So Now Credit Card Debt is a Good Thing???

So, today I learned that Americans increasing credit card debt is a good sign for the economy.

U.S. credit-card debt posted the second solid increase in a row during December, an indication Americans stuck with meager wage gains borrowed to pay for their holiday celebrations....But the Fed data are important for the clues to behavior by consumers, whose spending helps propel the economy.
The two solid gains in revolving credit during November and December came during the holidays — a sign consumers pulled out credit cards to buy gifts and make other seasonal purchases.

Isn't that wonderful. People who apparently used to pay for their holiday celebrations with cash, this year had to go further in debt for the same celebrations. But, slapping down the Visa credit card rather than the Visa debit card means that we are all doing great.

The upturn in card debt could be another sign that consumers are growing more confident about the economy, or at least about their personal job security.

Huh?

Wasn't it just a few years ago that we were told that using credit cards for expenses such as holiday celebrations was unhealthy and an indication that people's finances were getting worse, not better:

Finding themselves strapped for cash... Americans are increasingly turning to credit cards to cover gas, groceries and other living expenses....
Faced with soaring costs for food and fuel, people find they must charge more to make ends meet.
"They are not able to increase their income, but their expenses are going up, so the credit card becomes a way to cope," said Sara Gilbert, executive director of the Consumer Credit Counseling Service in Fort Collins, Colo.

Odd how that Wall Street Journal piece didn't mention that people needed credit cards to cope with higher food and fuel prices we have felt over the past few years.

The 2008 meltdown, we were told, was due in part to high personal credit card debt...

As the economy slows and unemployment rises, consumers are defaulting on credit-card payments more often. And though that trend is unlikely to create a crisis in line with the mortgage fallout, it's still a headache for banks that are already hurting.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/28/54880/are-credit-cards-the-next-collapse.html#storylink=cpy

...and that credit card debt was a sign of living beyond our means?

“For millions, they were living in a bubble,” says Odysseas Papadimitriou, CEO of CardHub, referring to Americans living on home equity and credit card debt five years ago. “If we end up overleveraging ourselves again, it’s going to be the same thing repeated in a few years.”

"Millions of ordinary people, unwilling to relinquish a bubble-era mentality of living beyond their means, will have borrowed beyond their ability to repay. If this sounds similar to the subprime mortgage crisis, that’s because it is"

Even Obama himself warned that he expect(s) consumers to live within their means and pay what they owe.

But now that Obama has saved us from the evils of the credit card companies, I guess it is in vogue to start slapping down the plastic again.

Well, if anyone wants to lecture us on living beyond our means, it might as well be Obama. He knows better than anyone how to put too much debt on the credit card.

Obama: Constitution Won't Let Me "Force Congress" to Do What I Want

We have a sitting president complaining about and denigrating the founding document of our nation.

That damn Constitution with all its checks and balances, Obama seemed to be saying on the Today show this morning with Matt Lauer:

It turns out that our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.

It seems that Obama would be much more comfortable in a more autocratic system, where he can just push through anything he wants than with a government where the power is more evenly divided (emphasis added):

"What's frustrated people is that I have not be able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008," he said. "That's just the nature of being president," he said.

Yes, Barack, working with co-equal branches of government is what this country is all about. Darn it all!

In Federalist Papers 47, James Madison tells us that the separation of powers that Obama seems to lament is essential to liberty:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

We already know that Obama sees the Constitution as a charter of negative liberties that didn't address redistributive policies and social justice, we now find he thinks the U.S. Constitution as an impediment.

...the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

Recently, the Obama tried to negate the Supreme Court by deeming his own recess appointments constitutional.

The opinion “relies on no Supreme Court decision and many conclusions are unsupported in law or the Constitution,” (Sen. Charles) Grassley said in a statement. He added later that the opinion “flies in the face of more than 90 years of historical practice.”

We also heard from US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg whining to an Egyptian television audience that our constitution is just too darn old:

"(We have) “oldest written constitution still in force in the world... I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in the interview, which aired on Jan. 30 on Al-Hayat TV.

Could it be, your Honor and Mr. President, that our constitution is the oldest because it is the best?

We have a sitting president and a Supreme Court justice complaining about and denigrating the founding document of our nation. The connection between the two? Oh yeah, they are both Liberals.

Chrysler runs Obama campaign spot during the Super Bowl

Chrysler just handed President Obama a big, sloppy, wet kiss in the form of a free campaign ad during the Super Bowl.

In a spot dubbed Halftime in America, Clint Eastwood declared that it’s “halftime in America and our second half’s about to begin,” which could be interpreted as a reference to Obama’s second term. 

Gee, ya think so? Considering that President Reagan ran in 1984 on It's Morning in America using an eerily similar ad, any semblance with Halftime in America is pure coincidence.

Why would we want to return to where we were, just four short years ago closes the Reagan ad. Would that line be so out of place in the Obama -- er, Chrysler ad?

Ol' Clint sings the praises -- not of Chrysler's cars -- but of massive government bailout:

We all rallied around what was right, and acted as one. Because that’s what we do. We find a way through tough times, and if we can’t find a way, then we’ll make one.

We find a way by borrowing billions of dollars, then loaning those dollars at advantageous terms to private business, putting the American people on the hook for $1.3 billion.

U.S. taxpayers likely lost $1.3 billion in the government bailout of Chrysler, the Treasury Department announced Thursday.
Now (CBO) estimates, by the time the $80 billion program is completely wrapped up, taxpayers will have lost $14 billion.

We find a way by overspending:

According to the Government Accountability Office... the government has spent $12.5 billion so far to bail out a $5 billion company (Chrysler).

Chrysler's CEO Sergio Marchionne assures there is no quid for Obama's quo:

“It was not intended to be any type of a political overture on our part,” Marchionne said. “Nobody inside Chrysler was attempting to influence decisions. The message is sufficiently universal and neutral that it should be appealing to everybody in this country and I sincerely hope that it doesn’t get utilized as political fodder in a debate.”

Of course you do, Mr. Marchionne, of course you do. He is shocked -- shocked to think "Halftime in America" would be interpreted as political fodder or is political payback.

Gualberto Ranieri, chief spokesman for Marchionne and for Chrysler, declined to comment on the notion that the advertisement was a thank-you gift to the Obama administration. "The advertisement speaks for itself," said Ranieri.

Maybe it is not payback, but a down-payment:

The Obama administration has yet to act on a $3.5 billion loan proposal from Chrysler for Department of Energy funds to help spur the development of more fuel-efficient automobiles.

White House spoke-flak, Jay Carney, promises that neither Obama nor his administration had any involvement in the spot’s creation. No, no one is suggesting they helped "create" the ad. Or, did they?

"And it's good to remember that the fact that there were some folks who were willing to let this industry die, because of folks coming together, we are now back in a place where we can compete with any car company in the world." Obama 1/31/12 (just last week! What a coincidence!)

I will be eagerly awaiting the Oval Office to demand an investigation to make sure the Chrysler Corporation isn't injecting a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, as Obama warned us after the Citizens United case. After all, The public interest requires nothing less, as Obama said.

We just know that Obama wouldn't use the auto industry for a photo-op, would he?

The Associated Press says for Obama, the auto bailout is a case study for his efforts to revive the economy and a potential point of contrast with Republican Mitt Romney, who opposed Obama's decision to pour billions of dollars into the auto companies. If Romney wins the GOP nomination, expect to hear a lot about the car industry.

Starting with this ad from Chrysler. Halftime in America. I can see the bumper stickers already.


UPDATE: Detroit is on such a rebound, the producers of the ad didn't feel the need to actually film the spot in Michigan, or anywhere nearby:

But contrary to what the might ad suggest, the spot was actually filmed in New Orleans and Los Angles. “Yes, part of it was filmed in New Orleans . . . and some was filmed in various parts—such as Los Angeles,” Dianna Gutierrez said.

No image of Detroit was shot for the specific use in this ad. Rather like the text of Obama's State of the Union address.

Is There a GOP "Enthusiam Gap"?

As the Republican electorate seems to be galvanizing around a candidate, the news has suddenly been aflutter with stories of a potential enthusiasm deficit for Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney.

In the four states to vote so far in the GOP nominating race, turnout has been strongest where people were energized to vote for somebody else.

In Florida, where Romney grabbed a commanding 46 percent of the vote this week, overall turnout was down significantly from four years ago. A county-by-county look at the Florida numbers shows that turnout was up from four years ago in counties where rival Newt Gingrich did well and down in counties where Romney dominated.

Could it be that turnout, if lower, was due to nice weather or polls showing the election was already decided? Recall that just two weeks ago, South Carolina, where the polls showed a neck-and-neck race, had record turnout for the primary vote.

The Republican primary in South Carolina had record turnout, with bigger gains in voter participation than in Iowa (STTLIA) and New Hampshire earlier this month.

But, the polls leading into Florida and Nevada showed Romney with double-digit leads. Perhaps people did decide to stay home because their guy was winning, rather than a lack of enthusiasm?

Particularly in Nevada, where the Republicans’ disappointing turnout foreshadows difficulty energizing GOP voters in Nevada.

Mitt Romney’s easy victory in Nevada’s Republican presidential caucuses might, in the long run, be less important than the fact that a surprising number of Republicans who could have participated Saturday chose to stay home.

Could it have anything to do with the fact that it was a beautiful 60-degree February day in Nevada Saturday? Nevada is a caucus state, where people huddle indoors for hours bickering about whom to support. Can't imagine anything more inviting on a day with 15 to 20 degree above average temperatures.

Not to be conspiratorial, but watch out for this as the latest attempt by the main stream media and lefty bloggers to support Obama at any cost, such as the hyper-activity over January's job numbers.

Now, maybe it is true that Romney is vanilla and boring and isn't inspiring the rabid following of a Newt or Ron Paul. Or, maybe people have better things to do than to waste an entire day voting for a sure-thing. I will go with the latter for now.

Obama Has His Priorities in Order: To Be Cool Again

In this delightful post on The Ulsterman Report blog, a Washington insider suggests that Obama desperately wants to be "cool again."

(Obama) was actually in on a meeting with some of the Plouffe gang and told them more than once he wanted to be cool again. “Like in ’08. We were the sh-t back in 08″. Those are the president’s words. He is obsessed with getting back to being cool like in ’08.

Well, isn't that special.

Instead of striving towards being a great president and leader; instead of wanting to get this country out of the economic doldrums, the President of the United States is apparently channeling his inner teenager.

Even that impromptu singing performance on the stage of the Apollo Theater was reportedly staged, planned all along.

Regarding that little singing bit the president did recently... That moment was rehearsed to death. As in over and over and over again... I wonder though if America would be so impressed if they knew how many hours the f***ing President of the United States spent practicing for those few seconds of song.

The blog goes on to say he hired people to pose as outsiders and post glowing comments, like "He's so cool."

And there were about 40 or 50 people in the crowd who had been instructed to “cheer loudly” the singing. And you can see how grateful the president is at the audience’s reaction. The guy needs that approval so damn much. The whole thing from beginning to end was a highly orchestrated effort. Not one second of it was spontaneous.

One minute this guy is posing as a president; one moment he tells us that Jesus supports the Buffet rule, and now he wants to be the big man on campus.

I have no idea if this post has any truth in it; but, I can certainly see it with this guy.

Desperate times indeed at the Obama White House. Desperate, sad, and pathetic times. Good thing there is such a short time left.

I Just Can't Wait for the Government to Control Health Care

When the government gets to decide what is in your insurance plan (in 2014), rest assured, and decisions will be made for you by a caring and concerned (not political!) bureaucrat.

I just can't wait for the US government to control health care, can you?

When confronted with concerns about religious employers having to provide women's health services (in English, that means contraception, abortion, and the like), the White House responded with sensitivity and grace: The decision has been made.

White House spokesman Jay Carney on Thursday tried to shut down growing opposition to the president’s decision to force religious groups to pay fines if they decline to comply with a policy regarding health insurance and contraception.

“The decision has been made,” said Carney.

Regardless of the merits of the move, it has been met with significant controversy, which apparently is meeting with indifference from the White House.

“No, there’s not a debate” about the policy inside the administration, Carney said during Thursday’s White House press conference, where several reporters repeatedly pressured him about the new directive. “The decision has been made,” said Carney.

So, starting in 2014, when the government is in the job of determining what is a "qualified" insurance plan and what is not, and you have a concern with what is in your insurance plan, rest assured, “No, there’s not a debate. The decision has been made" for you.

Obama Celebrates the January 2012 Jobs Numbers. Why?

The fuzzy math that goes into the unemployment rate does not explain how someone out of work so long that he cannot collect unemployment is no longer out of work, despite the fact that he doesn't have a job.

The news media is giddy with reports that the US economy added 243,000 jobs last month. CBS News leads the celebrations, trumpeting that we "finally(!)" have a great jobs report (emphasis added, but not much).

Finally a great report
By all accounts, the results blew away expectations.

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein chimed in:

As my colleague Neil Irwin tweeted, “That sound you hear is champagne corks in the West Wing."

While that is certainly good news for those 243,000 people, it ignores many of the deeper job numbers that simply aren't improving.

The New York Times seems to be one of the few who get it:

There are only two possible explanations for this bizarre combination of a falling employment rate and a falling unemployment rate. The second possible explanation -- a jump in the number of people who aren't working, who aren't actively looking but who would, in fact, like to find a good job -- is less comforting. It also appears to be the more accurate explanation.

The fuzzy math that goes into the unemployment rate you hear on the news (which doesn't count people who ran out of unemployment checks and those who have given up looking for a new job that is just not there) is a happy bit of nonsense for Obama and politicians alike, but does not explain how someone out of work so long that he cannot collect unemployment is no longer out of work, despite the fact that he doesn't have a job.

Obama must be thrilled with these new jobs numbers, such as

367,000 new first time jobless claims for the week ending January 28.

Or

379,000 new first time jobless claims for the week ending January 21.

Or

355,000 new first time jobless claims for the week ending January 14.

He must be overjoyed that there are fewer full-time employed this month over last:

113,050,000 (12/11) 111,879,000 (1/12)

Or, the spike in the U6 unemployment numbers:

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force
15.2% (12/11) 16.2% (1/12)

How about these:

*Total Number of Unemployed: 12.8 million
*Long-term unemployed (jobless for 27 weeks and over): 5.5 million representing 43 percent of the total unemployed
*Average duration of unemployment: 40.1 weeks (down from 40.9, which was the highest on record)
*Average Hourly Earnings: up $0.04 to $23.29 (over past 12 months, earnings up 1.9 percent)

No, I think Obama is celebrating the fact that the incurious people in the main stream media just regurgitate the simple numbers handed to them and can't be bothered to take the 15 minutes to find more compelling and more telling data.

The Summer of Recovery, rescheduled from 2010, is still not upon us.