Thread: Obama Economy - The Fed Knows Just How Bad It Will Be

Originally Posted by Darth Hussein Omar

When did we pass the line that separates the Bush economy from the Obama economy?

I must have missed it.

Rather childish for a man who was not forced but actively campaigned for the job. I wonder if he will bash the economy he inherited in his 2nd term as much as he did in his first - meaning it is his economy ans has been for some years.

Originally Posted by goober

Once again, none of those recessions was caused by a collapse of the financial system, the only real comparison is 1930.
In more ways than one, Bush is the first president since Hoover to leave office with less private sector employment than when he took office.

You have made that comment about 20 times and it is very misleading and blames Bush for something that was brewing long before him. If you haven't noticed, Bush has been gone for four years and unemployment is still not down to the levels it was during the majority of his term. Our financial system did not collapse, our housing market had a bubble burst. There is no comparison between today and the 1930's. However, the methods the government is using to aid a recovery is the same and it is working just as poorly this time as it did then.

It's like the Godfather said, a disaster too good to waste. FDR took advantage of the Great Depression to create Social Security, Obama and the Democrats took advantage of this recession to create Obamacare. They are opportunists that can take advantage of an emotional time, I will give them that.

Originally Posted by goober

OK, right there your credibility has hit zero.
The man who wasn't even elected president yet bears as much blame as the man who was president for the 8 years leading up to the collapse....

You wanna rethink that?

Bush repeatedly tried to warn congress? Congress was Republican, both houses, so how can you blame the Democrats who were in the minority?

If any president is responsible for the financial collapse, it's the guy who was president for 7 1/2 years before, during and after the collapse...

Pontificate all you want. The facts are listed. I think you are wrong on that one there Goober. The Financial over site committees, in Democratic control, so Democrats where running the congress at the time, and chose to ignore the Bush administration's warnings. Below are their quotes from congressional financial committees.

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .

Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:

Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?
* * *

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .
* * *

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn't for you I don't think that we would be here in the first place.

And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .

Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn't about the agency's engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers.

This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .

Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .

Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.
* * *

Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.
* * *

Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:

Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we're trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we're trying to avert?

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.

What we're trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . .

Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don't know how we do it.

I mean, you've alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It's important, is it not?

Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . .

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .
* * *

Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:

Sen. Schumer: I'll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don't think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don't undo Fannie and Freddie.
* * *

Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:

Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don't overreact.

I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let's not do nothing, and at the same time, let's not overreact. . .

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, "Let's dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie," when that is not what's called for as a result of what's happened here. . . .

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of -- the best we can say is, "It's no Enron." Now, that's a hell of a high standard.

What They Said About Fan and Fred - WSJ.com

Funny, I see a Republican administration concerned about the risk, and I see Democratic congressional leaders ignoring it all. So how come they aren't being blamed for this mess? By all rights they should be, at least in part.

Most disconcerting is that Waters is still on the committee for what? Her excellent service? Hardly. These appointments that the Democrat leadership made are not based on merit or in sight. They are political favors doled out, probably the same for the Republicans as well. Is it any wonder that Congress is basically broken and dysfunctional?

Originally Posted by jpn

For those genuinely interested in the economics of this and not just the politics, this is what economists say:

Most recessions are the result of "overheated" economies that are wrenched back into line by central banks raising interest rates in order to keep inflation in check.

Well, that is certainly what the collectivist supporters of the evil that is fiat currency, central bankers in socialist utopia want us to believe ... A freedom based analysis: In another thread I started on how money is the moral foundation of society. Sure it is a little bit hyperbole, but only a little but. True economic booms are brought on my improvements in production - either technical, like the invention of the plow or computer, or management of resources, like the division of labor and outsourcing less efficient work.

Ron Paul's book End The Fed does an outstanding job explaining how money manipulation is used to simulate a boom. This is always and necessarily followed by a bust. As always, you have to follow the money; who benefits from this?

The answer is always the same: as in Biblical times, it is Caesar (government) and the money changers (banks). They end up being the beneficiary of real assets and greater future cash flows of the common man via higher interest rates and taxes. Anyone who studies history ought to know how many more new taxes America has added in the last century

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75
cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS
Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal
Service Fee T ax
Telephone Federal, State and
Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage
Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and
Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and
Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License
Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Once again, none of these taxes existed 100 years ago. Then, America was the world's wealthiest nation. Then, we had no national debt. Then, we had a thriving economy that was the envy of the free and developed world.

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

Pontificate all you want. The facts are listed. ... Funny, I see a Republican administration concerned about the risk, and I see Democratic congressional leaders ignoring it all.

This is why the Goobers of the world can only engage in revisionist history. It is a sickness got from reading 1984 and believing that is the way to greatness.

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

Pontificate all you want. The facts are listed. I think you are wrong on that one there Goober. The Financial over site committees, in Democratic control, so Democrats where running the congress at the time, and chose to ignore the Bush administration's warnings. Below are their quotes from congressional financial committees.


Funny, I see a Republican administration concerned about the risk, and I see Democratic congressional leaders ignoring it all. So how come they aren't being blamed for this mess? By all rights they should be, at least in part.

Most disconcerting is that Waters is still on the committee for what? Her excellent service? Hardly. These appointments that the Democrat leadership made are not based on merit or in sight. They are political favors doled out, probably the same for the Republicans as well. Is it any wonder that Congress is basically broken and dysfunctional?

The facts are clear, Bush was president from 2001 to 2009.
For most of that time he had GOP majorities in both houses of congress.
The financial system collapsed in 2008.
Just because you can quote Barney Frank out of context doesn't excuse Bush and the GOP from responsibility for the financial collapse.
And the problems occurred while the control of congress and the financial oversight committees was Republican.
Control of congress changed in 2007, do you believe that everything was just peachy in January 2007, and it all went to hell in a year and a half?

Originally Posted by goober

The facts are clear, Bush was president from 2001 to 2009.

The facts are clear... Obama was president from 2009 to 2012 and will be until Jan. 2017

The facts are clear... The Federal Reserve has based monetary policy on his continued failure

The facts are clear... Small business owners, creator of most of the new jobs in our economy refuse to invest in their own businesses... because of those same failed Obama polices.

The facts are clear... and you, unlike me and others on the right REFUSE to either address these fact or post any of your own.

Originally Posted by tsquare

The facts are clear... Obama was president from 2009 to 2012 and will be until Jan. 2017

Great. One for one.

Originally Posted by tsquare

The facts are clear... The Federal Reserve has based monetary policy on his continued failure.

Oops. False. See post below. In fact, our economy is outperforming most in similar circumstances, thanks in large part to Obama's policies. But we still need more done, thus the Fed's policies. One for two.

Originally Posted by tsquare

The facts are clear... Small business owners, creator of most of the new jobs in our economy refuse to invest in their own businesses... because of those same failed Obama polices.

One for three. Our economy is doing comparatively well thanks to Obama's policies, and no thanks whatsoever to Republicans. I'm beginning to sense a trend here...

Originally Posted by tsquare

The facts are clear... and you, unlike me and others on the right REFUSE to either address these fact or post any of your own.

One for four. My post on the first page directly addresses your critique (I posted it again below just for you), and Goober has done an excellent job trying, unsuccessfully, to punch through your idelological blinders.

I think the problem is that you and others on the right REFUSE to accept the validity of any information, from any source, that runs counter to your ideology.
In short, you can't handle the truth.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j2F4...layer_embedded

Since tsquare claims no one has addressed the claim that Obama has "failed" in responding to the Great Recession. This is what I posted on the first page of this thread:

Originally Posted by jpn

For those genuinely interested in the economics of this and not just the politics, this is what economists say:

Most recessions are the result of "overheated" economies that are wrenched back into line by central banks raising interest rates in order to keep inflation in check. Those recessions are characteristically "V-shaped", meaning that they have a steep down but an equally steep upside. In other words, the recovery is fairly rapid.

But recessions caused by financial crises, like this most recent one, are more "U-shaped." Recovery from them is generally much longer. The gold-standard study of this is by Harvard’s Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff (published some four years ago, by the way). They found years of high unemployment and weak growth following financial crises. They predicted this.

Economists at the International Monetary Fund and elsewhere confirmed that crises following a rapid increase in private-sector debt weaken the economy well into the future. There was no reason to believe this crisis would be any different.

The US is actually doing better than most other advanced countries, probably because we have mostly avoided the austerity hysteria other countries, like for example the UK, have fallen for.

Data:

"...when the Great Recession is compared not to other U.S. cycles but to the Big 5 financial crises and the U.S. Great Depression...the current cycle actually compares pretty favorably."

Data:

In the early stages of the crisis, unemployment rose more rapidly in the US than in Europe. This mainly reflected differences in institutions: it’s much easier to fire people in America. From some point in 2010 onward, however, the US situation has gradually improved; initially some of the drop in unemployment was basically people leaving the labor force, but more recently there have been solid though modest gains in the ratio of employment to the relevant population (you have to adjust for aging).
Meanwhile, Europe has gotten much worse; now formally in recession, but the truth is that it has been going downhill all along.
Why the divergence? The obvious answer is that the austerity stuff broke out in 2010, and the austerians took over policy much more completely in Europe than in the United States.

Originally Posted by jpn

Since tsquare claims no one has addressed the claim that Obama has "failed" in responding to the Great Recession. This is what I posted on the first page of this thread:

Lame though it is, you did, in some small way, attempt to address the issue.

The failure of your 'argument' (or should I say Krugman's) is that it fails to address our failures and only serves to claim:

"Europe sucks more than we do!"

(Wait for it...) I point that I normally would agree with.

However, given what Europe did, 'austerity' based on tax increases not spending cuts, Obama stated policies, would take the US right where Europe is now.

Most of the eurozone countries that are struggling to balance their finances amid the continent’s spiraling debt crisis have resorted to tax increases to meet their short term fiscal targets. The long term economic cost may be severe.

It is doubtful whether French and Spanish policies will yield significantly more revenue. Higher business taxes discourage enterprise and job creation so do little to reduce unemployment. Because each country has generous unemployment insurance programs, the financial burden imposed on the state by high joblessness is likely to outweigh whatever fiscal benefit can be derived from higher taxes.

Especially income tax increases are unwise. Countries that lowered income tax rates usually saw an increase in revenue. When Britain’s Conservatives gradually decreased the top tax rate during the 1980s from 83 to 40 percent, the wealthy began paying a bigger share of the tax burden.

From yet another source...

Greece focused on raising taxes, putting off expenditure cuts. They got it backward, says Mr. Balcerowicz. "If you reduce through reform current spending, which is too excessive, you are far more likely to be successful with fiscal consolidation than if you increase taxes, which are already too high."

He adds: "Somehow the impression for many people is that increasing taxes is correct and reducing spending is incorrect. It is ideologically loaded." This applies in Greece, most of Europe and the current debate in the U.S.

And Mr. Balcerowicz points out that we know how to do things right:

"It's important to remember that six, eight, 10 years ago Germany was like Italy, and it reformed," he says. Before Berlin pushed through an overhaul of the welfare state, Germany was called the "sick man of Europe." "There are no European solutions for the Italians' problem. But there are Italian solutions. Not bailouts, but better policies."

Why do some countries change for the better in a crisis and others don't? Mr. Balcerowicz puts the "popular interpretation of the root causes" of the crisis high on the list.

And he explains it:

"There is a lot of intellectual confusion," he says. "For example, the financial crisis has happened in the financial sector. Therefore the reason for the crisis must be something in the financial sector. Sounds logical, but it's not. It's like saying the reason you sneeze through your nose is your nose."

The markets didn't "fail" but were distorted by bad policies. He mentions "too big to fail," the Fed's easy money, Fannie Mae FNMA 0.00% and the housing boom. Those are the hard explanations. "Many people like cheap moralizing," he says. "What a pleasant feeling to condemn greed. It's popular."

"Generally in the West, intellectuals like to blame the markets," he says. "There is a widespread belief that crises occur in capitalism mostly. The word crisis is associated with the word capitalism. While if you look in a comparative way, you see that the largest economic and also human catastrophes happen in non-market systems, when there's a heavy concentration of political power—Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, many other cases.

"

Which is exactly what the left does, why it is wrong, and results in the policies that Obama is demanding... and why the Fed is, by the actions they are taking, signaling that it will fail and continue the almost non-existent growth and high unemployment.

Not for the first time in this thread I point out:

It's not me that are claiming Obama sucks; it's the Federal Reserve and small businesses that are setting their policy based on Obama and his economic policies sucking.


http://atlanticsentinel.com/2012/10/...t-cut-but-tax/

The Weekend Interview With Leszek Balcerowicz: The Anti-Bernanke - WSJ.com

Originally Posted by jpn

Since tsquare claims no one has addressed the claim that Obama has "failed" in responding to the Great Recession. This is what I posted on the first page of this thread:

Lame though it is, you did, in some small way, attempt to address the issue.

The failure of your 'argument' (or should I say Krugman's) is that it fails to address our failures and only serves to claim:

"Europe sucks more than we do!"

(Wait for it...) I point that I normally would agree with.

However, given what Europe did, 'austerity' based on tax increases not spending cuts, Obama stated policies, would take the US right where Europe is now.

Most of the eurozone countries that are struggling to balance their finances amid the continent’s spiraling debt crisis have resorted to tax increases to meet their short term fiscal targets. The long term economic cost may be severe.

It is doubtful whether French and Spanish policies will yield significantly more revenue. Higher business taxes discourage enterprise and job creation so do little to reduce unemployment. Because each country has generous unemployment insurance programs, the financial burden imposed on the state by high joblessness is likely to outweigh whatever fiscal benefit can be derived from higher taxes.

Especially income tax increases are unwise. Countries that lowered income tax rates usually saw an increase in revenue. When Britain’s Conservatives gradually decreased the top tax rate during the 1980s from 83 to 40 percent, the wealthy began paying a bigger share of the tax burden.

From yet another source...

Greece focused on raising taxes, putting off expenditure cuts. They got it backward, says Mr. Balcerowicz. "If you reduce through reform current spending, which is too excessive, you are far more likely to be successful with fiscal consolidation than if you increase taxes, which are already too high."

He adds: "Somehow the impression for many people is that increasing taxes is correct and reducing spending is incorrect. It is ideologically loaded." This applies in Greece, most of Europe and the current debate in the U.S.

And Mr. Balcerowicz points out that we know how to do things right:

"It's important to remember that six, eight, 10 years ago Germany was like Italy, and it reformed," he says. Before Berlin pushed through an overhaul of the welfare state, Germany was called the "sick man of Europe." "There are no European solutions for the Italians' problem. But there are Italian solutions. Not bailouts, but better policies."

Why do some countries change for the better in a crisis and others don't? Mr. Balcerowicz puts the "popular interpretation of the root causes" of the crisis high on the list.

And he explains it:

"There is a lot of intellectual confusion," he says. "For example, the financial crisis has happened in the financial sector. Therefore the reason for the crisis must be something in the financial sector. Sounds logical, but it's not. It's like saying the reason you sneeze through your nose is your nose."

The markets didn't "fail" but were distorted by bad policies. He mentions "too big to fail," the Fed's easy money, Fannie Mae FNMA 0.00% and the housing boom. Those are the hard explanations. "Many people like cheap moralizing," he says. "What a pleasant feeling to condemn greed. It's popular."

"Generally in the West, intellectuals like to blame the markets," he says. "There is a widespread belief that crises occur in capitalism mostly. The word crisis is associated with the word capitalism. While if you look in a comparative way, you see that the largest economic and also human catastrophes happen in non-market systems, when there's a heavy concentration of political power—Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge, many other cases.

"

Which is exactly what the left does, why it is wrong, and results in the policies that Obama is demanding... and why the Fed is, by the actions they are taking, signaling that it will fail and continue the almost non-existent growth and high unemployment.

Not for the first time in this thread I point out:

It's not me that are claiming Obama sucks; it's the Federal Reserve and small businesses that are setting their policy based on Obama and his economic policies sucking.


http://atlanticsentinel.com/2012/10/...t-cut-but-tax/

The Weekend Interview With Leszek Balcerowicz: The Anti-Bernanke - WSJ.com

Tsquare and friends-------->we are arguing with ourselves here. We can't argue anything with people like Goober, as long as they rewrite not only history, but what business people are saying including the federal reserve today.

It was the same thing with Obama remember? "He didn't say that, he didn't mean that, you are taking everything out of context."

They know better. They are far more expert in economics, than the people who own the businesses who won't invest. They will tell everyone it is all good, because they can't even admit what bad is. They are soooooooo oblivious, they don't even realize; or will admit, that the reason our deficits are so high is because the stimulus package was added to the baseline, which is equal to Obama having a stimulus package each of his last 4 years in office, and he wants more. As soon as anyone asks for cuts anywhere, he basically walks away.

I am not sure if the problem with people like Goober is that they are that uninformed, or they enjoy yanking everyones chain trying to get people frustrated proving what is obvious while they laugh. In any case, our one "gotcha" is that they will suffer along with the rest of America. The economic pain coming will be far worse for them, than any numbers we publish to prove our points.

For us, I believe it is time we take a page out of the liberals playbook; which a large percentage of us have in NW Indiana when it comes to Chicago. If at all possible, don't do business with liberals, PERIOD. Don't spend money in liberal citys like Chicago, New York, and states like California, Illinois, or as little as possible. Deny them as much cash as you can, and STARVE them out!!!!!!! They voted for foodstamps and Obamaphones. Now let us vote every day with our dollars, which these places need so badly. Just as every thinking American......if they have any money in that bank that did money laundering for terrorists and drug dealers........should remove their money and deny them cash, we should do the same thing to our liberal friends. They are doing everything they can to legally steal it from us, so we should do everything we can to deny them every nickel possible, including denying them tourist dollars, business tax dollars, or buying anything within their jurisdiction.

The new mantra from us should be, "buy it in a red state, and starve the liberals out!" It isn't as hard as you think, and watching blue states sink makes it soooooo much worth the effort-)

There is no reason for every part of the country to suffer, therefore we should do everything possible to insure that those who do suffer, are the ones who insist this isn't suffering, and give them MORE of it!!!!!

Ima,
From now on, I'm buying from states that pay more to the Fed than they take.
Guess that sort of screws up your hallucination.