incredulous

President Barack Obama wants Congress to consider taxing the wealthy instead of workers to pay for a health-care overhaul, as House Democrats discuss a plan to require health insurance for most Americans.

Democrats Weigh Health Mandate as Obama Urges Taxing Wealthy – Bloomberg.com.

The Case for Working With Your Hands – NYTimes.com.

Like the mechanic, the manager faces the possibility of disaster at any time. But in his case these disasters feel arbitrary; they are typically a result of corporate restructurings, not of physics. A manager has to make many decisions for which he is accountable. Unlike an entrepreneur with his own business, however, his decisions can be reversed at any time by someone higher up the food chain (and there is always someone higher up the food chain). It’s important for your career that these reversals not look like defeats, and more generally you have to spend a lot of time managing what others think of you. Survival depends on a crucial insight: you can’t back down from an argument that you initially made in straightforward language, with moral conviction, without seeming to lose your integrity. So managers learn the art of provisional thinking and feeling, expressed in corporate doublespeak, and cultivate a lack of commitment to their own actions. Nothing is set in concrete the way it is when you are, for example, pouring concrete.

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

American capitalism gone with a whimper – Pravda.Ru.

If the US can no longer sell enough Treasuries to cover the deficit, what happens to the American currency?  What happens to American credibility in global financial markets?  We could lose a lot more than people realize if we have to start printing money to cover the gap, and the worst part is who might fill the vacuum:

What would a world with the United States in the second financial tier of nations mean? We would have significantly less foreign investment, to start, and that has other implications besides just the impact to our economy. We rely on economic engagement with other nations as a not-inconsequential portion of our national security and foreign policies. …

Without a strong military presence around the world, which would almost certainly disappear just as Great Britain’s did after World War I, the world would be a much different – and more dangerous – place. No nation could guarantee trade security to the extent the American Navy does. Piracy has already become a problem, and without either a massive British or American Navy to suppress it, it would expand enormously. That will aggravate the problems an American return to second-tier status would create in the global economy.

Perhaps another nation could fill the vacuum left by an American collapse, but which nation? What kind of world would global dominance by China, India, or Russia bring, assuming any of these could take that role? How about a coalition of oil producers like OPEC, who have the means to fund it?

Once in a while, I like to engage in a little speculative thinking.  Believe me, this is a scenario I’d love to see remain hypothetical, but right now, we’re squandering the very basis of our power, and in ten years, it may be far too late to correct our course.

Gateway Pundit: Hope, Change & Marxism: Did Obama Target GOP Donors In Chrysler Dealer Closings? (Video).

Doug Ross looked at the possibility that the Obama Administration may have targeted GOP donors in deciding which Chrysler dealerships would have to close their doors.
Doug noted that every single dealer he checked out except one were either GOP donors or donated to Obama’s rivals in the democratic primary.

Here is the list Doug put together:

• Vernon G. Buchanan: $147,450 to GOP candidates and organizations
• Wallace D. Alley and Family: $4,500 to GOP.
• Robert Archer: $4,600 to GOP and conservative causes.
• Homer S. Higginbotham and Family: $2950 to GOP.
• James Auffenberg and Family: $28,000 to GOP; $6,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Michael Maroone and Family: $60,000 to GOP; $8,500 to two Democrat candidates.
• Jerome Fader: $6,500 to Democrats; $2,500 to Independent Joe Lieberman.
• Stephen Fay and Family: $13,500 to GOP.
• William Numrich: $20,000 to GOP.
• Robert Carver: $10,000 to Democrats including $1,950 to Hillary Clinton, nothing to Barack Obama.
• Robert and Linda Rohrman: $24,000 to GOP.
• Frank Boucher, Jr. and Family: $18,000 to GOP, $1,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Scott Bossier: $4,300 to GOP.
• Todd Reardon: $17,000 to GOP; $2,000 to one Democrat candidate.
• Russ Darrow and Family: $78,000 to GOP.
• Bradford Deery and Family: $24,700 to GOP.
• Charles Gabus and Family: $30,000 to GOP.
• Brian Smith: $15,500 to GOP.
• Michael Schlossman: $14,000 to GOP; $14,000 to three Democrats ($12,500 to Sen. Russ Feingold).
• Don Hill: $11,000 to GOP; $12,800 to conservative incumbent Rep. Heath Shuler.
• Don Miller: $2,000 to GOP; $1,000 to Feingold.
• Eddie Cordes: $2,150 to GOP.
• Robert Edwards: $1,100 to GOP.
• James Crowley: $19,100 to GOP.
• Stanley Graff: $2,200 to John Edwards (2008 Presidential Run); $500 to GOP.
• John Stewart: $10,500 to GOP.
• John Fitzgerald and Family: $4,600 to John McCain (2008); $2,000 to Hillary Clinton (2008); nothing to Barack Obama.
• William Churchill and Family: $3,500 to GOP.
• Thomas Ganley: $9.450 to GOP.
• Gary Miller: $20,000 to GOP.
• Kevin and Gene Beltz: $18,500 to GOP.
• Arthur Grayson: $14,000 to GOP.
• Eric Grubbs and Family: $26,000 to GOP.
• Michael Leep and Family: $19,500 to GOP; $4,800 to three Democrats including Sen. Evan Bayh.
• Harry Green, Jr.: $10,000 to GOP.
• Ronald Hoover: $5,250 to GOP.
• Ray Huffines and Family: $18,500 to GOP.
• John O. Stevenson: $1,500 to GOP.• James Marsh: $8,200 to GOP.
• Max Pearson and Family: $112,000 to GOP.

Read it all here.

GEITHNER:  We face again this deep recession, damaged financial system.  And our immediate imperative still is to get growth back on track.  That requires us to do things that are expensive, that cost money, in the short term will raise deficits.  At the same time we do that, we have to commit to Americans, to investors around the world that we’re going to be able to get back to living within our own means when the crisis passed and when the recovery is established, we’re going to have to get back to living within our means.  And that’s going to require demonstrating to people we’re willing to stop doing things they’ve been doing, give up things that we don’t want to give up, and that will be a challenge.

RUSH:  Whoa wait a second, who’s he talking about here?  Because I know damn well he’s not talking about the government giving up things.  He’s talking about you and me and apparently his own kids.  So it’s our fault.  All of this is our fault.  The reason we’re in a recession is our fault and the government, to save us, has to spend all this debt, all this money.  And once this crisis is over, we’re going to have to get back to living within our means and that’s going to require demonstrating to people willing to stop doing things we’ve been doing, give up things that we don’t want to give up, and that will be a challenge.  What’s going to be the challenge?  They’re going to make us.  They’re going to make us give up these things.  So there’s your future, from the Treasury secretary of the Obama administration.  You caused this, you gave us this recession, your irresponsibility, your desire, you wanted too much.  You haven’t given enough back.  Now, when we get out of this recession you’re going to have to give up a lot of things.  We’re going to have to return to a more austere lifestyle.

Some people would rather not achieve on their own.  They want it done for them.

The expat quoted doesn’t have a problem with paying for the quality healthcare or education.  The issue, I think, is taking the responsibility for his own welfare and being self-reliant.  Whatever happenened to working in the pursuit of one’s own self-interest?  The desire to have someone take care of everything for you is foreign to me.  I’d rather take care of myself and succeed or fail on the merits of my actions.

What’s wrong with paying for you education,or paying for your own healthcare?  What’s wrong with being rich?

FTA:  Americans in Finland shared similar sentiments. But they weren’t naive about the place, and there was a reason they weren’t buying the latest toys. “I’ll never become rich in Finland,” one explained, “the taxes are just too high.” But for him it was a trade-off worth making. “Great healthcare, basically free. My kids get one of the best educations in the world, free.” By the way, that includes college, free. He had no plans to move back to the States.

FTA:  Finland doesn’t pay lip service to providing a level playing field for all its citizens. It really does give the vast majority of its citizens a fair and equal chance in life, in a way that the US just doesn’t, no matter how much Americans like to think it does.

via What Finland can teach America about true luxury.

In his weekly address today, President Obama calls for fiscal discipline and says his administration will eliminate waste and increase efficiency.

“We cannot settle for a future of rising deficits and debts that our children cannot pay,” the president says, adding that we must “recognize that we cannot meet the challenges of today with old habits and stale thinking. So much of our government was built to deal with different challenges from a different era. Too often, the result is wasteful spending, bloated programs, and inefficient results. It’s time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington.”

via Hot Air » Blog Archive » Obamateurism of the Day.

In April 2008, the US Treasury collected an all-time record $407.3 billion ($403.75 billion after subtracting the first $3.35 billion wave of stimulus checks, which really should have been treated as outlays, that went out just before month-end). It was an indication that, as I said at the time, “many (entrepreneurs, businesspeople, and investors) are thinking, in the face of relentless media harping to the contrary, that 2008 will be at least as profitable (as 2007).”

This year, it’s shaping up to be the “Bailout Year Bummer.” Uncle Sam’s fiscal year began on October 1 of last year, mere days before Congress passed the legislation that has come to be known as TARP, and a bit more than three months after Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid promised to starve the economy of energy and punitively tax its highest producers, creating what I have since called the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy.

Through March, federal receipts were running 14% behind the previous year. Each month during the fiscal year has trailed the previous year, and degree of the difference has steadily increased.

via BizzyBlog » When Will the Press Catch On to Uncle Sam’s Collections Meltdown?.

TCF Financial Corporation announced Wednesday that it had completed the repurchase of its TARP preferred stock from the U.S. Treasury. It paid a redemption price of $361.2 million plus accrued dividends of $3.4 million.

TCF Chairman and CEO William A. Cooper said the bank had maintained a strong capital position over the last year through its own operations, and it didn’t need to rely on the public capital infusion to continue its traditional lending pace. Cooper said TCF is the largest bank to pay back TARP funds to the U.S. Treasury.

But that didn’t come without Treasury getting one last shot at dictating business terms to Cooper:

As part of the agreement for withdrawing from the program, TCF also agreed to reduce its first-quarter dividend from 25 cents to 5 cents.

In other words, Treasury just cut 80% of the revenue for the stockholders as a penalty for early repayment of the TARP funds. Does that make sense to anyone else? Shouldn’t Treasury reward fiscal responsibility in its banks by allowing owners (stockholders) to realize their profit? King Banaian calls it a “ransom”:

Contemplate that last sentence: The government required TCF to drop its dividend in order to repay its loan. Would a bank be allowed to make you drop your kid’s allowance from $5 a week to $1 before you could pay off the auto loan early? Banks in trouble often end up in agreements with the Fed that include seeking permission to pay any dividends, but banks were brought into TARP as a matter of solidarity, even patriotism. Solidarity isn’t free, I guess.

How many pints of blood will be taken from the others?

It shows pretty clearly that at least a good part of the motivation behind TARP liquidity injections was to gain control of bank operations, and not just to rescue the banking sector. Forcing Cooper and TCF stockholders to pay a ransom in order to get their bank back is counterintuitive under any other scenario.

via Hot Air » Blog Archive » TCF bank pays off TARP, pays extra to dump Treasury control.