Hi Everyone,
I have blogged about this problem before, but it never seems to stop. When will this stop? What I am talking about is when politicians state, for lack of better words......... outright lies and then protray those statements as the truth; their truth.
Case in point is on August 17th, Presidential candidate, Republican, Texas Governor Rick Perry said the following, and I quote; "The Federal Reserve should open their books up, they should be transparent so the American people know what they are doing. It would go a long way toward either finding out whether or not there is some activities that are improper, or that they've been handling themselves quite well. But until they do that, I think there will continue to be questions about their activity and what their true goal is for the United States."
News flash... according to today's Gannet paper, the Fed has become one of the most transparent agencies in government. Its' books are open. It publishes its' balance sheet every week, which tells us how much the Fed has lent out to banks, how many bonds it has accumulated and how much money the banks are parking at the Fed. The weekly report doesn't say which banks got the loans. But the Dodd-Frank Act ordered a complete audit of the Fed's activities during the 2008 financial crisis, including the banks it helped and how much it gave to them.
FYI, the congressional Government Accountability Office has the authority to go back and audit the Fed's books again and again. The law also requires the Fed itself to disclose details of its emergency loans with a delay.
So here we have a seemingly intelligent politician making a statement that is totally false, but he continues to try to pass off his lie as the truth; his truth. If a politician makes an inaccurate statement, common sense dictates that he/she should apologize for the mistake and move on. Unfortunatley, that is not how the political game is played. Obviously, common sense would and should also dictate that one should not lie, ever. It will come back to bite you.
Unfortunately, Perry added more salt to his self inflicted wound by saying that Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve Chairman's actions border on treason. What? Does Perry even understand the definition of treason? Obviously not since he made the outrageous statement.
Should politicians who blatantly lie be trusted? I think not, but the voters will make up their minds at the polls.
Til next week...
Peter
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Who Is Right?
Hi Everyone:
Today's blog is a continuation of last week's. As the discussions regarding increasing our debt ceiling and decreasing our expenses was approved last week, it is painfully obvious that not enough was done since Standard and Poor's lowered our country's credit rating from AAA to AA+. During the debate, both side were throwing around numbers and using them to their own advantage. So which side is right?
A reader of my blog and a very good friend to boot, sent me a link to the Atlantic's article that was published in the New York Times last week. The article is about a chart that shows the costs of policy changes under Presidents Obama and Bush. Per the article: The chart is based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorites. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. The chart identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and the Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks - like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. The cost of new policies from the Bush era is $5.07 trillion and the Obama era is $1.44 trillion. The point is that governments can respond to but not control external shocks. That's why they are called shocks. But, governments can control their policies.
During the debate on raising the ceiling and lowering expenses, both sides used so many numbers that it was mind numbing. According to the chart, the policy that did the most to magnify future deficits is the Bush-era tax cuts. But that isn't the case with the Republicans. They think that the cuts have helped our economy. By the end of the Bush administration, there were millions of jobs lost with a negative total over his tow terms. Remember the old saying: you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. It amazes me how parties spin everything to help showcase their position. You should check out the chart and you will understand the truth.
You can read the article and see the chart at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
Now you can see for yourself the real numbers and then you can make up your own mind. It seems that the Bush-era tax cuts have not worked and will not work, but will cost our economy dearly for years to come, unless they are eliminated. You can not balance a budget with cuts that affect only the middle class and to those most in need. The wealthy must pay their fair share, which they are not doing now. When will common sense be used solely to make decisions and not a spin version with made up facts? That is just so wrong!!!
Til next week.
Peter
Today's blog is a continuation of last week's. As the discussions regarding increasing our debt ceiling and decreasing our expenses was approved last week, it is painfully obvious that not enough was done since Standard and Poor's lowered our country's credit rating from AAA to AA+. During the debate, both side were throwing around numbers and using them to their own advantage. So which side is right?
A reader of my blog and a very good friend to boot, sent me a link to the Atlantic's article that was published in the New York Times last week. The article is about a chart that shows the costs of policy changes under Presidents Obama and Bush. Per the article: The chart is based on data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorites. Its significance is not partisan (who's "to blame" for the deficit) but intellectual. The chart identifies policy changes, the things over which Congress and the Administration have some control, as opposed to largely external shocks - like the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks or the deep worldwide recession following the 2008 financial crisis. The cost of new policies from the Bush era is $5.07 trillion and the Obama era is $1.44 trillion. The point is that governments can respond to but not control external shocks. That's why they are called shocks. But, governments can control their policies.
During the debate on raising the ceiling and lowering expenses, both sides used so many numbers that it was mind numbing. According to the chart, the policy that did the most to magnify future deficits is the Bush-era tax cuts. But that isn't the case with the Republicans. They think that the cuts have helped our economy. By the end of the Bush administration, there were millions of jobs lost with a negative total over his tow terms. Remember the old saying: you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. It amazes me how parties spin everything to help showcase their position. You should check out the chart and you will understand the truth.
You can read the article and see the chart at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
Now you can see for yourself the real numbers and then you can make up your own mind. It seems that the Bush-era tax cuts have not worked and will not work, but will cost our economy dearly for years to come, unless they are eliminated. You can not balance a budget with cuts that affect only the middle class and to those most in need. The wealthy must pay their fair share, which they are not doing now. When will common sense be used solely to make decisions and not a spin version with made up facts? That is just so wrong!!!
Til next week.
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)