By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

When the president alludes to his mandate the messages are delivered with the smug satisfaction that he need not explain himself nor defend the mind-boggling amount of taxpayer dollars he is throwing at every problem that comes his way, much like throwing spaghetti against the wall.  But in his case, if it sticks, we’re cooked.

His fan club, apparently so overwhelmed with his rock star “tude,” doggedly cling to the “hope” he promised.  “Hope” and “Change” were, after all, burned into his teleprompter.

What has become as dangerous as a truckload of C‑4 is that hope, by itself, is not always enough.  Those same BHO groupies are “stuck on hope” because they still subsist on the incessant superficial media coverage of President Bush’s financial blunders.

Obama’s followers have yet to understand or accept where their fearless leader has taken Americans in these first 100 days – straight down Thomas Crapper’s throne.  If they persist in their blind adoration, they’ll be enjoying their just desserts a la commode.

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, in his March 2008 article entitled The Collapse of American Power, offered this bleak assessment: “…the fact of the matter is that the U.S. is bankrupt.”  That statement was made during the Bush Administration.  What conservative Americans are learning, while liberals continue to savor the Chosen One, is that one trillion dollars of debt has morphed into several trillions, a staggering amount most humans cannot wrap their brain around.  It is turning recovery into a mathematical impossibility.

The “in the tank” media, reports every little Bear market rally as if recovery was at hand.  And whenever Ben Bernanke speaks, his presentation is reminiscent of “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.”  That’s the joke of course, because we all know what happened to E.F. Hutton.

And so goes Wall Street.  Not so very long ago, everyone listened to Alan Greenspan too.  And look where we are now.  “The thrill is gone” as B.B. King said, “free from the spell” of Wall Street economists.

For you recalcitrant liberals, there is the National Bankruptcy Survival Guide, in which Seth Van Brocklin explains the difficulty in quantifying the national debt.  As he states: “Once numbers start getting up into the trillions, they literally become mind-numbing.”

By way of illustration, Van Brocklin explains just how large one trillion dollars actually is:  “If you were able to earn $1 per second continuously, you would accumulate $1 Billion after 33 years.”  But, to make $1 Trillion at the rate of $1 per second, “it would take 33,000 years.”  We’re pretty sure you can now visualize twelve times that amount, which is roughly the national debt under the current Administration.

It’s difficult not to feel and sound morose at times.  The present Administration (as well as the numerous fiscal blunders and catastrophes of previous Administrations) have forced the American People to duck and dodge an unrelenting monetary meteor shower which is hitting us all left, right, and center.  Even the Administration’s indignation over Bernie Madoff seems rather comical when you step back in order to see a bigger picture, that is, the federal government now running the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.  But with a solid majority, the bad guys aren’t even getting a slap on the wrist.

The president rode into office on a wave of popularity with a promise to fix the economic mess he inherited (as we are constantly reminded).  He’s smart, but not that smart.  If he were the brainchild his followers touted he is during those nightmarish months of campaigning, he wouldn’t now be crushing the country with a spending tsunami.  And as the country is crushed, so are our lives, our livelihoods, our dreams and aspirations, and, most tragically, our children’s future.

As elected leader of the U.S., one would either have to be totally unprepared, inexperienced or ignorant to not understand the magnitude of this economic crisis.  A logical conclusion would be that this President is either too ignorant, OR fully understands and is lying to Americans -- perhaps running the economy, and thereby the nation, into the ground to realize a larger ideological agenda in the naïve belief it’s for the greater good.

The saddest part is this: even if conservatives were to reclaim the majority in Congress, slash taxes across the board, break the hold unions have on industry, resurrect manufacturing and purge entitlements to illegal immigrants, those efforts would only be a blip on the radar of history.

While the media doesn’t even try to conceal their bias anymore, they continue to squash the opposition through the denigration of patriotically concerned Americans who are now fighting back to save our Republic.  It is not a pretty picture, and there will be no honor at the end of the day for the media.

This is why the TEA party participant numbers are swelling.  No matter what kind of negative hype the media invents, citizens are on to them and there’s a new wave of optimism about to crush the Left’s favorite milieu – carefully crafted ignorance.

We know for a fact (and readily admit) that there are just as many academically intelligent people on the left as there are on the right. After all, America wasn’t conceived and built by dummies.  We, therefore, cannot understand why logical and common sense answers are being cast aside or rejected entirely—the way a demented fisherman tosses the filets of his catch into the drink and tries to sell us the innards.  Americans won’t be buying your stinking innards much longer.  Looming inflation won’t let them.

Our greatest fear is searching for, but not finding, viable solutions to reverse the trade and industry mess in which we find ourselves. The more research we find out, the more we realize it is becoming impossible to clean up after this disaster.

Americans must find a way to strike a balance between regulation, to protect against greed, but at the same time allow everyone to pursue their dreams unhindered by a parasitic socialist system designed to quash our freedoms.

The TEA party participants are looking for that balance and we will not settle for less.

The Quite Coup

 by Simon Johnson

 From this confluence of campaign finance, personal connections, and ideology there flowed, in just the past decade, a river of deregulatory policies that is, in hindsight, astonishing:

• insistence on free movement of capital across borders;

• the repeal of Depression-era regulations separating commercial and investment banking;

• a congressional ban on the regulation of credit-default swaps;

• major increases in the amount of leverage allowed to investment banks;

• a light (dare I say invisible?) hand at the Securities and Exchange Commission in its regulatory enforcement;

• an international agreement to allow banks to measure their own riskiness;

• and an intentional failure to update regulations so as to keep up with the tremendous pace of financial innovation.

The question I have is, are we still being ruled by this Fed/financial oligarchy?

I think the answer to this question can best be found by the  measure Congree rights these wrongs, if they ever do.

ex animno

davidfarrar

In taking in to account the recent statistics on unemployment dating back to the lowest rates of the Bush administration (4.4% in October 2006) and the data since that point, I have come to the conclusion that we will experience depression level unemployment (10% or more) in October 2009. A depression will likely be eminent and will become official (10% or more over two consecutive economic quarters) in March 2010.

By February 2010, one in eight Americans in the workforce will be unemployed and will be attempting to pursue employment, meeting the definition of “unemployment” according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By the end of 2010, the rate will reach 18.1%.

Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and projections using a polynomial trend-line, these calculations were determined with over 98% certainty that the current recession will become a depression once the summer is over with October 2009 unemployment hitting 10.7%. A depression will become official with an unemployment rate of 13% in March 2010.

By comparison, the unemployment rate from May 1979 to August 1983 increased from 5.6% to 9.5% (an increase of 69.6%). Over the ensuing 52 months (September 1983 to December 1987), unemployment dropped from 9.2% to 5.7%, a drop of 38%.

All of these calculations do not take in to account any economic impacts. The only details taken in to account are the monthly unemployment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

This is a repost of an entry I wrote for QandO a few days ago. I'm reposting it here, for a different audience to get a look at it.

It is a lengthy think piece, and it may be completely off base. But the fundamental point I think we should be looking at is this: We are, quite possibly, watching the collapse of the Post-WWII global financial system. The first collapse in the 1930s saw off the Gold Standard. This collapse will probably see off the concept of government-backed fiat currencies.

So, what happens then?

We all remember 9/11. We know exactly where we were when the first and second towers were attacked. But how many of us remember the particular events of 9/15? Where were you and I the morning when the American economic system was struck?

In response to consistent claims by Democrats that the Republicans caused this economic crisis, I developed a rough sequence of events which I thought lent themselves to helping us understand the bipartisan involvement in this recession. It turns out I was missing a most significant event. This event came to light in an interview between Rep Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA) and C-SPAN's Washington Journal in which Kanjorski was explaining his support of the first bailout of Wall Street. Here's a portion of that transcript, h/t Townhall.com:

"I was there when the Secretary (of the Treasury Hank Paulson) and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (Ben Bernanke) came those days and talked to members of Congress about what was going on. It was about Sept. 15. Here's the facts, we don't even talk about these things.

"On Thursday at about 11 o'clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of $550 billion, as being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.

"The Treasury opened up its window to help. It pumped $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there, and that's what actually happened."

Kanjorksi continued:

"If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2 o'clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy system of the United States and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.

"Now we talked at that time about what would happen if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it. And that's why when they made the point we've got to do things quickly, we did."

Townhall's Diana West goes on to say that these are staggering revelations. Given their sudden appearance out of the blue, you have to wonder, first, could they possibly be true? If so, why weren't we the people told about this $550 billion electronic run on the banks? The Google archive has retained some news about the money market run, but it was seriously downplayed in this article from Boston.com:

The panic sweeping the world's financial system hit Boston stalwarts Putnam Investments and State Street Corp., yesterday while the mutual fund industry struggled with billions of dollars in withdrawals from money market funds by investors worried about losing their cash.

The article describes the frenzy of withdrawals, but describes the amounts much differently than Kanjorski.

"There's a crisis of confidence in the system," said Putnam chief executive Robert Reynolds.

On Wednesday, investors pulled nearly $90 billion out of money market mutual funds -among the largest single-day withdrawals - and as much as was pulled out during the entire preceding week. Analysts said most of the withdrawals were from corporations and other institutions. The sellers are trying to replace those money market fund holdings with even safer securities such as US Treasury bills, even though they are now paying interest rates as low as 0.071 percent.

While often treated like bank accounts, money market mutual funds are investment vehicles, and therefore can lose money. They also do not have the $100,000 per account FDIC insurance coverage provided to savings, checking, and so-called money market demand accounts available at banks. In addition to paying interest, money market funds attempt to keep their share prices steady at $1, so the value of the deposits remains intact.

Because of the run on money market mutual funds, the Bush administration is now proposing to provide them with FDIC-like insurance protection, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Kanjorski goes on to describe how the Fed and the Treasury dealt with this run by implementing just such an FDIC-like protection on that very day, September 15, when Paulson came to discuss the tremendous drawdown with members of Congress because they realized that was the only way to "stem the tide".

The key in Kanjorski's interview is the "electric run on the banks" to the tune of $500 Billion within an hour. If they hadn't taken action, by 2 pm that afternoon, $5.5 Trillion would have left the banks and the entire global economy would have completely collapsed. The implications of that are truly staggering.

On October 20, nearly a month later, Daniel Gross at Newsweek wrote an article called The Anatomy of Fear in which he described a panic-worthy act by James Cramer, CNBC star, ex-hedge-fund manager, mascot of the 1990s tech boom and the recent bull market, fond of saying "There's always a bull market somewhere". On October 6, 3 weeks after the run on money market accounts, Cramer admitted to the "Today" show's Ann Curry that "somewhere" was now nowhere to be found. "Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week," he pleaded. "I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock markets."

We could understand Cramer's comments precipitating a run on all sorts of investements, but what exactly drove the tremendous volume of electronic transfers on September 15? I could find no documented news the week of September 15 that would prompt such a run, with the possible exception of the Lehman Brothers failure. But why the run on money market funds and not CD's, stocks, bonds or mutual funds? Rush Limbaugh discussed his theories on February 10, 2009, including the fact that Kanjorski is a Pelosi loyalist. Rush said:

It's amazing this was said on C-SPAN on Thursday, January 27th, and nobody picked up on it. We got it from a website called LiveLeak. They were rummaging through things, and they found this. Now, let's assume for a second here that elements of this are true. Let's assume that there was a $550 billion run, electronic run on the banks and money market accounts in one to two hours. The question is who was doing this? Who was withdrawing all this money? And the next question is why? That's where my mind starts exploding, and this is dangerous to have these explosions going this way. Could it have been George Soros? Could it have been a consortium of countries -- Russia, China, Venezuela -- countries that are eager to have Barack Obama elected because they know that will make it easier for them to continue their own foreign policies in the world? In the meantime, five-and-a-half billion dollars in one to two hours, that can probably be confirmed. The five-and-a-half trillion is speculation based on the rate at which money was coming out. We could check that the Fed stopped the trading windows, they closed the window. We do know they were pumping money into the system left and right. And remember when the Federal Reserve loaned elements, $2 trillion and we weren't told who got the money? And we still haven't been told who got the money.

No wonder Barack Obama says "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." Obviously Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, and they've quite possibly managed to get some astonishing things done.

I've begun to see a meme this week proposing the President's policies are fascist rather than socialist. In 1935, Mussolini wrote the following in The Doctrine of Fascism. Compare and contrast his policies to our current Administration's:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State--a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values--interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people. (p. 14)

The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State. (p. 41)

In 1935 Mussolini wrote the following in Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions:

The Corporate State and its Organization (p. 133)

The corporate State considers that private enterprise in the sphere of production is the most effective and usefu [sic] [typo-should be: useful] instrument in the interest of the nation. In view of the fact that private organisation of production is a function of national concern, the organiser of the enterprise is responsible to the State for the direction given to production.

State intervention in economic production arises only when private initiative is lacking or insufficient, or when the political interests of the State are involved. This intervention may take the form of control, assistance or direct management. (pp. 135-136)

Last but not least, here's Paul Kanjorski's interview with C-SPAN on January 26, 2008: