- Notice how all the bidders for this steel mill backed out and the assets were bought for less than 10cent on the dollar.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lisa,when I moved to San Antonio years back there was a 500,000 Square foot ex steel mill casting plant for sale that went BK = I looked at it for it had like 60 acres of land and could be purchased for a very small amount. The EPA problems and the fact that they sold all the equipment for almost nothing to pay the BK Trustee costs made the investment not of interest to my investors. It is not always the business it is the stupid government rules . . .
- Permalink Reply by on
- This is very good - just part posted link below.But if Jefferson’s decimal coinage concept was a good idea that quickly spread around the world, another idea that developed here at that time was lousy: the so-called American Rule, whereby each side in a civil legal case pays its own court costs regardless of outcome. This was different from the English system where the loser has to pay the court costs of both sides.
The American Rule came about as what might be called a deadbeat’s relief act. The Treaty of Paris (which ended the American Revolution) stipulated that British creditors could sue in American courts in order to collect debts owed them by people who were now American citizens. To make it less likely that they would do so, state legislatures passed the American Rule. With the British merchant stuck paying his own court costs, he had little incentive to go to court unless the debt was considerable.
The American Rule was a relatively minor anomaly in our legal system until the mid-20th century. But since then, as lawyers’ ethics changed and they became much more active in seeking cases, the American Rule has proved an engine of litigation. For every malpractice case filed in 1960, for instance, 300 are filed today. In practice, the American Rule has become an open invitation, frequently accepted, to legal extortion: “Pay us $25,000 to go away or spend $250,000 to defend yourself successfully in court. Your choice.”
Trial lawyers defend the American Rule fiercely. They also make more political contributions, mostly to Democrats, than any other set of donors except labor unions. One of their main arguments for the status quo is that the vast number of lawsuits from which they profit so handsomely force doctors, manufacturers, and others to be more careful than they otherwise might be. Private lawsuits, these lawyers maintain, police the public marketplace by going after bad guys so the government doesn’t have to—a curious assertion, given that policing the marketplace has long been considered a quintessential function of government.
The reason for this is that when policing has been in private hands, self-interest and the public interest inevitably conflicted. The private armies of the Middle Ages all too often turned into bands of brigands or rebels. The naval privateers who flourished in the 16th to 18th centuries were also private citizens pursuing private gain while performing a public service by raiding an enemy’s commerce during wartime. In the War of 1812, for instance, American privateers pushed British insurance rates up to 30 percent of the value of ship and cargo. But when a war ended, privateers had a bad habit of turning into pirates or, after the War of 1812, into slavers.
Predictably, the American Rule has spread exactly nowhere since its inception at the same time as the decimal coinage system. There is not another country in the common-law world that uses it. Indeed, the only other country on the planet that has a version of the American Rule is Japan, where a very different legal system makes it extremely difficult to get into court at all.
The United States has more lawyers and more lawsuits, per capita, than any other country. But lawsuits don’t create wealth, they only transfer it from one party to another, with lawyers taking a big cut along the way. Few things would help the American economy more than ending the American Rule. Texas reformed its tort law system a few years ago and the results have been dramatic. Doctors have been moving into the state, not out of it, and malpractice insurance costs have fallen 25 percent. And remember, good ideas always spread.5. Markets Hate Uncertainty
- Permalink Reply by on
- Ronald Reagan on HealthCare:Regarding national health insurance, you could reassure your student, Miss Lee Catcher, thatwhile I am opposed to socialized medicine, I have always felt that medical care should be available for those who cannot otherwise afford it. I have been looking into a program whereby government might pay the premiums for health insurance for those who cannot afford it and, at the same time, make such premiums for others a tax credit or deduction, preferably credit to encourage more use of private health insurance. There is also the problem of insurance for those catastrophic cases where the medical care goes on for years at a tremendously high cost. I proposed a form of government insurance for that in California when I was governor, but we couldn’t get any legislative support for it. I do believe this is a particular problem which must be faced and where the government could have a hand.I hope you have a very happy holiday season.Best regards,
Ronald Reagan
- Permalink Reply by on
- The Reagan in Romney
He’s the most fiscally conservative Republican standard-bearer since the Gipper.
Text
While some of my conservative colleagues are criticizing the Romney campaign for one thing or another, I want to make a distinct point that is largely being overlooked: Mitt Romney is the most fiscally conservative Republican standard-bearer since Ronald Reagan.Looking back through his speeches, interviews, and programmatic proposals, I see an emphasis on economic freedom, free enterprise, low tax rates, deep federal spending cuts, and free trade, and a free-market approach to tough social problems, such as health care, education, and poverty. Meaning no disrespect to George W. Bush, John McCain, Robert Dole, and George H. W. Bush, not one of these former Republican leaders was the consistent and comprehensive free-market advocate that Romney has been.A few recent examples help illustrate my point.Following his trip to Israel, Romney released an essay called “Culture Does Matter,” which was printed on National Review Online. In it, he strongly defended his statement that culture plays a key role in creating prosperity.Romney wrote that “one feature of our culture that propels the American economy stands out above all others: freedom. The American economy is fueled by freedom. Free people and their free enterprises are what drive our economic vitality.” He added that “economic freedom is the only force that has consistently succeeded in lifting people out of poverty . . . the only principle that has ever created sustained prosperity.”The last Republican leader to talk specifically in those terms? Ronald Reagan.And when Romney walked into the NAACP lion’s den in July, he told the crowd: “Free enterprise is still the greatest force for upward mobility, economic security, and the expansion of the middle class.” He was booed at the beginning of that speech when he opposed Obamacare. But he received a standing ovation at the end, once people heard his overall philosophy.I recently asked the former governor about Obama’s now-infamous “you didn’t build that” statement. Romney blasted it by saying, “This is an ideology which says, ‘Hey, we’re all the same here, we oughta take from all and give to one another,’ and that achievement, individual initiative, risk-taking, and success are not to be rewarded as they have in the past.” He called it an upside-down philosophy that does not comport with the American experience. The language is clearly Reagan-like.Programmatically, Columbia Business School dean and top Romney economic adviser Glenn Hubbard recently laid out the specific Romney economic plan. (Undoubtedly, the Romney campaign crossed every “t” and dotted every “i.”) The plan would lower the spending share of GDP to 20 percent from 24 percent by 2016, which is probably the largest proposed spending cut ever. The cumulative net savings of that cut could be a whopping $1.8 trillion, which not only would finance huge deficit reduction, but also would help pay for Romney’s pro-growth tax reform: a supply-side, across-the-board 20 percent personal-tax-rate reduction, a limit or end to various tax deductions for upper-income payers, and a dramatically reduced corporate tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent — perhaps the most powerful growth stimulant of all. Rounding out the economic program is a regulatory rollback, entitlement, trade, education, and energy reform, and a sound monetary policy (replacing Ben Bernanke at the Fed).The liberal Brookings Institution seized on the tax portion of this plan, arguing that revenue neutrality would force Romney to end deductions and raise taxes on the middle class. Nonsense. That analysis completely misses the massive spending-reduction in the overall package, along with growth incentives for everyone and base-broadeners only for the upper brackets.And according to Hubbard, Team Romney believes this pro-growth economic plan would generate 4 percent annual growth and create 12 million new jobs in a first term.So Romney has set specific policies and connected them to specific, positive economic results. He is arguing that a free-enterprise, supply-side program will rejuvenate jobs and economic growth. And he backs this up with an unmistakable philosophy of economic freedom. It’s the backbone of his thinking, and it connects to policies that will restore American prosperity.Now, I’m willing to concede that Romney’s message has not been refined enough for the public at large. In particular, I would prefer that he harp on the word “growth” far more than he does. And he will probably have to winnow his key points even more (though he has brought them down from 59 to five).So there’s more work to do before the big convention speech. But to suggest that Mitt Romney is not an economic conservative makes no sense to me. Look at what he’s saying. And look at what he’s proposing. And then think of Reagan.– Larry Kudlow, NRO’s economics editor, is host of CNBC’s The Kudlow Report and author of the daily web log, Kudlow’s Money Politic$.
Follow
- Permalink Reply by on
- "As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character... The legitimate meanings of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be... in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions, where it received all the authority which it possesses." – James Madison, Letter to Thomas Ritchie, September 15, 1821"Another error has been in ascribing to the intention of the Convention which formed theConstitution an undue ascendancy in expounding it. Apart from the difficulty of verifying that intention, it is clear, that if the meaning of the Constitution is to be sought out of itself, it is not in the proceedings of the body that proposed it, but in those of the State Conventions, which gave it all the validity and authority which it possesses." – James Madison, Letter to N. P. Trist, December, 1831
- Permalink Reply by on
The American Mind
Larry P. Arnn
Video Click Here
Quiz Week 1
The Declaration of Independence
Thomas G. West
Video Click Here
Quiz Week 2
The Problem of Majority Tyranny
David Bobb
Video Click Here
Quiz Week 3
Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny
Kevin Portteus
Video Click Here
Quiz Week 4
Separation of Powers: Ensuring Good Government
Will Morrisey
Video Click Here
Quiz Week 5
Religion, Morality, and Property
David Bobb
Video Click Here
Quiz Week 6
Crisis of Constitutional Government
Will Morrisey
Video Click Here
Quiz Week 7
Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution
Kevin Portteus
Video Click Here
Quiz Week 8
The Progressive Rejection of the Founding
Ronald J. Pestritto
Video Click Here
Quiz Week 9
The Recovery of the Constitution
Larry P. Arnn
Video Click Here
Quiz Week 10The Philosophy of Liberty
- Permalink Reply by on
The Freedom Project
Philsophy of Freedom
Limited Government
The Preamble
Legislative Authority
Executive Authority
Judicial Authority
Bill of Rights Part 1
Bill of Rights Part 2Spokesman for Liberty
Sheriff Richard Mack
G. Edward Griffin
Michael Badnarik
Thomas E. Woods
Earl Taylor
Ron Paul
John McManus
Lysander Spooner
Frederic Bastiat
Bill Whittle
Judge Andrew Napolitano
John Stossel
Richard Maybury
Lew Rockwell
Walter Williams
Milton Friedman
Red BeckmanThe 5,000 Year Leap
The Principles of Liberty
America's 5,000 Year Leap
The Value of Knowing Principles
The Political Spectrum
Natural Law
Only a Virtuous People are Capable of Freedom
The Proper Role of Government
Protecting the People from the Frailties of Their Leaders
Property Rights
Separation of Powers
Strong Local Self Government
No Entangling Alliances
Avoiding the Burden of Debt
Manifest Destiny
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Good conservative stuff and Natural Law . .
- Permalink Reply by on
If Only They Had Listened
RYAN WAS A VOICE FOR FANNIE MAE[, FREDDIE MAC] REFORM WHILE OBAMA OPPOSED IT.
August 17, 2012, 6:49 p.m. ET
On July 27, 2000, a first-term Congressman from Wisconsin signed his name to the Housing Finance Regulatory Improvement Act. The 30-year-old legislator didn't have much company. Of 435 Members of the House, only 12 were willing to join Paul Ryan in sponsoring a bill to reduce the taxpayer risks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Eight years later to the day, a federal bailout of the two mortgage giants was on its way to the desk of President George W. Bush. Almost $190 billion in taxpayer financing later, the toxic twins of the housing crisis maintain their massive role in mortgage finance.
On Friday, the U.S. Treasury said it is relieving the two government-sponsored enterprises of the requirement to pay regular dividends to taxpayers. Instead, the toxic twins will simply pass to the feds any profits they make. Fan and Fred's investment portfolios will also have to shrink more quickly, which is very good. But the deal suggests that they will continue to slap taxpayer-backed guarantees on mortgage bonds forever, or until there's a reformer in the White House.
If only there had been a few more reformers on Capitol Hill in 2000. Fan and Fred and their army of "affordable housing" lobbyists saw to it that the plan backed by Mr. Ryan never made the House floor. The bill would have limited the assets the toxic twins could hold, increased their capital, added new federal oversight, and removed their credit lines at Treasury.
"In order to maintain double-digit growth," noted Mr. Ryan at a 2000 Congressional hearing, "Fannie Mae will have to take on more and more risk" in order to "increase profitability to shareholders." He added, "This is not a mission of public policy."
As the government-fueled housing party heated up, Mr. Ryan continued to warn that many of Fan and Fred's profit-making activities carried little benefit for homeowners. In 2002, he sponsored a bill to remove the exemptions Fan and Fred enjoyed from the disclosure requirements in federal securities laws.
Mr. Ryan continued his sometimes lonely effort to reform the mortgage giants, for which he endured their usual political wrath. In 2008 he told us that Fannie once called every mortgage holder in his district, claiming falsely that Mr. Ryan wanted to raise the cost of their mortgage and asking if Fannie could tell the Congressman to stop on their behalf. He received some 6,000 telegrams. (See "The Fannie Mae Gang," July 23, 2008.)
Mr. Ryan's embrace of reform in his first term in Congress compares favorably to the efforts of a freshman Senator from Illinois in 2005. President Obama likes to pretend he was a warning voice in the wilderness because he later issued vague statements of displeasure once the housing market was already cracking.
What Mr. Obama doesn't say is that he failed to support any of the serious reform efforts to reduce the role of Fannie and Freddie in the mortgage market. The same is true of old Senate hand Joe Biden. Mitt Romney was never a Washington politician, so he can't be blamed for the legislative failures of the 2000s.
This history bears further study, as Mr. Obama repeatedly attempts to tie the GOP candidates to Washington's policy mistakes leading up to the financial crisis. In Iowa this week, the President said that Messrs. Romney and Ryan are proposing the same economic policies "that got us into this mess in the first place."
The truth is that the President who loves to talk about the "mess" he "inherited" did nothing to prevent it when he had the chance. In contrast, his opponent's new running mate was an early voice for reforms that might have helped America avoid it.
--------
- Permalink Reply by on
- I couldn't access that blog which debunked the anti fed reserve presentation on vemo. What did they debunk?
