Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Contrary to some of the information in the report below which may be typical of most news accounts this week the US economy and many of those around the globe have no strength. Just as jobs lag behind other factors related to recovery it may take the public a long time to finally decide things are really bad. The latest consumer confidence report may indicate that time has come. And unfortunately for nearly everything about economies, if the public doesn’t spend the economic engine has no fuel. Talk about your energy crisis.

‘But economists say’ are weasel words. Not all economists hold one view on anything. The same holds true for every other group. The great psychological forces that influence markets are in play. And the liberal majority in the US Congress and occupying the White House are desperately trying to advance their agenda even though it runs contrary to recovery.

The suggestion within the report below that suggests recovery may be illusive for six months to a year conveniently aligns with the 2010 elections and enough time to have new blood reign in government meddling in the private sector. That could spur a recovery.

Check the numbers below after the report from Mil Arcega.

Stocks Fall on Double Dip Fears
Mil Arcega | Washington 30 June 2010

Global stocks fell again on Wednesday on new worries about the pace of the global economic recovery. In the U.S., the Dow Jones Industrial Average has declined more than nine percent in the second quarter, fueled in part by a drop in consumer confidence and continuing worries about the health of the global economy. But economists say speculation that the world economy could slip back into another recession is simply that - speculation.

Falling stocks and a slow recovery in the job market have put many Americans in a pessimistic mood. Consumer confidence fell sharply in June — raising fears that a decline in consumer spending could trigger another recession.

But economist Jim Glassman at JP Morgan Chase says the worries are greatly exaggerated. “When you look at the consumer trends, consumer spending is actually pretty steady, and the job front, we will find out on Friday,” he said.

That’s when the monthly U.S. unemployment report comes out.

Meanwhile, doubts about the pace of recovery continues to roil global stocks. In Asia, key indexes finished the second quarter with the worst performance since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

“Of course, the main concern is really the ongoing credit crisis in Europe. The sovereign risk — Greece can’t repay their debt even though the Central Bank and IMF announced a 750 billion euro facility that still has not restored the confidence of the financial markets,” said Francis Lun, the head of Fullbright Securities in Hong Kong.

Some reports added to the pessimism, suggesting the U.S. could fall back into recession as the effects of the 800 billion dollar stimulus begins to fade.
But economist Mark Zandi says a double-dip scenario is unlikely. “I think the economy will make it through. It’s going to be a bit tricky. We’re going to feel uncomfortable over the next six to 12 months. As the reporter said, the benefits of the stimulus is fading, but I think there’s enough good going on that we’ll make it through without a recession,” he said.

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Wisconsin on Wednesday President Barack Obama acknowledged the frustration many Americans feel about the economy and more importantly — jobs. “Today, we’ve added private sector jobs for five months in a row. So the economy is headed in the right direction. But I know that for a lot of Americans - for Racine and a lot of other communities - it’s not heading there fast enough,” he said.

The much anticipated employment report coming out on Friday should give investors a clearer picture of how fast the U.S. economy is growing. Preliminary reports suggest job growth in the private sector is likely to fall short of expectations.

Here are some of the preliminary numbers on the quarter, from the close on March 31 through 4 p.m. Wednesday according to Thomson Reuters data.

S&P 500: -11.86%
Nasdaq Composite: -12.04%
Dow Jones Industrials: -9.97%
Russell 2000: -9.24%
U.S. Dollar Index: +6.19%

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

When the last vestige of the Kennedy political machine lost the liberal lion, Ted Kennedy’s US Senate seat was transferred to rookie politician Scott Brown. Brown’s performance as the junior senator from Taxachusetts may be the only transparency in Washington, DC.

A laughable commentary at Salon might serve as the liberal take on the subject given Brown’s negotiation with the majority party, his campaign finance sources and the status of financial legislation pending in Congress.

Let the mockery begin. Mere moments ago, I was urging Democrats to go on the attack, and make it clear that Republicans simply aren’t serious about governing. But as it stands now, the Dems are folding without a fight. The Republicans might not be serious, but the Democrats are simply incapable.

That excerpt is from a diatribe on so-called Wall Street reform and the author’s frustration about Scott Brown impeding the liberal agenda.

The take from WaPo features some quotes from the junior Senator.

Brown said in a statement Monday that he was “surprised and extremely disappointed” by the proposed assessment. “While I’m still reviewing the bill’s details, these provisions were not in the Senate version of the bill which I previously supported,” he said. “My fear is that these costs would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher bank, ATM and credit card fees and put a strain on lending at the worst possible time for our economy. I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes.”

Too often POLS of one stripe who successfully seek office in an area dominated by the other stripe become double agents and in the case of Republicans, RINOs. Part of a report from Forbes on this topic makes the point.

Some of the biggest contributors to his campaign committee include political action committees and employees associated with FMR (think Fidelity Investments), Bain Capital, Credit Suisse Group and Barclay’s, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Whether it’s regarding constituents or campaign contributors, Brown has quickly learned in Washington that it’s not smart to bite that hand that feeds you.

As with health care reform, don’t expect the Massachusetts Republican to derail financial regulatory reform. But he’s certainly making life difficult for Democrats.

The writer from Salon must not have considered the oldest ploy in politics. Your contributors are your masters. Brown has no interest in being conservative. He is acting on behalf of Massachusetts’ employers and his largest campaign donors. As Forbes suggests, he will not torpedo liberal Wall Street legislation. He will just play conservative long enough to get what he wants…. re-elected.

If there are any conservatives in Massachusetts they need to find a replacement for Scott Brown next time around.

As for the other members of the Senate who voted against others in their respective political party the five have their stated reasons.

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) voted against the Senate version of a financial regulatory reform bill, saying it did not close potentially dangerous loopholes in the derivatives regulations.

Leave it to Russ Feingold to tie his vote to a plausible explanation that would play well to voters whether liberal or conservative. That may explain why he has been re-elected. Casual voters do not detect the ruse. And of course, liberals only vote for liberals. The following is Senator Feingold’s stated reason for voting against the bill.

“The bill does not eliminate the risk to our economy posed by ‘too big to fail’ financial firms, nor does it restore the proven safeguards established after the Great Depression, which separated Main Street banks from big Wall Street firms and are essential to preventing another economic meltdown. The recent financial crisis triggered the nation’s worst recession since the Great Depression. The bill should have included reforms to prevent another such crisis. Regrettably, it did not.”

Brown voted for the bill because Dems said they would give him what he wanted.

Grassley voted for the bill because his amendments were passed.

Collins voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Snowe voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Feingold and Grassley face re-election this year. Brown, Cantwell and Snowe face re-election in 2012 and Collins in 2014. It is easy to believe Feingold opposed the bill to please conservative voters in the liberal-leaning state of Wisconsin while Grassley supported it to please the liberals in Iowa. Brown supports it with conditions his state gets perks in the bill. Collins and Snowe are well-known RINOs and their support for the bill was expected as well as for the rest of the liberal agenda. Cantwell is a liberal in a liberal state. Who knows if her stated reason is genuine?

If you follow the link below and click on the bill number there are reports available including the minority view (GOP) on the legislation considered. These are statements offering compelling arguments in opposition to the proposed legislation. Something many people probably do not read (but should).

Roll Call Vote for H.R. 4173 (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 )

This blog has frequently published items that include the sentiment of ‘throwing the bums out’. Some of what is discussed in this post gives rise to that rallying cry again. The legislative process serves the legislators and not the voting public. Bills that produce thousands of pages and much lawyer speak as well as the hideous phrase ‘and for other purposes’ suggest most legislation is bad. And it is.

The public needs to push elected officials to change the process. All bills should be limited in scope and effect. This would reduce the time necessary to determine whether or not a bill has merit and eliminate much of the charade that allows politicians to game the system. And the public would not be burdened by results of poor legislation that only serves the POLS and those whose financial support aids in their re-election. That merely allows this flawed arrangement to continue indefinitely.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sometimes one could understandably draw the conclusion the current President of the United States may need the help of a therapist. Not like his liberal agenda isn’t reason enough to be concerned about his mental health. And a report this week certainly supports such a concern.

President Barack Obama accused Republicans on Saturday of blocking legislation that would boost the nation’s economic recovery and lift a $75 million cap on what oil companies must pay to families and small businesses affected by an oil spill.

Look at the information on either side of the word ‘and’ in the report’s opening paragraph provided. A most hideous feature of most if not all legislation is characterized in a common phrase found in most bills. ‘And for other purposes’ is the phrase that plagues most legislation. Mr President fails to mention this fact while criticizing the loyal opposition.

Not that Republicans, Democrats, Independents or simply all POLS are not guilty of allowing this tactic but it needs to be addressed. The habit of placing bad legislation along with possibly good legislation in most or all bills is the problem. In voting for or against any particular bill each politician is likely forced to support or oppose items that are good and bad.

Here’s more of the nonsense Mr President would like you to believe in his weekly address.

“Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate won’t even allow this legislation to come up for a vote,” the president said in his weekly radio and Internet address. “And if this obstruction continues, unemployed Americans will see their benefits stop. Teachers and firefighters will lose their jobs. Families will pay more for their first home.”

Mr President really wants to spend more of your money. He also wants to spend more of the money of those he defines as villains, like oil companies. Mr President should remove the liability cap proposal from so-called recovery legislation if he wants to bring it to a vote.

As stated earlier in this post, ‘and for other purposes’ is a phrase that needs to go away. Let an idea for a bill stand on its own merits. Don’t continue to spew the rhetoric that the other guys are the problem. With that old ploy of mixing good and bad in legislation everyone loses.

Bad legislative items are simply bad. Good legislative items are only the least bad the government can do. Getting rid of ‘and for other purposes’ would force legislative items to be less problematic for citizens and more of a proble for POLS. We need to take away the POLS excuse that the mixture of items in a bill was responsible for their voting choice.

And BTW, Mr President coerced BP to agree to a $20 billion contingency fund for claims related to the Gulf oil mess. Never mind that this may give BP a leg up in likely court battles in the future but that fund and the fact BP has already paid out more than the $75 million limit renders Obama’s argument moot. He simply wants to gouge his defined villains for more money than current law allows.

That he expects you to believe his rhetoric is the cause for concern about his mental health.

Recently Mr Obama was heard to say he is tired of talk and wants action. Mr Obama, you are the President. Do something impressive. Do something most Americans can support. Or is that asking too much?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If a candidate or other political personality is not featured on this blog or in the sidebar it does not indicate whether or not they are supported or opposed here. At any given time the decision to support or oppose said political person may be withheld until more information is collected.

Such is the case for this site and California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman. But given the latest news about this ‘Republican’ candidate related to illegal immigration opposition to her election can now be expressed here.

Whitman Disses Ariz. Law in Spanish to Court Calif. Latinos

Republican Meg Whitman is translating her message into Spanish, and emphasizing her opposition to Arizona’s controversial immigration law, to court Latinos in her quest to become California’s next governor.

Is there any other way to interpret this move by this candidate than to say it’s an obvious sellout for votes? If there is this blog hasn’t found it. No amount of campaigning can convince this blog author that Whitman’s immigration blunder simply means she opposes illegal immigration and may support another solution for the problem. She simply sold out in public for all to see.

The candidate who doesn’t vote has more money than California and is looking to be CEO of the land of fruits, nuts and flakes gives that state what it deserves. A choice between herself and Moonbeam Brown.

Add to this another story that should rally the troops against the shamnesty scam by larger numbers than ever.

Obama Administration to File Lawsuit Against Arizona’s Immigration Law

Obama administration officials have decided to file a federal lawsuit to block a politically popular Arizona law cracking down on illegal immigration, Fox News and other news organizations reported Friday.

There are some interesting details from these reports. Liberals at the Justice Department and other ’senior’ officials are anonymously stumbling all over themselves to spin the latest development.

The confirmation comes after an inadvertent confirmation by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in an interview last week with an Ecuadorian journalist.

If the healthcare ripoff, national debt, deficits and the Gulf oil mess were not enough to rile voters in an election year the libs are apparently willing to go all in on their agenda bets for this cycle.

Regardless of any other considerations regarding Arizona’s new immigration law those who support Governor Brewer and this effort would do well to financially support the state of Arizona in their fight against the lame Obama administration and its desire to allow anyone to enter our country whenever they feel like it.

As a reminder, when immigration meant those coming to America brought something to the table rather than simply pursuing handouts or to do this country harm the melting pot was a good thing. All that changed when libs decided to put up the sign ‘free for all’ opening the floodgates to illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration must be eliminated.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If you really thought government bailouts were a good thing for our nation you might want to reconsider that opinion. It is refreshing to have someone express Wall Street has nothing to do with this latest chink in the bailout armor.

Banks defaulting on arrangements related to acceptance of bailout funds, aka, taxpayer dollars may not receive as much criticism as the defaults of others where financial transactions are concerned.

Is there anything positive about taxpayer’s propping up failing enterprises whether they are public or private? Probably not.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Small banks a growing drag on bailout program
More than 100 have missed dividend payments to government

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department’s financial bailout has a growing problem on its hands, and this time it has nothing to do with Wall Street.

A new report from the agency shows that community banks continue to plague the program.

A total of 101 bailed-out banks - nearly all are small - have missed paying the government a dividend, which was a condition of taking the aid.

That number is up 25 percent since February and has nearly doubled since November.

President Barack Obama on Tuesday sought to shift the nation’s attention to a sunnier topic: the coming benefits from the Democrats’ recently-passed healthcare reforms.

Surrounded by a sea of seniors in Wheaton, Md., Obama defended the legislation from GOP attacks and trumpeted the arrival of one of earliest benefits of the new law: a $250 rebate to tens of thousands of seniors caught in the coverage gap of Medicare’s prescription drug benefit — a gap known unendearingly as the “doughnut hole.” The government will begin mailing out those checks on Thursday.

That Barry, what a joker. Does he know anything at all about the ‘doughnut hole’? A $250 check to cover the gap would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic. Aside from being able to carry your lame-ass live-at-home 26 year old children on your health insurance nothing much happens with Obamacare until 2014. Well, except for all the new taxes and reductions in Medicare to pay Medicaid for all the new participants Barry wants.

No point in retelling all the sad points about Obamacare here. If you have not learned about it by now you are either disinterested or one of those nut cases believing Barry is going to pay for everything you want.

BTW, the only reason President Obama is ‘trumpeting’ Obamacare is he knows most voters will thump Democrats at the polls this November and he is in campaign mode as usual doing damage control. He should have thought about that before the Cornhusker Cash or Louisiana Purchase bribes he gave Democrats to pass his legislation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Republicans are banking that anti-health reform ballot initiatives will give them a significant edge in the November midterm elections.

The debate on the measures, which will be voted on in a half-dozen states, comes as Democrats are increasing their efforts to bolster support for their signature domestic achievement during the 111th Congress.

South Carolina and Missouri have health reform questions on their primary ballot, while three states — Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma — will give voters a chance in November to amend their state constitutions to say residents of those states can’t be forced to pay a penalty if they don’t buy health insurance. The amendment seeks to nullify the individual mandate, which consistently polls as one of the law’s most unpopular provisions.

Amending state constitutions for an opt out is good, pardon the pun, ‘insurance’ if liberals maintain a majority after November 2010. But let’s not forget about repealing Obamacare. It’s a good idea if for no other reason than President Obama does not like the term obamacare. He doesn’t like having his name associated with legislation most people oppose. You would think he would be proud of it if he genuinely thinks the legislation is worthy.

Guess what? He doesn’t and neither should you. But if you are about 2 out of 3 voters no one has to tell you that. You already know.

Tell a friend.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Brewer Backs McCain for Senate

“It’s interesting. Sen. McCain, of course, has represented the state of Arizona for a long time. And J.D. Hayworth has served in Congress for eight years,” the governor said.

“I believe philosophically, they’re different breeds of politicians. And people will just have to make that decision. I’ve known Sen. McCain for a long time, and I think he’s served Arizona well.”

McCain along with Bush, Kennedy and others tried to pass shamnesty in 2007 yet Jan Brewer as well as some others support McCain. It is situations like this that make it hard to believe people are serious about opposing illegal immigration and shamnesty. In this case, perhaps Brewer does it because McCain is establishment GOP and she will need them to survive politically. She gets to do the dirty work on illegal immigration and in return for allowing the GOP to side step the issue gets their support for her career.

Obama says he made a mistake on immigration when he took Napolitano for Homeland Security. It opened the door for then Secretary of State Jan Brewer to become governor of Arizona. Napolitano had opposed any legislation like SB 1070 and Brewer signed it into law.

Brewer first threw her support to McCain in February. SB 1070 was passed and signed in April.

As suspected, the Obama/Brewer sit down appears to have accomplished little. They may whithhold significant details but there is nothing to suggest either person blinked or that anything substantial is in the works.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s one of those instances where news reports suggest confusion by public officials or news sources.

Tuesday, 01 Jun 2010 04:00 PM

White House spokesman Adam Abrams said over the weekend that Obama’s schedule “doesn’t allow for a meeting” with Brewer but added that the president “does intend to sit down with the governor in the future.”

Tuesday, 01 Jun 2010 07:47 PM

A White House official said Tuesday that the meeting between Obama and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is scheduled for Thursday. The official requested anonymity to discuss the president’s schedule ahead of its public release.

The 400pm excerpt is from Fox News. As it is dated only a few hours before the second report you might wonder if the WH gave Fox one response and AP another. Regardless of that the fine ‘anonymous source’ from the WH claims Obama and Brewer will have a sit down Thursday.

This meeting could be the part in this story where we see who is playing games and who is real. You could say that both Obama and Brewer have drawn their own lines in the sand on this issue. And it would seem one must relinquish some ground for the other to succeed. Brewer may have more riding on this than Obama. Will she stand her ground or cave to the pressure?

The following may suggest how tough Brewer will be given the mood of the country.

Poll: Arizona Immigration Law Popular Nationally
Tuesday, 01 Jun 2010 02:35 PM

The Arizona immigration law continues to receive high marks in national polls from registered voters even as it remains unpopular in liberal circles.

In the latest Quinnipiac University poll, released Tuesday, 48 percent said they want their state to pass legislation similar to Arizona’s, while 35 percent said they do not. Overall, 51 percent approve of the law, opposed to 31 percent who disapprove.

This dovetails with a series of other recent polls that have showed support as high as two-thirds of respondents backing the law, which Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed in April, It has sparked a heated debate over the direction of the nation’s immigration policy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Illegal immigration may be the issue that most effectively dmonstrates the political divide within the United States. Most if not all on the left support shamnesty for illegals. Some like John McCain also support shamnesty and do not belong on the right. Both major political parties are guilty of pandering to the shamnesty crowd for votes. If ever there was a test case for bipartisanship illegal immigration is it. Both major parties should let the votes fall where they may and do the right thing together.

A series of videos were presented here last week dealing with the issue. Among them were two featuring Milton Friedman. The wisdom of Friedman provides much needed clarity about immigration. When people were asked if immigration worked in the past they said yes. When asked if it works now people said no. The reason is simple and elegant like most intelligent appraisals.

Earlier in our nation’s history immigrants came to America with skills that allowed them to contribute and everyone gained from the experience. Since then entitlements that provide benefit without contribution allow those coming here illegally to benefit at the expense of others. In other words those who enter the US now are essentially guaranteed a certain standard of living for doing nothing.

Then there are those who cross the border just before giving birth. Presto, change-o, your baby is an American. There is chain migration that the shamnesty crowd uses to pull on the heartstrings of the uninformed. When one illegal is here give them amnesty. Then let the entire family and others follow. The crushing burden of such practices only serves those who believe government should be your nanny.

There is a troubling article from WaPo on the issue from May 29th of this year. It starts out by suggesting little can be done and the situation is virtually hopeless.

The border crossers are so determined, and so impervious to a long-running buildup of federal agents and technology, that few here think President Obama’s recent decision to dispatch 1,200 National Guard soldiers and $500 million will make much difference.

The story centers around the Tucson sector and Nogales. The title describes the flow of illegals concentrating in this area. The only funny part of the story indicates that ‘boycotts’ work both ways.

He said benefactors who support the Arizona law have vowed to withhold contributions from the Tucson Catholic Diocese because clergy publicly oppose it.

The quantity of traffic legal and otherwise, free trade agreements and US companies moving their operations south, troubles from Mexico spilling over the border and all the rest define what’s wrong.

The situation is out of control. Not an uncommon feature for critical issues being ignored by public officials whose income derives from taxpayers. Their agendas as well as some in the private sector rely on illegal immigration. And it is time for it to stop. And stopping it is easy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Jan Brewer knocks another one outta the park. Enjoy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Delivery on the lighter side but the message still rings true.

Illegal Immigrants: Deport Thyself

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Enjoy part two and the rest of the series. And pass this message along.

Illegal Immigrants: Deport Thyself

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Immigration once was a benefit to all. Circumstances have changed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Mexican immigration rules vs US Immigration rules. Wuz up Felipe?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com