The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Federal Government]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Our Nation DESERVES To Fail

Topic list

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-02-17 08:25 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 159 references
[Comments enabled]  

Well well, look at what we have here....

Will the taxpaying public tolerate this much longer? What would happen if taxpayers stopped paying taxes because 40 percent of what they've been paying has produced nothing for them? Would investors stop lending money to the government because of fear that the government could not pay them back? The Constitution requires the government to pay its debts. Would the government’s creditors acquire control of the government’s fiscal policy in order to pay themselves back? The government’s biggest creditor is one of its biggest menaces -- the government of China.

You personally can choose to not pay taxes.  You can do so legally by changing your lifestyle so that your effective federal tax liability is either tiny -- or even zero.

It is not impossible, provided you do not hold onto the stupid idea that you "must" live in a place like Chicago, New York or some other major metropolitan area where the cost of living is astronomical and $100,000 a year of income is required to be "lower middle class."  You know, all the places where a modest 1200-1500sq/ft house costs $300,000 or more -- instead of $100,000.

The latter places still exist.  In the places where they exist you can indeed make it on $20,000 as a single person, and $30-40,000 as a married couple, even with a kid or two.  No, you won't be taking trips to Disney nor will you be driving a Lexus.

But your effective tax rate will be in the single digits or even negative in the case where you have kids and thus get the EITC.

You can choose this right here, right now, today.  You can do it without breaking a single law.  But what you cannot do is move to such a place and then try to bring your former lifestyle and expectations there with you, because you either will be shunned to the point of hating life enough to be forced to leave or, if you succeed in persuading others where you go to accede to your demands you will import your former cost of living to your new home and destroy the very premise upon which you changed your residence.

Borrowing money at $1 million a minute is digging a hole out of which we will never peacefully climb.

Well now, that's an interesting statement.  Will it be violence from a foreign power or will it be violence inside the US if and when our government decides to try to cede authority to said foreign power and provokes an actual civil war among those of us in the US who will not allow such a decision to be taken?

I'd love for Judge Nap to elaborate on what he believes is coming in that regard but I bet he won't.

Nonetheless it does appear that he not only sees the problem but also has put in front of everyone in the country the only means by which we can put a stop to this both peacefully and effectively, and that is for the people of this nation to refuse to pay taxes through lawful means -- a refusal, en-masse, to run on the hamster wheel.

Will you do it now -- or are you, through your refusal, condemning both yourself and your children to a violent future that has no parallel in United States history other than perhaps the Civil War in the South.

Choose wisely.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-02-13 18:35 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 247 references
[Comments enabled]  

The plot thickens....

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified Tuesday that former White House staff secretary Rob Porter had completed a background check months before he was forced to resign over domestic allegations against him -- conflicting with White House timelines that said the check was ongoing.

So Wray has testified that the partial report was filed with the White House in March of last year, which would be reasonably prompt.  It's hard to believe there was nothing about the domestic abuse allegations in that report, incidentally -- assuming they were found somewhere in a court or police file. 

Further, in the case of a clearance investigation you are expected to list all of your significant personal contacts, past and present, which would certainly include your ex-wives who they will interview.  If you try to leave someone THAT significant out on purpose you won't get away with it either.

Wray also said there were two follow-ups -- one in November, and again recently.

He did not say what was in the follow-ups.

The problem is that the White House has said the investigation was not completed, implying they had no adverse information on which to make further inquiries or act.

So either that's a lie or the FBI director is lying under oath.

The Administration has claimed that The White House personnel security office had not finished their work, but that's not the question, really.  The question is whether or not the White House knew that Porter had stood accused of serious domestic violence which was not in the public sphere of knowledge and granted him access to sensitive information despite that.

This is the very sort of thing that is supposed to not happen for people with clearances.  The issue is not just whether you hit your wife (which is and darn well ought to be a factor anyway) -- it's whether you're trying to hide it as well and thus you could be blackmailed with that information.

The latter is the more-serious part of the problem from a national security point of view, and with good reason.  Being a jackass (maybe even a criminal jackass) is bad enough but being able to be blackmailed over that is extremely serious, especially when you're working with sensitive and classified information.  I note that Porter had an interim clearance and the White House appears to have taken no action to rescind or restrict it until he was fired.

That sounds ****ed up folks, and if the White House was shielding Porter they better have a damn good explanation for it.

No, "I'm President and I'll do what I damn well please" won't cut it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

This is interesting, if true.

Trump national security officials are considering an unprecedented federal takeover of a portion of the nation’s mobile network to guard against China, according to sensitive documents obtained by Axios.

AT&T recently abandoned talks to sell Huawai handsets and use their RF equipment, a move that many believe came out of government pressure.

I do not know how to quantify the "reality" of this; there are "working papers" floating around the government all the time on various subjects.  But the intersection between "commercial" interest and the military is not only a part and parcel of commercial reality in China it's formal government policy and embedded at the highest of levels.

So is their outright theft of trade secrets, code and anything else they can get their hands on for military and commercial advantage, and since it has the formal support of their government legal redress for those harmed that are not Chinese nationals or firms within China is impossible.

I have long written that we are literally insane, as a nation, to have so-called "free trade" with this country because it is factually no such thing.  Their goods flow here without tariff or theft but ours are barred, required to be produced there with "joint ventures" in Chinese firms who then steal the technology or the designs are simply stolen outright and duplicated.

This is not just a matter of commercial advantage it is also a function of military advantage; the best-known example was the outrageous scam that occurred with radar and related technology during Clinton's time in office, but that is hardly the only example.  China has never been held to account by the United States for any of that.

So if the Trump Administration is actually intending to have a Trump 5G System, much like the Eisenhower Interstate System was constructed for moving physical goods over roads as a side effect, with its primary purpose being the ability to use it for civil defense, this is interesting food for thought indeed.

There were plenty of winners and losers when the Eisenhower Interstate System was built.  The obvious winners were all the contract jobs created to build the roads, but among the losers were all the small towns that were eviscerated as the traffic through them went to an effective zero, destroying entire towns that used to see heavy road traffic but were bypassed in the name of speed.

Thus it will be if this comes to fruition as well, but exactly who wins and loses isn't always obvious in advance -- just as it wasn't then.

This bears watching, especially considering the audacious timeline being put forward that would have the network operationally complete by the time Trump's first term ends.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-01-26 12:09 by Karl Denninger
in Federal Government , 191 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh please.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the Government Shutdown Prevention Act to incentivize Congress to properly consider and debate spending legislation. 

Instead of government shutting down operations over stalled funding in the future, the bill would institute a one percent cut to then-current funding levels for any agency, program, and activity that Congress failed to fund by the start of the fiscal year (October 1). Every 90 days thereafter, funding would be reduced by another one percent if an agreement is still not enacted. 

“It is time for Congress to take its job seriously and get its act together on spending. This legislation will stabilize our operations while imposing real restraints to push government toward fiscal responsibility,” said Sen. Paul.


Note that nowhere does Rand talk about actually not deficit spending.

Also note that Rand has been in office during the last six trillion dollars of said deficit spending or about one in three of the deficit-spent dollars ever recorded.

If Rand was actually serious about this issue he'd introduce legislation to bar deficit spending except in time of declared war, which would force the government to either raise taxes or stop spending so much money.  This in turn would force them to dismantle the medical monopolies in order to avoid having to raise taxes by 30% or more to close the budget gap; a tax increase of that size on a gross basis would probably lead to an immediate armed revolt, so it would instantly and permanently force the government's hand on prosecuting the existing outrageous behavior in that segment of the economy.

But rather than solve problems Rand, like the rest, wish to pander -- so this is the horse**** you get.  It's compounded by the fact that Rand is a doctor, knows damn well where the rot is and not only doesn't care he is all for the medical system (at least financially) raping you more, faster and harder.

May a plague descend upon you, all of the other 535 thieves in DC and all of your families and relatives.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Why aren't we talking about this?

 DatePublic DebtIntergovernmentalTotal
-09/30/201513,123,847,198,347.81 5,026,770,468,136.52 18,150,617,666,484.33
Purchasing Destruction 1,049,576,318,548.01373,250,728,904.451,422,827,047,452.46

Remember, the actual "public" deficit is the difference in borrowing between the end of the fiscal year and the beginning in debt held by the public.  The total increase in debt, including intergovernmental (mostly Social Security and Medicare) is the actual deficit and is exactly equal, on an arithmetic basis, to the destruction in your personal purchasing power that the government causes (or gain if the government runs a surplus.)

The actual deficit -- that is, the destruction in purchasing power the federal government caused last year, is the percentage of 1.423 trillion .vs. the total GDP of 18.450 trillion or approximately 7.7%.

That's right -- the government intentionally destroyed almost 8% of your paycheck and your savings last year, running a $1.423 trillion dollar budget deficit, which is roughly equal to the worst of the "great recession" when tax revenues went through the floor.

Today there is no such "tax shortfall" excuse. 

The breakdown of exactly where the ugly is coming from will be published next week.  I already know what is in there because I've been following the monthly treasury statements all fiscal year, but wish to report final "as tallied" facts -- and thus will have another post at that time.

Let me be clear: On the arithmetic if we do not stop this now within the next 4-5 years -- that is, within the next Presidential term -- our government will collapse, our economy will collapse, our health care system will collapse and both the stock and housing markets will collapse.  This is not politics, it's arithmetic.  And the worst part of it is that I am utterly certain that the "references" count, along with the "views" count on this article will both be a fraction of the politically-oriented articles I've recently posted.  That the real end of our way of life in America, a threat that is obvious, mathematically certain, not very far in the future and yet avoidable if we act now fails to garner any sort of serious attention is the real outrage folks.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)