http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476823767508619.html

It's surprising that they don't talk about how Minimum wage increase take the largest toll on the middle class. This is because their wages don't increase in accordance to the MWI and yet the cost of goods do.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/06/04/0604lacresha.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=52

"Murray, whose two convictions in the killing of Jayla Belton were overturned in 1999 after she spent three years in juvenile prison, had sought $30 million for alleged civil rights violations by former Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle and several assistant prosecutors as well as police detectives, state Child Protective Services workers and others.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the lawsuit last year. The suit, filed in 2002, never went to trial. "

It annoys me that this trial has already cost us taxpayers this much. LaCresha get over yourself this is not your winning lottery ticket. YOU KILLED A CHILD, you're not a due anything and are lucky you're still not in jail.

Because I'm to busy to type up my own ideas on this I've copied Mankiw's thoughts here.

"A common argument, often made by ostensibly sophisticated commentators, is that the United States needs to reform its health care system to maintain its international competitiveness. Regardless of your views of health care reform, this particular argument is, to put it bluntly, nonsense. Long ago, Paul Krugman wrote a nice piece demolishing the whole concept of international competitiveness as a motive for national economic policy. More recently, the Congressional Budget Office has done a nice job explaining why the idea of international competitiveness as a reason for health care reform is fallacious. The passage below, from page 167 of the CBO analysis, is written in the CBO's traditional understated way, but the point is clear:


International Competitiveness

Some observers have asserted that domestic producers that provide health insurance to their workers face higher costs for compensation than competitors based in countries where insurance is not employment based and that fundamental changes to the health insurance system could reduce or eliminate that disadvantage. However, such a cost reduction is unlikely to occur, except in the short run.

The equilibrium level of overall compensation in the economy is determined by the supply of and the demand for labor. Fringe benefits (such as health insurance) are just part of that compensation. Consequently, the costs of fringe benefits are borne by workers largely in the form of lower cash wages than they would receive if no such benefits were provided by their employer.

Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers’ payments for their workers’ insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged. Even though changes to the health care system could have various effects on the supply of labor, the underlying amount of labor supplied at any given level of compensation would hardly be
affected by a change in the health care system. As a result, cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers.

Compensation could take some time to adjust to its market-clearing level (the point at which supply and demand are equal). During that time, firms that formerly provided health benefits—especially firms that employ workers under multiyear contracts—could experience substantial reductions in labor costs, which would boost their profits temporarily. But those firms would experience no permanent change in their competitive status.

Be ready: This fallacy may well be rearing its ugly, and illogical, head in the days to come."

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/05/19/0519capmetro.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=52

So pre-train we ran at 75% income and has $200million in the bank. Post train we're running in deficit and have just over $10million in the bank and now need to borrow 10million more? Oh yeah and we still haven't paid off the trains either we still owe $29million on them. That and the train hasn't even carried non-press passengers yet. Again sure glad we wast....spent that money.

Now this was a train system built upon existing tracks. It was sold to Austin for about 60million + 30million of federal funds. It's current cost is above 300 million as long as you look past the shell game of hiding costs by making the Train stations as bus stations and charging them against the bus budget. You know even though they're TRAIN stations. To make this even better the people on the Leander line are getting worse service. The current express bus makes 4 stops in downtown and pretty much drops you off within walking distance of most places you'd want to go. The Train well it has one that's near the convention center. The Convention Center which isn't really near any major employment, and have fun walking when it gets to 112 downtown.

Then you get to the yearly cost $10million. Yeah I know Cap Metro for some reason loves the number, but that's what they're projecting. Though I've heard numbers going from 9 to 12 so your milage may vary. So that's 10K per rider per year in just maintenance costs(no capital cost in there). That's about 6K less than someone who makes minimum wage with a full time job.

So think about this when you think about Obama's cracked out dream for a nationwide rail system. Basically we can't afford it, nor do we really need it.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/05/barack_obamas_risky_deficit_sp.html

"Let's see. From 2010 to 2019, Obama projects annual deficits totaling $7.1 trillion; that's atop the $1.8 trillion deficit for 2009. By 2019, the ratio of publicly held federal debt to gross domestic product (GDP, or the economy) would reach 70 percent, up from 41 percent in 2008. That would be the highest since 1950 (80 percent). The Congressional Budget Office, using less optimistic economic forecasts, raises these estimates. The 2010-19 deficits would total $9.3 trillion; the debt-to-GDP ratio in 2019 would be 82 percent."

How does anyone think this is good? Oh yeah :

"One reason Obama is so popular is that he has promised almost everyone lower taxes and higher spending. Beyond the undeserving who make more than $250,000, 95 percent of "working families" receive a tax cut. Obama would double federal spending for basic research in "key agencies." He wants to build high-speed-rail networks that would require continuous subsidy. Obama can do all this and more by borrowing."

But what happens when people stop lending us money? I mean at some point our credit has to run out and China has already considered turning off their tap.

Then there's this point
"The wonder is that these issues have been so ignored. Imagine hypothetically that a President McCain had submitted a budget plan identical to Obama's. There would almost certainly have been a loud outcry: "McCain's Mortgaging Our Future." Obama should be held to no less exacting a standard."

People love to think that I and others like me would be defending McCain, but this blog would serve as proof that I wouldn't be. Just as many other blogs show that the vast majority of Liberals are being Hypocritical because they whined about Bush's deficit spending, but are silent or giddy about Obama's. What's the difference? Because it's their guy taking their lunch money vs the guy from the other city?

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/05/accountability.html



"When the Obama stimulus plan was proposed, the president's economic team put out a report in January 2009 that purported to show what would happen with and without the fiscal stimulus. The chart above is from page four that report, together with the actual results over the past couple months. As you can see, the actual outcome is significantly worse than the projection with the stimulus plan and is, in fact, roughly on track with what was projected without the stimulus."

I really wish there wasn't so much bad news to report. Oh yeah especially that isn't being reported on in the regular media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/health/policy/15health.html?_r=1

Why is this not Headline news? It annoys me how much the news media is pandering to Obama.

"Health care leaders who attended the meeting have a different interpretation. They say they agreed to slow health spending in a more gradual way and did not pledge specific year-by-year cuts.

“There’s been a lot of misunderstanding that has caused a lot of consternation among our members,” said Richard J. Umbdenstock, the president of the American Hospital Association. “I’ve spent the better part of the last three days trying to deal with it.”

Nancy-Ann DeParle, director of the White House Office of Health Reform, said “the president misspoke” on Monday and again on Wednesday when he described the industry’s commitment in similar terms. After providing that account, Ms. DeParle called back about an hour later on Thursday and said: “I don’t think the president misspoke. His remarks correctly and accurately described the industry’s commitment.”"

Yep the pres misspoke, oh wait no I did. Come on now.

Also in the article

"House Democrats on Thursday circulated the outline of a bill that would require all Americans to carry health insurance and would subsidize premiums for many people with incomes up to four times the poverty level ($88,200 for a family of four).

Under the proposal, employers would have to offer coverage to employees or help finance it by paying a percentage of their payroll. The Democrats are proposing creation of a “public health insurance plan,” which would compete with private insurers.

The public plan would probably be run by the Health and Human Services Department, according to the outline."

Why should I subsidize a family of 4 making $88K? If they couldn't afford to have that many kids then they should have had them. It's called personal responsibility. You know something Obama preached about in 2004.

Just look at all of the people he's help have alittle bit of fun during their day. THat to me is the most awesome part of this

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/13/rollins.republicans/index.html

"Two years later, Jimmy Carter was elected president and I was convinced Republicans would be in the wilderness the rest of my political life. After the first 100 days, President Carter's approval rating was 69 percent -- higher than President Obama's.

And four years after that I was working in the White House as an assistant to President Ronald Reagan -- who defeated Carter by a landslide and won a Senate majority and a philosophical majority in the House. For 20 of the next 28 years, a Republican was in the White House."

As much as the Dems like to act like the GOP is dead it isn't.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6c4548ef-91c2-47b5-a357-c83bc5212cae

Really good article about what's going on. This really should be read by everyone.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91931036

"It's a powerful incentive for doctors to exercise restraint — not to provide more care than is necessary. But often, the pot of money is exhausted before the end of the quarter."

Though the over all cost is 10.7% GDP, compared to about 16%GDP here in the US. That said they are having to look at increasing costs as we speak, so maybe we should see what that difference is.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090512/ap_on_bi_ge/us_social_security

So what's their answers??? Raise Taxes on the Rich http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090512/ap_on_go_co/us_health_overhaul

This is just awesomeness. Though he's incorrect about Citibank being wrong about their answers. While maybe incorrect answers for the Questions they are not untrue. Geithner does suck.

I agree with Brewster that this is the right thing for Austin, but doesn't mean I have to like it.
( Cut for out of towners )

http://news.aol.com/article/president-obama-pokes-fun/473467

Now I realize the President was just trying to have fun and entertain people, but when you're president there are certain levels of decorum that must be maintained and to me making jokes about a ex-VP who's not there isn't that level of decorum.

"The former vice president was busy, President Barack Obama joked, working on his memoir "tentatively titled, How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People.""

While I definitely have no love for Cheney, this crosses that line. I personally find it pretty offensive. While I don't respect Cheney I do respect the office that he held and the job that he did (even if I don't like what he did with it) and the President should respect it as well.

Though I will give him that I think his joke about the republican party

"Michael for the last time, the Republican Party does not qualify for a bailout," Obama told Steele. "Rush Limbaugh does not count as a troubled asset, I'm sorry."

Was pretty amazingly funny and appropriate. I also don't agree with the people who are bashing the president for having this celebrity get together. While I would hope there where better things to be doing with his time, than increasing his celebrity status, I can concede that he did just raise 98,000 for charity in a single night and that is commendable.

http://news.aol.com/article/obama-budget-plan/468167

Though I'm worried that not producing the F-22 may in the long run be a massive mistake.

I consider this a must read, especially for those who think they know a thing or two about hedge funds

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/05/cliff-asness-i-am-ready-for-my.html

Here are some highlights and then some comments from me.

"Here's a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It’s not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders' contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times."

"Here's a shock. When hedge funds, pension funds, mutual funds, and individuals, including very sweet grandmothers, lend their money they expect to get it back. However, they know, or should know, they take the risk of not being paid back. But if such a bad event happens it usually does not result in a complete loss. A firm in bankruptcy still has assets. It’s not always a pretty process. Bankruptcy court is about figuring out how to most fairly divvy up the remaining assets based on who is owed what and whose contracts come first. The process already has built-in partial protections for employees and pensions, and can set lenders' contracts aside in order to help the company survive, all of which are the rules of the game lenders know before they lend. But, without this recovery process nobody would lend to risky borrowers. Essentially, lenders accept less than shareholders (means bonds return less than stocks) in good times only because they get more than shareholders in bad times."

"The President's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to "sacrifice" some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power." (emphasis added)

"Last but not least, the President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people's money." (emphasis added)

"This is America. We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years. When it fails it fixes itself. Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience by the President."

This points to something I've been saying. Just because something is unpopular doesn't mean it's wrong. In this case people have found a way to make money. Yeah they're unpopular because they're seen as the funds of the wealthy elite, but again that sure seems like a child crying because someone else's lollipop is bigger. As this points out popular opinion isn't exactly true, poorer people can get in on the benefit of Hedge funds through pension plans and other methods. Yeah they don't get as much out of them as the billionaire, but then again they didn't risk as much either did they? Also, people love to act like it's impossible to get ahead these days and that the ultra wealthy is a class that just can't be broken into. That is just patently false, most of the richest people in the world have made their billions in the last 15-30yrs. Also most of them are US citizens(http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/10/billionaires-2009-richest-people_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank.html). There's a reason for that, it's because we have the best system for a person to get ahead with hard work.

Why is it that humans constantly want to believe the world is coming to an end?