is racing to the hard right, even McCain is on board. If this results in a Sarah Palin/Sharon Angle/Bachmann type Republican it's a whole new ball game for Obama because nearly 70% of indy's can't stand Palin or think she's a deal-breaker. The frightening part if you're a Republican is that Palin & Co. haven't a single critic in the elected Republican leadership for fear of the backlash.The only critics are a smarty pundit or GOP strategist here and there like Krauthammer "She has a frightening lack of subsatnce". You need an equally popular opposing force to derail her Presidential run. Where's that going to come from. It would have to be on the level of Hillary vs. Obama and I don't see that happening ever because Palin is singing all the right tunes for the sort of Republicans who turn out to vote and get energized.

The election was almost like a challenge to both Obama and the resurgent Republicans: show us what you can do DIFFERENTLY. No fighting, no repealing without alternatives that show results in two years (they're not waiting long term).
If the Republicans decide to just fight for two years throwing up things they know will get vetoed it will electrify the Republicans and Democrats but will not pass muster with independents. The thing to keep in mind is that they will not give one-party control to either side. That means either we get Republican President (likely) with a very tone-down Congress (yeah right!)...or Obama part II with a fully Republican Congress. Bill Clinton all over again.

Bottom Line
 

The elections have insured that Washington will accomplish nothing over the next two years. And anytime Washington accomplishes nothing it is far better than anything they have ever accomplished.

True lol,

Keep in mind that shrinking the government is a good thing. they have outgrown their rights given to them by the constitution. it may not be as big in some areas as lets say defense budget but at least defense is one of its duties.

the D-fence budget will shrink come july when we start to withdraw from Afghanistan and decrease the military.

AMEN TO THAT!

Actually, I think what the GOP will do is use the investigative powers to expose much of what Obama has been doing by executive fiat.

Perhaps a new head of the EPA?>?

Ha! Had not made this correlation, no matter what side you lean towards, the last 4 years have indeed been like a ridiculous "reality show"

it is truely amazing how few people realize that the govt has neither the pockets nor the man power to move that unemployment needle from 10% to 5%. That is entirely up to consumer's choices. If they buy from companies that have an interest in taking on more U.S. workers then we will see big movement on jobs.
If we continue to buy from companies that are morely likely to take rising revenues and simply send jobs off-shore, then we get what we have today. Compounding matters is that companies that export jobs to lands where labor equals 1/10 of U.S. wages (not including benefits of course...) are obviously more attractive to Wall Street. We argue about which way the govt should or should not spend a trillion dollars to stimulate job creation while sending 12x's that amount to companies that export jobs, both blue collar (China) and white collar (India).

What Congress could do is simply start a campaign to encourage consumers to buy from companies A thru Z which have pledged increasing jobs X% in 2011.
A yearly pledge of sorts. Surely they will want something in return but at least we are informing the consumer about which companies have a long term plan that involves American workers. Andy Grove who built Intel was recently complaining about this in the tech sector recently in a Wall Street Journal Opinion piece: "every tech firm wants to send every job possible to China as part of a 'China Plan'...but where's the USA Plan?".

Consumers will not spend money that they don't have or believe will not be there in the future (on average).

What the Feds CAN do is figure out how to stablize things, take less money from taxpayers, and stop passing laws that create massive uncertainty.

That would be a start.

Good luck with that! :D

buy american.....wait...isnt this an import forum ?

We should have annexed Germany when we had the chance! :D

The last time I bought a washing machine, I tried to buy "American."

Good luck on that score.

:confused:

i think we can/do tell 75 % of the world what to do ...the other 25 % we have to talk/force them into it....alot dont like us but tough muffins....give us a hard time and we will burn your huts down...i like that

Problem is, the credit card we use for hut burning implements is in danger of being refused. Peter Schiffs theory on QE2 is that Fed would like to maintain the appearance of normalcy and avoid the panic that would result if the Treasury had an auction and no buyers showed up. It is widely acknowledged that QE can't lower interest rates much from where they are. So why do it? Because rates might spike dramatically if the Treasury's big auction party was greeted with crickets. Not to mention all the fun that would ensue given we have an adjustable rate mortgage on our national debt invested in short term bonds.

Zerohedge had a much more negative take on this QE stuff but I'm not familiar with them enough to know if they are credible. Schiff is the gold standard in my book, so to speak. GLD = :D

tell pete schiff the US issues the credit cards and uses them...no one can afford not to accept them...still dont believe...well then the president can make one phone call to the mint ....print mees sum of dat green stuf hommie

well that was quick...The Republicans shot up jobs by 151,000! :D
Since December 2009 jobs have risen by 875,000.


check out the trend chart. that dotted line excludes all those temp census workers

Printing the green stuff - easy. Printing value to go along with it? Haven't figured that one out yet. The dollar is down, and commodities are up, lately. More than enough to wipe out recent stock market gains. The "whiff of inflation" mentioned earlier is poised to be a gale wind in the coming months.

the new powers to be promised to get rid of the obama care asap....now the fng,s are claiming not until 2013......boy are they fast liars oooppps learners

They don't have the votes in the Senate. However, they can stop funding different pieces of it from the House side.

Lets see how they do this. I do believe they will bring it to a vote in the House, if only for symbolic reasons. It would be good to have a bill come out of the House that the Senate refuses to pass. Keep shoving it in the Dems face.

symbolic reasons....what a way to run a railroad.

I don;t think the House gets to rewrite the Constitution. The rules require two or three to tango.

That is the way it is! :)

Technically, the Constitution can not be re-written, only modified. To do so would require a vote in the affirmative by 2/3 of each house, then 3/4 of the States OR 2/3 of the State's Legislative bodies have to request a Constitutional Convention and 3/4 of the States then have to approve. Therefore, it always takes three to tango - the House, the Senate and the States.

Interestingly, especially given the constant "Obama is rewriting the Constitution" rhetoric, the President has no role in amending the Constitution.