The EU is getting very concerned about the financial crisis in Greece. The embattled country must raise some 11.5 Billion Euros (~$20B USD) by May, and the clock is ticking. A bailout plan conceived of 2 weeks ago is beginning to fall apart over reluctance to submit to IMF authority. Even Germany’s Bundesbank is skeptical, issuing a report calling the IMF the “Inflation Maximizing Fund”. Greece is planning a new bond sale targeting U.S. investors, pitching themselves as an “emerging market”, a status usually reserved for speculators. Asia has already turned their backs to Greece. The yield on 2-year Greek bonds soared from 5.2% to 8.3% in just ONE WEEK!
As a result of this chaos, the markets in the Euro Zone have reacted negatively. The Euro itself has lost ground to the U.S. dollar. Things got a touch quieter when Greece announced they plan to cut their budget deficit by 40%. Imagine if we had to do that! That would be the equivalent of Obama cutting some $600-700 Billion in spending! Obama did call for another of those $100 Million dollar cuts in some departments. What a joke!
Germany still appears to be a major stumbling block for the Greeks. Athens would like to be able to borrow money at rates similar to Portugal and Ireland, also in financial trouble. They are paying about 4.5% interest, where as Greece is being forced to borrow at 6%. But German Chancellor, Andrea Merkel remains steadfast in insisting that Greece borrows at a ‘market rate’ that justified the potential moral hazards.
In between strikes and riots in the streets, Greek citizens are taking action themselves. In the past 2 months, Greek citizens have begun moving their money across the borders to safer havens. Some 10 Billion Euros worth of cash and assets have made the exodus to escape a potential collapse. Fears still persist that Greece may default on it’s loans. This is why the Euro Zone markets are getting hammered. After the news of the bailout deal last month, everyone had hoped that the financial contagion would be contained. But, it is now looking like all bets are off and all parties involved are heading back to Square One, with the clock ticking louder and louder.
Maybe it is time for David Bowie to do a remix of his classic, “Panic in Detroit”? “He said he was Goldman Sachs. Had a deal for lots of cash. Sold me mortgage-back securities. They turned out to just be trash. Now I’m a victim…, of the Casino Gulag Banks! Panic in Athens! Oh-oh-oh-oh. Putting on some clothes I went to the Bundesbank. Andrea Merkel told me to get lost. I screamed and ran to tap the IMF for a loan. But their interest rates were too high for the cost.” Though given what’s going on in Motown these days, there is little difference between there and Athens.
April 9th, 2010 at 10:13 am
Yeah, we definately need to adopt more economic policies like that of Europe.
Is anyone out there listening ?
April 9th, 2010 at 10:34 am
The progressives want the greek or european collapse to happen here. Give your hard earned wealth to the progressives while the progressives give your wealth to those who don’t have it. You educate yourself, develope your kills, work long hours. Live by Christian ethics you are going to be punished.
April 9th, 2010 at 11:42 am
The progressives want the greek or european collapse to happen here. Give your hard earned wealth to the progressives while the progressives give your wealth to those who don’t have it.
Says the dipsh*t fear-mongering republican with the tin-foil hat on.
April 9th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
“Says the dipsh*t fear-mongering republican ”
Hmmm… fear mongering republicans.
As opposed to scaring the hell out of all our kids by telling them that in 10 to 20 years global warming will have the effects of a nuclear holocaust.
Or Gore telling the world the ice-sheets melting in Greenland or the West Antarctic would raise sea level by 20 feet. Thats true but ask yourself: why didn’t Gore put a time-frame on it?
The answer: a twenty foot increase would, all things remaining equal would take a millennia.
As Dr. Trenberth himself once stated: temperatures would have to remain 5.5 degrees Celsius higher than today’s for several millennia before the Greenland ice sheet would lose even half of its ice. The Greenland ice sheet has in fact recently thickened by 2 inches per year – a total of 20 inches in 10 years” (Johannesen et al., 2005).
You guys call us fear mongers when were concerned with real true and viable threats and you’re all running around sceaming “the sky is falling”
Trust me, you guys have done yourfair share of fear mongering to get your way
April 9th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Okay, you have one tired example. I guess that’s on par with your fear-mongering chimp-leader Bush insisting that we go destroy the middle east because of their cache of WMDs, which I guess is a real, true and viable threat, right? Or that the passage of health reform will lead us to communism, yeah that’s a real threat isn’t it? Or maybe your lead-bimbo Palin claiming that health reform will create death panels, I guess that’s a real, true and viable threat isn’t it? Or, like the doctor that was in the news recently because he posted in his office to turn around if you voted for Obama – the right-wing fear machine had him believe that health reform will kill hospice, which is entirely untrue (when confronted with that he said “Well, I get my news on the internet like anybody else”) that misinformation was because of the right-sided fear machine.
Yeah, you guys really stick to the real issues, don’t ya?
April 9th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
“Yeah, you guys really stick to the real issues, don’t ya?”
You mean like your first post, #3 ?
Learn to count. There were two (2) examples and dont think for a second that I cant come up with host examples coming from the days of Carter where he said the world would run out oil in ten years to Gethner saying “never let a goog crisis go to waste.
So if you’re gona jump on people for fear mongering you guys might wantto look in the mirror first.
“because of their cache of WMDs, which I guess is a real, true and viable threat”
Hmmm, let me see.
Saddam invaded a sovereign country threatening the oil supply. The Saudis begged us to do something about him. Violated every sanction after so called “peace treaty was signed. Was paying Palestnian suicide bombers families to send there kids to Afghanistan and blow up Americans, gassed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and shot at our planes in no fly zones 1200 times…
With or without WMDsI’d say he was a threat, would you not ?
April 9th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
@ Snow
We are following the Greek model.
What part of that failure in display do you not understand ?
And what would be your argument be that shows were not sharing many of the trends and similarities that led to the situation in Greece ?
April 9th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
dont think for a second that I cant come up with host examples coming from the days of Carter where he said the world would run out oil in ten years
Don’t think for a second that I can’t come up with a host of examples that are actually relevant during these times.
April 9th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
How about one of the more recent ones spread by the republican fear-mongers –
“The IRS will oversee health control and determine whether or not you are compliant”
That was debunked by the IRS commissioner.
Really, I could come up with these all day if you like. It’s pretty easy, all you have to do is turn on the news.
April 9th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
oooh oooh I have one, how about one that was right here on RightPundits very recently. The Obamacare army! OOOOH SCARY!
Imagine soldiers. But with scalpels and poor bedside manners.
OMG SO SCARY!
April 9th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
Snow;
“Don’t think for a second that I can’t come up with a host of examples that are actually relevant during these times.”
Global warming is a scientific prophecy, a prediction, not relevant to these times.
My examples , the economy, Greece etc are tangible. real, and have/are happening and we didnt run out of oil and Geithners on record saying you cant waste a good crisis. Obama took that lead and did plenty of fear mongering (too big to fail)to get folks on board with the stimulus, global warming etc
==================================
“How about one of the more recent ones spread by the republican fear-mongers
“The IRS will oversee health control and determine whether or not you are compliant”
That was debunked by the IRS commissioner.”
Thats not really the big complaint, nice try. What most conservatives are concerned about is the methods the IRS will use to collect heathcare revenues.
you will be fined or refunds will be held back til you purchase a policy…fact.
“Really, I could come up with these all day if you like. It’s pretty easy, all you have to do is turn on the news.”
So could I, but I dont need the news, bias liberal media, to do my thinking for me
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Tax/health-reform-law-expanded-irs-threat-taxpayers/story?id=10238411
Treasury officials claim that there have been about 900 threats in recent years.Republicanson the House Ways and Means Committee warn that as many as 16,500 new IRS auditors and investigators — or 17 percent of the agency’s current work force — could be needed to administer and enforce new health insurance rules under the law.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act authorizes the IRS, the agency that collects taxes and enforces internal revenue laws in the U.S., to collect penalties imposed on individuals for not having health insurance, and on companies for not offering it when the mandates take effect in 2014.
That could mean more audits, confiscated refunds and incursions into details of individuals’ health insurance plans — all at a cost of up to $10 billion over 10 years, they said in a report published last week. “
April 9th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Oh is that a fact? Micky, you kool-aid drinking maniac, the fear-machine got to you didn’t it?
How about a quick fact check -
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/
Or, how about hearing it directly from the horses mouth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sluAS6Z5MEU
April 9th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
@Snow
Anyway, you’ve yet to answer my question in post # 7 or deal with anything relevant to the post.
Both parties are just as guilty when it comes to alarmism. The question on that issue would be if the supposed threat is actually viable, tangible or made up for ulterior motives.
Our enemies and economy are real, factual, happening.
After suffering more attacks on and off our soil from radicals in his first term than in all the years of Bushs term after 911 I would be seriously concerned about a president who wants us to reduce our stock pile of nukes in the face of many nuclear countries that right now have not been too compliant on him with anything, except for the kiss a$$ French of course.
Rasmussen poll asking on Obamas recent announcement of this intention showed some not so good response from Americans.
You can call my concern fear mongering paranoid tin foil cap thinking all you want but this a$$hat has just given the country a good dose of fear without being smart enough to even realize how he did it
55% dissaprove 25% agree
April 9th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
“Oh is that a fact? Micky, you kool-aid drinking maniac, the fear-machine got to you didn’t it?”
Nice try buddy but your link does not disprove the fact that therewill be a fine for not having coverage. It only clears up the discrepency over how many agents will have to be added to collect the revenues.
By virtue of that they are admitting that healthcare will be mandated or you will be fined.
try again
April 9th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
After suffering more attacks on and off our soil from radicals in his first term than in all the years of Bushs term after 911 I would be seriously concerned about a president who wants us to reduce our stock pile of nukes in the face of many nuclear countries that right now have not been too compliant on him with anything, except for the kiss a$$ French of course.
I like how you snub the 911 attack, sorry bubu but it still counts. Like it or not it was on his watch. So Obama has had more attacks on American soil has he? Let’s see, we have a guy who lit his underwear on fire and an (unfortunate) isolated incident in Ft. Hood.
Bush has the largest attack on our soil which cost the life of over 3,000 Americans, an anthrax scare, a sniper who picked off 10 innocent people, the shoe bomber…
Oh but we wont count those because we’re sheeple who listen to Giuliani.
April 9th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Nice try buddy but your link does not disprove the fact that therewill be a fine for not having coverage. It only clears up the discrepency over how many agents will have to be added to collect the revenues.
Oh, is the issue now switched to the heath reform fines? Oh, okay. Yeah there will be fines. And yes it does clear it up. Let me show you the part you should have read…
This wildly inaccurate claim started as an inflated, partisan assertion that 16,500 new IRS employees might be required to administer the new law. That devolved quickly into a claim, made by some Republican lawmakers, that 16,500 IRS “agents” would be required. Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas even claimed in a televised interview that all 16,500 would be carrying guns. None of those claims is true.
The IRS’ main job under the new law isn’t to enforce penalties. Its first task is to inform many small-business owners of a new tax credit that the new law grants them — starting this year — which will pay up to 35 percent of the employer’s contribution toward their workers’ health insurance. And in 2014 the IRS will also be administering additional subsidies — in the form of refundable tax credits — to help millions of low- and middle-income individuals buy health insurance.
The law does make individuals subject to a tax, starting in 2014, if they fail to obtain health insurance coverage. But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified before a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee March 25 that the IRS won’t be auditing individuals to certify that they have obtained health insurance. He said insurance companies will issue forms certifying that individuals have coverage that meets the federal mandate, similar to a form that lenders use to verify the amount of interest someone has paid on their home mortgage. “We expect to get a simple form, that we won’t look behind, that says this person has acceptable health coverage,” Shulman said. “So there’s not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee.” In any case, the bill signed into law (on page 131) specifically prohibits the IRS from using the liens and levies commonly used to collect money owed by delinquent taxpayers, and rules out any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to pay the tax or those who don’t obtain coverage. That doesn’t leave a lot for IRS enforcers to do.
So where does the claim of 16,500 new agents come from?
Starting with a Soft Figure
This figure originated with a report put out by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee on March 18. It said:
GOP Analysis, March 18: IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees.
Notice the words “may” and “as many as.” This is the highest figure the GOP analysts thought they could support. Notice also the phrase “other employees,” which covers everyone down to file clerks and support staff.
The analysts based their 16,500 figure on an assumption that the IRS budget “could” require an additional $10 billion over the next 10 years as a result of the law, a figure they attribute to the Congressional Budget Office. But what CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf actually said in a March 11 letter to congressional leaders is this (with emphasis added):
CBO Director Elmendorf, March 11: CBO has not completed an estimate of all of the discretionary costs that would be associated with H.R. 3590. … [S]uch costs would probably include an estimated $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years for administrative costs of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Note the words “probably” and “could.” And the figure — based on preliminary analysis — could as easily be $5 billion as the $10 billion number the GOP analysts used.
False Assumptions
The GOP analysts then inflated their estimate by making a couple of false assumptions.
No desks? First, they assume that all the new “administrative” spending projected by CBO would go for payroll and benefits — without any allowance for desks, computers, office rent, utilities, travel or other overhead costs necessary to run any government enterprise. The partisan analysts simply divided the spending (which they figured could be $1.5 billion per year once the law is fully effective) by the current average payroll cost for the entire IRS workforce.
To their credit, the GOP analysts admitted this shortcoming, saying their figure “does not include other costs that would be incurred, including office overhead.” In fact, they said: “There would be some additional overhead costs for the new employees, such as computers and telephone services.” Adjusting for that, they said, the number of new workers implied by the CBO guesstimate would be 11,800.
No pay raises? The second false assumption is that there will be no inflation or pay raises over the next decade. They apply fiscal 2009 cost figures to budgets for 2014 through 2019. In fact, CBO currently projects that the Employment Cost Index will rise 1.4 percent next year and reach 3 percent per year in 2015 and thereafter. Even if the partisan analysis is valid, that would further reduce the maximum number that could be hired by another 1,000 in 2014, and by about 2,800 in 2019, by our calculations.
The GOP analysts assume that the $10 billion would not be spread evenly over the decade, but would reach $1.5 billion annually in later years. That’s reasonable, given that major provisions of the new law don’t take effect until 2014. But even accepting that, the peak figure could just as easily be $750 million a year, if the CBO’s lower guess proves to be correct. So the number of new IRS workers implied by the GOP’s own logic could be closer to 5,000 than to 16,500, after adjusting for overhead costs and inflation.
And the fact is, whatever the number of new employees turns out to be, relatively few would be “agents” or otherwise working in enforcement.
Employees vs. “Agents”
The GOP staff analysis projected only the number of new “employees,” but some Republican lawmakers immediately misrepresented the findings by claiming that all the new workers would be “agents.” GOP Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan stated in a press release that “Up to 16,500 New IRS Agents” would be required. And he’s not the only one making such a claim. Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said on “Fox News Sunday” on March 21 that the IRS would get “16,000 agents to police this new mandate.” In a March 25 speech on the Senate floor, Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada said: “And 16,500 new IRS agents are going to be required to be hired because of the health care reform bill. Do we want IRS agents showing up at people’s houses, not only to audit them because of their taxes but because now they are not paying an individual mandate fine?”
But there’s a huge difference between an IRS revenue agent — who calls on taxpayers and conducts face-to-face audits — and the workers who make up the bulk of IRS employees. Those who work at the IRS include clerks, accountants, computer programmers, telephone help line workers and other support staff. In fact, IRS revenue agents make up only 15 percent of the IRS workforce, according to the official IRS personnel summary. It shows that of the 93,337 employees the IRS had on board as of the end of the last fiscal year (September 31, 2009) only 14,264 were actually working as revenue agents. Even adding in “revenue officers” (who collect money owed) and “special agents” (who handle criminal cases and are law-enforcement officers) the total working in the enforcement area comes to less than 25 percent of all IRS workers.
Rep. Camp should know that — he’s the senior Republican member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees the IRS. This misrepresentation of the inflated “employee” figure has since been picked up and repeated by countless conservative blogs and news sites. But however often it is repeated, it is still false.
“Armed Bureaucrats”?
Not content to turn all IRS “employees” into “agents,” one Republican lawmaker even claimed they all would have guns. In a March 22 interview with Fox Business anchor David Asmam, Rep. Ron Paul said, “Just think about it — 16,500 armed bureaucrats coming to make this program work.” Rep. Paul’s wildly false claim appears 3 minutes and 51 seconds into the interview, which Fox posted on YouTube.
In fact, the only IRS employees who are authorized to carry firearms are “special agents,” who are sworn law enforcement officers who work on criminal cases. As of last year there were only 2,725 of those, making up just under 3 percent of all IRS employees. So even if thousands of new IRS workers were actually hired, very few of them, if any, would be “armed bureaucrats.”
In fact, as previously mentioned, the bill signed into law specifically waives any criminal penalties for individuals who refuse to obtain coverage and also refuse to pay the tax. It says (on page 131): “In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.”
Outreach vs. Enforcement
At his March 25 appearance, IRS Commissioner Shulman said that the bulk of the IRS’ efforts would go to informing individuals and businesses of the various tax incentives available under the new law. Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Shulman said: “What we’re going to do is try to make sure people are educated, there’s information, that we process payments quickly.”
He said the IRS hadn’t yet figured out what staffing levels would be required, and he didn’t deny that some new agents might be hired. “We also will make sure there’s no fraud and abuse in the system as we always do,” he said. “We will need resources to implement the tax provisions.” But that scary claim of 16,500 new agents simply lacks any foundation in fact.
-Brooks Jackson
Sources
Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Sen. Harry Reid. 11 Mar 2010.
House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee. “The Wrong Prescription: Democrats’ Health Overhaul Dangerously Expands IRS Authority.” 18 Mar 2010.
Schulman, Douglas. Testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee. 25 Mar 2010.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Pub. L. 111-148, 23 Mar 2010.
I guess you missed that part.
April 9th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
I love the irony of this statement though -
So could I, but I dont need the news, bias liberal media, to do my thinking for me
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Tax/health-reform-law-expanded-irs-threat-taxpayers/story?id=10238411
You don’t need the news to do the thinking for you, then you present me with ‘factual evidence’ from ABC NEWS?
Micky, you’re a joke.
April 9th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
“Bush has the largest attack on our soil which cost the life of over 3,000 Americans, an anthrax scare, a sniper who picked off 10 innocent people, the shoe bomber…”
Wake up buddy.
I said “AFTER 911″
To which he was the president who actually did something about these a$$hats and the shoe bomber got away with nothing as opposed to Hasan blowin away 13 people.
Not to mention that 911 was planned on Clintons watch who didnt do sht after the first trade tower attacks, the cole, two embassies.
But nah, its all rainbows a unicorns, lets just blow up a pill factory in Iraq while the CIA is telling me they know where Osama is at and a few well placed missiles would take him out.
Instead he went and stained some girls blue dress
April 9th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
“You don’t need the news to do the thinking for you, then you present me with ‘factual evidence’ from ABC NEWS?”
Well, I have to present you with what only you understand right ?
I could give you the link to actual congressional transcripts if you like.
I mean really dude, you have a computer and to say that you need to turn on the news to find whats going on is pretty revealing as far as your data retreiving methods goes.
But hey ! why wouldnt you depend on the news/tv/media/john stewart? ? 75% of most journalists are liberals anyway who’ll tell you all day long exactly what you want to hear.
Now, are you gonna continue your silly pedantic sht or answer the question pertaining to Greece ?
April 9th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Wake up buddy.
I said “AFTER 911″
Yeah, I know you did. You obviously decided to ignore this one because it’s so ugly and it’s on Bush’s watch – so let’s ignore that one that involved 3,000 innocent deaths, right?
April 9th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
I could give you the link to actual congressional transcripts if you like.
Please do.
April 9th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
75% of most journalists are liberals anyway
Is this another one of your “facts”?
Not to mention that 911 was planned on Clintons watch
And it was executed successfully on Bush’s watch. You were talking about terrorist attacks, not terrorist plots. For all we know it was planned on Bush Sr.’s watch.
April 9th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
By the way, the first WTC attack happened on February 26th 1993, like 1 month after Clinton was in office. So that means it was originally planned on Bush Sr’s watch, right?
April 9th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Sorry, submitted to early…
So they planned the original attack on Bush Sr’s watch, which means they planned to destroy WTC while Bush Sr. was in office, not Clinton, right? Or are you going to conveniently spin this some other way?
April 9th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
#17 Snow says;
Oh, is the issue now switched to the heath reform fines? Oh, okay. Yeah there will be fines. And yes it does clear it up. Let me show you the part you should have read…”
Let me show you the part you refuse to acknowledge
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/president-obama-no-healthcare-insurance-go-to-jail
“What I think is appropriate,” Obama said, “is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.”
The only problem with Obama’s version of Monopoly (let’s call it “Obamanopoly”) is that he’s added one new rule:
If he runs out of money, he just takes a little from all the other players.
Source: MofoPolitics.com
Its mandatory, and if you dont purchase a policy they will fine you.