Ready for a market correction?

[Kiwon]

The Chinese through George Soros right? Sure baby.

No, the Chinese don't need George Soros' money to buy influence. They've been friends with the Clintons for a long time.

Where are busboys and dishwashers in NYC and mailmen (the Paw family) in California getting thousands of dollars to donate to the Clinton campaign? $380,000 in April alone from one Chinatown fundraising event.

Illegal aliens and others not registered to vote are often inclined on their own to fork over their hardearned money to a political candidate that they can't vote to elect. Oh no, nothing shady there.

You know that something stinks for both the L.A. Times and the Washington Post to actually report it.
.................................................. ......................................

Dishwashers for Clinton

Once again, a zeal for campaign cash trumps common sense.

Washington Post
Monday, October 22, 2007

DONORS WHOSE addresses turn out to be tenements. Dishwashers and waiters who write $1,000 checks. Immigrants who ante up because they have been instructed to by powerful neighborhood associations, or, as one said, "They informed us to go, so I went." Others who say they never made the contributions listed in their names or who were not eligible to give because they are not legal residents of the United States. This is the disturbingly familiar picture of Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign presented last week in a report by the Los Angeles Times about questionable fundraising by the New York senator in New York City's Chinese community. Out of 150 donors examined, one-third "could not be found using property, telephone or business records," the Times reported. "Most have not registered to vote, according to public records."

This appears to be another instance in which a Clinton campaign's zeal for campaign cash overwhelms its judgment. After the fundraising scandals of President Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign, the dangers of vacuuming cash from a politically inexperienced immigrant community should have been obvious. But Ms. Clinton's money machine seized on a new source of cash in Chinatown and environs. As the Times reported, a single Chinatown fundraiser in April brought in $380,000. By contrast, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry raised $24,000 from Chinatown in the course of his entire campaign.

As with the warnings it dismissed about the mega-bundles being brought in by fundraiser Norman Hsu, the Clinton campaign saw the red flags here. After the April fundraiser, when some of the donors' stated occupations seemed out of line with the amounts they were giving, the Clinton campaign wrote to contributors asking them to confirm that the money was their own. In the case of seven $1,000 contributions, donors did not respond and their checks were returned, according to the campaign. The campaign says that the others, including one who told the Times that he did not give the money, reaffirmed the legitimacy of their contributions.

[Freak Out]

So its ok for the Red Chinese to bankroll the country but not the Clintons?

[Kiwon]

So its ok for the Red Chinese to bankroll the country but not the Clintons?

Well, I'm all for a free market economy, but not quite that free. :P

What's slicker than Teflon? Bill and Hillary.

Check it Out

.................................................. ...............................
On another note..... this is a market correction thread.

The market had a brief dip only to return to record highs. This thing has been chuggling along through war, record oil prices, home loan defaults, some of the worst leadership in Congress ever, weakness in the dollar, etc.

When do you think the REAL market correction will take place? What will trigger it, Dr. Freak Out?

[MJZiggy]

Thank you George and Dick for helping to jack oil prices up to $90 + !

Who? George Feng and Dick Tiezhu? When you give credit you have to provide the full notation,

Wait 'til Hillary "Rob'em" Clinton becomes el-Presidente and Charles Rangel gets done with your taxes. You'll be paying more for gas and you can kiss your capital gains goodbye.

Damn....you've got her in the Whitehouse just a little early.....many things can happen on the way to the forum.
I wonder if the conventions in 2008 are going to be as pathetic as "reporting for duty" was in 2004?

She's already in, baby (unless Bill is a special guest in an yet to-be- released "Girls Gone Wild" tape and, even if he is, that is a resume enhancement in certain Democratic circles).

And Hillary's far too polished to repeat Lurch's "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty" opening. Her Hollywood friends would never let her embarrass herself that way. The Chinese dancers will be interesting, though. The Chinese government has already funneled enough money to her campaign to get a spot on the program.

Hold on to those Euros and gold. You'll need them as corporate America gets ready to take one on the chin via new taxes. Universal healthcare is free, right?

Maybe there'll be new taxes, but at least spending is likely to go down...


McClatchy Washington Bureau
Print This Article Print This Article

Posted on Wed, Oct. 24, 2007
Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ
David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: October 23, 2007 07:34:58 PM

WASHINGTON — George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he's arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.

“He’s a big government guy,” said Stephen Slivinski, the director of budget studies at Cato Institute, a libertarian research group.

The numbers are clear, credible and conclusive, added David Keating, the executive director of the Club for Growth, a budget-watchdog group.

“He’s a big spender,” Keating said. “No question about it.”

Take almost any yardstick and Bush generally exceeds the spending of his predecessors.

When adjusted for inflation, discretionary spending — or budget items that Congress and the president can control, including defense and domestic programs, but not entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare — shot up at an average annual rate of 5.3 percent during Bush’s first six years, Slivinski calculates.

That tops the 4.6 percent annual rate Johnson logged during his 1963-69 presidency. By these standards, Ronald Reagan was a tightwad; discretionary spending grew by only 1.9 percent a year on his watch.

Discretionary spending went up in Bush's first term by 48.5 percent, not adjusted for inflation, more than twice as much as Bill Clinton did (21.6 percent) in two full terms, Slivinski reports.

Defense spending is the big driver — but hardly the only one.

Under Bush it's grown on average by 5.7 percent a year. Under LBJ — who had a war to fund, too — it rose by 4.9 percent a year. Both numbers are adjusted for inflation.

Including costs for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense spending under Bush has gone up 86 percent since 2001, according to Chris Hellman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Current annual defense spending — not counting war costs — is 25 percent above the height of the Reagan-era buildup, Hellman said.

Homeland security spending also has soared, to about $31 billion last year, triple the pre-9/11 number.

But Bush's super-spending is about far more than defense and homeland security.

Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, points to education spending. Adjusted for inflation, it's up 18 percent annually since 2001, thanks largely to Bush’s No Child Left Behind act.

The 2002 farm bill, he said, caused agriculture spending to double its 1990s levels.

Then there was the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit — the biggest single expansion in the program’s history — whose 10-year costs are estimated at more than $700 billion.

And the 2005 highway bill, which included thousands of “earmarks,” or special local projects stuck into the legislation by individual lawmakers without review, cost $295 billion.

“He has presided over massive increases in almost every category … a dramatic change of pace from most previous presidents,” said Slivinski.

The White House counters by noting that Bush took office as the country was heading into a recession, then reeled from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“This president had to overcome some things that required additional spending,” said Sean Kevelighan, a White House budget office spokesman.

Bush does have other backers.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative research group, blamed a ravenous Congress that was eager to show constituents how generous it could be. (Republicans ran that Congress until January. Bush never vetoed a single GOP spending bill.)

The White House points out that, nearly four years ago, Bush vowed to cut the deficit in half by 2009, and he's well on his way to achieving that goal. The fiscal 2004 deficit was a record $412.7 billion; the 2007 figure plunged to $163 billion.

But the deficit drop may be fleeting, experts say, since lawmakers are likely to extend many of Bush’s tax cuts, which expire by the end of 2010, and the imminent retirement of the baby boom generation will send Medicare and Social Security costs soaring in the years ahead.

Now, near the end of the seventh year of his presidency, Bush is positioning himself as a tough fiscal conservative.

He says Congress is proposing to spend $22 billion more in fiscal 2008 than the $933 billion he requested for discretionary programs — and that the $22 billion extra would swell over five years to $205 billion.

Eventually, Bush said, “they’re going to have to raise taxes to pay for it.”

And so, the president told an Arkansas audience earlier this month, people should brace for “what they call a fiscal showdown in Washington.

“The Congress gets to propose and, if it doesn’t meet needs as far as I’m concerned, I get to veto,” he said. “And that’s precisely what I intend to do.”

Bush is getting tough on fiscal policy — after running up a record as the most profligate spender in at least 40 years.

“The spending did happen,” said Keating, “and a lot of it shouldn’t have happened.”

McClatchy Newspapers 2007

[Joemailman]

The Chinese through George Soros right? Sure baby.

No, the Chinese don't need George Soros' money to buy influence. They've been friends with the Clintons for a long time.

Where are busboys and dishwashers in NYC and mailmen (the Paw family) in California getting thousands of dollars to donate to the Clinton campaign? $380,000 in April alone from one Chinatown fundraising event.

Illegal aliens and others not registered to vote are often inclined on their own to fork over their hardearned money to a political candidate that they can't vote to elect. Oh no, nothing shady there.

You know that something stinks for both the L.A. Times and the Washington Post to actually report it.
.................................................. ......................................

Dishwashers for Clinton

Once again, a zeal for campaign cash trumps common sense.

Washington Post
Monday, October 22, 2007

DONORS WHOSE addresses turn out to be tenements. Dishwashers and waiters who write $1,000 checks. Immigrants who ante up because they have been instructed to by powerful neighborhood associations, or, as one said, "They informed us to go, so I went." Others who say they never made the contributions listed in their names or who were not eligible to give because they are not legal residents of the United States. This is the disturbingly familiar picture of Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign presented last week in a report by the Los Angeles Times about questionable fundraising by the New York senator in New York City's Chinese community. Out of 150 donors examined, one-third "could not be found using property, telephone or business records," the Times reported. "Most have not registered to vote, according to public records."

This appears to be another instance in which a Clinton campaign's zeal for campaign cash overwhelms its judgment. After the fundraising scandals of President Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign, the dangers of vacuuming cash from a politically inexperienced immigrant community should have been obvious. But Ms. Clinton's money machine seized on a new source of cash in Chinatown and environs. As the Times reported, a single Chinatown fundraiser in April brought in $380,000. By contrast, 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry raised $24,000 from Chinatown in the course of his entire campaign.

As with the warnings it dismissed about the mega-bundles being brought in by fundraiser Norman Hsu, the Clinton campaign saw the red flags here. After the April fundraiser, when some of the donors' stated occupations seemed out of line with the amounts they were giving, the Clinton campaign wrote to contributors asking them to confirm that the money was their own. In the case of seven $1,000 contributions, donors did not respond and their checks were returned, according to the campaign. The campaign says that the others, including one who told the Times that he did not give the money, reaffirmed the legitimacy of their contributions.

Stories like this are why a lot of people on he left don't want Hillary. However, Obama doesn't seem willing to take her on and point out that this kind of activity is more of the same. Obama wants to stay above the fray, but he'll have to get in the fray if he wants to win.

[Freak Out]

There really needs to be a salary cap on campaign $$$. Take the corruption and influence out of it.

[Kiwon]

Maybe there'll be new taxes, but at least spending is likely to go down...

Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ

That's exactly right. He's been spending like a Democrat and that's why he has lost the Republican base. He didn't pull out his veto pen until five years into his presidency.

However, the stock market has been cookin', interest rates are low, employment is high, investors are keeping more of their capital gains, and the IRS is collecting record revenues as are many state governments.

The Dems are going to let the cap gain tax cuts expire and raise taxes on global warming fears, to provide universal health care coverage, benefits for illegals, on and on. Oh yes, and of course, education. We never spend enough on education.

The Dems are going to raise taxes to not spend them?

Congress' approval rating is at 11 percent! Do you really want those guys to be stewards of YOUR money? Why not try to keep as much of it yourself rather than send it off to Washington?

[Joemailman]

Actually Kiwon, the problem is that Bush has been spending like a Republican. Over the last 30 years, it is Republican presidents who have produced the largest budget deficits. And we now now that it doesn't matter which party controls Congress:

http://www.futurepower.org/Deficits.gif

[HarveyWallbangers]

Actually Kiwon, the problem is that Bush has been spending like a Republican. Over the last 30 years, it is Republican presidents who have produced the largest budget deficits. And we now now that it doesn't matter which party controls Congress:

http://www.futurepower.org/Deficits.gif

I think it's funny when Democrats say this. Like it means that the Republicans are bigger spenders than Democrats. Deficit spending is spending more than the revenue you collect. If you collect more (e.g. collect significantly more in tax revenue), it stands to reason that deficit spending would be less likely. If not, you are really raping the people.

I agree that Bush spends too much. I agree that Democrats spend way too much, and more on the things that I don't want my money spent on.

Typical Republican recently:
Lower taxes, lower spending than Democrats (but still too friggin' much)

Typical Democrat forever:
Higher taxes, higher spending (but closer to their budget)

Personally, I'll take low taxes over a small deficit.

[Joemailman]

That's fine Harvey as long as you don't think there is anything wrong with burdening future generations with a huge national debt so that we can enjoy ourselves now.

[Kiwon]

That's fine Harvey as long as you don't think there is anything wrong with burdening future generations with a huge national debt so that we can enjoy ourselves now.

Joe, if sacrifice is what you want, then may I suggest you consider John Edwards.

He's got all kinds of plans for spending your money.
.................................................. ...........................................

John Edwards says if he's elected president, he'll institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity. To do it, he said, he'll ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes.

Edwards, a former Democratic senator from North Carolina, says the federal government should underwrite universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for low-income people, mandate a minimum wage of $9.50 and provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor. He also pledged to start a government-funded public higher education program called "College for Everyone."

(edit)

At every stop, Edwards said, he tells voters he'll ask them to sacrifice. Asked to describe what he means, he described his plan for increases in capital gains taxes, saying taxes on "wealth income" should be in line with those on work income.

"I think if we want to fund the things that I think are important to share in prosperity, then people who have done well in this country, including me, have more of a responsibility to give back," he said. Later, he added: "There are no free meals."

(edit)

Both Edwards and Clinton have proposed universal health care plans that mandate insurance for everyone, while Obama has proposed a plan that requires coverage only for children. Edwards, who was first to propose a plan, called Clinton's a "carbon copy" of his but said he is better positioned to negotiate because he has the "clean hands of not taking money from lobbyists."

"Senator Clinton has over the years has taken millions of dollars from lobbyists and defends the status quo system," he said. "She just basically says the system works and her argument is, 'I'm experienced, I can operate within the system.' "

Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand questioned the line Edwards has drawn. He takes money from state lobbyists and from a variety of industry groups; according to a Washington Post roundup, he's taken more than $8 million this year from lawyers and law firms, including some that also employ lobbyists.

(edit - end)

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071026/FRONTPAGE/710260384

[mraynrand]

Lower taxes does NOT mean lower tax revenues. In fact, it is the exact opposite. As taxes are reduced (down to about 10-15% tax rate), the economy will continue to be stimulated, and taxes on the increased earnings EVEN AT the lower tax rate reaps higher revenues. That's why the annual budget deficit has been dramatically reduced over the past several years (this is the budget deficit, not the national debt). The national debt, as a function of GDP, is actually very low.

Clearly the government spends too much - like 280 billion over 5 years (just passed!) on the Agricultural Bill - that's almost 60bil per year on mostly the top 10% of ag earners. WTF? And people complain about the 100bil/yr on Iraq and Afghanistan. Entitlement programs go for about 600bil/year, yet people want to expand S-CHIP into the middle class. Bush wanted to expand it by 5bil, but it wasn't enough - the dems wanted 'free' health ins for people earning 2x poverty and above up to 60 and 80 K depending on the state. Any of you know the reason many people who qualify for S-CHIP don't get it? They don't sign up. If they want the coverage, it's there for them. Even if not, hospitals (in general) will not turn them away if uninsured. The children are covered.

The dems are a real problem for the economy, because they want everything controlled through the government. It's really that simple. HillBilly really thinks government can make better choices for your health care than you. HillBilly really thinks government can make better choices for your earnings than you - that's why they want to tax and redistribute more - even to people who don't actually need it.

[Freak Out]

Crude oil climbed above $93 a barrel for the first time

The Associated Press
Monday, October 29, 2007

SINGAPORE: Crude oil climbed above $93 a barrel on Monday for the first time, extending this month's gain to 16 percent, after Mexico shut a fifth of its production and the dollar fell to a record low.

The state-owned Petróleos Mexicanos, one of the three largest suppliers of crude to the United States, halted output of about 600,000 barrels a day because of storms, a spokesman, Carlos Ramirez, said in Mexico City.

The euro rose to $1.4426, the strongest level ince the introduction of the 13-nation common currency in 1999. The dollar's descent against major currencies has drawn investors to crude futures as a hedge against the weakening currency and made dollar-denominated oil futures less expensive to people dealing in other currencies.

Crude oil for December delivery rose as much as $1.34, or 1.5 percent, to an all-time high of $93.20 a barrel in after- hours electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was at $92.71 by early evening in Singapore.

"The momentum for $100 crude is strong," said Dariusz Kowalczyk, chief investment strategist with CFC Seymour in Hong Kong. "With a lot of physical risks and the supply disruption, we should move higher."

Crude has jumped 52 percent this year, driven by concern that demand for heating fuel during the peak winter demand will draw down U.S. oil inventories. Tensions between Turkey and Iraq over Kurdish militants as well as U.S. sanctions over Iran's nuclear program have also helped drive oil prices higher.

Mexico produces about 3.1 million barrels of crude oil a day. About 80 percent of the output is from the Gulf of Mexico, according to Petróleos Mexicanos, known as Pemex.

The company shut output of 200,000 barrels at noon New York time Sunday and was planning to idle wells that produce a further 400,000 barrels by midnight Sunday in Mexico, said Ramirez, the company spokesman. The wells are to be closed until at least Tuesday, Ramirez said, without elaborating.

The closure was in the Bay of Campeche, the same area where 21 workers died after another storm last week caused an oil rig to hit a platform.

The decline in the dollar is helping lift crude oil prices, said Rowan Menzies, an analyst at Commodity Warrants Australia in Sydney. The dollar fell to its lowest level against the euro on speculation that the U.S. Federal Reserve would cut interest rates this week as a U.S. housing slump threatens economic growth.

"The U.S. dollar is going down at a rate of knots," Menzies said. "You've seen inflation-linked buying across the commodities, in oil, gold, silver and grains."

Oil prices have passed the previous all-time, inflation-adjusted record reached in 1981, when Iran cut exports. The cost of oil used by U.S. refiners averaged $37.48 a barrel in March 1981, the Energy Department said, or $84.73 in today's money.

The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, warned Saturday that his country might order wider military attacks against the group's camps if needed, according to Turkish media. Turkey said it bombed guerrilla units in northern Iraq last week and sent troops across the border in pursuit of the militants.

On Friday, the United States accused the Iranian military of supporting terrorism and announced new sanctions on the country. The United States wants Iran to halt uranium enrichment that it suspects is a cover for developing nuclear weapons.

Iran is still "at least a few years away" from being able to build a nuclear bomb, and there is time for diplomacy to head off a military confrontation, the head of the United Nations nuclear agency said Sunday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, said on CNN that he had not seen "any concrete evidence" of a secret Iranian weapons program.

[swede]

The International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, said on CNN that he had not seen "any concrete evidence" of a secret Iranian weapons program.

Stand down, America. Mohamed AlBaradei told CNN there is no concrete evidence of any secret Iranian Weapons Program.

The military-industrial complex gets in so much trouble by not watching Anderson Cooper regularly.

[Freak Out]

The International Atomic Energy Agency chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, said on CNN that he had not seen "any concrete evidence" of a secret Iranian weapons program.

Stand down, America. Mohamed AlBaradei told CNN there is no concrete evidence of any secret Iranian Weapons Program.

The military-industrial complex gets in so much trouble by not watching Anderson Cooper regularly.

I knew you guys would get a kick out of that line. You always focus on the good news!