Unsustainable?

From Bloomberg.com;

“We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,” Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. “We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.”

Really? Barrack Obama says that we are spending uncontrollably? NOOOOO! NEVER! Hey,why don't you try practicing what you preach, chump.




































Barack Obama - Do as he says, not as he does.

Bill Miller Interview Podcast

There were 4 people who at one time or another were in the hauler. There was myself and Bill of course, then also, my dad was sitting in since he was at the races with me, and at one point Bill's wife came in for a minute. And no, the loud blurps are not farts. This was done in Bill's Hauler in the pits before the first round of qualifying on Saturday, and the funny cars were preparing to run, and were testing the engines. So, for everyone...enjoy!

Interview Link

Obama Wants Government To Control Bank Policies

Via The Hill;

President Obama showed his hand this week when The New York Times wrote that he is considering converting the stock the government owns in our country’s banks from preferred stock, which it now holds, to common stock.

This seemingly insignificant change is momentous. It means that the federal government will control all of the major banks and financial institutions in the nation. It means socialism.

The Times dutifully dressed up the Obama plan as a way to avoid asking Congress for more money for failing banks. But the implications of the proposal are obvious to anyone who cares to look.

When the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) intervention was first outlined by the Bush administration, it did not call for any transfer of stock, of any sort, to the government. The Democrats demanded, as a price for their support, that the taxpayers “get something back” for the money they were lending to the banks. House Republicans, wise to what was going on, rejected the administration’s proposal and sought, instead, to provide insurance to banks, rather than outright cash. Their plan would, of course, not involve any transfer of stock. But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) undercut his own party’s conservatives and went along with the Democratic plan, ensuring its passage.

But to avoid the issue of a potential for government control of the banks, everybody agreed that the stock the feds would take back in return for their money would be preferred stock, not common stock. “Preferred” means that these stockholders get the first crack at dividends, but only common stockholders can actually vote on company management or policy. Now, by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.

And whoever controls the banks controls the credit and, therefore, the economy. That’s called socialism.

Obama is dressing up the idea of the switch to common stock by noting that the conversion would provide the banks with capital they could use without a further taxpayer appropriation. While this is true, it flies in the face of the fact that an increasing number of big banks and brokerage houses are clamoring to give back the TARP money. Goldman-Sachs, for example, wants to buy back its freedom, as do many banks. Even AIG is selling off assets to dig its way out from under federal control. The reason, of course, is that company executives do not like the restrictions on executive pay and compensation that come with TARP money. It is for this reason that Chrysler Motors refused TARP funds.

With bank profits up and financial institutions trying to give back their money, there is no need for the conversion of the government stock from preferred to common — except to advance the political socialist agenda of this administration.

Coming Soon To RSBC...

While attending the Summit Racing Equipment Southern Nationals, I got to interview Business Owner and Top Fuel Owner Bill Miller of Bill Miller Engineering!

As soon as I can get it uploaded, I will have the 45 minute interview on a podcast!

WAY TO GO OBAMA!!

President Obama is going to cut $100 Million out of department budgets!!!

OH MY GOD THAT'S SO AMAZING!

And now, he only has the other 99.99% of the $1,300,000,000,000 deficit to get rid of!

Seriously? This administration is going to make a big hooplah about reducing 0.01% of the budget shortfall for this year?

To put it in perspective, If Barack was buying a $1,000 HDTV, he would have bargained the salesman down a DIME.

Now that we know how AWESOME of a negotiator the president is, let's see how well he convinces Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to cut out the Anti-Semitic rhetoric at meetings meant to eliminate racism.

*Insert obvious sarcastic applause*

This Goes Too Far

This is just not cool.

"Beyond AIG: A Bill to let Big Government Set Your Salary"

It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)

Three words come to mind when I hear this...

OH...MY...GOD....

You Knew It Was Coming Eventually

All of that money for the bail-out had to come from somewhere...

China "worried" about US Treasury Holdings

$2 TRILLION in U.S. debt to China. They have a reason to be worried. If something were to happen and the US defaulted on those loans, there would be at least 2 crippled countries.

SERIOUSLY?

The Obama team is going to make retired veterans use private insurance to pay for service related injuries.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance.
But the proposal would be "dead on arrival" if it's sent to Congress, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, said.

...Currently, veterans' private insurance is charged only when they receive health care from the VA for medical issues that are not related to service injuries, like getting the flu.

In the words of Hot Air...
"Most politically tone-deaf proposal ever."

Going Galt?

In the book Atlas Shrugged, executives, and other leaders and innovators are becoming harder to find. They are objecting to the government's move towards socialism and statism, and to protest are no longer helping to pay for the government.

In the book, as these people leave employment and the government's revenue drops, the society begins to collapse.

Something like that is not too far off.

New York City has almost 9 million citizens, and according to Mayor Mike Bloomberg, 40,000 of those residents pay 50% of the total taxes the city takes in. This isn't only income taxes, but this is also sales taxes, property taxes, and corporate taxes. The thing people forget when they hear this "40,000 people pay 50% of taxes" is that chances are, the CEO's not only pay a ton in income taxes, but they also likely live in the city in a purchased condo/penthouse that they have to pay property taxes on. They also probably own the building that their business is in, and have to pay property taxes on that. Then they have to pay any form of corporate taxes and such to the city.

So yes, 40,000 people CAN and DO pay 50% of NYC taxes.

And if you don't think that those people might be looking to move to, say, Florida, just look at California. Start Thinking Right has a great piece on the subject and quotes the California Business Roundtable's findings;

1. The cost of doing business in California is 30 percent higher than the western-state average.

2. Almost 40 percent of the California decision-makers participating in the Roundtable survey plan to “outsource” jobs from California to other western states, preferably Texas.

3. Half of the companies have “explicit policies to halt employment growth in California while less than five percent of companies have retention policies in place to keep jobs in California.”

4. Last, California’s “regulatory environment is the most costly, complex and uncertain in the nation.” Regulatory costs are 105 percent higher in California than in other western states.

Outsourcing from one country to another is as legitimate as outsourcing from one state to another. It’s a principle from Econ 101. And, it works: Just monitor California.

Or, people could just use their wealth and stop working. I know if I were that wealthy, I could find something to occupy my time.

New "Compromise" Reached

The "Bi-partisan" stimulus package (which republican conferees were frozen out of) which is estimated to produce 3.5 million jobs has reached a "tentative deal."

$789.5 Billion.

That amounts to $225,571.43 of government spending for each job that "should be produced."

Let's look at that $789,500,000,000 to "create 3,5000,000 jobs."



From Congress Daily, via Michelle Malkin;

It appears that Pelosi and Reid staff met all through the night in secret with Democratic conferees’ staff to cobble together the “stimulus” conference report. Republican conferees were frozen out.
The objective appears to be to produce a final conference report on the trillion-dollar spending bill by this afternoon so that floor action can take place in both chambers by Thursday.
They intend to ram this trillion-dollar spending bill through with as little debate and scrutiny as possible.
The House voted unanimously yesterday in support of a Republican measure stating that the American should have 48 hrs to review the bill prior to passage. Will Democrats follow through? Or will they do the opposite of what they voted to do yesterday?

Red State has more.