Here we are on the eve of the Presidents ‘State of the Union’ address, which should prove mind numbing as I will explain later, along with a host of other exciting events on Capitol Hill. We will see testimony from a few important figures from 2008 regarding the credit crisis, how they cannot figure out the cause is really beyond me as my 9 year old can recite the causes, but that is your government at work. While I fully expect to hear, during the Congressional hearings, ‘we did everything right and we would do it again ,‘ like they would admit that they screwed up. The President will give the usual speech tonight, the state of the union is strong, but we need to do work, a complete contradiction of reality I can assure you.
We will also hear the President talk about fiscal responsibility, which is a complete joke, as he talks about the massive $250B 10 year spending freeze in government, after he increased spending in those same departments 40% last year. Basically, the President is saying we will save $250B over 10 years, but those spending increases from last year will cost $1.3T, or so. With numbers like those I can assure you the media will not talk about the total hypocrisy of the spending freeze. I am sure we will hear about how well things have ‘improved’ from last year when he inherited this mess, the public is getting tired of that line Mr. President, and keep this in mind, ‘improved’ is a relative term and more politically correct than true for the average American.
A twist will be the indication that Mr. Obama ‘heard’ the public with the MA Brown victory, but he is still not listening. Like him or hate him there is one fact that cannot be ignored, Obama is tone deaf to the public and his arrogance is overwhelming, dare I say more than Bush’s? The point is that he may have ‘heard’ Americans, but he still will not listen to them which will cost him in the upcoming elections. Let’s face the facts, Obama campaigned for 3 Democrats and all 3 Democrats lost and he thinks it is not a repudiation of his policies? Sorry Mr. President, but 3 strikes and you are out. Like most Americans I like Obama on a personal level, but that is not the same thing as endorsing his policies or being blind to the fact that his policies are not working. Hell, Ted Bundy by all accounts was a likeable guy, but few people would want to be roommates with the guy.
No matter what the rhetoric is from tonight’s speech I can assure you that it is going to be meaningless and tone deaf to what is really needed for the country. What is also clear, to me at least, is that fiscal responsibility does not exist and the only things to cut are social programs, labeled ‘entitlement programs.’ It is only a matter of time that Social Security and Medicare benefits are reduced or altered, it needs to be done, but I do have a problem with that. The thing about entitlement programs is that every time you get paid a piece of your money goes into those entitlement programs. In other words, you already paid for these programs through years of work.
The irony is this, we know that these programs were not funded properly and they are broke, even though we put such a large portion of our checks into them every week, but Obama seems to think national or single payer health care is viable. How can any single payer or national health care be viable is Medicare and Social Security are bust and why would any trust the government after 2 large examples of, essentially, failed programs? I am not saying get rid of the 2 programs, the opposite is true, as these programs helped millions of Americans survive, literally, retirement. What I am saying is that these two programs are broke and if these programs, which pays benefits out to those 60 and older, cannot support that segment of the population how in the world can over 300M people get insurance from the government and not have that program blow up? It is not possible, sorry.
Regardless, the President is showing zero sign of fiscal responsibility as his $1.35T budget shows. What I found interesting is that the CBO came out with a damning report on the deficits which got a little air time, but not as much as it should have. However, even the CBO has the projects rosier than what is likely to happen. They actually predict that the deficits will shrink as the Bush tax cuts expire, this is true, for year 1 after the cuts expire. However, we know from history that as taxes go up revenues go down because the ‘wealthy,’ who are the enemy of the state now, decide to earn less because it will eventually be equally as profitable for them to earn less so they can keep more, this is why tax hikes never work long-term. However, that logic is lost on people who care to ignore both history and economics.
The good news is that real tax hikes will not take place until this fall, after the mid-term elections. Now, as far as the whole repayment of TARP tax proposed by Obama, that is a joke because TARP was paid back by most major banks. However, Detroit will likely never payback what they owe, how can they when unions now have board seats? Unions are the ones who killed Detroit to begin with, that is another argument though. The fact is that TARP, a Bush solution, worked, as much as I hate it, and if Obama stuck with only banks receiving it then it would have been profitable. However, now banks have to pay for Detroit which is about par for the administration, blame everyone else but themselves and make others pay for their pet project failures.
I am not sure how the President can claim everything is fine when all the economic data, bad data I mean, is coming home to roost. Unemployment is going to move higher as initial claims increase and the GDP figures, minus government transfers, will show horrible organic growth. We are not out of the woods yet, but everyone is acting like we are.
Everyone remembers the aftermath of 9/11/01 and how horrible those days were, but what sticks out in my mind, after the obvious, was what happened after words. The President said to get out and shop, and boy did we, but the thing most do not recall is what the auto industry did to boost sales, 0% financing. This was the beginning of the end for the auto industry simply because how can you ever raise financing costs after you go to 0%. The demand that 0% financing created meant that the automakers would have a heck of a time raising those rates and they needed the sales. It essentially created a major problem for the industry which help speed its way into bankruptcy.
We are seeing the same thing happen in housing with all the government help being injected into the market. We have tax credits to encourage buying, but we also see what the market looks like without those credits, see recent home sales data, and we have the Fed lowering mortgage rates like mad with QE. What happens when/if these programs stop? It will get ugly, just like when the automakers tried to stop 0% financing. If you do not let the markets work their magic, i.e. stop malinvestments, the pain is just prolonged. GM and Chrysler should have gone out of business a few years ago but that 0% financing helped keep them around, however it could not stop the inevitable.
The mistakes made by the automakers are being made by the government with the housing market. Homeowners already enjoy a ton of tax breaks, mortgage interest deductions, property tax deductions, etc. and the last thing they really needed was a tax credit to buy a home. It has helped, the data shows that, but the problem is these programs have to end and then what happens? As we have seen already, with limited data of course, is that housing does not move without that tax credit. Sure we can blame the weather or whatever external force we want, but that is ignoring the obvious, housing wants to go lower. That leads me to believe that more tax credits are on the way and QE is a permanent fixture at the Fed, see Japan.
When you incentivize buying to such a degree you create a major problem for yourself, or the country in this case, as you boost expectations on false hope. Once you remove those incentives and reality sets in you are stuck with doing nothing, clearly something government does not want to do now, or let the market sort things out, what should happen. Because the government has created false hope for a housing recovery they have created more problems than they solved. The sales we do see now are false demand, meaning it is only there because of the rich incentives, which means that many economists and market participants are creating strategies or projections around numbers that are not real. The fact is that without a natural housing recovery the economy cannot recover.
While the insane 0% financing hastened the decline of the automakers into bankruptcy, in my opinion, the government is simply slowing the fall of housing or kicking the can down the road a bit. The good news is that at least the incentives will not cause the government to go into bankruptcy, well on their own at least, but it is an enormous waste of money. The government should step back and stop what they are doing and the Fed needs to stop its QE program. If neither stop and they continue doing this the next leg down will be ugly and, the reality is, we do not need more incentives to buy houses, look at the tax breaks you get now. False demand creates false hope which lures investors into investments they ordinarily would not buy. When that false demand and hope disappear those investments decline in value, investors are being suckered.
There is a lot of hot air coming out of Washington and the press about who saved the financial system over the past few months. The White House claims they saved the system, the press agrees, and others say Ben Bernanke saved the system, even though he caused or helped cause the problems. Others in Congress believe that they helped save the system, who knows how they think that. Out of all of these credit seeking entities it does raise the question of who really saved the system, for now.
As far as the White House is concerned, I cannot think of one legislative item they produced in the past year that directly did anything for the banking system, but they demand credit for the save. The fact of the matter is that TARP, for all of its flaws, did save the system and that was a Bush era solution. Obama and Geithner simply imposed a ‘stress’ test for the banking system, just an FYI on the stress test, we surpassed the ‘rigid demands of that test’ as far as unemployment and other economic hardships. It is safe to assume that the stress tests were a joke and meaningless other than a confidence booster. Outside of that particular item the administration simply spent trillions on pet projects through the stimulus bill, which is clearly a failure, and that is it. Obama had nothing to do with saving the system outside of his vote for TARP, period.
To think Obama or any Congress person did anything else to save the system is pure partisan politics. I am fine with people giving the credit to Obama, because it proves my point that people do not follow what is really going on and have the attention span of a nat. However, this is a double edge sward because nothing has changed within the system itself so are they going to take credit when this thing falls apart? I doubt it, but it will be interesting to watch them weasel their way out of it. It is also clear that the latest proposal to separate prop trading from banks proves that the current administration does not and never did understand what caused the problems to begin with. In short, they are empty on intellectual knowledge and packed full of the people who helped create the problem so they are all simply doing a major CYA right now.
Congress has done nothing for the system, sure we got show trials, but they just threw a bond broker in jail for selling AAA rated securities, talk about misplaced blame! The reality is one person saved the system, in my opinion, Ben Bernanke. Now, just because I am giving him credit for the save it does not mean I like him or his policies. Yes, he cleaned up, or started to, his own mess, but make no mistake about it, he caused or helped create the current mess. Ben denies that he had any responsibility in making the mess, but he did as he endorsed, feverishly, low interest rates for a prolonged period of time during the early 2000’s. He actively endorsed QE by other countries and, now, the US and did not realize that housing prices increasing at 10-20% a year were a bad thing, huh?
Ben did save the system, but he also is responsible for its demise at the same time, so how much credit can you really give him? I do not think Ben should be reappointed as he clearly has no forward looking vision as far as potential trouble in the economy. That is one reason why I find it funny that Ben ‘sees no bubbles’ in the US markets or economy now. Yes, I believe equities are in a bubble, I have always believed that, since there was no real fundamental reason for the markets to go from the March lows to 1,150 on the S&P and 10,600 on the Dow. The markets were due for a bounce as stocks were pricing in a financial system collapse, but not all the way back up to current levels. As it turns out we might be at the precipice of the much anticipated correction now, a weak currency and massive pumping up of the monetary system is not a good thing over the long-term and is why we saw such a rally.
Regardless, Ben believes the market’s reaction is normal which can be interpreted many different ways, the conspiracy minded will say that confirms the Fed is buying S&P futures, but I read it as Bernanke is just oblivious to reality as the market grinded its way higher, with no volume or flows from retail investors, away from the economic reality of the times. Green shoots are everywhere according to Ben, but consumer credit is contracting, housing is being propped up, unemployment is grinding higher, the national debt is increasing a scary rate, Greece, Ireland, and other European countries are on the verge of default, Dubai did default, banks will not lend and hiring is minuscule at best. Sure we saw some GDP growth, government induced, and some areas, technology, look promising, but other than that there is no fundamental good economic data to support the current market levels.
It is clear that the pricing in of all the good news has already happened, Intel released good earnings and it sold off, the same with IBM and a host of other firms. Just because the market goes up does not mean everything is fine or that the market is forward looking, it is not. If the market was a good forward indicator we would not have sharp corrections because the market would always know in advance. If the market was forward looking we would not have seen the Dow hit 14,000 in the fall of 2007 when all the warning signs were clear as a bell, the Fed was dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the overnight markets. What I am saying is I am happy if you are long and made money, but just because you made money and the market is trading at irrational levels it does not mean it is correct. The market is also not a forward looking instrument, so stop saying it is.
At the end of the day it was only Ben who saved the system pushing rates to zero, putting together those funding programs, TALF and such, but he did this at a price. By moving rates to zero he forced savers out of secure investments into higher risk assets so firms can refinance their garbage and give it to safety seeking investors because they have nowhere to turn for yield. Ben has expanded the balance sheet to new weekly records for the past year and it will continue to grow indefinitely, at this rate. Ben has started QE and it looks like he cannot stop those programs without a huge amount of pain to everyone, so it will continue forever. Ben has risked the entire future of the USA by putting the central bank in a position to permanently devalue the dollar, part of the ultimate goal I might add, and by taking excessive credit risk.
Ben just might have put the country at greater risk than the banks did in the previous 10 years. While I know deflation is in the works for the foreseeable future it is only a matter of time before inflation does hit or we are forced to openly devalue the dollar. All because Ben saved the system for a few bankers who we could have lived without as smaller institutions would have stepped up to the plate. To re-nominate this guy is the single worst idea I have ever heard. To give credit to Obama for saving the system is laughable at best, just because we want to have a beer with the guy does not change the fact that his policies are horrible and he has done nothing in his first year in office. We have to stop being influenced by what we want to believe and look at the facts on the ground. Those facts tell us Washington and the Fed have failed, end of story.
As I have stated previously, the decline in claims was primarily because of seasonal holiday hiring’s, but we know that seasonal hiring’s will always come to an end. All of the V shapers out there had been on their bandwagon about how temporary workers were a bullish trend, I took the other side of that trade. It looks as though I was correct, so far.
It was not hard to figure out when Best Buy said that they were going to increase hiring for the holiday season, but they even said it was going to be temporary hiring. Other firms made similar claims in the retail sector and, frankly, why in the world why any company, whether in manufacturing or in retail, hire anyone full-time right now? Demand is not there, if it were pricing power would be alive and well, it is not, and there is simply too much uncertainty about the ‘recovery.’ No one will hiring when the government is talking about higher taxes and a new mandate for health insurance. Couple that with really bad consumer demand and you have a perfect storm for really bad employment numbers in the short-term.
Maybe this will change now that Washington is worried about their jobs come November, if MA can go red, any state can go red. However, their damage is done and we know what they want to do which means employers will not hiring permanently until they are sure about the legislative agenda, in their minds at least, will be less anti-business. However, government is only part of the problem the real problem is the economy, stupid, it is still in bad shape and not getting much better. I agree that the data is a whole lot better than a year ago, we all agree about that, but less bad is not good and I am not sure how that got confused.
We will not have confirmation of my thesis for a few weeks, we need to see a trend and we need to see January’s employment report. However, the DOL report showed some confirmation as one state boldly said, a “Increase (increase means more unemployed) due to holiday shutdowns.” There were also a bunch of no comments, not unusual, but I am willing to bet it is or has something to do with the temporary hiring for seasonal help. The bottom line is that unemployment is a huge leading indicator, I have never changed my view on this, and the higher the number gets the worse its impact will be on the economy in the medium term.
According to Mr., and I use that term loosely, Olbermann, if you are a pickup truck owner, like trucks, against bigger governments or, apparently, a white guy you are a racist. Hey, don’t yell at me, he said it and makes the suggestion and I just tell you about it since his audience consists of me and 2 other people locked in a basement somewhere. In fact, MSNBC has been playing the race card for the past year now asking how race relations have changed over the past year.
The irony is that I rarely if ever think about race of individuals at all and I don’t think most people do except those baiting for a fight, MSNBC in this case. I never even hear Fox make much reference to race, but MSNBC brings it up all the time, why? How in the world can race be more important than a person’s beliefs or policies? You see, that is what I pay attention to, what people say and do, not what color they are. I simply do not care what color people are, but apparently the progressive, liberal, MSNBC does and yet I am supposed to be the racists. No, I do not own a pickup truck, but I am a white guy and I detest big government, uh oh!
I am only boosting Keith’s ratings tonight because I want to see his face if/when Brown wins, he called brown a racists, homophobe (spelling??), bigot, sexist, and on and on while completely ignoring Coakley’s willingness to let a pedophile go free because of political ties. Of course, all Democrats seem to ignore things like this, don’t worry Republicans seem to ignore the tax cheats and corruptness of their friends to, but at least they are not touching little kids, except for Foley, even then the kid wasn’t 2. Regardless, the hypocrisy of the Democrats is, in my opinion, so much worse than the Republicans in 2006.
I recently wrote a liberal and asked if he knew why Obama received $23M from Wall Street, more than most other candidates, he did not know. I told him it is because most Democrats are too stupid to understand how Wall Street works and that is why the likes of Goldman give the Democrats more money than Republicans. Of course, the media and Democrats say Republicans are for Wall Street, but that is simply a lie. Proof of this is no further than Freddie and Fannie who gave massive amounts of money to, guess who? Democrats. Guess which party blocked attempts to regulate the GSE’s? Exactly.
Anyhow, I guess if you believe in the Tea Party movement, what a dumb name anyhow, you are a racist. That may come as a surprise to many of the black people I saw at the rallies, on TV, not in person. I just cannot get over the fact that these idiots on TV sit there and called protestors in 2004 patriots then, but now they are racist “tea baggers,” which by the way is a crude term for when a man sticks his you know what’s in someone else’s mouth, now you know and now you know the intellectual level of MSNBC hosts. What these idiots on TV do not get is that people are hurting, broke and see the level of corruption and spending in Washington from the people who were supposed to be “on their side” and all that spending and corruption never trickled down to the people, just to unions and, well we really don’t know where now, do we?
What Keith and the other idiots on MSNBC also do not realize is that is that Democrats had control of Congress since 2006 and only increased their margin of control in 2008. Knowing that fact, who do you think really owns the financial crisis? Sure, Bush owns a big chunk of it, but the Democrats own way more than they will ever admit to. Those are the little facts that the talking heads and Democrats want you to forget about, but how could anyone really forget that? I guess if you say it was the other guys fault enough times people will, but in time people will remember.
In the meantime, brown is kicking the snot out of Coakley and it looks like Ted’s seat is going to a Republican, he must be mortified wherever he is. I am willing to bet the market rallies tomorrow, but this is not good news for the market because this means spending is going to be reigned in, to a degree. I would not be a buyer tomorrow, but this makes me like utilities more and biotech along with other select healthcare stocks. If Coakley wins, I am buying insurers.
Feedback