Obama's [Goldman Sachs'] Shell Game

Actually, it should read US Government  (c) Google

Click here for related story [Washington Post]


We are pleased to learn that the Goldman Sachs Administration [excuse me, the Obama Administration] is revisiting FDR's Great Depression solution [which failed miserably] to fix our broken economy.

Leading this effort is Gene Sperling [Goldman Sachs paid him over $800,000 in 2008] who worked with Larry Summers [from Goldman Sachs] to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act which removed virtually all regulation from the financial industry [and we know how that worked out!].

Sperling created the American Jobs Act, budgeted at $447 Billion, which would have forced an increase in the US Debt Ceiling.  Obama proposed this bill [it's not an Act yet], last September, and in the usual Administration process, demanded it be passed "Without Delay" [you can find out the details after its passed].

Accept the carrot; get the bomb!

As with all Obama's legislative proposals, there are carrots which disguise the sticks.  

In this case, the carrots are tax benefits for the Middle Class and extended benefits for the unemployed --which the GOP proposed early on.

Barely noticeable are the sticks; the legislative openings for still more federal regulations, union organizing, and federal control over local governments.  Ultimately, this legislation will destroy business growth and increase unemployment to unprecedented levels.


To formulate this bill, Obama drew in a number of successful business leaders to ostensibly seek their input.  In reality, they became his unwitting PR smokescreen when he was challenged on the bill, so he could say
"I worked this proposal out with the input of the Business Community".  

[We know one of these guys [corporate CEO], and he and his family were "thrilled" that the President consulted him, not realizing he was simply being used as a pawn to facilitate passage of the bill.  Interestingly, the Board of Directors was not pleased with his Obama interaction and fired him.]

This is a mixed bag proposal, with components that appeal to the Middle Class and unemployed; it also puts in place more penalties and restrictions on business.  Let's look past the carrots which appeal to the GOP and all voters, and examine the dangerous parts of the bill:

1) "Creates additional 'regulations' against businesses which discriminate against the 'long-term unemployed'."
-- This would be an opening for Trial Lawyers and the Unions.  The lawyers would be empowered to generate thousands of lawsuits against companies which had not hired new employees; the suits would allege that that individuals were not hired because of their unemployment record.

A Windfall for Trial Lawyers
(c) AMC (Breaking Bad)

a)  How does a business defend itself against that type of charge?   And how much will a business have to spend to defend itself against this vague type of litigation?

b)  Unions would be enabled to force companies to hire union thugs and slugs whose work records make them unemployable simply because no business would want them fomenting dissent and labor strife within their companies.  They'll be the first to sue, backed by the unions and trial lawyers.

c)  Disputes in this venue would be ruled on by the National Labor Relations Board -- now packed with Obama's union appointees, with the assured result in rulings against businesses.

d)  Bottom Line:  This is a Union/Trial Lawyer godsend, guaranteed to shatter business recovery and create unemployment the likes of which this country has never seen.

2)  Spend $35 Billion to PROTECT THE JOBS of teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

a)  "Protect the Jobs" is a Union smokescreen --  for organizing public service employees.

We're here to organize your workforce
(c) youworkforus.net

The federal government would spend $35 Billion to help unions organize, strike, and cripple local governments' ability to manage their employees.  Most of these people are already unionized, with catastrophic results [e.g., the DC government was forced to rehire hundreds of teachers  fired for cause; or Montgomery County, MD being at the mercy of a unionized police force that ignores the orders of its Police Chief and County Council].

Teachers' Unions vs Quality Education
(c) AvidEditor

b)  This is also a push to force local and state governments to hire more public employees in an austere period in which these governments are anxious to trim their budgets to keep from going bankrupt.  The federal funding would theoretically alleviate such funding strains, but in reality, to accept federal money is to accept  ALL the related federal regulations -- which carry criminal penalties for failure to obey.

c)  Ultimately, this Bill sponsors Union growth, expansion of local governments [with huge long-term costs for health and retirement benefits -- long after federal funding dries up], and eventually, much more federal control over state local government.

Every proposal in this Administration seems designed to increase the power of the federal government over state and local governments, to increase the funding and strength of unions, and to undercut private enterprise -- all resulting in increased unemployment.

Student Debt -- Destroying the US?

College:  Your Introduction to Lifetime Debt  (c) Mother Jones

Click here for related story [Washington Post]

We learn today in the Washington Post that "... college is rapidly becoming unaffordable for many."
[Actually, it's been unaffordable for quite some time.]

We also learn that  "Less than fifty per cent of US college students graduate."  

Let's examine what the problem is with our college system.

Back when I was in high school, the curriculum had several tracks:

1) Kids whose interests were not academic;
    a)  Some received training as carpenters, electricians, plumbers, auto mechanics, bricklayers, or 

         technicians.

    b)  Some went into retail sales and merchandising, or administrative positions.

         [Notably, many of these folks are not among the unemployed today.]

Trades are in short supply,
so we import that labor   (c) Forbes

2) Kids whose interests were academic:

    a)  Liberal Arts for those who had no specific goals other 

         than to learn "stuff" and would become generalists; 

         many became corporate, civic, and military leaders; 

         others became academics.

    b)  Business majors, who had set a goal of

         climbing the corporate ladder.
    c)  Pre-Med, Pre-Law, and other specific

         career goals.

The majority of kids in high school were not college bound, basically because they had other interests.  They went on to take jobs which required skills, and which allowed them to make very comfortable livings.

Those who did go on to college had varying degrees of success, as they conformed to one over-riding guideline. During Freshman Orientation, virtually all students were greeted with this directive:

"Look at the persons to your left and to your right.  Neither will be here when you graduate. 

Two-thirds didn't graduate (c) Reuters

Or, will you be the one missing?"  

And, that was probably the most accurate statement I heard in undergraduate school. That translated to a two-thirds drop-out rate.

Back then, your summer jobs brought in enough money for college expenses for two semesters.  If you were hard-core you could work during the academic year and have some spending money, and maybe afford a car.  But, college was affordable.  The campuses were not high tech; professors were accessible,  they made a livable -- but not lavish wage, and living conditions overall were minimal, but acceptable.  Administrators were always accessible, and university presidents routinely hosted students in their homes.

The Johnson Administration introduced the Politically Correct crowd; now dominated by the National Education Association [a union disguised as a (tax-exempt) association].  The PC crowd molded the Great Society [which gave us food stamps, public housing (aka: crime zones, and very crowded prisons) -- and the mandatory college degree.

The PC crowd decided it was discriminatory to keep anyone from attending college;and the basis for attendance then became the designator "Low-Income".  LBJ's cronies jumped on this bandwagon and set up a variety of very profitable schemes exploiting low-income college students, many of whom were neither qualified nor interested in attending.  But, the PC crowd was adamant that they must attend, lest they be excluded from the American Dream (a similar argument drove the home ownership drive which resulted in our current economic plight).

Since the disadvantaged kids lacked the financial resources to pay for college, they were induced to borrow, with long-term repayment terms.

So, Low-Income -- and later Middle Income kids were induced/forced to take out college loans to pay ever-and-ever increasing costs, tied to ever-and-ever increasing spending by colleges to produce academic programs and campus facilities which met government standards -- among which were increasing pressure to graduate the ill-prepared (and in some cases, illiterate), lest they be the victims of discrimination.

Today, costs are massive!  Many administrators, particularly college presidents, are "1 Per Centers" who  live in university-furnished, lavish estate-homes designed to entertain high-rolling donors and politicians -- but certainly not students.  Tenured professors are very well paid, and perch carefully in their ivory towers --  often well-removed from students who might distract them from their profitable consultancies.

In the end though, we have huge numbers of our kids attending colleges which offer academically inferior coursework and which create poorly educated and inferior graduates.  These graduates then are bewildered that they cannot find work in positions which require that they are literate and capable of deductive reasoning.  Today's college degree translates into little more than a high school diploma of  50 years ago.

The American Dream = Perpetual Debt  (c) University Facts

Most disheartening is the fact that these graduates, having been sold the bill of goods called a "college education" now are burdened with a lifetime of student-loan debt -- and concomitant negative credit scores which will put them at a permanent disadvantage throughout their lives.

Current statistics say 50 per cent graduate; but, how many are literate, or solvent?

In the meantime, the kids who were smart enough to take training programs to learn the trades and, of late, technology skills, seem to be doing quite nicely, earning good livings -- but unburdened by student loans.  They remain untouched by the Politically Correct.

Another Obama Scam?

Top US Scam Artists.  (c) Zuso.org

We previously disclosed the abject failure of Obama's last plan to help homeowners in 
mortgage trouble, where Freddie Mac squandered $3.5 Billion and homowners got screwed. 
Now, Obama is following the same template and wants to deposit another $10 billion into the 
same black hole, announcing it could SAVE home-owners $3,000 per year on their mortgage bill.

Click here for related story [Huffington Post]

Your real estate tax will go down.  (c) Toles

Once again, it SOUNDS like a good idea, but then, so did TARP and Solyndra and the billions Obama pumped into Green programs -- the only success of which was the financial aggrandizement of the scam artists running those programs.

So now, Congress is supposed to jump on the bandwagon and authorize another $10 Billion to funnel into the pockets of his favorite campaign contributors?   Freddie burned through the first $3.5 Billion in a heartbeat, and screwed the very people it was supposed to be assisting by blocking their refinancing opportunities, while it invested in enterprises by which it could profit.

The requirements for refinanced loans under this program include
1)  The homeowner can't be behind on payments
[those in primary need of assistance]

Active White House Virus; Congress Beware (c) cllrandrewjames

2)  Minimum FICO score of 580 [most home-owners in trouble are weathering bad finances]
3)  The homeowner must be employed [eliminating retirees and job-hunters  -- those most in need.

So, essentially, if you have a job, a good FICO score, and you've never missed or been late on a mortgage payment, you can qualify for this program -- and you'll qualify for this program, if Freddie doesn't spend the money on something else first.



The probability, though, is that if you meet all these criteria, you've already refinanced your mortgage to a lower rate, and your monthly mortgage bill is about as low as it's ever going to get.  For the homeowners this proposal is SUPPOSED to help, they won't qualify, and $10 Billion will be available to Freddie Mac to once again "invest" [read: squander].

TRUST ME!                   (c) anunews.net

Now, to make taxpayers feel better, Obama proposes to pay for this program by levying a fee on banks.  Using history as a reference, such fees are ALWAYS passed along to the consumers in one form or another -- usually as an indecipherable fee included in the Closing Costs appearing on HUD Form 1.  Rest assured, this will become a PERMANENT fee which will apply to ALL home purchases, by ALL home-buyers.  It won't ever go away.

So, who will get this $10 Billion largesse?  Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and more Friends of Obama.  In the process,  banks will have to pay more fees to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and new fees will be federally authorized to add on to HUD Form 1 -- raising the cost to homeowners, once again.

Once again, we hope Congress can see through still another expensive Obama scam.
 [Naah!  Never Happen!]