Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label Jacob Lew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jacob Lew. Show all posts

Friday, September 18, 2015

No Wonder The Fed Is NOT Raising Rates!

FEDERAL RESERVE KEEPS INTEREST RATES AT 0%… AGAIN!

The Federal Reserve has just announced that its target for the federal funds rate will be kept at 0%.  It has now been at 0% since December 16, 2008.
I stated as far back as 2010 (and often since) that the Federal Reserve can never allow interest rates to rise again due to the massive amount of debt that this system has created.  Most people called me crazy.
Since the financial crisis in 2008, which was what prompted the Federal Reserve to take such an extreme measure of lowering rates to 0%, the total debt of the US government has nearly doubled.
US govt debt The Dollar Vigilante
In 2008, the US government closed their fiscal year with $10,024,724,896,912 in debt.  That’s $10 trillion.
What is the total US government debt now?  Well, actually, no one knows.  On March 13th of this year the total debt hit the “debt ceiling” mandated by Congress when it stood at $18,112,975,000,000.
On July 30, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew sent a letter to the leaders of Congress informing them that he was extending a “debt issuance suspension period” through October 30.
That suspension still remains in effect.  In the meantime they siphon money from other areas (including pensions and other entitlements) to remain afloat.  And, as of today the total debt officially issued by the US government remains at $18.1 trillion.  It it were not frozen it would be approximately $18.5 trillion or higher at this time… which means total US govt debt has nearly doubled in the last seven years and has more than doubled since it stood at $9 trillion in 2007.
And herein is why the Fed can never raise rates significantly (more than 1-2%) without collapsing the whole system.
If, for example, they were to allow rates to rise to a very, very low number, like 3% that would entail unknowable wreckage.  Certainly the US housing market would be wiped out… which would lead to the banks being wiped out… which would mean 2008 again but far worse due to the massive amount of debt added to the system since then.
And if the Fed were to move to a 3% interest rate that would mean government bonds currently offering a 2.5% yield would have to offer well over 5%.  But at even just 5% that would mean interest payments being paid by the US government would be $900 billlion… or nearly $1 trillion per year.
The total amount the US government takes from its “free” citizens is currently near $3 trillion.  Which means, even an interest rate rise to 3% would have the US government paying out more than 30% of its tax “revenue” just to cover interest payments alone.  Not to mention that the rate hike would cause such a depression, like in 2008 but far worse, that tax receipts would plummet… likely meaning that nearly every dollar of tax revenue would go to pay interest and there would be $0 to spend on its expenditures that currently cost $3.8 trillion (2014).
In other words, if the Federal Reserve wants to keep the economy and the US government afloat for even a little while longer they will have to keep interest rates at or near zero into perpetuity.
Which is what I have been saying for years.
Consider this, the last time the Federal Reserve raised rates was over nine years ago.  Back then, The Dollar Vigilante was still four years from being started, there was no such thing as a smartphone and no one had heard of that little startup, Facebook.
Today, Janet Yellen was asked if the Federal Reserve might keep interest rates at 0% forever.  She responded, “I can’t completely rule it out but really that’s an extreme downside risk that in no way is near the center of my outlook.”
She can’t completely rule it out?  She can’t completely rule out that the Fed may never raise interest rates again?  That’s very telling!
The markets were flat up until the announcement today as the entire financial world waited to hear what Janet Yellen was going to do to them.  The Dow has been up and down about 100 points and currently sits slightly negative at the time of this writing while gold and silver got a quick pop after the announcement and have stayed at those levels.  What is perhaps of most interest is that in past times the Fed keeping rates at 0% have resulted in the markets rallying.  This time markets faded on the announcement.  You can only imagine what would have happened if they raised rates by 0.25%!
And so, we carry on down the same Keynesian path, for now, with ever building mal-investment and massive distortions in the economy.  Only guaranteeing that when the next crisis comes it will be far worse.
With China selling US Treasuries like they were autographed photos of Donald Trump and Russia and numerous countries moving away from using the dollar this system is on increasingly shaky ground.
We will be telling subscribers of what we think the next big events will be that could really begin to topple the system (our next issue is due out on September 22 – you can subscribe here).  Those events are coming up in the next few weeks and still have us very comfortable for our call on a fall financial crisis.  After all, fall has not even begun yet.  Keep your eyes peeled come September 23rd when we do enter into autumn and in the weeks following including the coming US government shutdown on October 1st.
The summer, especially August, with more than 20 stock market collapses globally including the Dow’s record intraday point drop of over 1,100 points still remains a harbinger of more chaos and crisis to come in the fall.
Jeff Berwick
Anarcho-Capitalist.  Libertarian.  Freedom fighter against mankind’s two biggest enemies, the State and the Central Banks.  Jeff Berwick is the founder of The Dollar Vigilante, CEO of TDV Media & Services and host of the popular video podcast, Anarchast.  Jeff is a prominent speaker at many of the world’s freedom, investment and gold conferences including his own,Anarchapulco, as well as regularly in the media including CNBC, CNN and Fox Business.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Another IRS Seizure Of Citizens Money Coming Soon!

IRS-Social Security seizure a ticking time bomb

By   /   April 16, 2014  /   27 Comments
ILLEGAL? Questions abound over the Social Security Administration's use of the IRS to withhold tax refunds from children of deceased recipients.
ILLEGAL? Questions abound over the Social Security Administration’s use of the IRS to withhold tax refunds from children of deceased recipients.

By Kenric Ward | Watchdog.org
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Washington Post declared victory Tuesday for exposing the seizure of income-tax refunds to claw back alleged Social Security overpayments.
But the legal issue of garnishing money from the children of deceased parents remains legally contentious, and a senior senator is demanding answers from the agencies involved.
As reported by Watchdog.org and the Post, backtracking Social Security officials announced they will now only pursue overpayment cases less than 10 years old. That timeframe was already set in Internal Revenue Service statutes, so the administration merely acknowledged the law.
Sen. Charles Grassley said the affair is far from over.
“Is it fair and reasonable to pursue debts from the surviving children for payments to the parents?” the Iowa Republican asked. “The statute of limitations language didn’t give permission to collect debts where the debtor is deceased.”
Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent letters to Acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn Colvin and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lewrequesting answers to more than 30 questions.
Grassley said the Social Security Administration and the IRS, in their zeal to collect cash, acted in ways “possibly beyond what Congress intended.”
“It appears that SSA is not performing due diligence in notifying individuals or allowing them to inspect records of the debt they supposedly owe, which are violations of the law,” Grassley told Colvin.
Other critics of the heavy-handed tax collectors say Social Security benefits could be the first fruits of an inter-generational money grab.
“This opens the possibility for the federal government to attempt to collect federal student loan debts from the children of deceased parents,” said Pamela Mullin, an activist with Student Loan Justice.
Watchdog reported in February that more than $1 trillion in federally backed student loans are outstanding. With compounding interest, there is little to no likelihood of repayment in the recipients’ lifetimes.
“There’s no legal precedent for minor children inheriting the debts of their parents,” Mullin said.
Upholding the IRS-Social Security garnishments program could set a costly new precedent.
Grassley gave Colvin and Lew until April 29 to respond to his legal and procedural questions.
Kenric Ward is a national reporter for Watchdog.org and chief of the Virginia Bureau. Contact him at kenric@watchdogvirginia.org or at (571) 319-9824. @Kenricward

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Another Notch In Obama's Wonder Team


Yes, we said "Wonder Team".  We wonder what damage they will do! Jacob Lew is now going to be the new Treasury Secretary taking the place of the tax dodger, Timothy Geithner.   

Should you want to know more about Lew, the following link will give you some of the details. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-07/meet-jack-lew-tim-geithners-replacement

We will see what he does, but do not expect Lew to be a good negotiator. He will be the biggest Obama promoter, the most vocal supporter of  the President's positions and the least willing to make any changes. It is not good news for anyone thinking there should be negotiated solutions in Washington.

Conservative Tom

Senate, in a More Affable Mode, Backs Treasury Nominee

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday easily and, for the most part, affably confirmed President Obama’s pick for Treasurysecretary, Jacob J. Lew, a day after the president’s nominee for defense secretary narrowly survived a highly politicized confirmation vote.
Little of the acrimony that held up the nomination of Chuck Hagel, the former Nebraska senator who began his first day as defense secretary on Wednesday, was present in the debate over Mr. Lew.
The final vote was 71 to 26, with 20 Republicans joining the Democratic majority in support of the nomination.
Mr. Obama expressed gratitude for the decision to confirm his former chief of staff and top budget adviser.
“Jack was by my side as we confronted our nation’s toughest challenges,” the president said in a statement. “His reputation as a master of fiscal issues who can work with leaders on both sides of the aisle has already helped him succeed in some of the toughest jobs in Washington.”
The vote meant that for the moment at least, the Senate returned to its traditional role of affording the president deference in selecting his cabinet. Historically, the Treasury secretary position has been an easy one for presidents to fill, with nominees typically receiving unanimous support from the Senate.
Mr. Obama’s previous Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, was a notable exception. After disclosures that Mr. Geithner was delinquent in paying some taxes, many Republicans objected. He was confirmed by a 60-to-34 vote.
Some Republicans who voted for Mr. Lew spoke of the need to give the president flexibility to name his own cabinet even if they ultimately disagreed with a nominee’s politics.
“My vote in favor of Mr. Lew comes with no small amount of reservation, and I don’t fault any of my colleagues for choosing to vote against him,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee. “I hope he and the president take note that I am bending over backwards to display deference.”
Though Mr. Hagel’s nomination was stymied as he faced criticism over past statements on Israel and Iran and stumbled over questions in his confirmation hearing, Mr. Lew faced few objections. Other than questions that arose from an unusual $685,000 severance payment he received after he left New York University for a job at Citigroup, the confirmation process was relatively smooth.
One particularly vocal objection on Wednesday came from one of the Senate’s most liberal members, Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont.
“We need a secretary of the Treasury who does not come from Wall Street but is prepared to stand up to the enormous power of Wall Street,” Mr. Sanders said from the Senate floor. “Do I believe that Jack Lew is that person? No, I do not.”
Still, even though the Senate approved Mr. Lew, he received far fewer votes than other Treasury secretary nominees. With the exception of Mr. Geithner, Senate records show that the last nominee to receive fewer than 92 “yes” votes was George P. Schultz, Richard Nixon’s pick in 1972.
Mr. Obama faces another possible battle over a high-level nominee in the coming days as the Senate is set to start considering John Brennan, the White House’s choice as director of central intelligence.