American People Will Push-back on Election Day November 4 — Democrat Party Candidates Will Lose Due To Job Insecurity, The Economy, Obama-care, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens, Tax Hikes, Failed Economic and Foreign Policies in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and Scandals Including Benghazi, Fast and Furious, NSA, IRS, Veterans Administration and Now Ebola — Democrats On Verge of Losing Massively Including Control of The Senate — Obama is An Epic Failure and Loser That Buried The Democratic Party — Rest In Peace — Videos

Posted on October 23, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Demographics, Diasters, Disease, Documentary, Ebola, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Faith, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Language, Law, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 320: August 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 319: August 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 318: August 27, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 317: August 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 316: August 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 315: August 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 314: August 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 313: August 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 312: August 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 311: August 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 310: August 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 309: August 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 308: August 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 307: August 1, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 306: July 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 305: July 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 304: July 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 303: July 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 302: July 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 301: July 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 300: July 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 299: July 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 298: July 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 297: July 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 296: July 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 295: July 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 294: July 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 293: July 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 292: July 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 291: July 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 290: July 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 289: July 2, 2014

Story 1: American People Will Push-back on Election Day November 4 — Democrat Party Candidates  Will Lose Due To Job Insecurity, The Economy, Obama-care, Amnesty for Illegal Aliens, Tax Hikes, Failed Economic and Foreign Policies in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran, and Scandals Including Benghazi, Fast and Furious, NSA, IRS, Veterans Administration and Now Ebola  —  Democrats On Verge of Losing Massively Including Control of The Senate — Obama is An Epic Failure and Loser That Buried The Democratic Party — Rest In Peace — Videos 

the failure

Obama-Failuredemocrat-economic-success-obama-politicstransformedburyObama-ScandalsCartoon - Obama Scandals and CorruptionYes-Obama-Can-Bankrupt-Americacartoon-they-opted-out-500trick or treat

 

Mid-term elections forecast

Who Will Control The Senate? Election Is ‘Neck And Neck’

Midterm Elections 2014: Here are the Key Senate Races

Ann Coulter: GOP Should Stop ‘Constantly Sucking Up’ to Hispanic Voters

New Fox Poll: 58% Say Things In World Going To Hell In A Handbasket – America’s Newsroom

Poll: Democrat Voters Less Interested In Midterm Elections – America’s Election HQ

Poll shows only 14 percent of Americans approve the way Congress handling its job

Stewart: Midterms 2014, We’ve Got Nothing To Fear, But Fear Itself, So We’re Going To Go With Fear

Which Party Should Control Congress? AP/Gallup POLL Results

 

 

Latest AP National Poll Is a Nightmare for Democrats

By Jim Geraghty

This new poll from the Associated Press is about as dire a poll as Democrats could imagine two weeks before Election Day.

Democrats are more trusted than the GOP on just two of nine top issues, the poll showed.

The economy remains the top issue for likely voters — 91 percent call it “extremely” or “very” important. And the GOP has increased its advantage as the party more trusted to handle the issue to a margin of 39 percent to 31 percent.

With control of the Senate at stake, both parties say they are relying on robust voter-turnout operations — and monster campaign spending — to lift their candidates in the final days. But the poll suggests any appeals they’ve made so far haven’t done much to boost turnout among those already registered. The share who report that they are certain to vote in this year’s contests has risen just slightly since September, and interest in news about the campaign has held steady.

Now brace yourself:

The GOP holds a significant lead among those most likely to cast ballots: 47 percent of these voters favor a Republican controlled-Congress, 39 percent a Democratic one. That’s a shift in the GOP’s favor since an AP-GfK poll in late September, when the two parties ran about evenly among likely voters.

Women have moved in the GOP’s direction since September. In last month’s AP-GfK poll, 47 percent of female likely voters said they favored a Democratic-controlled Congress while 40 percent wanted the Republicans to capture control. In the new poll, the two parties are about even among women, 44 percent prefer the Republicans, 42 percent the Democrats.

The gender gap disappearing almost entirely would be a shocking development; at this point, it’s just one poll, but it’s something to look for in future polls. Democrats can console themselves that this is a national poll, and the biggest fights of the midterm — the Senate races — are occurring in about a dozen states. Having said that, almost all of those states are Republican-leaning ones that Romney won. If the national electorate is sour on Democrats, it’s extremely difficult to envision a scenario where Arkansas’s Mark Pryor hangs on despite the pro-GOP atmosphere,and Alaska’s Mark Begich, and Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, and so on for the other endangered red-state Democratic senators. One or two might survive, but the rest . . .

The polls are grim, Mr. President.

America’s Anxious Mood and What it Means for Republicans

Obama’s Gift to Republicans

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

After 6 Years Employment Level of 144.4 Million Still Below Previous Peak of 146.6 Million in November 2007 — 2.2 Million Short — Plus 9 Million To 11 Million New Entrants — Obama Job Shortage 11 Million to 13 Million! — Obama’s Economic Policies and Obamacare Not Working! — Videos

Posted on December 12, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Illegal, Immigration, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Math, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-180

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Segment 0: After 6 Years Employment Level of 144.4 Million Still Below Previous Peak of 146.6 Million in November 2007 — 2.2 Million Short — Plus 9 Million To 11 Million New Entrants — Obama Job Shortage 11 Million to 13 Million! — Obama’s Economic Policies and Obamacare Not Working! — Videos

sgs-emp

Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

December 6th 2013 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (November Jobs Report)

November Unemployment Rate Falls To 7% – Crowley: If This Numbers Are To Be Believed Thats A Big If

Jobs report doesn’t improve outlook for long-term jobless

Nightly Business Report — December 6, 2013

Stock Markets Latest News: Wall St. Eyes Weekly Gain After Jobs Report

Bob Browne: Last week’s strong U.S. jobs report — December 9, 2013

The long-term effects of unemployment among young workers

Friday, December 6, 2013

Larry Kudlow Admits to Being Wrong About Bernanke And The Economy NOT PETER SCHIFF THOUGH!

Employment Level

144,386,000

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Employment_Level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150(1) 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142153(1) 141644 140721 140652 140250 140005 139898 139481 138810 138421 138665 138025
2010 138439(1) 138624 138767 139296 139255 139148 139167 139405 139388 139097 139046 139295
2011 139253(1) 139471 139643 139606 139681 139405 139509 139870 140164 140314 140771 140896
2012 141608(1) 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322(1) 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058 144285 144170 144303 143568 144386
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Force Level

155,254,000

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Civilian_Labor_Force_Level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 154232(1) 154526 154142 154479 154742 154710 154505 154300 153815 153804 153887 153120
2010 153455(1) 153702 153960 154577 154110 153623 153709 154078 153966 153681 154140 153649
2011 153244(1) 153269 153358 153478 153552 153369 153325 153707 154074 154010 154096 153945
2012 154356(1) 154825 154707 154451 154998 155149 154995 154647 155056 155576 155319 155511
2013 155654(1) 155524 155028 155238 155658 155835 155798 155486 155559 154839 155294
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Labor Force Participation Rate

63.0%

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Civilian_Labor_Force_Participation_Rate

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.1 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.6
2013 63.6 63.5 63.3 63.3 63.4 63.5 63.4 63.2 63.2 62.8 63.0

Employment-Population Ratio

58.6%

Series Id: LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over\

Employment_Population_Level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.4 64.5 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.7 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.7 62.8
2006 62.9 63.0 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.4
2007 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7
2008 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.5 62.4 62.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.4 61.0
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.7 58.5 58.6 58.3
2010 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.2 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.5 58.6
2012 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.4 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.6
2013 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.6 58.6 58.3 58.6

Unemployment Level

10,907,000

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Unemployment_Level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7685 7497 7822 7637 8395 8575 8937 9438 9494 10074 10538 11286
2009 12079 12881 13421 13826 14492 14705 14607 14819 15005 15382 15223 15095
2010 15016 15078 15192 15281 14856 14475 14542 14673 14577 14584 15094 14354
2011 13992 13798 13716 13872 13871 13964 13817 13837 13910 13696 13325 13049
2012 12748 12806 12686 12518 12695 12701 12745 12483 12082 12248 12042 12206
2013 12332 12032 11742 11659 11760 11777 11514 11316 11255 11272 10907

U-3 Unemployment Rate

7.0%

Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

U_3_Unemployment_Rate

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.3
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
2013 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.0

U-6 Unemployment Rate

13.2%

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

U_6_Unemployment_Rate

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.1 15.7 15.9 16.4 16.5 16.5 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.0 17.1 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.8 16.7 16.9 16.6
2011 16.2 16.0 15.8 16.0 15.8 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.3 16.0 15.5 15.2
2012 15.1 15.0 14.5 14.5 14.8 14.8 14.9 14.7 14.7 14.5 14.4 14.4
2013 14.4 14.3 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.3 14.0 13.7 13.6 13.8 13.2

Teenage Unemployment Rate 16-19 Year

20.8%

Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.8 16.6 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 20.0 20.3 20.5
2009 20.7 22.2 22.2 22.2 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.1 26.9 26.6
2010 26.0 25.4 26.2 25.5 26.6 26.0 26.0 25.7 25.8 27.2 24.6 25.1
2011 25.5 24.0 24.4 24.7 24.0 24.7 24.9 25.2 24.4 24.1 23.9 22.9
2012 23.4 23.7 25.0 24.9 24.4 23.7 23.9 24.5 23.7 23.7 23.6 23.5
2013 23.4 25.1 24.2 24.1 24.5 24.0 23.7 22.7 21.4 22.2 20.8

Average Weeks Unemployed

37.2 Weeks

Series Id: LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number of weeks
Age: 16 years and over

Average_Weeks_Unemployed

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 13.1 12.6 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.3 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.4 12.5
2001 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.3 14.3 14.5
2002 14.7 15.0 15.4 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.6 17.8 17.6 18.5
2003 18.5 18.5 18.1 19.4 19.0 19.9 19.7 19.2 19.5 19.3 19.9 19.8
2004 19.9 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.8 20.5 18.8 18.8 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.4
2005 19.5 19.1 19.5 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.4 17.9 17.9 17.5 17.5
2006 16.9 17.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 16.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1
2007 16.3 16.7 17.8 16.9 16.6 16.5 17.2 17.0 16.3 17.0 17.3 16.6
2008 17.5 16.9 16.5 16.9 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.9 19.9
2009 19.8 20.1 20.9 21.6 22.4 23.9 25.1 25.3 26.7 27.4 29.0 29.7
2010 30.4 29.8 31.6 33.2 33.9 34.4 33.8 33.6 33.4 34.0 34.1 34.8
2011 37.3 37.4 39.2 38.6 39.5 39.6 40.4 40.3 40.4 38.9 40.7 40.7
2012 40.2 39.9 39.5 39.1 39.6 39.7 38.8 39.3 39.6 39.9 39.7 38.1
2013 35.3 36.9 37.1 36.5 36.9 35.6 36.6 37.0 36.9 36.1 37.2

Median Weeks Unemployed

17.0 Weeks

Series Id: LNS13008276
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Median Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number of weeks
Age: 16 years and over

Median_Weeks_Unemployed

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5.8 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.7 6.0 6.3 5.2 6.1 6.1 6.0
2001 5.8 6.1 6.6 5.9 6.3 6.0 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.7 8.2
2002 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.9 9.5 11.0 8.9 9.0 9.5 9.6 9.3 9.6
2003 9.6 9.5 9.7 10.2 9.9 11.5 10.3 10.1 10.2 10.4 10.3 10.4
2004 10.6 10.2 10.2 9.5 9.9 11.0 8.9 9.2 9.6 9.5 9.7 9.5
2005 9.4 9.2 9.3 9.0 9.1 9.0 8.8 9.2 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.7
2006 8.6 9.1 8.7 8.4 8.5 7.3 8.0 8.4 8.0 7.9 8.3 7.5
2007 8.3 8.5 9.1 8.6 8.2 7.7 8.7 8.8 8.7 8.4 8.6 8.4
2008 9.0 8.7 8.7 9.4 7.9 9.0 9.7 9.7 10.2 10.4 9.8 10.5
2009 10.7 11.7 12.3 13.1 14.3 17.1 15.9 16.2 17.8 18.8 19.8 20.2
2010 20.0 20.0 20.5 22.2 22.4 24.8 22.1 20.9 20.2 21.1 21.2 22.1
2011 21.5 21.3 21.8 21.0 21.8 21.8 21.5 22.2 21.9 20.4 21.1 20.8
2012 20.8 20.1 19.7 19.3 20.1 19.4 16.8 18.2 18.7 19.6 18.9 18.0
2013 16.0 17.8 18.1 17.5 17.3 16.3 15.7 16.4 16.3 16.3 17.0

Employment Level – Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries

7,719,000

Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level – Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules: At work part time

Employment_Level_Part_Time_Economic_Reasons

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 3208 3167 3231 3186 3283 3209 3144 3211 3217 3179 3467 3243
2001 3332 3296 3280 3289 3439 3792 3556 3380 4233 4437 4317 4393
2002 4112 4289 4101 4199 4103 4048 4145 4301 4329 4314 4329 4321
2003 4607 4844 4652 4798 4570 4592 4648 4419 4882 4813 4862 4750
2004 4705 4549 4742 4568 4588 4443 4449 4474 4487 4820 4547 4427
2005 4389 4250 4388 4278 4315 4432 4400 4491 4675 4269 4219 4115
2006 4123 4174 3972 3900 4111 4318 4303 4195 4115 4352 4190 4187
2007 4279 4220 4253 4313 4473 4342 4410 4576 4521 4325 4494 4618
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8042 8788 9076 8904 9103 9051 8941 9030 8869 9005 9103 9092
2010 8493 8897 9122 9171 8816 8646 8610 8826 9226 8913 8862 8933
2011 8432 8398 8525 8649 8562 8536 8416 8816 9101 8726 8436 8168
2012 8220 8127 7664 7896 8116 8210 8245 8043 8607 8286 8138 7918
2013 7973 7988 7638 7916 7904 8226 8245 7911 7926 8050 7719

Employment Situation News Release

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until                   USDL-13-2315
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, December 6, 2013

Technical information:
 Household data:     (202) 691-6378  •  cpsinfo@bls.gov  •  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data: (202) 691-6555  •  cesinfo@bls.gov  •  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:  (202) 691-5902  •  PressOffice@bls.gov

                        THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2013

The unemployment rate declined from 7.3 percent to 7.0 percent in November, and total
nonfarm payroll employment rose by 203,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment increased in transportation and warehousing, health care,
and manufacturing.

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 10.9 million, and the unemployment rate, at
7.0 percent, declined in November. Among the unemployed, the number who reported being
on temporary layoff decreased by 377,000. This largely reflects the return to work of
federal employees who were furloughed in October due to the partial government shutdown.
(See tables A-1 and A-11.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.7 percent),
adult women (6.2 percent), teenagers (20.8 percent), whites (6.2 percent), blacks
(12.5 percent), and Hispanics (8.7 percent) changed little in November. The jobless
rate for Asians was 5.3 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year
earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of persons unemployed less than 5 weeks declined by 300,000 in November,
partially reflecting the return to work of federal employees on furlough in October.
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially
unchanged at 4.1 million in November. These individuals accounted for 37.3 percent of
the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 718,000 over the
past 12 months. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force rose by 455,000 in November, after declining by 720,000 in
October. The labor force participation rate changed little (63.0 percent) in November.
Total employment as measured by the household survey increased by 818,000 over the
month, following a decline of 735,000 in the prior month. This over-the-month increase
in employment partly reflected the return to work of furloughed federal government
employees. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.3 percentage point to 58.6
percent in November, reversing a decline of the same size in the prior month. (See
table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 331,000 to 7.7 million in November. These
individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because
they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In November, 2.1 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by
409,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a
job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they
had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 762,000 discouraged workers in November, down
by 217,000 from a year ago. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers
are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available
for them. The remaining 1.3 million persons marginally attached to the labor  force in
November had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family
responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 203,000 in November. Job growth averaged
195,000 per month over the prior 12 months. In November, job gains occurred in
transportation and warehousing, health care, and manufacturing. (See table B-1.)

Employment in transportation and warehousing rose by 31,000 in November, with gains
in couriers and messengers (+9,000), truck transportation (+8,000), warehousing and
storage (+5,000), and air transportation (+3,000).

Health care employment continued to increase over the month (+28,000). Job gains occurred
in home healthcare services (+12,000) and offices of physicians (+7,000), while nursing
care facilities lost jobs (-4,000). Job growth in health care has averaged 19,000 per
month thus far this year, compared with an average monthly gain of 27,000 in 2012.

In November, manufacturing added 27,000 jobs. Within the industry, job gains occurred in
food manufacturing (+8,000) and in motor vehicles and parts (+7,000).

In November, employment in professional and business services continued to trend up
(+35,000). Over the prior 12 months, the industry added an average of 55,000 jobs per
month.

Retail trade employment also continued to expand in November (+22,000). Within the
industry, job growth occurred in general merchandise stores (+14,000); in sporting
goods, hobby, book, and music stores (+12,000); and in automobile dealers (+7,000).
Over the prior 12 months, job growth in retail trade averaged 31,000 per month.

Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking places continued
to trend up in November (+18,000). Job growth in this industry averaged 28,000 per month
over the prior 12 months.

Employment in construction continued to trend up in November (+17,000). Monthly job
gains in the industry averaged 15,000 over the prior 12 months.

Federal government employment continued to decline (-7,000) in November. Over the past
12 months, federal government employment has decreased by 92,000.

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, wholesale trade,
information, and financial activities, showed little or no change in November.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by
0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in November. The manufacturing workweek edged up by 0.1 hour
to 41.0 hours, and factory overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.5 hours. The average
workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls
edged up by 0.1 hour to 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 4 cents to $24.15. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 48 cents,
or 2.0 percent. In November, average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory
employees increased by 3 cents to $20.31. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +163,000
to +175,000, and the change for October was revised from +204,000 to +200,000. With
these revisions, employment gains in September and October combined were 8,000 higher
than previously reported.

_____________
The Employment Situation for December is scheduled to be released on Friday,
January 10, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |                                                                                       |
  |                           Household Survey Reference Period                           |
  |                                                                                       |
  |In the household survey, the reference period for November 2013 was the calendar week  |
  |that included the 5th of the month. Typically, the reference period for the household  |
  |survey is the calendar week that includes the 12th of the month. The November reference|
  |week was moved up in 2013 due to the timing of the November and December holidays. In  |
  |accordance with usual practice, this change is made in November when necessary to allow|
  |for sufficient time to process data and conduct survey operations.                     |
  |                                                                                       |
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |                                                                                        |
 |               Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data                    |
 |                                                                                        |
 |In accordance with usual practice, The Employment Situation release for December 2013,  |
 |scheduled for January 10, 2014, will incorporate annual revisions in seasonally adjusted|
 |unemployment and other labor force series from the household survey. Seasonally adjusted|
 |data for the most recent 5 years are subject to revision.                               |
 |                                                                                        |
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |                                                                                      |
  |                  Upcoming Change to the Household Survey Tables                      |
  |                                                                                      |
  |Effective with the release of January 2014 data on February 7, 2014, household survey |
  |table A-10 will include two new seasonally adjusted series for women age 55 and over— |
  |the number of unemployed persons and the unemployment rate. These will replace the    |
  |series that are currently displayed for this group, which are not seasonally adjusted.|
  |                                                                                      |
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Category Nov.
2012
Sept.
2013
Oct.
2013
Nov.
2013
Change from:
Oct.
2013-
Nov.
2013
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population 244,174 246,168 246,381 246,567 186
Civilian labor force 155,319 155,559 154,839 155,294 455
Participation rate 63.6 63.2 62.8 63.0 0.2
Employed 143,277 144,303 143,568 144,386 818
Employment-population ratio 58.7 58.6 58.3 58.6 0.3
Unemployed 12,042 11,255 11,272 10,907 -365
Unemployment rate 7.8 7.2 7.3 7.0 -0.3
Not in labor force 88,855 90,609 91,541 91,273 -268
Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over 7.8 7.2 7.3 7.0 -0.3
Adult men (20 years and over) 7.2 7.1 7.0 6.7 -0.3
Adult women (20 years and over) 7.0 6.2 6.4 6.2 -0.2
Teenagers (16 to 19 years) 23.6 21.4 22.2 20.8 -1.4
White 6.8 6.3 6.3 6.2 -0.1
Black or African American 13.2 12.9 13.1 12.5 -0.6
Asian (not seasonally adjusted) 6.4 5.3 5.2 5.3 -
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity 9.9 9.0 9.1 8.7 -0.4
Total, 25 years and over 6.5 6.0 6.1 5.9 -0.2
Less than a high school diploma 12.1 10.3 10.9 10.8 -0.1
High school graduates, no college 8.1 7.6 7.3 7.3 0.0
Some college or associate degree 6.6 6.0 6.3 6.4 0.1
Bachelor’s degree and higher 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.4 -0.4
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 6,429 5,844 6,253 5,804 -449
Job leavers 926 989 861 893 32
Reentrants 3,325 3,181 3,117 3,073 -44
New entrants 1,326 1,222 1,223 1,165 -58
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks 2,596 2,596 2,761 2,461 -300
5 to 14 weeks 2,757 2,703 2,656 2,597 -59
15 to 26 weeks 1,820 1,804 1,782 1,766 -16
27 weeks and over 4,784 4,146 4,063 4,066 3
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons 8,138 7,926 8,050 7,719 -331
Slack work or business conditions 5,084 4,960 5,047 4,869 -178
Could only find part-time work 2,648 2,557 2,599 2,486 -113
Part time for noneconomic reasons 18,594 18,967 18,786 18,876 90
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force 2,505 2,302 2,283 2,096 -
Discouraged workers 979 852 815 762 -
- Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Nov.
2012
Sept.
2013
Oct.
2013(p)
Nov.
2013(p)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm 247 175 200 203
Total private 256 168 214 196
Goods-producing 43 29 31 44
Mining and logging 12 4 3 0
Construction 24 17 12 17
Manufacturing 7 8 16 27
Durable goods(1) 17 12 11 17
Motor vehicles and parts 9.7 2.5 4.1 6.7
Nondurable goods -10 -4 5 10
Private service-providing(1) 213 139 183 152
Wholesale trade 9.8 15.7 -8.1 6.8
Retail trade 69.6 23.3 45.8 22.3
Transportation and warehousing 20.2 36.9 3.1 30.5
Information 14 2 4 -1
Financial activities 5 -3 7 -3
Professional and business services(1) 55 47 48 35
Temporary help services 26.5 27.4 9.1 16.4
Education and health services(1) 14 14 30 40
Health care and social assistance 30.2 19.7 21.3 29.6
Leisure and hospitality 21 -1 49 17
Other services 7 4 4 4
Government -9 7 -14 7
WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2)
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES
Total nonfarm women employees 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4
Total private women employees 47.9 47.9 47.9 47.9
Total private production and nonsupervisory employees 82.6 82.6 82.6 82.6
HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.5
Average hourly earnings $23.67 $24.09 $24.11 $24.15
Average weekly earnings $814.25 $828.70 $829.38 $833.18
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) 97.0 98.7 98.8 99.3
Over-the-month percent change 0.5 -0.1 0.1 0.5
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) 109.5 113.3 113.6 114.4
Over-the-month percent change 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.7
HOURS AND EARNINGS
PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 33.7 33.7 33.6 33.7
Average hourly earnings $19.88 $20.25 $20.28 $20.31
Average weekly earnings $669.96 $682.43 $681.41 $684.45
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) 104.7 106.3 106.2 106.7
Over-the-month percent change 0.5 0.1 -0.1 0.5
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) 138.9 143.8 143.9 144.8
Over-the-month percent change 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.6
DIFFUSION INDEX(5)
(Over 1-month span)
Total private (266 industries) 63.9 61.3 61.1 63.5
Manufacturing (81 industries) 52.5 54.3 56.8 63.0
Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(p) Preliminary
Frequently Asked Questions about Employment and Unemployment Estimates

1. Why are there two monthly measures of employment?

   The household survey and establishment survey both produce sample-based estimates
   of   employment, and both have strengths and limitations. The establishment survey
   employment series has a   smaller margin of error on the measurement of month-to-
   month change   than the household survey because of its much larger sample size. An
   over-the-month employment change of about 100,000 is statistically significant in
   the establishment survey, while the threshold for a statistically significant change
   in the household survey is about 400,000. However, the household survey has a more
   expansive scope than the establishment survey because it includes self-employed
   workers whose businesses are unincorporated, unpaid family workers, agricultural
   workers, and private household workers, who are excluded by the establishment survey.
   The household survey also provides estimates of employment for demographic groups.
   For more information on the differences between the two surveys, please visit
   www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf.

2. Are undocumented immigrants counted in the surveys?

   It is likely that both surveys include at least some undocumented immigrants. However,
   neither the establishment nor the household survey is designed to identify the legal
   status of workers. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how many are counted in
   either survey. The establishment survey does not collect data on the legal status of
   workers. The household survey does include questions which identify the foreign and
   native born, but it does not include questions about the legal status of the foreign
   born. Data on the foreign and native born are published each month in table A-7 of
   The Employment Situation news release.

3. Why does the establishment survey have revisions?

   The establishment survey revises published estimates to improve its data series by
   incorporating additional information that was not available at the time of the
   initial publication of the estimates. The establishment survey revises its initial
   monthly estimates twice, in the immediately succeeding 2 months, to incorporate
   additional sample receipts from respondents in the survey and recalculated seasonal
   adjustment factors. For more information on the monthly revisions, please visit
   www.bls.gov/ces/cesrevinfo.htm.

   On an annual basis, the establishment survey incorporates a benchmark revision that
   re-anchors estimates to nearly complete employment counts available from unemployment
   insurance tax records. The benchmark helps to control for sampling and modeling errors
   in the estimates. For more information on the annual benchmark revision, please visit
   www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm.

4. Does the establishment survey sample include small firms?

   Yes; about 40 percent of the establishment survey sample is comprised of business
   establishments with fewer than 20 employees. The establishment survey sample is
   designed to maximize the reliability of the statewide total nonfarm employment
   estimate; firms from all states, size classes, and industries are appropriately
   sampled to achieve that goal.

5. Does the establishment survey account for employment from new businesses?

   Yes; monthly establishment survey estimates include an adjustment to account for
   the net employment change generated by business births and deaths. The adjustment
   comes from an econometric model that forecasts the monthly net jobs impact of
   business births and deaths based on the actual past values of the net impact that
   can be observed with a lag from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The
   establishment survey uses modeling rather than sampling for this purpose because
   the survey is not immediately able to bring new businesses into the sample. There
   is an unavoidable lag between the birth of a new firm and its appearance on the
   sampling frame and availability for selection. BLS adds new businesses to the survey
   twice a year.

6. Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving unemployment
   insurance benefits?

   No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households.
   All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work are
   included among the unemployed. (People on temporary layoff are included even if
   they do not actively seek work.) There is no requirement or question relating to
   unemployment insurance benefits in the monthly survey.

7. Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who want a job but are not currently
   looking for work?

   Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who
   want a job, including those who are not currently looking because they believe no
   jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor
   underutilization (some of which include discouraged workers and other groups not
   officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in table A-15 of The
   Employment Situation news release. For more information about these alternative
   measures, please visit www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#altmeasures.

8. How can unusually severe weather affect employment and hours estimates?

   In the establishment survey, the reference period is the pay period that includes
   the 12th of the month. Unusually severe weather is more likely to have an impact on
   average weekly hours than on employment. Average weekly hours are estimated for paid
   time during the pay period, including pay for holidays, sick leave, or other time off.
   The impact of severe weather on hours estimates typically, but not always, results in
   a reduction in average weekly hours. For example, some employees may be off work for
   part of the pay period and not receive pay for the time missed, while some workers,
   such as those dealing with cleanup or repair, may work extra hours.

   In order for severe weather conditions to reduce the estimate of payroll employment,
   employees have to be off work without pay for the entire pay period. Slightly more
   than 20 percent of all employees in the payroll survey sample have a weekly pay
   period. Employees who receive pay for any part of the pay period, even 1 hour, are
   counted in the payroll employment figures. It is not possible to quantify the effect
   of extreme weather on estimates of over-the-month change in employment.

   In the household survey, the reference period is generally the calendar week that
   includes the 12th of the month. Persons who miss the entire week's work for weather-
   related events are counted as employed whether or not they are paid for the time
   off. The household survey collects data on the number of persons who had a job but
   were not at work due to bad weather. It also provides a measure of the number of
   persons who usually work full time but had reduced hours. Current and historical
   data are available on the  household survey's most requested statistics page at

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln.

Technical Note

   This news release presents statistics from two major surveys, the Current
Population Survey (CPS; household survey) and the Current Employment Statistics
survey (CES; establishment survey). The household survey provides information
on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables,
marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

   The establishment survey provides information on employment, hours, and
earnings of employees on nonfarm payrolls; the data appear in the "B" tables,
marked ESTABLISHMENT DATA. BLS collects these data each month from the payroll
records of a sample of nonagricultural business establishments. Each month
the CES program surveys about 145,000 businesses and government agencies,
representing approximately 557,000 individual worksites, in order to provide
detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm
payrolls. The active sample includes approximately one-third of all nonfarm
payroll employees.

   For both surveys, the data for a given month relate to a particular week or
pay period. In the household survey, the reference period is generally the
calendar week that contains the 12th day of the month. In the establishment
survey, the reference period is the pay period including the 12th, which may or
may not correspond directly to the calendar week.

Coverage, definitions, and differences between surveys

   Household survey. The sample is selected to reflect the entire civilian 
noninstitutional population. Based on responses to a series of questions on 
work and job search activities, each person 16 years and over in a sample
household is classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force.

   People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees
during the reference week; worked in their own business, profession, or on their
own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm.
People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs
because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal
reasons.

   People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

   The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons.
Those persons not classified as employed or unemployed are not in the labor 
force. The unemployment rate is the number unemployed as a percent of the 
labor force. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a 
percent of the population, and the employment-population ratio is the 
employed as a percent of the population. Additional information about the 
household survey can be found at www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm.

   Establishment survey. The sample establishments are drawn from private
nonfarm businesses such as factories, offices, and stores, as well as
from federal, state, and local government entities. Employees on nonfarm
payrolls are those who received pay for any part of the reference pay
period, including persons on paid leave. Persons are counted in each job
they hold. Hours and earnings data are produced for the private sector for
all employees and for production and nonsupervisory employees. Production
and nonsupervisory employees are defined as production and related employees
in manufacturing and mining and logging, construction workers in construction,
and nonsupervisory employees in private service-providing industries.

   Industries are classified on the basis of an establishment’s principal
activity in accordance with the 2012 version of the North American Industry
Classification System. Additional information about the establishment survey
can be found at www.bls.gov/ces/.

   Differences in employment estimates. The numerous conceptual and methodological
differences between the household and establishment  surveys result in important
distinctions in the employment estimates derived from the surveys. Among these are:

   --The household survey includes agricultural workers, self-employed workers
     whose businesses are unincorporated, unpaid family workers, and private
     household workers among the employed. These groups are excluded from the
     establishment survey.

   --The household survey includes people on unpaid leave among the employed.
     The establishment survey does not.

   --The household survey is limited to workers 16 years of age and older.
     The establishment survey is not limited by age.

   --The household survey has no duplication of individuals, because
     individuals are counted only once, even if they hold more than one
     job. In the establishment survey, employees working at more than one
     job and thus appearing on more than one payroll are counted separately
     for each appearance.

Seasonal adjustment

   Over the course of a year, the size of the nation's labor force and the levels
of employment and unemployment undergo regularly occurring fluctuations. These 
events may result from seasonal changes in weather, major holidays, and the opening
and closing of schools. The effect of such seasonal variation can be very large.

   Because these seasonal events follow a more or less regular pattern each year,
their influence on the level of a series can be tempered by adjusting for regular
seasonal variation. These adjustments make nonseasonal developments, such as
declines in employment or increases in the participation of women in the labor
force, easier to spot. For example, in the household survey, the large number of
youth entering the labor force each June is likely to obscure any other changes
that have taken place relative to May, making it difficult to determine if the 
level of economic activity has risen or declined. Similarly, in the establishment
survey, payroll employment in education declines by about 20 percent at the end
of the spring term and later rises with the start of the fall term, obscuring the
underlying employment trends in the industry. Because seasonal employment changes
at the end and beginning of the school year can be estimated, the statistics can be
adjusted to make underlying employment patterns more discernable.  The seasonally
adjusted figures provide a more useful tool with which to analyze changes in
month-to-month economic activity.

   Many seasonally adjusted series are independently adjusted in both the household
and establishment surveys. However, the adjusted series for many major estimates,
such as total payroll employment, employment in most major sectors, total employment,
and unemployment are computed by aggregating independently adjusted component series.
For example, total unemployment is derived by summing the adjusted series for four
major age-sex components; this differs from the unemployment estimate that would be
obtained by directly adjusting the total or by combining
the duration, reasons, or more detailed age categories.

   For both the household and establishment surveys, a concurrent seasonal adjustment
methodology is used in which new seasonal factors are calculated each month using all
relevant data, up to and including the data for the current month. In the household
survey, new seasonal factors are used to adjust only the current month's data. In the
establishment survey, however, new seasonal factors are used each month to adjust the
three most recent monthly estimates. The prior 2 months are routinely revised to
incorporate additional sample reports and recalculated seasonal adjustment factors.
In both surveys, 5-year revisions to historical data are made once a year.

Reliability of the estimates

   Statistics based on the household and establishment surveys are subject to both
sampling and nonsampling error. When a sample, rather than the entire population,
is surveyed, there is a chance that the sample estimates may differ from the true
population values they represent. The component of this difference that occurs
because samples differ by chance is known as sampling error, and its variability
is measured by the standard error of the estimate. There is about a 90-percent
chance, or level of confidence, that an estimate based on a sample will differ by
no more than 1.6 standard errors from the true population value because of sampling
error. BLS analyses are generally conducted at the 90-percent level of confidence.

   For example, the confidence interval for the monthly change in total nonfarm
employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 90,000.
Suppose the estimate of nonfarm employment increases by 50,000 from one month to
the next. The 90-percent confidence interval on the monthly change would range from
-40,000 to +140,000 (50,000 +/- 90,000). These figures do not mean that the sample
results are off by these magnitudes, but rather that there is about a 90-percent
chance that the true over-the-month change lies within this interval. Since this
range includes values of less than zero, we could not say with confidence that
nonfarm employment had, in fact, increased that month. If, however, the reported
nonfarm employment rise was 250,000, then all of the values within the 90- percent
confidence interval would be greater than zero. In this case, it is likely (at
least a 90-percent chance) that nonfarm employment had, in fact, risen that month.
At an unemployment rate of around 6.0 percent, the 90-percent confidence interval
for the monthly change in unemployment as measured by the household survey is
about +/- 300,000, and for the monthly change in the unemployment rate it is about
+/- 0.2 percentage point.

   In general, estimates involving many individuals or establishments have lower
standard errors (relative to the size of the estimate) than estimates which are based
on a small number of observations. The precision of estimates also is improved when
the data are cumulated over time, such as for quarterly and annual averages.

   The household and establishment surveys are also affected by nonsampling error,
which can occur for many reasons, including the failure to sample a segment of the
population, inability to obtain information for all respondents in the sample,
inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide correct information on a
timely basis, mistakes made by respondents, and errors made in the collection or
processing of the data.

   For example, in the establishment survey, estimates for the most recent 2 months
are based on incomplete returns; for this reason, these estimates are labeled
preliminary in the tables. It is only after two successive revisions to a monthly
estimate, when nearly all sample reports have been received, that the estimate is
considered final.

   Another major source of nonsampling error in the establishment survey is the
inability to capture, on a timely basis, employment generated by new firms. To
correct for this systematic underestimation of employment growth, an estimation
procedure with two components is used to account for business births. The first
component excludes employment losses from business deaths from sample-based
estimation in order to offset the missing employment gains from business births.
This is incorporated into the sample-based estimation procedure by simply not
reflecting sample units going out of business, but imputing to them the same
employment trend as the other firms in the sample. This procedure accounts for
most of the net birth/death employment.

   The second component is an ARIMA time series model designed to estimate the
residual net birth/death employment not accounted for by the imputation. The
historical time series used to create and test the ARIMA model was derived from
the unemployment insurance universe micro- level database, and reflects the actual
residual net of births and deaths over the past 5 years.

   The sample-based estimates from the establishment survey are adjusted once a
year (on a lagged basis) to universe counts of payroll employment obtained from
administrative records of the unemployment insurance program. The difference 
between the March sample-based employment estimates and the March universe counts
is known as a benchmark revision, and serves as a rough proxy for total survey
error. The new benchmarks also incorporate changes in the classification of
industries. Over the past decade, absolute benchmark revisions for total nonfarm
employment have averaged 0.3 percent, with a range from -0.7 to 0.6 percent.

Other information

   Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired
individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay
Service: (800) 877-8339.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Results Matter — Millennials Wakeup — No Longer Clueless — Dump Obama and Obamacare — Call for Recall — Videos

Posted on December 5, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Economics, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

Millennials Aren’t Too Hot On Obamacare, Obama: Harvard Poll

Obama approval ratings wane as millennials grow wary of ACA

Millenials Abandon Obama & Obamacare In Harvard Poll – Lou Dobbs

deatbeat_millenials

Harvard Institute of Politics

 http://www.iop.harvard.edu/

National Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

Millennials Abandon Obama and Obamacare

A majority of America’s youngest adults would vote to recall the president.

By 

Young Americans are turning against Barack Obama and Obamacare, according to a new survey of millennials, people between the ages of 18 and 29 who are vital to the fortunes of the president and his signature health care law.

The most startling finding of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics: A majority of Americans under age 25–the youngest millennials–would favor throwing Obama out of office.

The survey, part of a unique 13-year study of the attitudes of young adults, finds that America’s rising generation is worried about its future, disillusioned with the U.S. political system, strongly opposed to the government’s domestic surveillance apparatus, and drifting away from both major parties. “Young Americans hold the president, Congress and the federal government in less esteem almost by the day, and the level of engagement they are having in politics are also on the decline,” reads the IOP’s analysis of its poll. “Millennials are losing touch with government and its programs because they believe government is losing touch with them.”

The results blow a gaping hole in the belief among many Democrats that Obama’s two elections signaled a durable grip on the youth vote.

Indeed, millennials are not so hot on their president.

Obama’s approval rating among young Americans is just 41 percent, down 11 points from a year ago, and now tracking with all adults. While 55 percent said they voted for Obama in 2012, only 46 percent said they would do so again.

When asked if they would want to recall various elected officials, 45 percent of millennials said they would oust their member of Congress; 52 percent replied “all members of Congress” should go; and 47 percent said they would recall Obama. The recall-Obama figure was even higher among the youngest millennials, ages 18 to 24, at 52 percent.

While there is no provision for a public recall of U.S. presidents, the poll question revealed just how far Obama has fallen in the eyes of young Americans.

IOP director Trey Grayson called the results a “sea change” attributable to the generation’s outsized and unmet expectations for Obama, as well as their concerns about the economy, Obamacare and government surveillance.

The survey of 2,089 young adults, conducted Oct. 30 through Nov. 11, spells trouble for the Affordable Care Act. The fragile economics underpinning the law hinge on the willingness of healthy, young Americans to forgo penalties and buy health insurance.

According to the poll, 57 percent of millennials disapprove of Obamacare, with 40 percent saying it will worsen their quality of care and a majority believing it will drive up costs. Only 18 percent say Obamacare will improve their care. Among 18-to-29-year-olds currently without health insurance, less than one-third say they’re likely to enroll in the Obamacare exchanges.

More than two-thirds of millennials said they heard about the ACA through the media. That’s a bad omen for Obamacare, given the intensive coverage of the law’s botched rollout. Just one of every four young Americans said they discussed the law with a friend or through social media. Harvard’s John Della Volpe, who conducted the poll, said the president has done a poor job explaining the ACA to young Americans.

Republican and Democratic leaders should find little solace in the results. The survey said that 33 percent of young Americans consider themselves Democrats and 24 percent identify with the GOP. The largest and growing segment is among independents, 41 percent of the total.

Democrats’ advantage among young voters is fading. Among the oldest millennials (ages 25 to 29), Democrats hold a 16-point lead over the GOP: 38 percent say they’re Democrats, and 22 percent call themselves Republicans. Among the youngest of this rising generation (ages 18 to 24), the gap is just 6 points, 31 percent for Democrats and 25 percent for Republicans.

Approval ratings of Congress have declined steeply in the past few years, with congressional Democrats now at 35 percent and congressional Republicans at just 19 percent.

Young blacks say they are much less likely to vote in the 2014 midterm election than they were in November 2009, signaling a worrisome level of engagement among a key Democratic constituency.

In addition to health care, domestic spying is an issue that puts Obama on the wrong side of the rising generation. While split on whether Edward Snowden is a “patriot” or a “traitor” for revealing Obama’s surveillance programs, strong majorities of 18-to-29-year-olds oppose the government collecting information from social networks, Web-browsing histories, email, GPS locations, telephone calls, and text messages.

College loans are a big issue with young Americans, too. Nearly six of 10 called student debt a major problem, and another 22 percent called it a minor one. Seventy percent said their financial situation played into their decision whether to attend college.

Respondents were given a list of options for shrinking the nation’s debt. Majorities favored suggestions to tax the rich, cut foreign economic aid in half, slash the nuclear-warhead arsenal, and reduce food stamps.

The results conform with a story I did this summer with the help of the IOP (“The Outsiders: How Can Millennials Change Washington If They Hate It?”), arguing that while Millennials are deeply committed to public service they don’t see government as an efficient way to improve their lives or their communities.

The IOP report issued today said: “This is not to say that young Americans are rejecting politics, the role of government and the promise of America more generally. They are sending a message to those in power that for them to re-engage in government and politics, the political process must be open, collaborative and have the opportunity for impact — and not one that simply perpetuates well-worn single issue agendas.”

The survey was conducted online. The National Journal generally refrains from covering online-only polls but has made past exceptions. In this case, Harvard’s IOP survey uniquely focuses on millennials with accumulated data set and a credible polling operation.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/millennials-abandon-obama-and-obamacare-20131204

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Advance Estimate of Real GDP Growth in Second Quarter of 2013 is 1.7% With First Quarter of 2013 Revised Down to 1.1% (Original Advance Estimate was 2.5%!)! — U.S. Economy Is Stagnating as Growth Continues To Decline — Videos

Posted on August 1, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

gdp_large

US economy grows more than expected in Q2 – economy

BBC News – Can Hollywood give US economy a happy ending?

News Wrap: Federal Reserve Downgrades U.S. Economic Growth

No hint of stimulus pullback in the US even as growth improves

GDP Propaganda Exposed

Peter Schiff – Janet Yellen Is Wrong! There Is A LOT Of Inflation! US Economy On Verge In Crisis!

GDP grows faster than expected

What is the origin of GDP?

US first-quarter growth was 1.8%, not 2.4% – economy

Jobs Report July 2013 Preview: What’s The Unemployment Rate Hiding?

Peter Schiff: Buy Gold and Silver Now, Money Printing Until We Have A Currency Crisis & More

Slow “growth”,GDP makeover, Keynesians demand more debt and inflation

National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, second quarter 2013 (advance estimate);
Comprehensive Revision: 1929 through 1st quarter 2013
      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.7 percent in the second quarter of 2013
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the first quarter, real GDP increased 1.1 percent (revised).

      The Bureau emphasized that the second-quarter advance estimate released today is based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 3
and "Comparisons of Revisions to GDP" on page 18).  The "second" estimate for the second quarter,
based on more complete data, will be released on August 29, 2013.

      The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed investment, private inventory
investment, and residential investment that were partly offset by a negative contribution from federal
government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

      The acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected upturns in nonresidential
fixed investment and in exports, a smaller decrease in federal government spending, and an upturn in
state and local government spending that were partly offset by an acceleration in imports and
decelerations in private inventory investment and in PCE.

BOX._______

     Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts

     The estimates released today reflect the results of the 14th comprehensive (or benchmark) revision
of the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) in conjunction with the second quarter 2013
"advance" estimate.  More information on the revision is available on BEA’s Web site at
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

FOOTNOTE.______

     Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise specified.
Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates.  Percent changes are
calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.  "Real" estimates are in chained (2009) dollars.  Price
indexes are chain-type measures.

This news release is available on BEA’s Web site  along with the Technical Note
and Highlights related to this release.
_______________

     The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 0.3 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent in the first.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 0.8 percent in
the second quarter compared with 1.4 percent in the first.

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.8 percent in the second quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.3 percent in the first.  Durable goods increased 6.5 percent, compared with an
increase of 5.8 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.0 percent, compared with an increase of 2.7
percent.  Services increased 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 1.5 percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 4.6 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 4.6 percent in the first.  Nonresidential structures increased 6.8 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 25.7 percent.  Equipment increased 4.1 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent.
Intellectual property products increased 3.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.7 percent.  Real
residential fixed investment increased 13.4 percent, compared with an increase of 12.5 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 5.4 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 1.3 percent in the first.  Real imports of goods and services increased 9.5 percent, compared
with an increase of 0.6 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 1.5 percent
in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 8.4 percent in the first.  National defense decreased
0.5 percent, compared with a decrease of 11.2 percent.  Nondefense decreased 3.2 percent, compared
with a decrease of 3.6 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 0.3 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 1.3 percent.

      The change in real private inventories added 0.41 percentage point to the second-quarter change
in real GDP after adding 0.93 percentage point to the first-quarter change.  Private businesses increased
inventories $56.7 billion in the second quarter, following increases of $42.2 billion in the first quarter
and $7.3 billion in the fourth.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.3
percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 0.2 percent in the first.

Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 2.4 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent in the
first.

Disposition of personal income

      Current-dollar personal income increased $140.1 billion (4.1 percent) in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $157.1 billion (4.4 percent) in the first.  The upturn in personal income
primarily reflected sharp upturns in personal dividend income and in wages and salaries and a sharp
deceleration in contributions for government social insurance (a subtraction in the calculation of
personal income).

*	Personal dividend income increased in the second quarter, in contrast to a large decrease in the
        first. The first-quarter decline in dividend income primarily reflected the accelerated and special
        dividends that were paid by many companies in the fourth quarter of 2012.

*	Wages and salaries increased in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease in the first. The
        first-quarter decline in wages and salaries is based on preliminary quarterly census of
        employment and wages data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

*	The sharp deceleration in contributions for government social insurance primarily reflected the
        first-quarter expiration of the "payroll tax holiday" that increased the social security contribution
        rate for employees and self-employed workers by 2.0 percentage points.

      Personal current taxes increased $36.0 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase
of $74.3 billion in the first.

      Disposable personal income increased $104.1 billion (3.4 percent) in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $231.5 billion (7.2 percent) in the first.  Real disposable personal income
increased 3.4 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 8.2 percent.

      Personal outlays increased $44.7 billion (1.5 percent) in the second quarter, compared with an
increase of $98.7 billion (3.4 percent) in the first.  Personal saving -- disposable personal income less
personal outlays -- was $553.4 billion in the second quarter, compared with $494.0 billion in the first.

      The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was
4.5 percent in the second quarter, compared with 4.0 percent in the first.  For a comparison of personal
saving in BEA’s national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve
Board’s flow of funds accounts and data on changes in net worth, go to
www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp.

Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
2.4 percent, or $98.1 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $16,633.4 billion.  In the first quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 2.8 percent, or $115.0 billion.

Box._______

      Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note that
is posted with the news release on BEA's Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed "Key
Source Data and Assumptions" file is posted on the Web site.  In the middle of each month, an analysis of
the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site; click on Survey
of Current Business, "GDP and the Economy."  For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their
Major Components."

____________

                          COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF THE NATIONAL INCOME AND PRODUCT
                                ACCOUNTS: 1929 THROUGH FIRST QUARTER 2013

      Today, BEA released revised statistics of gross domestic product (GDP) and of other national
income and product accounts (NIPAs) series from 1929 through the first quarter of 2013.
Comprehensive revisions, which are carried out about every 5 years, are an important part of BEA’s
regular process for improving and modernizing its accounts to keep pace with the ever-changing U.S.
economy.

      Most of the tables in this release present revised statistics for 2002 through the first quarter of
2013.  Selected NIPA tables, with statistics from 1929 forward, are available on BEA's Web site
(www.bea.gov).  Most of the remaining NIPA tables will be released later in August.  An article
describing the statistics will be published in the September 2013 issue of BEA’s monthly journal, the
Survey of Current Business.

Summary of revisions

      The picture of the economy shown in the revised estimates is very similar in broad outline to the
picture shown in the previously published estimates.  The similarity and some of the differences can be
seen in the following:

*	For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 3.3 percent, 0.1 percentage
        point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent period, 2002–2012,
        the growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the previously published
        estimates.

*	For 2002–2012, the average rate of change in the prices paid by U.S. residents was 2.3 percent,
        0.1 percentage point lower than in the previously published estimates.

*	For 2009–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 2.4 percent, 0.3 percentage
        point higher than in the previously published estimates.  The percent change in real GDP was
        revised up 0.1 percentage point for 2010, was unrevised for 2011, and was revised up 0.6
        percentage point for 2012.

*	For the period of contraction from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2009, real
        GDP decreased at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent; in the previously published estimates, it
        decreased 3.2 percent.

*	For the period of expansion from the second quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real
        GDP increased at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent; in the previously published estimates, it
        increased 2.1 percent.

Improvements incorporated in this comprehensive revision

      Comprehensive revisions encompass three major types of improvements:

*	Changes in definitions and in classifications that update the accounts to more accurately portray
        the evolving U.S. economy,

*	Changes in presentations that make the NIPA tables more informative, and

*	Statistical changes that introduce new and improved methodologies and that bring in newly
        available and revised source data (see box on page 8).

      The improvements incorporated in the revised estimates have been previewed in a series of
articles in the Survey and are available on BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

      Changes in definitions, classifications, and presentations.  The changes in definitions, in
classifications, and in presentations introduced in this comprehensive revision include the following:

*	Expenditures by business, government, and nonprofit institutions serving households (NPISH)
        for research and development (R&D) are recognized as fixed investment.  The new treatment
        improves BEA’s measures of fixed investment and allows users to better measure the effects of
        innovation and intangible assets on the economy.

*	Similarly, expenditures by private enterprises for the creation of entertainment, literary, and
        artistic originals are recognized as fixed investment, further expanding BEA’s measures of
        intangible assets.

*	In the NIPA fixed investment tables, a new category of investment, "intellectual property
        products," consists of research and development; entertainment, literary, and artistic originals;
        and software.

*	Transactions of defined benefit pension plans are recorded on an accrual accounting basis, which
        recognizes the costs of unfunded liabilities.

*	An expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed assets is recognized as fixed
        investment, and the accuracy of the associated asset values and services lives is improved.

*	The reference year for the chain-type quantity and price indexes and for the chained-dollar
        estimates is updated to 2009 from 2005.

      Statistical changes.  Important statistical changes that introduce new and improved
methodologies and that bring in newly available source data include the following:

*	BEA’s 2007 benchmark input-output (I-O) accounts, which provide the most thorough and
        detailed information on the structure of the U.S. economy, are used to benchmark the
        expenditure components of GDP and some of the income components.

*	Beginning with 1966, the estimates of employers’ contributions to state and local government-
        sponsored defined contribution pension plans are improved by incorporating new source data.

*	Beginning with 1985, the methods for computing financial services provided by commercial
        banks are improved to establish a more accurate picture of banking output.

*	Beginning with 1993, the estimates of proprietors’ income are improved by more accurately
        accounting for the capital gains and losses attributable to corporate partners.

*	Beginning with 1993, the estimates of mortgage interest paid for nonfarm permanent-site
        housing are improved by incorporating several new data sources.

A table that summarizes the major sources of revision for selected NIPA components is available on
BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

      Effects of improvements on major aggregates.  The improvements and the new and revised
source data incorporated with this comprehensive revision have notable effects on current-dollar NIPA
aggregates without changing broad economic trends or the general patterns of business cycles.  In the
aggregate, changes in definitions (mainly the recognition of new forms of fixed investment) have the
largest effect on current-dollar GDP and GDI for 1929–2012, and statistical changes (improved data and
methodologies) tend to have smaller effects.  For example, for 2012, the level of current-dollar GDP was
revised up $559.8 billion; $526.0 billion of this upward revision resulted from definitional changes.
Sources of Revision to Current-Dollar GDP
      Changes in definitions (mainly accrual accounting for defined benefit pension plans, which
credits households with the value of accrued benefits from these plans) raise personal income and
personal saving; statistical changes have mixed effects on personal income and on personal saving.
Sources of Revision to Current-Dollar Personal Income
      News release tables.  This release includes the tables that will be regularly shown in future GDP
news releases; in addition, special tables have been included to highlight the effects of the
comprehensive revision.  The special tables are:

*	Tables 1A, 2A, and 4A compare revised and previously published estimates for percent changes
        in real GDP, for contributions to percent change in real GDP, and for percent changes in chain-
        type price indexes for GDP and related measures, respectively;

*	Tables 7A, 7B, and 7C show annual levels, percent changes, and revisions to percent changes for
        current-dollar GDP, for real (chained-dollar) GDP, and for chain-type price indexes for GDP,
        respectively;

*	Table 12C shows revisions to corporate profits by industry.

      Most of the tables show annual estimates beginning with 2002; quarterly estimates (if shown)
begin with the first quarter of 2007.  Three of the regular tables -- tables 3, 11, and 12 -- are split into A
and B segments in this release to accommodate this longer-than-usual time span.

      With this release, selected NIPA tables are available on BEA’s Web site.  Most of the remaining
NIPA tables will be available later in August.

Box.________

                                         New and revised data

      The revised estimates reflect the incorporation of newly available and revised source data.  The
most important source data that affect the estimates are BEA’s benchmark 2007 input-output (I-O)
accounts.  The revised estimates also incorporate data on inventories, on receipts and expenses of
business establishments and of governments, on sales by detailed commodity and by product line, on
final industry and product shipments from the 2007 Economic Census, and on trade margins from both
the 2007 Economic Census and the 2007 annual surveys of merchant wholesale and of retail trade.  In
addition, the revised estimates incorporate monthly and annual Census Bureau industry data on
manufacturing, on wholesale trade, and on retail trade for 2003 forward.  The revised estimates also
reflect data on housing from the 2010 decennial Census of Population and Housing.  Estimates that are
based on BEA’s international transactions accounts (ITAs) -- primarily net exports of goods and services
and rest-of-the-world income receipts and payments -- were revised to reflect improvements to the ITAs
that were introduced since 2009.  Estimates of underreported income were revised using Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) National Research Program data for 2006.  Other data that were incorporated
include revised data on the expenditures and receipts of state and local governments for fiscal years
2006–2009 from the Census Bureau.

      The revised estimates for 2010–2012 also reflect the incorporation of newly available and
revised source data that became available since the last annual NIPA revision in July 2012.  The most
important of these data sources are Census Bureau annual surveys of state and local governments for
fiscal year 2010 (revised) and fiscal year 2011 (preliminary), of manufactures for 2010 (revised) and
2011 (preliminary), of merchant wholesale trade and of retail trade for 2010 (revised) and 2011
(preliminary), and of services and of the value of construction spending for 2010 and 2011 (revised) and
2012 (preliminary); federal government budget data for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 (revised); Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) quarterly census of employment and wages (QCEW) for 2010–2012 (revised);
IRS tabulations of corporate tax returns for 2010 (revised) and 2011 (preliminary) and of sole
proprietorship and partnership tax returns for 2011; and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) farm
statistics for 2010–2012 (revised).

      Data from BEA’s annual revision of the ITAs were incorporated for 2010–2012 for most
components at their "best level;" revisions for earlier years, along with data from the June 2014 revision
of the ITAs, will be incorporated in the NIPAs in the 2014 annual revision.
_______________
FOOTNOTE.______
The 2007 benchmark input-output accounts are scheduled for release in December 2013. At that time, BEA will
also release the comprehensive revision of the annual industry accounts, which will be consistent with this
comprehensive revision of the NIPAs.
_______________

The revisions

      For this comprehensive revision, many current-dollar estimates were revised back to 1929, the
earliest year for which NIPA estimates are available, as a result of changes in definitions, in
classifications, and in presentations.

      Real GDP growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 3.3
percent, 0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent
period, 2002–2012, the average annual growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in
the previously published estimates.  For the most recent years, 2009–2012, the average annual growth
rate of real GDP was 2.4 percent, 0.3 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.
For the 3 most recent years, the annual growth rate:

*	was revised up from 2.4 percent to 2.5 percent for 2010,
*	was unrevised at 1.8 percent for 2011, and
*	was revised up from 2.2 percent to 2.8 percent for 2012.

      Real GDI growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDI was 3.3 percent,
0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent period,
2002–2012, the average annual growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the
previously published estimates.  For the most recent years, 2009–2012, the average annual growth rate
of real GDI was 2.6 percent, 0.3 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For
the 3 most recent years, the annual growth rate:

*	was revised down from 3.1 percent to 2.7 percent for 2010,
*	was revised up from 1.8 percent to 2.5 percent for 2011, and
*	was revised up from 2.2 percent to 2.5 percent for 2012.

      Business cycles.  For the contraction that lasted from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second
quarter of 2009, real GDP decreased at a 2.9 percent annual rate; in the previously published estimates,
it decreased 3.2 percent.  The cumulative decrease in real GDP (not at an annual rate) was 4.3 percent; in
the previously published estimates, the cumulative decrease was 4.7 percent.  In the revised estimates,
real GDP decreased in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first and second quarters of
2009.

      For the expansion from the second quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real GDP
increased at a 2.2 percent annual rate; in the previously published estimates, it increased 2.1 percent.
From the third quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real GDP increased in all quarters except for
the first quarter of 2011, when real GDP decreased 1.3 percent; in the previously published estimates,
real GDP increased in all quarters during this period.  Earlier business cycles show little revision.

      Price changes.  The revisions to major price indexes are small.  For 1929–2012, the average
annual increase in the price index for gross domestic purchases was revised down from 3.0 percent to
2.9 percent; the average annual increase in the price index for GDP was unrevised at 2.9 percent.  For
2002–2012, the average annual increase in the price index for gross domestic purchases was revised
down from 2.4 percent to 2.3 percent; the average annual increase in the price index for GDP was
revised down from 2.3 percent to 2.1 percent.  For 2009–2012, the average annual increase in the price
index for gross domestic purchases was revised down from 1.9 percent to 1.8 percent; the average
annual increase in the price index for GDP was revised down from 1.8 percent to 1.6 percent.

      For 1929–2012, the average annual increase in the price index for personal consumption
expenditures (PCE) was unrevised at 2.9 percent.  For 2002–2012, the average annual increase in the
PCE price index was revised down from 2.2 percent to 2.1 percent.  For 2009–2012, the average annual
increase in the PCE price index was unrevised at 2.0 percent.

      Real disposable personal income (DPI) growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual increase
in real DPI was 3.2 percent, 0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For
2002–2012, the average annual increase was 2.0 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the
previously published estimates.  For 2009–2012, the average annual increase was 1.8 percent, 0.2
percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.

      Personal saving.  Personal saving (DPI less personal outlays) was revised up for 1929–2007,
down for 2008, and up for 2009–2012.  These revisions reflect the revisions to DPI and are mainly the
result of adopting the accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans.  The personal saving rate
(personal saving as a percentage of DPI) was revised up for 1929–2007, down for 2008, and up for
2009–2012, reflecting the revisions to personal saving.

Revisions to current-dollar estimates

      The revisions to current-dollar GDP, to personal income and its disposition, and to national
income are shown in table 1B.  This table shows the "revisions in level," that is, the revised estimates
less the previously published estimates; table 1B also shows the revisions as a percent of the previously
published estimates for selected years.  The revised levels of annual GDP and its major components for
1965–2012, along with percent changes from the preceding year and revisions to the percent changes,
are shown in table 7A.

      GDP.  Current-dollar GDP was revised up for all years (1929–2012).  The upward revisions to
current-dollar GDP mainly reflect the recognition of additional expenditures -- for R&D; for the creation
of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs -- as
fixed investment (see "Revision Analysis for GDP, 2012").  The new accrual treatment for government-
sponsored defined benefit pension plans results in revisions to current-dollar GDP through revisions to
supplements to wages and salaries for government employees (specifically, employer contributions for
employee pension and insurance funds); these revisions are upward for 1929–1978, downward for
1979–1991, and upward for 1992–2012.

Box._______

                                             Revision Analysis for GDP, 2012
                                              (Billions of current dollars)

Total Revision                                                                             559.8

Due to major definitional changes                                                          526.0

Capitalization of research and development                                                 396.7
Capitalization of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals                           74.3
Expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed assets                       42.3
Accrual accounting for defined benefit pension programs                                     12.6

Due to statistical changes                                                                  33.8

___________

      PCE.  Revisions to PCE are generally small before 1985; PCE was revised up for 1985 and
1986, down for 1987–2011, and up for 2012.  PCE for services accounts for most of the revisions for all
years except for 2011.

      Services.  PCE for services was revised up for 1985 and 1986, down for 1987–2010, and up for
2011 and 2012.  For most years beginning with 1985, the improved method for estimating services of
commercial banks results in downward revisions to PCE for financial services.  For 1965–2012 (and for
several prior years), the gross output of NPISH was revised down; the removal of R&D expenses of
NPISH (and their reclassification as fixed investment) more than offsets the addition to expenses of
consumption of fixed capital (CFC) for R&D capital.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised annual Census Bureau surveys of services, and of
other new and revised source data.

      Goods.  Revisions to PCE for goods begin with 1998 and follow a mixed pattern, with
downward revisions for 2010–2012.  The revisions to PCE for goods reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised data from the Census Bureau’s retail trade surveys,
and of other new and revised source data.

      Private fixed investment.  Current-dollar private fixed investment was revised up for 1929–
2012.  The upward revisions reflect the recognition of additional expenditures -- for R&D; for the
creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer
costs -- as fixed investment.

      Nonresidential structures.  The downward revisions for 2003–2012 primarily reflect the
incorporation of data from the 2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of revised footage drilled and expenditure
data from the Census Bureau and trade sources, and of revised Census Bureau construction spending
data.

      Equipment.   Software is now classified as part of intellectual property products rather than as
part of private equipment and software.  Private equipment (without software) was revised up for 2003–
2012, reflecting the incorporation of BEA’s 2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised Census
Bureau surveys of manufactures, and of other new and revised source data.

      Residential fixed investment.  The upward revisions to residential fixed investment for 1929–
2012 mainly reflect the recognition of an expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed
assets as fixed investment.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of data from the 2007 benchmark
I-O accounts and of new and revised data from the Census Bureau surveys of construction spending.

      Intellectual property products.  Beginning with this comprehensive revision, the NIPA tables
include a new category of fixed investment, "intellectual property products."  The recognition of
expenditures for R&D and for the creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals as fixed
investment results in upward revisions to gross private domestic investment.  The downward revisions to
software investment for 2010–2012 (and small revisions for 2003–2009) reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts and of new and revised annual Census Bureau surveys of services.
      Change in private inventories.  The revisions begin with 2002 and are mostly upward; the
revisions are dominated by revisions to nonfarm inventories for 2002–2010 and by farm inventories for
2011 and 2012.  The revisions to nonfarm inventories reflect data from a variety of sources, including
newly available and revised Census Bureau data on inventory book values, and the incorporation of new
commodity price weights from the 2007 benchmark I-O accounts.  The revisions to farm inventories
reflect revised USDA farm statistics for 2010–2012.

      Exports and imports of goods and services.  Revisions to net exports of goods and services are
generally small before 2002; the revisions are upward for 2002–2007, downward for 2008–2011, and
upward for 2012.  The revisions to net exports are mostly due to revisions to exports for 2002–2009 and
for 2012 and are mostly due to revisions to imports for 2010 and 2011.  Exports were revised up for
2002–2007, down for 2008–2010, and up for 2011and 2012.  The revisions to imports are upward for
2010 and 2011 and are small for other years.  The estimates reflect the incorporation of revised data
from BEA’s ITAs for 1999–2012.

      Government consumption expenditures and gross investment.  Government consumption
expenditures and gross investment was revised up for 1929–2012.  The revisions mainly reflect the
recognition of expenditures for R&D as fixed investment and the addition to consumption expenditures
of the CFC for R&D assets.

      Federal government.  The upward revisions to federal government consumption expenditures
and gross investment for 1929–2012 mainly reflect the recognition of expenditures for R&D as fixed
investment.  The new accrual treatment for defined benefit pension plans results in upward revisions to
contributions for employee pension and insurance funds for 1929–1979 and downward revisions for
1980–2012.  The revisions also reflect improved source data and methods, including revised federal
budget data for 2012 and 2013.

      State and local government.  State and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment was revised up for 1929–1975, down for 1976–1988, and up for 1989–2012.  These revisions
mainly reflect the new accrual approach for measuring state and local government-sponsored defined
benefit pension plans, which results in revisions to state and local government contributions for
employee pension and insurance funds that are upward for 1929–1978, downward for 1979–1986, and
upward for 1987–2012.  Revisions also result from statistical changes, including the incorporation of
improved source data on expenditures for defined contribution pension plans and the improved method
for estimating services of commercial banks.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of the 2007
benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised government finances data from the Census Bureau, and of
other new and revised source data.

      Personal income.   Personal income was revised up for 1929–2007, down for 2008, and up for
2009–2012.  These revisions mainly reflect the accrual approach for measuring defined benefit pension
plans, which results in upward revisions to personal income receipts on assets for 1929–2012 and in
upward revisions to supplements (specifically, employer contributions for employee pension and
insurance funds) for 1929–1975, for 1989–2002, and for 2004–2011.  A number of other definitional
and statistical changes affected the revisions to personal income.  The revisions to the components of
personal income are discussed below.
Revisions to Personal Income
      Wages and salaries.  The revisions mainly reflect revisions to private wages and salaries.  The
revisions are generally small and mixed for years prior to 2002, are downward for 2002–2011, and are
upward for 2012.  The revisions reflect revised estimates of misreporting and new and revised BLS
QCEW data.

      Supplements to wages and salaries.  The revisions to supplements reflect the revisions to
employer contributions for pension and insurance funds that result from the accrual approach for
measuring defined benefit pension plans.  Employer contributions for state and local government
defined benefit plans was revised up for 1929–1978, down for 1979–1986, and up for 1987–2012.
Employer contributions for federal government defined benefit plans was revised up for 1929–1979 and
down for 1980–2012.  Employer contributions for private defined benefit plans was revised down for
1968–1985, up for 1986–2001, down for 2002–2006, up for 2007, and down for 2008–2012.
Contributions for state and local government defined contribution pension plans was revised up for
1967–2012, reflecting the incorporation of improved source data.

      Proprietors’ income.  Proprietors’ income was revised down for 1965–2011 and up for 2012;
the revisions for years before 1965 are small.  Nonfarm proprietors’ income was revised down for 1965–
2011 and up for 2012.  The revisions to proprietors’ income primarily reflect revisions to nonfarm
proprietors’ income for most years (except for 2009 and for 2012).  Farm proprietors’ income had
relatively large upward revisions for 2011 and 2012, reflecting the incorporation of revised USDA data
for 2010–2012.

      The revisions to nonfarm proprietors’ income reflect a number of definitional and statistical
changes as well as revised source data.  Revisions due to the improved accounting for the capital gains
and losses attributable to corporate partners are downward for 2002–2008, upward for 2009, and
downward for 2010–2012.  Revisions due to the capitalization of expenditures for the creation of
entertainment, literary, and artistic originals and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs are
downward, while the revisions due to the capitalization of R&D expenditures are upward.  The revisions
also reflect new IRS estimates for underreporting of income as well as new IRS tabulations of tax return
data for sole proprietorships and partnerships for 2011.

      Rental income of persons.  Rental income of persons was revised down for 1929–2002 and was
revised up for 2003 forward.  The improved methodology for estimating mortgage interest paid for
nonfarm permanent site housing results in downward revisions to rental income of persons for 1993–
2001 and upward revisions for 2002–2012.  The recognition of an expanded set of ownership transfer
costs for residential assets as fixed investment results in downward revisions for all years, partly
offsetting the upward revisions to rental income of persons for 2003–2012.  The revisions also reflect
revisions to owner- and tenant-occupied space rent, based on data from the 2010 Census of Housing and
the incorporation of other new and revised source data.

      Personal interest income.  Personal interest income was revised up for all years except for
2008.  The upward revisions mainly reflect the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans.
Personal interest income was also affected by several other changes in methodology, including an
improved method for distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of
income and the improved method for measuring interest associated with financial services of
commercial banks.  Revisions to personal interest income also reflect the incorporation of new and
revised source data from the Federal Reserve Board and other sources.

      Personal dividend income.  Personal dividend income was revised up for most years for 1991–
2009, was revised down for 2010, was revised up for 2011, and was revised down for 2012.  The
revisions to personal dividend income reflect the improved method for distributing the investment
income of regulated investment companies by type of income as well as the incorporation of new and
revised IRS tabulations of corporate tax returns and of data from BEA’s ITAs on dividends from the rest
of the world.

      Personal current transfer receipts.  Personal current transfer receipts was revised down for
2002, up for 2003–2009, and down for 2010–2012.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of new and
revised source data.

      Contributions for government social insurance.  The revisions to contributions for
government social insurance (which is deducted in the calculation of personal income) are small for
2002–2012.

      Personal current taxes.  Personal current taxes was revised up for 2011 and 2012; revisions are
generally small for prior years.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of new tax collections data from
the Treasury Department and the Social Security Administration and of new and revised Census Bureau
state and local government finances data.

      Disposable personal income.  The pattern of revisions to disposable personal income, which is
equal to personal income less personal current taxes, is similar to that of personal income.

      Personal outlays.  This series consists of PCE, personal interest payments, and personal current
transfer payments.  The revisions to personal outlays primarily reflect the revisions to PCE that were
previously described.  Personal interest payments was revised up for 1985 forward; revisions for prior
years are small.  The revisions to personal interest payments result from the improved method for
measuring the financial services of commercial banks and associated interest income from the
incorporation of new and revised source data.  Personal current transfer payments was revised down for
2007–2012.

      GDI.  Current-dollar GDI, like current-dollar GDP, was revised up for all years for 1929–2012.
The upward revisions to current-dollar GDI and GDP mainly reflect the recognition of additional
expenditures -- for R&D; for the creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an
expanded set of ownership transfer costs -- as fixed investment.

      National income.  National income was revised up for 1929–1978, down for 1979–2001, up for
2002–2004, down for 2005–2010, and up for 2011 and 2012.  The revisions to national income reflect
the revisions to the components of national income that were previously described; the revisions to the
remaining components of national income are discussed below.
Revision to National Income
      Corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments.
Corporate profits was revised up for 1929–1986, down for 1987–2001, and up for 2002–2012.
Revisions to corporate profits due to the capitalization of expenditures for R&D and for the creation of
entertainment, literary, and artistic originals are upward for 1929–2012.  Revisions to corporate profits
due to the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans are upward for 1968–1985, downward
for 1986–2002, upward for 2003–2006, downward for 2007–2009, and upward for 2010–2012.  The
improved method for distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of
income results in revisions that are downward for 1992–2001, upward for 2002, and downward for
2003–2012.  The revisions to corporate profits also reflect the incorporation of new and revised IRS
tabulations of corporate tax return data and of new and revised data from BEA’s ITAs and from other
sources.

      Net interest and miscellaneous payments.  Net interest and miscellaneous payments was
revised up for most years for 1965–2001 and down for 2002–2012.  Revisions for years prior to 1965
are small.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of several definitional and statistical improvements,
including the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans, the improved method for
distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of income, the improved
methodology for estimating mortgage interest paid for nonfarm permanent site housing, and the
improved method for measuring the financial services of commercial banks, and the incorporation of
new and revised data from a number of sources.

      Consumption of fixed capital (CFC).  CFC was revised up substantially for 1929–2012.  The
upward revisions to CFC reflect the addition of CFC for R&D; for the creation of entertainment, literary,
and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs of residential assets.  In
addition, CFC was revised up to reflect a faster depreciation rate of brokers’ commissions on residential
structures.  The revisions to CFC also reflect statistical improvements and revisions to BEA’s estimates
of fixed investment and prices.

      Statistical discrepancy.  The statistical discrepancy, which is the difference between GDP and
GDI, was revised for 1929–2012.  The directions of the revisions are mixed for 1929–2000; the
statistical discrepancy was revised down for 2001–2003, was revised up for 2004–2008, was revised
down for 2009, was revised up for 2010, and was revised down for 2011 and 2012.  (In theory, GDP
should equal GDI; in practice, they differ because their components are estimated using largely
independent and less-than-perfect source data.)

Box._______
                    Availability of Revised Estimates and Related Information

Revised estimates for selected NIPA tables are on BEA's Web site:
www.bea.gov

The comprehensive revision was previewed in a series of articles in the Survey of Current Business;
the articles are also available on BEA's Web site:
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions

The release schedule for revised NIPA tables is available at
www.bea.gov/national/table_schedule_20130606.htm
___________

      BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov.  By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.

                                         *          *          *

                             Next release -- August 29, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
                          Gross Domestic Product:  Second Quarter 2013 (Second Estimate)
                            Corporate Profits:  Second Quarter (Preliminary Estimate)

                                            Comparisons of Revisions to GDP

     Quarterly estimates of GDP are released on the following schedule:  the "advance" estimate, based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency, is released near the end of the
first month after the end of the quarter; as more detailed and more comprehensive data become available,
the "second" and "third" estimates are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively.
The "latest"” estimate reflects the results of both annual and comprehensive revisions.

     Annual revisions, which generally cover the quarters of the 3 most recent calendar years, are usually carried
out each summer and incorporate newly available major annual source data.  Comprehensive (or benchmark)
revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major periodic source data, as well as
improvements in concepts and methods that update the accounts to portray more accurately the evolving U.S.
economy.

The table below shows comparisons of the revisions between quarterly percent changes of current-dollar
and of real GDP for the different vintages of the estimates.  From the advance estimate to the second estimate (one
month later), the average revision to real GDP without regard to sign is 0.5 percentage point, while from the
advance estimate to the third estimate (two months later), it is 0.6 percentage point.  From the advance estimate to
the latest estimate, the average revision without regard to sign is 1.3 percentage points.  The average revision
(with regard to sign) from the advance estimate to the latest estimate is 0.2 percentage point, which is larger
than the average revisions from the advance estimate to the second or to the third estimates.  The larger average
revisions to the latest estimate reflect the fact that comprehensive revisions include major improvements, such as
the incorporation of BEA’s latest benchmark input-output accounts.  The quarterly estimates correctly indicate the
direction of change of real GDP 97 percent of the time, correctly indicate whether GDP is accelerating or
decelerating 72 percent of the time, and correctly indicate whether real GDP growth is above, near, or below trend
growth more than four-fifths of the time.

                           Revisions Between Quarterly Percent Changes of GDP: Vintage Comparisons
                                                     [Annual rates]

       Vintages                                   Average         Average without     Standard deviation of
       compared                                                    regard to sign      revisions without
                                                                                         regard to sign

____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________

Advance to second....................               0.2                 0.6                  0.4
Advance to third.....................                .1                  .7                   .4
Second to third......................                .0                  .3                   .2

Advance to latest....................                .3                 1.2                  1.0

________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________

Advance to second....................               0.1                 0.5                  0.4
Advance to third.....................                .1                  .6                   .5
Second to third......................                .0                  .2                   .2

Advance to latest....................                .2                 1.3                  1.0

NOTE.  These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2009.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Skyrocketing U.S. National Debt and Unfunded Liabilities For Medicare and Social Security — Videos

Posted on May 4, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Climate, College, Constitution, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

What Are the Dangers of Too Much Debt?

national debt cartoon

national-debt-skyrocket-606

national-debt-burden-606

obama-budget-debt-606

budget-create-deficits-606

chart_5

CBO_-_Revenues_and_Outlays_as_percent_GDP

Publicly_Held_Federal_Debt_1790-2012

US-Public-Debt-Ownership

Federal_Debt_RR

Economy Is Still Americans’ Top Concern

american_concerns_about_14_major_issues

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx

Most Important Problem

economy_problem

major_concerns_of_america

top_issues

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146708/americans-worries-economy-budget-top-issues.aspx

Democrats Split On How To Deal With Nation’s Debt, Key Leaders Come Out Against Spending Cuts

Chairman Hensarling Opening Statement at Hearing with Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke

Chairman Hensarling’s Opening Statement at Hearing with FHFA Director Edward J. DeMarco

US Debt A Threat To National Security

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 1

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 2

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 3

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 4

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 5

U.S. National Debt Documentary Part 6

‘US hides real debt, in worse shape than Greece’

Does Government Have a Revenue or Spending Problem?

What If the National Debt Were Your Debt?

How Big Is the U.S. Debt?

Funding Government by the Minute

Why Not Print More Money?

Yaron Answers: Can The U.S. Go Bankrupt?

US Debt Crisis – Perfectly Explained

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

Capitalism Without Guilt – Yaron Brook on morals of capitalism.

The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2013 to 2023

Economic growth will remain slow this year, CBO anticipates, as gradual improvement in many of the forces that drive the economy is offset by the effects of budgetary changes that are scheduled to occur under current law. After this year, economic growth will speed up, CBO projects, causing the unemployment rate to decline and inflation and interest rates to eventually rise from their current low levels. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate is expected to remain above 7½ percent through next year; if that happens, 2014 will be the sixth consecutive year with unemployment exceeding 7½ percent of the labor force—the longest such period in the past 70 years.

If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $845 billion, or 5.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), its smallest size since 2008. In CBO’s baseline projections, deficits continue to shrink over the next few years, falling to 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. Deficits are projected to increase later in the coming decade, however, because of the pressures of an aging population, rising health care costs, an expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance, and growing interest payments on federal debt. As a result, federal debt held by the public is projected to remain historically high relative to the size of the economy for the next decade. By 2023, if current laws remain in place, debt will equal 77 percent of GDP and be on an upward path, CBO projects (see figure below).

federal_debt_held_by_public

Such high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences: When interest rates rose to more normal levels, federal spending on interest payments would increase substantially. Moreover, because federal borrowing reduces national saving, the capital stock would be smaller and total wages would be lower than they would be if the debt was reduced. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they might ordinarily to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected challenges. Finally, such a large debt would increase the risk of a fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose so much confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget that the government would be unable to borrow at affordable rates.

Under Current Law, Federal Debt Will Stay at Historically High Levels Relative to GDP

The federal budget deficit, which shrank as a percentage of GDP for the third year in a row in 2012, will fall again in 2013, if current laws remain the same. At an estimated $845 billion, the 2013 imbalance would be the first deficit in five years below $1 trillion; and at 5.3 percent of GDP, it would be only about half as large, relative to the size of the economy, as the deficit was in 2009. Nevertheless, if the laws that govern taxes and spending do not change, federal debt held by the public will reach 76 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year, the largest percentage since 1950.

With revenues expected to rise more rapidly than spending in the next few years under current law, the deficit is projected to dip as low as 2.4 percent of GDP by 2015. In later years, however, projected deficits rise steadily, reaching almost 4 percent of GDP in 2023. For the 2014–2023 period, deficits in CBO’s baseline projections total $7.0 trillion. With such deficits, federal debt would remain above 73 percent of GDP—far higher than the 39 percent average seen over the past four decades. (As recently as the end of 2007, federal debt equaled just 36 percent of GDP.) Moreover, debt would be increasing relative to the size of the economy in the second half of the decade.

Those projections are not CBO’s predictions of future outcomes. As specified in law, CBO’s baseline projections are constructed under the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged, so that they can serve as a benchmark against which potential changes in law can be measured.

Revenues

Federal revenues will increase by roughly 25 percent between 2013 and 2015 under current law, CBO projects. That increase is expected to result from a rise in income because of the growing economy, from policy changes that are scheduled to take effect during that period, and from policy changes that have already taken effect but whose full impact on revenues will not be felt until after this year (such as the recent increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds).

As a result of those factors, revenues are projected to grow from 15.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 19.1 percent of GDP in 2015—compared with an average of 17.9 percent of GDP over the past 40 years. Under current law, revenues will remain at roughly 19 percent of GDP from 2015 through 2023, CBO estimates.

Outlays

In CBO’s baseline projections, federal spending rises over the next few years in dollar terms but falls relative to the size of the economy. During those years, the growth of spending will be restrained both by the strengthening economy (as spending for programs such as unemployment compensation drops) and by provisions of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). Although outlays are projected to decline from 22.8 percent of GDP in 2012 to 21.5 percent by 2017, they will still exceed their 40-year average of 21.0 percent. (Outlays peaked at 25.2 percent of GDP in 2009 but have fallen relative to GDP in the past few years.)

After 2017, if current laws remain in place, outlays will start growing again as a percentage of GDP. The aging of the population, increasing health care costs, and a significant expansion of eligibility for federal subsidies for health insurance will substantially boost spending for Social Security and for major health care programs relative to the size of the economy. At the same time, rising interest rates will significantly increase the government’s debt-service costs. In CBO’s baseline, outlays reach about 23 percent of GDP in 2023 and are on an upward trajectory.

Changes from CBO’s Previous Projections

The deficits projected in CBO’s current baseline are significantly larger than the ones in CBO’s baseline of August 2012. At that time, CBO projected deficits totaling $2.3 trillion for the 2013–2022 period; in the current baseline, the total deficit for that period has risen by $4.6 trillion. That increase stems chiefly from the enactment of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240), which made changes to tax and spending laws that will boost deficits by a total of $4.0 trillion (excluding debt-service costs) between 2013 and 2022, according to estimates by CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. CBO’s updated baseline also takes into account other legislative actions since August, as well as a new economic forecast and some technical revisions to its projections.

Looming Policy Decisions May Have a Substantial Effect on the Budget Outlook

Current law leaves many key budget issues unresolved, and this year, lawmakers will face three significant budgetary deadlines:

  • Automatic reductions in spending are scheduled to be implemented at the beginning of March; when that happens, funding for many government activities will be reduced by 5 percent or more.
  • The continuing resolution that currently provides operational funding for much of the government will expire in late March. If no additional appropriations are provided by then, nonessential functions of the government will have to cease operations.
  • A statutory limit on federal debt, which was temporarily removed, will take effect again in mid-May. The Treasury will be able to continue borrowing for a short time after that by using what are known as extraordinary measures. But to avoid a default on the government’s obligations, the debt limit will need to be adjusted before those measures are exhausted later in the year.

Budgetary outcomes will also be affected by decisions about whether to continue certain policies that have been in effect in recent years. Such policies could be continued, for example, by extending some tax provisions that are scheduled to expire (and that have routinely been extended in the past) or by preventing the 25 percent cut in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians that is due to occur in 2014. If, for instance, lawmakers eliminated the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in March (but left in place the original caps on discretionary funding set by the Budget Control Act), prevented the sharp reduction in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians, and extended the tax provisions that are scheduled to expire at the end of calendar year 2013 (or, in some cases, in later years), budget deficits would be substantially larger over the coming decade than in CBO’s baseline projections. With those changes, and no offsetting reductions in deficits, debt held by the public would rise to 87 percent of GDP by the end of 2023 rather than to 77 percent.

In addition to those decisions, lawmakers will continue to face the longer-term budgetary issues posed by the substantial federal debt and by the implications of rising health care costs and the aging of the population.

GDP_and_potential_GDP

Economic Growth Is Likely to Be Slow in 2013 and Pick Up in Later Years

The U.S. economy expanded modestly in calendar year 2012, continuing the slow recovery seen since the recession ended in mid-2009. Although economic growth is expected to remain slow again this year, CBO anticipates that underlying factors in the economy will spur a more rapid expansion beginning next year.

Even so, under the fiscal policies embodied in current law, output is expected to remain below its potential (or maximum sustainable) level until 2017 (see figure below). By CBO’s estimates, in the fourth quarter of 2012, real (inflation-adjusted) GDP was about 5½ percent below its potential level. That gap was only modestly smaller than the gap between actual and potential GDP that existed at the end of the recession because the growth of output since then has been only slightly greater than the growth of potential output. With such a large gap between actual and potential GDP persisting for so long, CBO projects that the total loss of output, relative to the economy’s potential, between 2007 and 2017 will be equivalent to nearly half of the output that the United States produced last year.

The Economic Outlook for 2013

CBO expects that economic activity will expand slowly this year, with real GDP growing by just 1.4 percent. That slow growth reflects a combination of ongoing improvement in underlying economic factors and fiscal tightening that has already begun or is scheduled to occur—including the expiration of a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, an increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds, and scheduled automatic reductions in federal spending. That subdued economic growth will limit businesses’ need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the unemployment rate to stay near 8 percent this year, CBO projects. The rate of inflation and interest rates are projected to remain low.

The Economic Outlook for 2014 to 2018

After the economy adjusts this year to the fiscal tightening inherent in current law, underlying economic factors will lead to more rapid growth, CBO projects—3.4 percent in 2014 and an average of 3.6 percent a year from 2015 through 2018. In particular, CBO expects that the effects of the housing and financial crisis will continue to fade and that an upswing in housing construction (though from a very low level), rising real estate and stock prices, and increasing availability of credit will help to spur a virtuous cycle of faster growth in employment, income, consumer spending, and business investment over the next few years.

Nevertheless, under current law, CBO expects the unemployment rate to remain high—above 7½ percent through 2014—before falling to 5½ percent at the end of 2017. The rate of inflation is projected to rise slowly after this year: CBO estimates that the annual increase in the price index for personal consumption expenditures will reach about 2 percent in 2015. The interest rate on 3 month Treasury bills—which has hovered near zero for the past several years—is expected to climb to 4 percent by the end of 2017, and the rate on 10-year Treasury notes is projected to rise from 2.1 percent in 2013 to 5.2 percent in 2017.

The Economic Outlook for 2019 to 2023

For the second half of the coming decade, CBO does not attempt to predict the cyclical ups and downs of the economy; rather, CBO assumes that GDP will stay at its maximum sustainable level. On that basis, CBO projects that both actual and potential real GDP will grow at an average rate of 2¼ percent a year between 2019 and 2023. That pace is much slower than the average growth rate of potential GDP since 1950. The main reason is that the growth of the labor force will slow down because of the retirement of the baby boomers and an end to the long-standing increase in women’s participation in the labor force. CBO also projects that the unemployment rate will fall to 5.2 percent by 2023 and that inflation and interest rates will stay at about their 2018 levels throughout the 2019–2023 period.

Updated February 5, 2013, to correct an error in note “a” to Table 1-7.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Playing The Sequester Blame Game: Drama Obama Not Problem Solver But Blame Shifter–Republicans Are Not Problem Solvers But Blame Shifters–Shut Off The Blame Shifters–Lead, Follow, or Get Out of The Way–Balance The Budget In Four Years By Real Cuts of $250 Billion Each Year To Budget Baseline for Four Years For Total of $1,000 Billion or You Are Out–Tea Party Patriots Proclamation–Videos

Posted on February 20, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Books, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Law, liberty, Life, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Obama PROMISES To Cut Deficit In Half By 2012

Live Obama speech on debt 23th february 2009

Amazing – Obama Caught in Bald-Faced Lie on White House Sequester

Sequester- President Obama says $85B in spending cuts WILL kick in Friday

Judge Napolitano: Facts About Sequester Caught Up To Obama “His Scare Tactics Are Reprehensible”

Obama’s big lie and massive deficits: spending addiction disorder (SAD)

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

Crisis and fear mongering as well as blame shifting are again running rampant among the ruling political elites in Washington over out-of-control government spending and what to do about it.

President Barack Obama and progressive Congressional Democrats want to increase federal government spending by increasing taxes through closing so-called “tax loopholes” or more precisely eliminating existing tax deductions and credits in the Internal Revenue code.

House Speaker John Boehner and conservative Congressional Republicans want to decrease government spending and decrease tax rates by also eliminating “tax loopholes.” There is no middle ground to negotiate given the diametrically opposed positions of the political parties. This was not always the case.

Early in his first term Obama delivered a speech in the White House titled “A New Era of Responsibility,” captured on the YouTube video titled “Obama will cut deficit in half FEB 2009.”  He said, “We cannot, and will not, sustain deficits like these without end. Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration, or the next generation.

“We are paying the price for these deficits right now. In 2008 alone, we paid $250 billion in interest on our debt — one in every 10 taxpayer dollars. That is more than three times what we spent on education that year; more than seven times what we spent on VA health care.

“So if we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road as our interest payments rise, our obligations come due, confidence in our economy erodes, and our children and our grandchildren are unable to pursue their dreams because they’re saddled with our debts.

“And that’s why today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

The last George W. Bush deficit for fiscal year 2008 was nearly $459 billion. If Obama was serious about meeting his pledge of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term, the deficit should have been less than $230 billion for fiscal year 2012. Obama did the exact opposite of what he promised the American people he would do in February 2009. Instead of cutting the deficit in half, he doubled the deficit to more than a trillion dollars for each fiscal year he has been in office as the table below clearly shows:

Summary of Spending Outlays, Tax Receipts, Deficits (-) or Surpluses, 2005-2013 

      (in millions of dollars)

Fiscal Year

Spending Outlays

Tax Receipts

-Deficit +Surplus

President (Party) House Control Senate Control
2005

2,471,957

2,153,611

-318,346

Bush (R) Republicans Democrats
2006

2,655,050

2,406,859

-248,181

Bush (R) Republicans Democrats
2007

2,728,686

2,567,985

-150,701

Bush (R) Democrats Democrats
2008

2,982,544

2,523,991

-458,553

Bush (R) Democrats Democrats
2009

3,517,677

2,104,989

-1,412,588

Obama (D) Democrats Democrats
2010

3,456,213

2,162,724

-1,293,489

Obama (D) Democrats Democrats
2011

3,603,061

2,303,466

-1,299,595

Obama (D) Republicans Democrats
2012

3,538,286

2,449,093

-1,089,193

Obama (D) Republicans Democrats
2013 est.

3,803,364

2,901,956

-901,408

Obama (D) Republicans Democrats
Source: The Budget for Fiscal Year 2013, Historical Tables, Table 1.1http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf

These massive and unprecedented deficits required that the national debt be increased to pay for the government’s out-of-control spending and for Congress to increase the debt ceiling to $16.4 trillion. On Aug. 2, 2011 President Obama signed into law The Budget Control Act of 2011. This ended the so-called debt ceiling crisis by increasing the debt-level immediately by $400 billion and allowing Obama to ask for another increase of the ceiling by $500 billion with Congressional approval in the future. The law established the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Debt Reduction, better known as the “super committee,” with the task of reducing the deficit by $1.5 trillion by Dec. 23, 2011. The super committee failed to accomplish its assigned task.

This triggered the sequestration provisions in the law requiring across-the-board cuts in government spending of $1.2 trillion over 10 years with a corresponding increase in the debt-level by $1.2 trillion. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for the sequestration when they passed the law. However, the original idea for sequestration came from White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors and Jack Lew, who was then budget director, whom with Obama’s approval presented the idea to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, according to Bob Woodward as documented in his book “The Price of Politics.“

On Jan. 31, Congress suspended the borrowing limit or debt ceiling of $16.4 trillion for three months until May 19.

By March 1 Congress needed to cut $1.2 trillion from the growth in the Congressional Budget Office baseline for fiscal years 2013 through 2021 or the sequestration would be triggered. These automatic spending cuts had to come from both discretionary and mandatory spending.

Under the sequestration order for fiscal year 2013, signed by Obama on Mar. 1, there needs to be a $85.3 billion cut in growth in federal government budget authority of which $42.7 billion is defense, $28.7 billion non-defense discretionary, $9.9 billion Medicare and $4 billion other mandatory.

For fiscal year 2013 the total federal government spending outlays are estimated to be about $3.8 trillion with estimated total tax revenues of about $2.9 trillion resulting in a deficit of about $901 billion. The sequestration impact for fiscal year 2013 is an estimated $44 billion cut in spending outlays or about 1.4% of total federal government spending.

The crisis and fear mongering and blame shifting is never-ending as Congress must now agree to a fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution by March 31. Meanwhile the U.S. economy is on the verge of another recession with higher unemployment rates and many more millions of unemployed Americans.

The absence of leadership in Washington to budget to estimated tax receipts and by so doing live within the means of the American people is the core problem. The solution would require the repeal of Congress’s baseline budgeting process whereby current spending levels are used to determine future funding requirements by adding increased funding for population growth, inflation and other factors to the current level of spending. The congressional budget baseline process totally ignores estimated tax receipts or revenues as a budgetary constraint. The result is massive unsustainable deficits.

Obama’s new era of responsibility was pure propaganda prevarication. Obama’s age of fiscal insanity and spending addiction disorder continues to destroy jobs, wreck the economy and kill the American dream. Neither progressive Democrats nor Republicans have the will, courage, integrity, wisdom and vision to balance the federal budget. Truly unbelievable.

how_congress_spends_your_money

http://federalbudget.com/

usgs_chart4p04

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_history

Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2012

Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.

The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789.  Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.

To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information  archives.

Date Dollar Amount
09/30/2012 16,066,241,407,385.89
09/30/2011 14,790,340,328,557.15
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

 http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Budget Control Act Sequestration Would Hit Defense Hardest

budget-control-act-680

2013%20sequester%20impact

verochart

Obama_2013_sequestration_tax_increase

Rand Paul: Sequester Doesn’t Cut Enough – Stossel 2/28/2013

Balderdash! Sen. Rand Paul demolishes Obama’s sequester scare tactics

Hooray for SEQUESTRATION…

Illegal Immigrants Released from Detention Centers…

Bernanke Urges Sequestration Alternative

The Obama Sequester: He Was For It, Before He Was Against It

Obama Then and Now: I was for the sequester and now I am against it

Rand Paul: Obama Claiming To Have Cut Debt By $2 Trillion Is Absurd – 2/13/2013

Paul Ryan confronted on sequester

The Truth about Sequestration

Fiscal Cliff: 5 Facts about the Federal Budget (animated) (2012)

Sequestration 101

Sequestration and transfer authority

Rand Paul: Sequester Is A Pittance – 2/19/2013

Rand Paul to Obama on Sequester: Stand Up, Be a Leader and Just Do the Right Thing

Sen Paul Sequester Barely Cuts Any Icing From Cake

Greenspan:  Odds of Sequestration Occurring Are Very High

Krauthammer: ‘Republicans Should Do Nothing’ On The Sequester

Next big challenge facing DC: The sequester

US military fighting against ‘sequester’ cuts

What is the March 1 sequester!…

Sessions Criticizes Composition Of Sequester, Says Surging Domestic Spending

Understanding the Sequester with David Sirota

Obama Senior Adviser: Haven’t Talked To Congressional Leaders About The Obama

Bob Woodward: Sequester was Obama’s Solution

Drama Obama Pleas For Delay To Sequestration Cuts

Jay Carney: Yes the Sequester Idea Was Put Forward by the President’s Team

Flashback: Obama promises veto stopgap alternative to sequester cuts

Bob Woodward on ‘The Price of Politics,’ Fiscal Fight

In summer 2011, a partisan Congress sparred with the White House on how to solve the U.S. debt crisis. Judy Woodruff talks to journalist Bob Woodward about his new book, “The Price of Politics,” about how Washington’s politicians couldn’t look past their own political aspirations in order to forge a deal.

Our Lying President – Debate lie on sequestration

White House Already Backpedaling On Obama Sequestration Comments

Bob Woodward talks about his new book ‘The Price of Politics’

Fox & Friends Rips Obama On Sequester: Is It ‘Blackmail’ To Get More Tax Hikes

CBO Director: “We haven’t seen a specific proposal” from Obama on replacing

OBAMA despises his OWN idea: the SEQUESTER

Obama:Congress Putting Thousands Of Jobs At Risk

Markets Will React Big When Reality Sets In

Peter Schiff: Obama recession will be worse than the Obama recovery

John Lennon – Give Peace or  Sequester A Chance (Original Video Tape)

John Boehner: The President Is Raging Against a Budget Crisis He Created

Obama invented the ‘sequester’ in the summer of 2011 to avoid facing up to America’s spending problem.

By JOHN BOEHNER

A week from now, a dramatic new federal policy is set to go into effect that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more. In a bit of irony, President Obama stood Tuesday with first responders who could lose their jobs if the policy goes into effect. Most Americans are just hearing about this Washington creation for the first time: the sequester. What they might not realize from Mr. Obama’s statements is that it is a product of the president’s own failed leadership.

The sequester is a wave of deep spending cuts scheduled to hit on March 1. Unless Congress acts, $85 billion in across-the-board cuts will occur this year, with another $1.1 trillion coming over the next decade. There is nothing wrong with cutting spending that much—we should be cutting even more—but the sequester is an ugly and dangerous way to do it.

By law, the sequester focuses on the narrow portion of the budget that funds the operating accounts for federal agencies and departments, including the Department of Defense. Exempt is most entitlement spending—the large portion of the budget that is driving the nation’s looming debt crisis. Should the sequester take effect, America’s military budget would be slashed nearly half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Border security, law enforcement, aviation safety and many other programs would all have diminished resources.

How did the country find itself in this mess?

During the summer of 2011, as Washington worked toward a plan to reduce the deficit to allow for an increase in the federal debt limit, President Obama and I very nearly came to a historic agreement. Unfortunately our deal fell apart at the last minute when the president demanded an extra $400 billion in new tax revenue—50% more than we had shaken hands on just days before.

It was a disappointing decision by the president, but with just days until a breach of the debt limit, a solution was still required—and fast. I immediately got together with Senate leaders Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell to forge a bipartisan congressional plan. It would be called the Budget Control Act.

The plan called for immediate caps on discretionary spending (to save $917 billion) and the creation of a special House-Senate “super committee” to find an additional $1.2 trillion in savings. The deal also included a simple but powerful mechanism to ensure that the committee met its deficit-reduction target: If it didn’t, the debt limit would not be increased again in a few months.

But President Obama was determined not to face another debt-limit increase before his re-election campaign. Having just blown up one deal, the president scuttled this bipartisan, bicameral agreement. His solution? A sequester.

With the debt limit set to be hit in a matter of hours, Republicans and Democrats in Congress reluctantly accepted the president’s demand for the sequester, and a revised version of the Budget Control Act was passed on a bipartisan basis.

Ultimately, the super committee failed to find an agreement, despite Republicans offering a balanced mix of spending cuts and new revenue through tax reform. As a result, the president’s sequester is now imminent.

Both parties today have a responsibility to find a bipartisan solution to the sequester. Turning it off and erasing its deficit reduction isn’t an option. What Congress should do is replace it with other spending cuts that put America on the path to a balanced budget in 10 years, without threatening national security.

Having first proposed and demanded the sequester, it would make sense that the president lead the effort to replace it. Unfortunately, he has put forth no detailed plan that can pass Congress, and the Senate—controlled by his Democratic allies—hasn’t even voted on a solution, let alone passed one. By contrast, House Republicans have twice passed plans to replace the sequester with common-sense cuts and reforms that protect national security.

The president has repeatedly called for even more tax revenue, but the American people don’t support trading spending cuts for higher taxes. They understand that the tax debate is now closed.

The president got his higher taxes—$600 billion from higher earners, with no spending cuts—at the end of 2012. He also got higher taxes via ObamaCare. Meanwhile, no one should be talking about raising taxes when the government is still paying people to play videogames, giving folks free cellphones, and buying $47,000 cigarette-smoking machines.

Washington must get serious about its spending problem. If it can’t reform America’s safety net and retirement-security programs, they will no longer be there for those who rely on them. Republicans’ willingness to do what is necessary to save these programs is well-known. But after four years, we haven’t seen the same type of courage from the president.

The president’s sequester is the wrong way to reduce the deficit, but it is here to stay until Washington Democrats get serious about cutting spending. The government simply cannot keep delaying the inevitable and spending money it doesn’t have.

So, as the president’s outrage about the sequester grows in coming days, Republicans have a simple response: Mr. President, we agree that your sequester is bad policy. What spending are you willing to cut to replace it?

— Mr. Boehner, a Republican congressman from Ohio, is speaker of the House.

A version of this article appeared February 20, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The President Is Raging Against a Budget Crisis He Created.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323495104578314240032274944.html

2013 United States federal budget

The 2013 United States federal budget is the budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2013, which is October 2012–September 2013. The original spending request was issued by President Barack Obama in February 2012.[1] The actual appropriations for fiscal year 2013 must be authorized by the full Congress before the budget can take effect, in accordance with the United States budget process.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 mandates caps on discretionary spending, which under current law will be lowered beginning in January 2013 to remove $1.2 trillion of spending over the following ten years. In addition, several temporary tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the beginning of the 2013 calendar year, including the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts on income, capital gains, and estate tax, which had been extended in a 2010 tax deal, as well as a payroll tax cut that began as a result of the 2010 deal and had been most recently extended in an early 2012 tax deal. The combination of sudden spending cuts and tax increases has led to concerns about significant negative effects on the economy in the wake of the weak recovery from the late 2000s recession.

History

Budget Control Act and the Deficit Reduction Committee

The Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed in August 2011 as a resolution to the debt-ceiling crisis. The fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget is the first to be affected by the second of two rounds of budget cuts specified in the act. (The first round of cuts has already been applied to the ten years beginning in FY2012.) For this second round of cuts, the Budget Control Act had formed the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, sometimes referred to as the “supercommittee”, to identify at least $1.2 trillion in cuts over the ten years beginning with FY2013, and specified automatic across-the-board cuts of the same amount, equally split between security and non-security programs, if no such budget reduction legislation was passed by Congress.[4]

On November 21, 2011, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction announced that it did not reach a deal on the budget-cutting legislation, raising the possibility that the automatic cuts would be activated if the full Congress could not enact its own deficit reduction legislation by December 23, 2011. The supercommittee’s lack of an agreement was attributed to the refusal of Republicans to consider any tax increases, combined with Democratic insistence on including these revenue increases such as the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which under current law expire at the end of 2012.[5]

Initial proposals

President Obama’s February 2012 budget message to Congress addressed themes of economic crisis and response, an updated defense strategy, taxation fairness, income equality, fiscal responsibility, and investments in education and research to help the U.S. compete economically. He wrote: “The way to rebuild our economy and strengthen the middle class is to make sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. Instead of lowering our standards and our sights, we need to win a race to the top for good jobs that pay well and offer security for the middle class. To succeed and thrive in the global, high-tech economy, we need America to be a place with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers; the most advanced transportation and communication networks; and the strongest commitment to research and technology in the world. This Budget makes investments that can help America win this race, create good jobs, and lead in the world economy.”[6]

Key elements of the President’s budget for fiscal year (FY) 2013 included expiration of a variety of tax cuts for couples earning over $250,000 ($200,000 if single), short-term stimulus measures to support job growth, and targeted tax cuts for families and businesses. The budget included 2013 revenues of $2.9 trillion or 17.8% GDP (up from $2.5 trillion or 15.8% GDP in 2012) and spending of $3.8 trillion or 23.3% GDP (similar to the prior year in dollar terms but below the 24.3% GDP in 2012). The projected 2013 deficit was $900 billion (5.5% GDP), down from the 2012 deficit of $1.3 trillion (8.5% GDP).[7]

Over the 2013-2022 period, the budget essentially freezes defense and non-defense discretionary spending in dollar terms, such that these categories shrink relative to a growing economy, from 8.7% GDP to 5.9% GDP. Mandatory spending (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other safety net programs) remain around 14% GDP. Net interest rises from 1.5% GDP to 3.3% GDP. Revenues rise steadily during the period from 17.8% GDP to 20.1% GDP, averaging 19.2% GDP.[8] Debt held by the public rises from $12.6 trillion to $18.7 trillion, but remains flat around 77% GDP during the period.[9]

On May 16, 2012, the United States Senate voted on a 52-page Republican budget amendment billed as a summary of the nearly 2,000 pages in the Obama administration’s 2013 budget proposal. The amendment was defeated by a unanimous 99–0 vote, which paralleled the House of Representatives having voted a similar rejection in March by a count of 414–0. Those defeats of the Republicans’ amendments marked the second year in a row such summary bills met unanimous opposition.[10] In explaining their votes against, Congressional Democrats disputed whether the Republican summary accurately represented the Obama budget proposal; by contrast, Congressional Republicans claimed that their amendment included ample data taken directly from said budget.[11]

Legislation begins to be passed

On July 31, 2012, a tentative deal was announced to fund the government from October 2012 through March 2013 through a continuing resolution, with spending rates slightly higher than the FY2012 levels. The deal was reached because Republicans were eager to avoid a prolonged dispute that could threaten a government shutdown just before the upcoming 2012 general elections.[12] The bill, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, was passed in the House 329–91,[13] passed in the Senate 62–30,[14] and signed by President Obama on September 28, 2012.[15]

On August 1, 2012, the House and Senate passed competing bills on the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The House bill would extend all the tax cuts for one year, while the Senate version would allow taxes to rise on incomes over $250,000. The passage of the bills was reported as being intended as political cover; progress on tax legislation was not expected until after the November elections.[16]

In late December, the Republican House leadership proposed legislation that would allow tax cuts to rise relative to 2012 levels only for annual income over $1,000,000. The proposal was known as “Plan B”, and was intended to force the Senate and the Obama administration to pass it and delay further negotiations until the following month, when Republicans were expected to use the reaching of the federal debt limit as leverage. However, the House vote on the plan was abruptly cancelled on December 20, 2012 after it became clear that the bill did not have enough support to pass, due to conservative members of the House who would not support any legislation that would raise taxes without also cutting spending.[17]

On December 28, 2012, the Senate passed the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 to provide for $60.4 billion in additional spending to cover recovery costs from Hurricane Sandy, which had hit the northeastern United States in late October. The bill passed the Senate 62–32, but faced uncertain prospects in the House.[18]

At around 2 a.m. on January 1, 2013, the Senate passed a compromise bill, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, by a margin of 89–8. The bill would delay the budget sequestration by two months, and bill includes $600 billion over ten years in new tax revenue relative to extending 2012 levels, which is about one-fifth of the revenue that would have been raised had no legislation been passed. The revenue would come from increased marginal income and capital gains tax rates relative to their 2012 levels for annual income over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples; a phase-out of certain tax deductions and credits for those with incomes over $250,000 for individuals and $300,000 for couples, an increase in estate taxes relative to 2012 levels on estates over $5 million, and expiration of the two-year-old cut to payroll taxes, which is applied to income under the Social Security Wage Base, which was $110,100 in 2012. All these changes would all be made permanent.[19][20] House Speaker John Boehner promised a prompt vote on the Senate bill, but the prospect of the House passing an amended bill raised the prospect that legislation might not be enacted by the end of the 112th Congress at noon on January 3.[21]

Analysis

Implications of the Budget Control Act

Main articles: Budget Control Act of 2011 and United States fiscal cliff

The automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion resulting from the absence of a deal from the supercommittee over ten years would be split equally between security and non-security programs, and include $500 billion in cuts to the Department of Defense. The FY2013 defense budget would be reduced 11%, from $525 billion to $472 billion, after already having been cut from $571 billion in the first installment of cuts in the Budget Control Act. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta initially gave the total cut figure as 23%.[22] The planned cuts include reductions in troop levels, a modest limit in pay raises for soldiers starting in 2015, an increase in health fees for veterans, delays in the construction of new naval ships and in the purchasing of new fighter aircraft such as the F-35, and the possibility of a round of base closings within the United States, but cuts to special operations, cyberwarfare, and intelligence programs were avoided.[23] Initial reports had also suggested that the number of carrier battle groups might be reduced from 11 to 10,[22] although it was later determined that the number of aircraft carriers would not in fact be cut.[24] Some Republicans in Congress advocated reversing the cuts to the military, citing the effect on national security, and Secretary Panetta has opposed the cuts, calling them “devastating” and raising “substantial risk of not being able to meet our defense needs.” President Obama has promised to veto any legislation seeking to avoid the cuts, and House Speaker John Boehner also indicated his commitment to following the cuts in the Budget Control Act.[5][25] According to the Center for American Progress, several Presidents have significantly reduced defense spending after wars, without compromising national security. Defense spending in 2011 remained high by historical standards, adjusted for inflation.[26]

The Budget Control Act also specifies automatic cuts of 7.8% to domestic programs and 2% to Medicare, while Medicaid and Social Security will be unaffected. These entitlement programs were protected from cuts in return for the absence of new revenues in the Budget Control Act.[27]

The automatic cuts to domestic programs would include cuts of up to 11% to science research and development agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, NASA, and the U. S. National Laboratories run by the Department of Energy. It is anticipated that this could cause federal grant acceptance levels to fall into the single digits, a consequence which has been called catastrophic for academic institutions by Michael Lubell of the American Physical Society. The cuts could also endanger politically controversial research such as climate change research programs in NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.[28] Due to the role of scientific research in economic growth and job creation, and given international competition in this field, the cuts have been opposed by professional and academic organizations, and federal support of research and development has been called “an area of U.S. investment too critical to be cut” by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[29][30]

Ten-year projections

Annual rates of increase in major revenue categories budgeted for the 2012-2022 period were:

  • Individual income taxes: 8.4%
  • Corporation income taxes: 8.2%
  • Social insurance (mainly payroll) taxes: 6.6%
  • Total tax revenues: 7.6%

Annual rates of increase in major spending categories budgeted for the 2012-2022 period were:

  • Defense: 1.8%
  • Non-defense discretionary: 1.6%
  • Social Security: 5.8%
  • Medicare: 6.6%
  • Medicaid: 8.5%
  • Net interest: 14.2%
  • Total spending: 5.0%[31]

Changes in revenues primarily represent a return to the long-run average. Tax revenues historically have averaged around 18% GDP. The subprime mortgage crisis resulted in significant declines in revenues due to high unemployment and reduced economic activity, with revenue falling to a record low 15% GDP. President Obama’s budget preserves the Bush income tax cuts for couples earning below $250,000, while eliminating some tax exemptions and deductions (tax expenditures).[32]

Defense and non-defense discretionary expenses are essentially frozen in real dollar terms for the 2013-2022 period, growing at or below the rate of inflation. Department of Defense spending rose at an annual rate of 8% between 2000 and 2011; this amount includes both the baseline and war spending. Non-defense discretionary spending rose at an annual rate of 6.6% between 2000 and 2011. Mandatory spending is mainly driven by demographic changes (i.e., an aging population, with fewer workers per retiree), healthcare cost increases per capita, and Social Security cost of living adjustments. Interest costs represent a return to more typical interest rates as the economy recovers along with the growing public debt.[32]

Total revenues and spending

The Obama administration’s February 2012 budget request contained $2.902 trillion in receipts and $3.803 trillion in outlays, for a deficit of $901 billion.[33] The budget projects a reduction in the deficit to $575 billion by 2018 before rising to $704 billion by 2022.[34]

Total receipts (in billions of dollars)::

Item Requested[33]
Individual income tax 1,359
Corporate income tax 348
Social Security and other payroll tax 959
Excise tax 88
Customs duties 33
Estate and gift taxes 13
Deposits of earnings and Federal Reserve System 80
Other miscellaneous receipts 21
Total 2902

Total outlays by agency (in billions of dollars):

Agency Discretionary Mandatory Total
Department of Defense including Overseas Contingency Operations 666.2 6.7 672.9
Department of Health and Human Services including Medicare and Medicaid 80.6 860.3 940.9
Department of Education 67.7 4.2 71.9
Department of Veterans Affairs 60.4 79.4 139.7
Department of Housing and Urban Development 41.1 5.2 46.3
Department of State and Other International Programs 56.1 3.4 59.5
Department of Homeland Security 54.9 0.5 55.4
Department of Energy 35.6 –0.6 35.0
Department of Justice 23.9 12.7 36.5
Department of Agriculture 26.8 127.7 154.5
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 17.8 –0.02 17.8
National Intelligence Program 52.6 0 52.6
Department of Transportation 24.0 74.5 98.5
Department of the Treasury 14.1 96.2 110.3
Department of the Interior 12.3 1.2 13.5
Department of Labor 13.2 88.4 101.7
Social Security Administration 11.7 871.0 882.7
Department of Commerce 9.5 –0.5 9.0
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works 8.2 –0.007 8.2
Environmental Protection Agency 9.2 –0.2 8.9
National Science Foundation 7.4 0.2 7.5
Small Business Administration 1.4 –0.006 1.4
Corporation for National and Community Service 1.1 0.007 1.1
Net interest 246 0 246
Disaster costs 2 0 2
Other spending 34.0- 61.7 29.5
Total 1,510 2,293 3,803

References

  1. ^ Riley, Charles (February 13, 2012). “Obama unveils $3.8 trillion budget”. CNNMoney. Retrieved February 13, 2012.
  2. ^ Hensarling, Jeb (November 22, 2011). “Why the Super Committee Failed”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 9, 2011.
  3. ^ Murray, Patty. “Deficit-reduction chair says she’s not done working for compromise”. Retrieved December 14, 2011.
  4. ^ Lisa Mascaro; Kathleen Hennessey (July 31, 2011). “U.S. leaders strike debt deal to avoid default”. Los Angeles Times.
  5. ^ a b Steinhauer, Jennifer; Cooper, Helene; and Pear, Robert (22 November 2011). “Panel Fails to Reach Deal on Plan for Deficit Reduction”. The New York Times: p. A18. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
  6. ^ President Obama-The Budget Message of the President-February 2012
  7. ^ OMB-President Obama’s 2013 Budget-Summary Tables S5 and S6
  8. ^ OMB-President Obama’s 2013 Budget-Summary Table S-6
  9. ^ OMB-President Obama’s 2013 Budget-Summary Table S15
  10. ^ Dinan, Stephen (16 May 2012). “Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate”. Washington Times. Retrieved 16 May 2012.
  11. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/
  12. ^ Steinhauer, Jennifer (1 August 2012). “Leaders Reach Tentative Deal on Spending to Avoid Fight Before Election Day”. The New York Times: p. A11. Retrieved 1 August 2012.
  13. ^ Weisman, Jonathan (14 September 2012). “House Republicans Welcome Back Ryan, and His Vote, on a Spending Measure”. The New York Times: p. A13. Retrieved 21 September 2012.
  14. ^ “U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 2nd Session: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 117)”. United States Senate. Retrieved 1 October 2012.
  15. ^ “Status of Appropriations Legislation for Fiscal Year 2013″. Library of Congress. Retrieved 1 October 2012.
  16. ^ Weisman, Jonathan (2 August 2012). “House Approves One-Year Extension of the Bush-Era Tax Cuts”. The New York Times: p. A12. Retrieved 21 September 2012.
  17. ^ Weisman, Jonathat (21 December 2012). “Boehner Cancels Tax Vote in Face of G.O.P. Revolt”. The New York Times: p. A1. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
  18. ^ Hernandez, Raymond (29 December 2012). “Senate Passes $60.4 Billion for Storm Aid; Bill’s Fate in House Is Unclear”. The New York Times: p. A15. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
  19. ^ Weisman, Jonathan (1 January 2013). “Senate Passes Legislation to Allow Taxes on Affluent to Rise”. The New York Times. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
  20. ^ Hook, Janet; Hughes, Siobhan (1 January 2013). “Fiscal-Cliff Focus Moves to House”. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
  21. ^ Steinhauer, Jennifer; Weisman, Jonathan (1 January 2013). “G.O.P. Anger Over Tax Deal Endangers Final Passage”. The New York Times. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
  22. ^ a b Bumiller, Elisabeth (23 November 2011). “Despite Threat of Cuts, Pentagon Officials Made No Contingency Plans”. The New York Times: p. A20. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
  23. ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth; Shanker, Thom (27 January 2012). “Defense Budget Cuts Would Limit Raises and Close Bases”. The New York Times: p. A12. Retrieved 3 February 2012.
  24. ^ Stewart, Phil (21 January 2012). “U.S. won’t cut carrier fleet to fix budget, Panetta says”. Reuters. Retrieved 3 February 2012.
  25. ^ Steinhauer, Jennifer (23 November 2011). “Automatic Military Cuts May Stand in Congress”. The New York Times: p. A20. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
  26. ^ Center on American Progress-A Historical Perspective on Defense Spending-July 2011
  27. ^ Bendavid, Naftali (21 November 2011). “Congress’s Deficit ‘Bomb’: Scary or Not?”. Washington Wire. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
  28. ^ Hand, E. (2011). “Debt deal sets day of reckoning”. Nature 476 (7359): 133–134. doi:10.1038/476133a. PMID 21833060. edit
  29. ^ Ham, Becky (25 November 2011). “Science, Engineering Groups Urge Lawmakers to Protect R&D”. Science 334 (6059): 1079. doi:10.1126/science.334.6059.1079.
  30. ^ “Open Letter to the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction”. Stand With Science. Retrieved 7 December 2011.
  31. ^ OMB-President Obama’s 2013 Budget-Summary Table S4 and S5
  32. ^ a b CBO-Long Term Economic Outlook-January 2012
  33. ^ a b “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government”. United States Office of Management and Budget. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  34. ^ Weisman, Jonathan (2012-02-10). “Obama Budget Bets Other Concerns Will Trump the Deficit”. New York Times. Retrieved 2012-04-22.

Further reading

External links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

2012 Presidential Debate 2–October 16, 2012, Hofstra Univiersity, Hempstead, New York–Videos

Posted on October 17, 2012. Filed under: American History, Books, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, People, Philosophy, Programming, Psychology, Resources, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Presidential Debate, Round 2 – Town Hall

President Obama and Mitt Romney square off in their second debate in a town hall format at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.

Oct 16 2012 Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney Second presidential debate Complete Full Version 

Second Presidential Debate: Obama vs. Romney (Complete HD) Part 1 [16/10/2012] 

Second Presidential Debate: Obama vs. Romney (Complete HD) Part 2 [16/10/2012]

Second Presidential Debate: Obama vs. Romney (Complete HD) Part 3 [16/10/2012] 

Luntz Group of Mostly Former Obama Voters Switch to Romney! 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s 11 Million Jobs Gap And 43 Months of Above 8% Unemployment Rates–Recovery In 2020?–Videos

Posted on October 2, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Recovery 2020! We’re Barely on Pace to Close the Jobs Gap This Decade

“…At this rate, we’ll close the jobs gap in roughly … eight years.

Eight years!?

Yep, that is the conclusion from Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney at the Hamilton Project. Today the country faces a 11 million-person jobs gap. This “jobs gap” represents the number of jobs that the U.S. economy needs to  return to pre-recession employment rates while also (this part is key!) absorbing everybody joining the labor force.

It’s not just enough to make jobs for everybody seeking work this year. We also have to account for the millions of people joining the workforce over the next decade. Filling the jobs gap is like filling a bucket that gets deeper every minute. How much deeper? Greenstone and Looney balance an influx of immigrant workers against the retirement of the baby boomers and conclude that labor force is likely to expand at a slowing pace. Before the Great Recession, it was growing at about 130,000 people per month. In the next few years, it will slow to 90,000 a month, they project. …”

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/recovery-2020-were-barely-on-pace-to-close-the-jobs-gap-this-decade/254388/

CBS: “This Is The Worst Economic Recovery America Has Ever Had” 

Vice Chairman Brady Questions BLS Commissioner at JEC Hearing on the Employment Situation

At a Joint Economic Committee Hearing on the Employment Situation, Representative Kevin Brady, Vice Chairman, questions Witness Dr. Keith Hall, Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics about the effect of government spending on private sector job growth.

Vice Chairman Brady Questions Commissioner Hall about Labor Force Participation Rate at JEC Hearing 

Background Articles and Videos

Rep. Brady Questions BLS Commissioner on the Need for Private Sector Job Growth 

Rep. Brady questions BLS Commissioner Hall on the jump in the April unemployment rate at JEC hearing 

Grim recovery outlook from BLS Comissioner Hall

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Why You Are Unemployed?–The Minimum Wage Law–Good Intentions Are Not Enough–Videos

Posted on June 8, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Macroeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Series Id:           LNS14000000 Seasonally Adjusted

Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate

Labor force status:  Unemployment rate

Type of data:        Percent or rate

Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.7 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2

Series Id:           LNS14000012 Seasonally Adjusted

Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.

Labor force status:  Unemployment rate

Type of data:        Percent or rate

Age:                 16 to 19 years

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.7 16.7 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 19.9 20.3 20.6
2009 20.7 22.2 22.2 22.3 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.1 25.9 27.0 26.8 26.7
2010 25.9 25.4 26.2 25.7 26.7 25.9 25.9 25.8 25.8 27.0 24.5 25.2
2011 25.4 23.9 24.5 24.9 24.1 24.6 24.9 25.3 24.5 24.0 23.7 23.1
2012 23.2 23.8 25.0 24.9 24.6

Source: Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Why You Are Unemployed – Part 1

Why You Are Unemployed – Part 2

Why You Are Unemployed – Part 3

Why You Are Unemployed – Part 4

Background Articles and Videos

Good Intentions 1 of 3 Introduction and Public Schools with Walter Williams

Good Intentions 2of3 Minimum Wage, Licensing, and Labor Laws with Walter Williams 

Good Intentions 3 of 3 The Welfare System and Conclusions with Walter Williams

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama Official Surrogate Newark Mayor Cory Booker Tells It Like It Is–Bain Capital Good For Americans–The Left Goes Nuts!–Videos

Posted on May 22, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, government, government spending, High School, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

OBAMA: ROMNEY A ‘VAMPIRE’ 

Mayor Booker – Bain Capital, private equity good – nauseating 

Cory Booker Backtracks on Romney Support 

Cory Booker Backs Off Criticizing Obama Campaign Bain Attacks

“As the Obama campaign doubles down on the use of Bain Capital to question Mitt Romney’s economic philosophy, Newark Mayor Cory Booker is backing off his criticism of a line of attack he called “nauseating.” During an appearance Sunday on “Meet The Press,” Booker, an Obama supporter and rising star, seemed to equate the Obama campaign’s Bain strategy with the scuttled plans of a GOP “super PAC” to raise Obama’s past ties to Jeremiah Wright, a retired Chicago pastor whose controversial speeches became a campaign issue in 2008…”.* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

Big Bain Backfire

“…President Obama’s attacks on free enterprise have triggered a backlash among many—even among those in his own party. In just the past few days, everyone from former advisors to his own surrogates have criticized the Obama campaign’s attack on free enterprise. With no record to run on, it is no surprise that the Obama campaign has resorted to misleading attacks that have been disavowed by its own supporters. …”

Axelrod: Mayor Booker Was “Wrong” To Criticize Obama Attack On Romney 

Matthews On Obama Booking Booker: “I’m Appalled By This Of Course! HEAR ME!!”

Cory Booker Caught in Balancing Act Over Obama’s Bain Ad Comments

Corporatist Dem. Cory Booker Defends Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital 

Papantonio: Booker Has No Courage For A Fight 

Obama Campaign Does Damage Control After Dems Question Anti-Bain Strategy

“…The Obama campaign is in full damage-control mode one day after Newark Mayor Cory Booker publicly derided Democrats’ assault on presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney over his record at Bain Capital.

Chief Obama strategist David Axelrod today publicly rebuked Booker, a popular and high-profile surrogate for the campaign, saying he was “just wrong.”

“I love Cory Booker. He’s a great mayor. If I were, if my house was on fire, I’d hope he were my next door neighbor,” Axelrod said on MSNBC, referring to Booker’s rescue of a neighbor last month.

“I agree with what he said later. I think this was a legitimate area for discussion,” Axelrod said of Booker’s subsequent comments clarifying the issue. …”

“…Booker is not the only Democrat to question the aggressive, negative portrayal of Romney’s work in private equity.  Former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford Jr. said today he agreed with “the substance” of Booker’s comments and “would not have backed out.”

“I agree with him, private equity is not a bad thing. Matter of fact, private equity is a good thing in many, many instances,” the Democrat said in a separate appearance on MSNBC earlier in the day.

Former Obama administration economic adviser Steven Rattner made similar comments last week, calling a new Obama campaign TV ad attacking Romney’s role in the bankruptcy of a Bain-owned steel company “unfair.”

“Bain Capital’s responsibility was not to create 100,000 jobs or some other number. It was to create profits for its investors,” Rattner said.  ”‘It did it superbly well, acting within the rules, acting very responsibly. … This is part of capitalism, this is part of life. I don’t think there’s anything Bain Capital did that they need to be embarrassed about.”

Republicans have been gleeful with the apparent divide among Democrats over the portrayal of Romney’s Bain days.  The Romney campaign produced a web video – “Big Bain Backfire” – highlighting the comments, while the Republican National Committee purchased ads on Twitter to play up the Booker flap. …”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-campaign-does-damage-control-after-dems-question-anti-bain-strategy/

Background Articles and Videos

Cory Booker Fire Rescue

Cory Booker on “Stand Your Ground” 

Glenn Beck analyzes Obama’s new Bain Capital-related anti-Romney ad (5/15/12 show)

State of the Union:      Obama Ad Bashes Bain Capital 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Forward Radical Progressive Socialists–Better Not Look Down–More Deadly Than War–Barack Obama–Videos

Posted on April 30, 2012. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Drug Cartels, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Entertainment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, History of Economic Thought, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“…The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other leftwing newspapers and publications. For example, Vpered (Russian language for ‘Forward’) was the name of the publication that Lenin started after having resigned rom the Iskra editorial board in 1905 after a clash with Georgi Plekhanov and the Mensheviks.[1]

Forward was used by the US President Barrack Obama as his 2012 presidential campaign slogan. The slogan was used to look back at the begining of his Presidency and the situation he inherited, and the bold strides taken over the four years of his term in office, and as a message towards his reelection. [2] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_(generic_name_of_socialist_publications)

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

Unemployment Level

Number in Thousands 

U-3 Unemployment Rate

Percent or Rate

U-6 Unemployment Rate

Percent or Rate

 http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

Forward.

Obama Campaign Slogan ‘Forward’ a Hitler Youth Marching Tune

“If I wanted America to fail” 

 Better Not Look Down

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 1 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 2 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 3 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 4 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 5 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 6 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 7 of 8

G Edward Griffin – More Deadly Than War – Part 8 of 8

Obama “Jobs” Bill…

Obama Kicks Off Campaign… 

New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism

By Victor Morton

“…The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.

Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).”

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official beginning. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbxwYxIm_tg&feature=relmfu

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Marvelous 2012 Ticket–Republican Romney/Ryan–Representative Ryan Will Take Apart Obama’s Big Lies–Video

Posted on April 7, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weather | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Ryan: We need Mitt Romney as our president

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan talk with Sean Hannity.

Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan: That’s Amore

Obama mocks Mitt Romney for calling Ryan budget “marvelous”

Romney: Ryan Plan Is Simply ‘Marvelous’

Who Would be Romney’s VP?

Obama calls GOP budget plan “social Darwinism”

Krauthammer – Who writes this rubbish?

Obama Calls GOP Budget Plan “Prescription for Decline”

 

“…In a blistering attack on the House-Passed Republican budget Tuesday, President Obama called the plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan a “Trojan Horse” and “a prescription for decline.” Judy Woodruff, Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the CATO Institute’s Daniel Mitchell discuss the GOP budget plan. …”

 

Paul Ryan Responds to Barack Obamas Fiscal Allegations

Paul Ryan Takes Apart President Obama’s Inaccurate Speech

  

Mitt Romney Vice President Nominee Paul Ryan?

Congressman Paul Ryan – “The Rule of Law and America’s Future”

Paul Ryan on his Romney endorsement

David Walker – America at a Crossroads

The Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Dan Mitchell Discussing Dishonest Budget Numbers with John Stossel

Geithner Admits: Obligations In President’s Budget ‘Unsustainable’

Tim Geithner to Paul Ryan: “We don’t have a definitive solution… We just don’t like yours”

Paul Ryan: President’s Budget Ensures Government Can’t Keep Its Promises

The Deal with Jack Hunter: Ignoring Rand Paul’s Budget

Ron Paul to Congress: If Debt Is the Problem, Why Do You Want More of It?

Another Day Older & Deeper In Debt: Federal Deficit to Top $1 Trillion for Fourth Year

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

Unfunded Liabilities and Hidden Taxes

Stunning Finding: President’s Health Law Creates $17 Trillion In Unfunded Financial Obligations

The National Debt: A Primer and A Plan by George C. Christy

 Romney’s VP Shortlist

By Ben Jacobs

“…No one knows exactly what Romney is thinking. But turning to his favored method—market-based solutions—here are his top five likely Republican vice presidential contenders, according to Intrade, the online futures market.

1. Marco Rubio

The freshman senator from Florida currently is the most likely vice presidential contender on Intrade, with a 24.9 percent chance of being Romney’s pick. Rubio is a young, charismatic Cuban-American from a crucial swing state where he is beloved by conservatives. Rubio does have some weaknesses. He has spent less than two years as a statewide elected official—exactly as much time as Sarah Palin had in 2008. Further, Rubio spent part of his youth as a Mormon, which gives pause to some evangelicals. And, unlike Romney, favors a version of the DREAM Act, which would allow certain illegal immigrants who arrived in the United States as children an opportunity to become citizens.

2. Chris Christie

Sometimes a vice presidential nominee is used as a way to reach out to swing voters. Sometimes, the number two spot on the ticket is used to reassure the base. Chris Christie is the rare candidate who can do both. The boisterous, belligerent governor of New Jersey, currently given a 10.9 percent chance of being Romney’s choice, is revered by base voters for his tough stance against unions, but is socially moderate enough to appeal to many centrists.

Christie, though, has said openly that he’s not ready to be president, which may make some hesitate to putting him a heartbeat from the Oval Office. He also is the antithesis of Romney as a candidate. He is prone to ad-libbing, and has difficulties sticking to a script. In a political cycle when an off-the-cuff remark from an aide about an Etch-a-Sketch can cause a week-long media frenzy, the risks of such “straight talk” are magnified.

3. Bob McDonnell

As a social conservative from a swing state, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell could serve two roles for Romney. He would appease right-wingers nationally who worry that Romney is “a Massachusetts moderate” while bolstering the campaign in the Old Dominion.

But while McDonnell may be given 9.9 percent odds on Intrade, he may be too much of a social conservative. During his gubernatorial run in 2009, McDonnell saw his graduate thesis from Regent University emerge—and receive some scrutiny. Although the document didn’t cost him the race in a strong Republican year, his controversial views on contraception and “fornicators” may be too toxic for some general-election voters.

4. Paul Ryan

Regardless of whether Paul Ryan is on the Republican ticket, he will be a key figure in the fall campaign. The Ryan Plan, named after the 42-year-old, seven-term congressman from southern Wisconsin, will be a focal point of the presidential election. This controversial program involves major cuts to virtually every single government program as a way to both pay down the deficit and significantly cut taxes.

Romney already has endorsed the Ryan Plan, as has the Republican Party en masse, but putting Ryan on the ticket would reinforce the salience of the issue. Although Ryan is personable and has a rapport with Romney, he would have to give up his seat in the House for a vice presidential bid, which could make it less tempting for him to sign up—and is one of the reason Intrade has him at just 8.9 percent.

5. Rob Portman

Rob Portman is a dull and uncharismatic fiscal conservative, just like Mitt Romney. But Portman comes from the crucial swing state of Ohio, and his political operation is credited by some for putting Romney over the top in that state’s hard-fought Super Tuesday primary against Rick Santorum. The result has generated some buzz for Portman as the safe and steady choice for the number two spot, and garnered him an 8.4 percent chance on Intrade of being picked.

The first-term Ohio senator also is a long-time Washington insider, having served 12 years in Congress before joining the Bush administration. Such inside-the-Beltway ties run counter to Romney’s message as a problem solver from outside of Washington. …”

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-vp-shortlist-084500575.html

Why a Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan ticket seems unlikely

By James Pethokoukis

“…He veered into some 2012 territory, too. Ryan repeated that he will not run for president next year, but added that he didn’t think it served the party well to merely nominate the “next person in line.” Most analysts would say that person was Mitt Romney. That does not mean Ryan opposes Romney. Ryan might think Romney would be a fine candidate — but should not get the gig just because he arguably was the 2008 runner up.

But then again Ryan made a few cracks about Romney’s signature public policy achievement, healthcare reform in Massachusetts. He said it was  not “dissimilar” from Obamacare and was heading into a financial “death spiral.” Ouch.

If Romney were to win the nomination and pick Ryan, you could end up with a weird situation where Obama and Romney would support the Massachusetts plan, with Ryan opposing. Politics is a strange business, but I don’t see how that one would work. Then again, finding conservatives who like Romneycare isn’t easy. So where would Team Mitt find its veep? …”

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Unemployed Youth Not Likely To Vote For Obama–The Obama Deception Not Working–Videos

Posted on March 31, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1948 8.5 10.0 10.5 9.5 7.0 9.3 9.7 9.6 8.8 8.5 9.1 8.5
1949 10.0 10.6 11.9 13.2 13.4 13.8 14.3 15.0 14.6 15.8 14.0 15.4
1950 15.2 15.2 14.3 12.0 13.3 12.2 11.2 10.7 10.9 10.3 9.5 11.1
1951 8.5 8.1 8.3 7.9 6.7 8.3 8.7 8.2 8.3 7.7 9.5 7.6
1952 9.3 8.3 8.2 7.6 8.9 8.4 8.8 8.5 8.9 8.4 8.2 7.6
1953 6.9 6.7 6.7 7.1 6.4 6.9 7.3 7.4 7.3 9.7 8.6 11.8
1954 12.1 13.5 13.0 13.6 13.4 10.5 12.9 14.0 14.0 12.2 11.4 12.6
1955 11.7 11.3 11.0 10.7 10.9 10.8 10.4 11.5 11.3 11.0 11.7 11.0
1956 10.6 11.4 11.5 10.9 11.9 12.2 11.2 10.1 9.8 10.1 12.6 9.7
1957 11.6 10.5 11.2 11.1 11.4 11.7 11.8 11.5 11.0 10.9 13.4 13.1
1958 14.4 14.6 14.7 17.2 16.3 15.4 17.9 16.0 17.9 16.0 15.9 14.9
1959 14.0 12.9 13.6 15.0 14.3 13.9 14.5 16.1 14.9 15.8 15.1 15.3
1960 14.6 13.1 15.6 14.2 13.9 14.6 13.9 15.3 14.5 16.1 14.7 16.4
1961 17.1 17.4 17.1 16.4 15.8 16.6 17.3 17.1 18.0 16.9 16.0 15.3
1962 16.2 16.0 15.1 15.1 14.2 13.6 13.9 14.1 14.5 14.3 16.3 14.4
1963 15.8 17.7 17.1 16.8 18.7 17.2 18.1 16.1 17.4 17.1 17.7 16.3
1964 16.7 15.8 16.3 17.0 16.4 16.8 14.7 16.7 15.7 15.8 15.6 17.1
1965 16.8 16.7 15.8 16.2 14.8 15.3 14.5 13.9 14.7 14.5 13.0 13.3
1966 13.0 12.4 13.1 13.0 13.6 13.0 12.9 12.4 12.8 12.6 11.8 12.1
1967 11.9 12.9 11.6 12.1 12.8 12.9 13.0 13.4 12.9 13.7 13.8 13.0
1968 12.0 12.9 12.7 11.8 12.5 13.9 13.8 12.0 12.0 11.8 12.2 12.7
1969 12.0 11.9 12.3 12.0 12.4 12.2 12.8 12.2 12.6 12.6 11.6 11.8
1970 13.5 13.3 13.4 14.7 14.2 16.3 14.7 15.7 16.2 16.7 17.4 17.1
1971 16.8 16.3 16.9 16.3 16.8 17.7 17.7 16.8 16.7 16.9 16.9 16.9
1972 16.9 18.0 17.2 16.5 15.3 15.9 15.6 16.5 16.3 15.8 15.7 15.6
1973 13.7 15.3 14.3 15.5 14.9 13.8 14.3 14.0 14.7 14.4 15.0 14.6
1974 14.6 14.9 14.9 14.3 15.4 16.3 16.8 14.9 17.0 17.2 17.8 18.2
1975 19.5 19.4 19.9 19.9 20.4 20.9 20.7 20.7 19.5 19.8 19.0 19.8
1976 19.6 19.0 18.9 19.5 18.6 18.5 18.3 19.6 18.6 19.0 19.2 19.1
1977 18.9 18.4 18.6 18.0 17.8 18.8 17.5 17.4 18.0 17.2 17.2 15.5
1978 16.7 17.2 17.3 16.6 16.0 15.4 16.5 15.7 16.4 16.1 16.3 16.7
1979 16.1 16.1 15.9 16.3 16.1 15.7 15.6 16.5 16.5 16.5 15.9 16.2
1980 16.5 16.6 16.3 16.2 18.6 18.9 19.1 18.9 18.0 18.4 18.5 17.6
1981 19.1 19.3 19.2 18.8 19.1 19.8 18.6 18.8 19.7 20.3 21.3 21.1
1982 22.0 22.6 21.8 22.8 22.8 22.9 24.0 23.7 23.6 23.7 24.1 24.1
1983 23.1 22.8 23.5 23.4 22.8 24.0 22.8 22.9 21.7 21.4 20.2 19.9
1984 19.5 19.4 19.8 19.2 18.7 18.2 18.8 18.7 19.2 18.6 17.7 18.8
1985 18.8 18.3 18.2 17.5 18.5 18.5 20.2 17.9 17.9 20.0 18.3 19.1
1986 18.1 18.8 18.2 19.2 18.6 19.2 18.4 18.0 18.4 17.7 18.1 17.5
1987 17.7 18.0 17.9 17.3 17.4 16.5 15.8 15.9 16.2 17.3 16.6 16.0
1988 16.1 15.6 16.6 16.0 15.3 14.2 14.8 15.4 15.5 15.1 13.9 14.8
1989 16.4 15.0 13.9 14.6 14.8 15.7 14.2 14.6 15.2 15.0 15.5 15.3
1990 14.8 15.0 14.3 14.7 15.0 14.3 15.0 16.3 16.4 16.5 17.1 17.4
1991 18.6 17.4 18.3 17.8 18.8 18.5 19.4 18.9 18.8 19.1 19.0 20.3
1992 19.2 20.1 20.3 18.5 20.1 23.0 20.8 19.9 21.0 18.3 20.5 19.8
1993 19.9 19.7 19.7 19.5 19.8 19.9 18.4 18.4 18.2 18.7 18.5 17.9
1994 18.3 18.0 18.0 19.1 18.0 17.6 17.6 17.3 17.5 17.5 15.6 17.0
1995 16.5 17.4 16.1 17.5 17.5 17.1 18.2 17.3 17.6 17.4 17.5 18.0
1996 17.7 16.8 17.1 17.1 16.8 16.2 17.1 16.8 15.6 16.3 16.8 16.6
1997 16.8 17.1 16.4 15.9 16.0 16.8 17.1 16.1 16.1 15.1 14.8 14.0
1998 13.9 14.5 14.8 13.5 14.8 14.9 14.6 14.7 15.0 15.7 14.7 13.5
1999 15.2 13.9 14.2 14.2 13.3 13.9 13.4 13.3 14.8 13.8 13.9 13.4
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.7 16.7 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 19.9 20.3 20.6
2009 20.7 22.2 22.2 22.3 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.1 25.9 27.0 26.8 26.7
2010 25.9 25.4 26.2 25.7 26.7 25.9 25.9 25.8 25.8 27.0 24.5 25.2
2011 25.4 23.9 24.5 24.9 24.1 24.6 24.9 25.3 24.5 24.0 23.7 23.1
2012 23.2 23.8

http://www.bls.gov/data/#unemployment

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

Obama Campus Fervor Losing to Apathy as Students Sour on 2012

“…‘More Apathetic’

‘…“There’s definitely a significant sense that this generation are more apathetic headed into the 2012 election than they were in 2008,” John Della Volpe, director of polling for Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, said in a phone interview.

Obama’s approval rating among college students dropped to 46 percent last December from 58 percent in November 2009, according to a Harvard University poll. Fifty percent of people between the ages of 18 and 24 said they would “definitely” be voting, an 11 percentage-point decrease from the fall of 2007. A third of respondents said they approved of Democrats in Congress, and 24 percent approved of Republicans. Just 12 percent said the nation was headed in the right direction

“The turnout will not be great,” Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate inWashington, said in a phone interview. The war in Afghanistan, a lack of progress on closing Guantanamo Bay and a dismal job picture taint Obama’s prospects, he said. The unemployment rate among 18- to 24-year-olds was 16.3 percent at the end of last year, the highest since record-keeping began in 1948, according to a February Pew Research Center report.

“There’s not the sense that four more years of Obama will change the world for the better,” Gans said. Still, Obama stands a “reasonably good chance” of winning, he said. …”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-30/obama-campus-fervor-losing-to-apathy-as-students-sour-on-2012.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ron Paul The One Who Will Abolish The IRS and Income Taxes And End The Fed and Inflation Tax–Video

Posted on January 18, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Tax Policy, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul on Taxes 

New Ron Paul Commercial

Ron Paul: 0% Income Tax, 0% Inflation Tax

 WSJ Economist: Ron Paul’s 0% Income Tax = Massive Insourcing of Jobs into America

Ron Paul 2012 – No Income Tax! 

Ron Paul: End Obamacare, Abolish the IRS, Eliminate Support for Big Government

The Judge Deciphers the Contemporary Tax Debate 

SuperPAC Endorses Ron Paul, Raises $400,000 

Blue Reps — an End To War, a Revival of Liberty

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

“Blessed are the Peacemakers:” Ron Paul’s Christian Foreign Policy–Videos

Posted on October 24, 2011. Filed under: Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Oil, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Religion, Resources, Science, Strategy, Taxes, Uncategorized, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

“Blessed are the Peacemakers:” Ron Paul’s Christian Foreign Policy

Ron Paul: Don’t Allow Big Government to Determine Your Future!

Ron Paul on Freedom Watch 10/24/11

Ron Paul Campaign Youth Rally Speech, University Of Iowa — October 21, 2011

U.S. Foreign Policy Hurting Freedom, Economic Prosperity?

Background Articles and Videos

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’

SA@TAC – Wither the Neocons?

SA@TheDC – Confronting American Empire

SA@The DC – Ron Paul’s Reaganesque Foreign Policy

SA@TAC – Ronald Reagan: Isolationist

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ron Paul’s Economic Plan for Restoring America to Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Rush Limbaugh Backs Ron Paul Plan To Save The American Republic!–Videos

If You Believe in The Sanctity of Life And Liberty–Please Consider Voting For Ron Paul–Videos

People Don’t Understand The Power Of Ron Paul–Especially The Mainstream Media–The American People Are Listening–Videos

Ron Paul at the National Press Club 10/5/11 –Videos

Ron Paul–Videos

Ron Paul–Republican Debate-September 22, 2011–Fox News And Google–Videos

Republican Debate–September 22, 2011–Fox News and Google–Videos

Republican Debate September 12, 2011–Tea Party–CNN–Videos

Ron Paul Responds To Barack Obama’s Jobs Speech–Videos

Ron Paul Highlights in 9/7/2011 Presidential Debate–Videos

Ron Paul The Constitutionalist Candidate vs. Mitt Romney The Establishment Candidate–Videos

Ron Paul Gaining Momentum–Videos

Beyond Top Tier–First In The Hearts and Minds Of The American People and Founding Fathers–The One–Ron Paul–Restoring Liberty, Peace and Prosperity–Videos

Ron Paul On The Federal Reserve Board’s Decision To Keep Interest Rates Low For Next Two Years Resulting In The Devaluing And Destruction Of The U.S. Dollar!–Videos

Ron Paul Defender of Freedom–The Youth and Professional Soldiers Choice For President Of The United States–The Peace and Prosperity Candidate–Campaign for Liberty–Videos

Real Hope–Real Change–Ron Paul–The Peace and Prosperity Constitutional Candidate For President of The United States in 2012

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Republican Debate September 12, 2011–Tea Party–CNN–Videos

Posted on September 13, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 45:September 14, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 44:September 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 43:August 31, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 42:August 24, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 41:August 17, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

P1 The Tea Party Republican Debate CNN 9-12-2011

P2 The Tea Party Republican Debate CNN 9-12-2011

P3 The Tea Party Republican Debate CNN 9-12-2011

P4 The Tea Party Republican Debate CNN 9-12-2011

P5 The Tea Party Republican Debate CNN 9-12-2011

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #1: Social Security

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #2: How Do You Protect Seniors When So Much Goes To Defense?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #3: What Would You Do To Get The Economy Moving Forward?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #4: Can You Be Pro Business & Pro Worker?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #5: Should The Federal Reserve Be Audited?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #6: How Much Of My Pay Check Should I Be Allowed To Keep?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #7: Executive Orders

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #8: What Is Your Plan To Reduce Healthcare Cost?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #9: What Would You Do To Remove Illegal Immigrants?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #10: Do You Plan To Decrease Defense Spending?

Tea Party Republican Debate Question #11: What Would You Bring To The White House?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Bloomberg Poll Bad News For Obama–Only 30% Certain They Will Vote For Obama in 2012!–66% Think Country On The Wrong Track!–Videos

Posted on June 22, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Security, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 33:June 22, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 32:June 15, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 31:June 8, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 30:June 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Obama Gets 30% Certain to Back His Re-Election in Poll

Poll: 70 percent think US on wrong track

Obama Gets 30% of Americans Certain to Support Re-Election in Economy Poll

By Julianna Goldman

“…Americans are growing more dissatisfied with President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy and say it will be hard to vote to re-elect him without seeing significant progress over the next year and a half.

By a margin of 61 percent to 37 percent, a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20 shows Americans say they believe that Obama will have had his chance to make the economy “substantially better” by the end of 2012.

Only 30 percent of respondents said they are certain to vote for the president and 36 percent said they definitely won’t. Among likely independent voters, only 23 percent said they will back his re-election, while 36 percent said they definitely will look for another candidate. …”

“…With unemployment and jobs ranking as the most important issue facing the country and lawmakers mired in debates to cut the nation’s long-term debt, the poll’s findings underscore a central challenge for Obama’s re-election team: making the 2012 campaign a choice between competing visions for the country’s future rather than a referendum on his job performance. …”

“…Economy Performance Ratings

Obama’s performance ratings drop significantly when the focus turns to his management of the economy, jobs and deficits. By a margin of 61 percent to 32 percent, Americans disapprove of the job Obama is doing to tackle the budget deficit. Fifty-seven percent of respondents disapproved of his efforts to create jobs and overall 57 percent disapproved of his handling of the economy….”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-22/obama-gets-30-of-americans-certain-to-support-re-election-in-economy-poll.html

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Poll: 70 percent think US on wrong track

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Texas Tea Time–The Coming Oil Boom In Texas–Videos

Posted on May 28, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Energy, Enivornment, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Natural Gas, People, Philosophy, Resources, Wealth | Tags: , , , , |

Eagle Ford Shale Oil

 

Carrizo Springs Benefitting From Oil Drilling KGNS-TV

 

 

Cnooc Ltd. Buys 33% Stake In Chesapeake Energy’s Eagle Ford Shale For $1.08 Billion

 

Shale Boom: To Drill or Not to Drill [NBC: 5-31-2011]

 

Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing

 

Frack Oil Well 9-25-10

 

Chesapeake Energy hydraulic fracturing method

Modern Drilling Operations: Hydraulic Fracturing

“This is very big and it’s coming on very fast,” said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of IHS CERA. “This is like adding another Venezuela or Kuwait by 2020, except these tight oil fields are in the United States.”

Shale Boom in Texas Could Increase U.S. Oil Output

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

“…The Texas field, known as the Eagle Ford, is just one of about 20 new onshore oil fields that advocates say could collectively increase the nation’s oil output by 25 percent within a decade — without the dangers of drilling in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico or the delicate coastal areas off Alaska.

There is only one catch: the oil from the Eagle Ford and similar fields of tightly packed rock can be extracted only by using hydraulic fracturing, a method that uses a high-pressure mix of water, sand and hazardous chemicals to blast through the rocks to release the oil inside.

The technique, also called fracking, has been widely used in the last decade to unlock vast new fields of natural gas, but drillers only recently figured out how to release large quantities of oil, which flows less easily through rock than gas. As evidence mounts that fracking poses risks to water supplies, the federal government and regulators in various states are considering tighter regulations on it.

The oil industry says any environmental concerns are far outweighed by the economic benefits of pumping previously inaccessible oil from fields that could collectively hold two or three times as much oil as Prudhoe Bay, the Alaskan field that was the last great onshore discovery. The companies estimate that the boom will create more than two million new jobs, directly or indirectly, and bring tens of billions of dollars to the states where the fields are located, which include traditional oil sites like Texas and Oklahoma, industrial stalwarts like Ohio and Michigan and even farm states like Kansas. …”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/28/business/energy-environment/28shale.html?_r=1

House Session 2011-04-07 (17:08:09-18:23:24)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Herman Cain–The Tea Party Movement Candidate–Running On Cutting Spending, Opposing Higher Debt Ceiling, Enforcing Immigration Laws, Defunding Planned Parenthood, Nominating Pro Life Judges, And Passing The FairTax–Common Sense Solutions!–Videos

Posted on May 23, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Biology, Blogroll, Business, Chemistry, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Science, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 29:May 26, 2011  

 

Who is Herman Cain ?

Herman Cain : We the People

 

Cain

 

Herman Cain on Taxes

 

Herman Cain on Jack Kemp

 

Herman Cain on ABC This Week panel June 5, 2011

 

Herman Cain 2012 Event! 1 of 3

 

 

2011 NRA Annual Meetings – Herman Cain – Celebration of American Values Leadership Forum

 

Herman Cain: “Priorities”

Herman Cain on America Live

 

 Herman Cain on Sean Hannity – 5/23/11

 

 

Fox News Sunday – Exclusive With Herman Cain May 22 2011

 

Just Herman Cain’s Answers in First Republican Debate for 2012

 

All Ron Paul 2012 Presidential debate answers full HQ

 

Frank Luntz Focus Group Picks Winner of First GOP Debate!

 

Herman Cain: We Need to Secure the Border With Technology and Guns

 

Herman Cain – Immigration

 

Herman Cain Explains the Fair Tax

 

Herman Cain Discusses Fair Tax with Neil Cavuto

 

Herman Cain on Second Amendment and Abortion

 

 

Herman Cain Talks Social Issues

 

Herman Cain says if he runs for President he would defund Planned Parenthood

 

America Loves Herman Cain!

 

Herman Cain – We need to return to Gold Standard and Eliminate the Debt

 

 

Herman Cain : We the People

 

Is America Ready for Common Sense Solutions?

Herman Cain to Obama at CPAC: “U.S. Will Not Become U.S. of Europe on our Watch”

 

My favorites candidates for the office of President of The United States are Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain.

The one thing all three have in common is character and integrity.

The one thing all three do not have is the support of the Republican Party establishment in Washington, D.C.

All three are pro life and would defund Planned Parenthood, all three want Federal Government spending cut with no increase in the National debt ceiling, and all three favor lower taxation and comprehensive income tax reform such as the FairTax

All three would make an outstanding President of the United States.

While my dream ticket is Ron Paul as the  candidate for President and Michele Bachmann as the candidate for Vice-President on the Republican Party ticket, Herman Cain would make an excellent Secretary of the Treasury Department or Chairman of the Republican Party.

Let the American people decide for themselves who is the best candidate.

 

Background Articles and Videos

Rush Limbaugh – Herman Cain Is Serious Snerdley

 

Herman Cain versus Bill Clinton

 

Herman Cain – Bill Bennett – May 11, 2011

 

Glenn Beck Loves Herman Cain

 

 

Mark Levin Interviews Herman Cain

 

Herman Cain – Laura Ingraham

 

Herman Cain – Thomas Jefferson Comes to Dinner Part 1

 

Herman Cain – Thomas Jefferson Comes to Dinner Part 2

 

Herman Cain

“…Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is an American businessman, political activist, columnist, and radio host from Georgia. He is best known as the former chairman and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. He is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the civilian board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Before his business and economics career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics for the United States Navy.[2] Cain’s newspaper column is distributed by North Star Writers Group. He lives in the Atlanta suburbs.

In January 2011, Cain announced he had formed an exploratory committee for a potential presidential campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and on May 21, 2011, Cain officially announced his candidacy.[3]

Background

Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee on December 13, 1945, the son of Lenora (née Davis) and Luther Cain, Jr.[4][5] His mother was a cleaner and his father was a chauffeur.[2] He was raised in Georgia.[6] He graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University in 1971,[7] while he was also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy. Cain has authored four books: Leadership is Common Sense (1997), Speak as a Leader (1999), CEO of SELF (October 2001), and They Think You’re Stupid (May 2005).

Business career

After completing his master’s degree from Purdue, Cain left the Department of the Navy and began working for The Coca-Cola Company as a business analyst. In 1977, he joined Pillsbury where he rose to the position of vice president by the early 1980s. He left his executive post to work for Burger King – a Pillsbury subsidiary at the time – managing 400 stores in the Philadelphia area. Under Cain’s leadership, his region went from the least profitable for Burger King to the most profitable in three years. This prompted Pillsbury to appoint him president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, another of their then-subsidiaries. Within 14 months, Cain had returned Godfather’s to profitability. In 1988, Cain and a group of investors bought Godfather’s from Pillsbury. Cain continued as CEO until 1996, when he resigned to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association – a trade group and lobby organization for the restaurant industry – where he had previously been chairman concurrently with his role at Godfather’s.[8]

Cain became a member of the board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in 1992 and served as its chairman from January 1995 to August 1996, when he resigned to become active in national politics.[9] Cain was a 1996 recipient of the Horatio Alger Award.[10]

Media work

Cain hosted The Herman Cain Show on Atlanta talk radio station News Talk 750 WSB, a Cox Radio affiliate until February 2011 and serves as a commentator for Fox Business and a syndicated columnist distributed by the North Star Writers Group. In 2009, Cain founded “Hermanator’s Intelligent Thinkers Movement” (HITM), aimed at organizing 100,000 activists in every congressional district in the United States in support of a strong national defense, the FairTax, tax cuts, energy independence, capping government spending, and Restructuring Social Security.[11]

Political activities

 Role in the defeat of the Clinton health care plan

Cain publicly opposed the 1993/1994 health care plan of President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. While president-elect of the National Restaurant Association he challenged Bill Clinton on the costs of the employer mandate contained within the bill, criticizing its effect on small businesses. Cain has been described as one of the primary “saboteurs” of the plan:

The Clintons would later blame “Harry and Louise,” the fictional couple in the ads aired by the insurance industry, for undermining health reform. But the real saboteurs are named Herman and John. Herman Cain is the president of Godfather’s Pizza and president-elect of the National Restaurant Association. An articulate black entrepreneur, Cain transformed the debate when he challenged Clinton at a town meeting in Kansas City, Mo., last April. Cain asked the president what he was supposed to say to the workers he would have to lay off because of the cost of the “employer mandate.” Clinton responded that there would be plenty of subsidies for small businessmen, but Cain persisted. “Quite honestly, your calculation is inaccurate,” he told the president. “In the competitive marketplace it simply doesn’t work that way.”[12]

Joshua Green of The Atlantic has called Cain’s exchange with Clinton his “auspicious debut on the national political stage.”[13]

1996 Senior Adviser of Dole/Kemp Campaign

Cain was a senior economic adviser to the Dole/ Kemp presidential campaign in 1996.[14]

2004 U.S. Senate candidacy

Main article: United States Senate election in Georgia, 2004

In 2004, Cain ran for the U.S. Senate in Georgia, pursuing the seat that came open with the retirement of Democrat Zell Miller. Cain sought the Republican nomination, facing congressmen Johnny Isakson and Mac Collins in the primary. Cain and Collins both hoped to deny Isakson a majority on primary day in order to force him into a runoff.[citation needed] Collins tried to paint Cain as a moderate,[15] citing Cain’s support for affirmative action programs, while Cain argued that he was a conservative, noting that he opposed the legality of abortion even in cases of rape and incest.[16] Cain finished second in the primary with 26.2% of the vote, ahead of Collins, who won 20.6%, but because Isakson won 53.2% of the vote, Isakson was able to avoid a runoff.[17]

 2012 presidential candidacy

Main article: Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012

In 2010, “Cain addressed more than 40 Tea Party rallies, hit all the early presidential states, and became a YouTube sensation.”[6] In April, he teased the audience at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference about his being a possible 2012 presidential candidate by saying that there may be a “dark horse candidate.”[18][19] On September 24, 2010, Cain announced that he was considering a run for president in 2012 on the Republican Party ticket.[20] “In December, he was the surprise choice for 2012 GOP nominee in a reader poll on the conservative Web site RedState.com, narrowly edging out Palin.”[6]

Cain announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee on January 12, 2011 on the Fox News Channel program Your World with Neil Cavuto.[21] [22]

Cain supports a non-federally subsidized efficient economic stimulus, saying: “We could grow this economy faster if we had bolder, more direct stimulus policies,” criticizing President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan as simply a “spending bill” instead of meaningful stimulus through permanent tax cuts.[23]

In December 2010, Jonah Goldberg of the National Review wrote of Cain: “it’s hard to imagine him amounting to more than an exciting also-ran.”[24]

In February 2011, Cain addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).[25] Ed Morrisey of the conservative website Hot Air said he “stole the show” and that some attendees were moved to tears by the speech.[26] In contrast, liberal website AlterNet accused Cain of pandering to white conservatives and referred to him and other black conservatives as “garbage pail kids”. Cain called the news website’s attacks racist and condemned its “shameful behavior”.[27]

Following a number of comments made by Cain regarding his attitudes toward Muslim people, he was asked in March 2011 if he would feel comfortable appointing a Muslim to his administration or as a Judge. Cain said “No, I will not … There’s this creeping attempt, there’s this attempt, to gradually ease Shariah Law, and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government”[28][29] and he went on to cite court cases in Oklahoma[30] and New Jersey as evidence.[31] This led to criticisms of “bigotry” and “muslim bashing” from CAIR, whose spokesperson stated “It would be laughable if it weren’t having such a negative impact on the lives of Muslim Americans”.[32][33]

On May 5, 2011 Fox News presented a presidential campaign debate. Cain was one of five potential candidates who participated. (The others were Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, Gary E. Johnson and Rick Santorum as the higher-profile candidates declined Fox’s invitation.) Cain was declared the winner by pollster Frank Luntz after a show of hands among 29 debate witnesses who were chosen by Fox to act as a post-performance focus group.[34][35] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain

 

 

Herman Cain to Obama at CPAC: “U.S. Will Not Become U.S. of Europe on our Watch”

 

 

Herman Cain: Liberals ‘Don’t Want People to Know the Truth’

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Growth, Anti-Jobs, and Anti-Security Energy Policy–Videos

Posted on April 2, 2011. Filed under: American History, Biology, Blogroll, Chemistry, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Law, Life, Links, media, Nuclear Power, People, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Science, Security, Technology, Transportation, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 

“Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.”

“We have tried so many things; when shall we try the simplest of all: freedom.”

~Frederic Bastiat

 

Give it a listen!

Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 2)

April 08, 2011 11:16 AM PDT

Pronk Pops Show 22, April 7, 2011

Segment 1: 3,500,000 Million Americans Unemployed in March 2011 Still Exceeds Great Depression High of 13,000,000 In March 1933–The Obama Depressions Continues–Bureau of Labor Statistics: 8.8% Official Unemployment Rate (U-3) vs. Gallup Unemployment Rate of 10.0%–Nonfarm Payroll Increased By 216,000–The Government Makes The Depression Worse!–Videos

Segment 2: Obama’s Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Growth, Anti-Jobs, and Anti-Security Energy Policy–Videos

Segment 3: Republican Establishment Will Propose A Ten Year $6,200 Billion Cut In Spending Over Ten Years–The Problem Is It Does Not Balance The Budget For Another Five Years At The Earliest–Tea Party Movement Demands Balanced Budgets Starting In 2012 For The Next Ten Years!–A Jet Plane To Prosperity Not A Path To Prosperity–Videos

Segment 4: Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!–Videos

For additional information and videos on the above segments:

http://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/pronk-pops-show-22-april-5-2011-segment-113500000-million-americans-unemployed-in-march-2011-still-exceeds-great-depression-high-of-13000000-in-march-1933%E2%80%93the-obama-depressions-contin/

Pres. Obama Unveils Energy Plan: Full Speech

 

Media “On Board” With Skyrocketing Energy Prices Under Obama


 

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

 

Crude Oil, Gasoline and Natural Gas Futures Price

NYMEX Prices for April 1,
2011

NYMEX Light Sweet Crude +1.22
$107.94
ICE Brent +1.34
$118.70
RBOB Gasoline NY Harbor +0.0436
$3.1513
Heating Oil NY Harbor +0.0220
$3.1345
NYMEX Natural Gas -0.027
$4.362

http://www.wtrg.com/index.html

Barry Buys a Big New Truck! Ethanol and Food Riots !

 

Middle East Events Drives Oil Speculation

 

Ron Paul The real reason why oil prices are high

Bulltick’s Vera Forecasts $100 Oil Through End of 2011


As Market Manipulation Drives up Gas Prices


CHHS Director discusses excessive speculation in oil markets


Oil speculation and oil prices


America’s Energy Security

 

Barack Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling


Obama’s Promise the Bankrupt the Coal Industry


Air quality control technology at Dry Fork Station

 

Chris Horner On Obama Energy Policy

 

“…Crude oil, refining, distribution & marketing, and taxes are the four major cost components for estimates of the retail price of a gallon of gasoline:

  • Crude oil – the major feedstock used to produce gasoline. This portion of the gasoline price is represented by the cost of crude oil purchased by refiners.
  • Refining – processing the crude oil into gasoline. The refining portion of the gasoline price is the spread between the cost of crude oil purchased by refiners and the wholesale price of gasoline. This spread represents both the costs and profits associated with the refining process.
  • Distribution & Marketing (Retail) – the part of the supply chain where wholesale gasoline is brought to a retail station and sold to the final consumer. This portion of the gasoline price is the retail price minus the other three price components. It represents both the costs and profits associated with selling retail gasoline to the final consumer.
  • Taxes – The Federal Government levies a tax of 18.4 cents on each gallon of gasoline, and the States levy an average tax of 22 cents on each gallon. This does not account for all State and local taxes, such as sales taxes, so this component, ranging from 7.5 to 37.5 cents per gallon across States, is probably understated (and the Distribution and Marketing component correspondingly overstated). …”

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=470

Verleger Says U.S. Shale Gas Rivals Saudi Oil Reserves

ANWR Drilling

The truth about ANWR

First Deepwater Drilling Permit Since BP Oil Spill

U.S. Energy Policy Faces New Choices, Limitations

 

Dan Kish talks gas prices, keystone and energy policy

Secretary Salazar Objects to Anyone who will Listen

Inhofe Speech: Ending the Obama Administration’s Attack on Affordable Energy

Milito Says Obama Energy Lease Plans Are `Disincentives’

Shell’s Pete Slaiby talks about Alaska drilling safety

Rep Jeff Landry on FOX and Friends 031311

 

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER Huber

Bjorn Lomborg – The Facts about the Environment

Bjorn Lomborg – The Facts about the Environment (part 2)

 

Bjorn Lomborg – The Facts about the Environment (part 3)

Forget about trying to decrease the demand for energy by wage, price and production controls and government regulations and executive orders.

Forget about trying to decrease the supply of energy by banning drilling and not approving permits to drill for oil and gas and build electrical power plants and oil refineries.

The United States government should not be in the energy or real estate business by trying to pick winners and losers with government subsidies and regulations.

The government is the problem by it pervasive interference and intervention into both the energy,  transportation, agriculture and real estate sectors of the economy.

Government produces nothing but uncertainty, inflation and massive debt.

If the Federal and state governments simply got out of the way the United States economy could double its rate of growth with a full employment.

Instead the United States economy now has more government employees than employees in the manufacturing sector.

Both Federal and state governments collect more in taxes from energy suppliers than the profits earned by energy companies.

The professional politicians of both political parties together with the government bureaucracies have become a drag on the economy and a threat to the liberties of the American people.

Get Federal and state governmenst out of business and businesses out of goverments.

First, permanently shut-down the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation,  Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture.

Second, sell off Federal lands to the highest bidders.

Third, lift all bans on oil and gas exploration on land and at sea.

Fourth, end all subsidies and mandates starting with ethanol.

Obama and Ethanol

 

PA Approves Higher Ethanol Fuel Blend for More Cars

 

Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great

 

The Ethanol Myth

 

Biofuels & Ethanol: The Real Story

Food Prices Rise to ‘Dangerous Levels’

 

Fifth, drill, drill, drill.

Dramatically increase the supply of all forms of energy fuels including coal, nuclear, natural gas,and  petroleum used for electrical power generation, transportation and heating.

 

The United States does not need an energy policy.

The United States and the American people are perfectly capable of producing all of the energy it needs from domestic sources.

This requies Federal and State governments to stop government intervention into the economy in the form of regulations, taxes, subsidies, and endless lawsuits.

What the United States needs to do is unleash free enterprise to produce the cheapest energy possible whatever the fuel source.

If wind and solar energy cannot make it in the market place without government subsidies, then stop the subsidies now.

If ethanol requires a government mandate to force Americans to use have it in their gasoline, then repeal the mandate now.

 

Obama Hates US…

DRILL! DRILL!! DRILL!!!

Take decisions about energy, transportation, agriculture and real estate out of the hands of the government and put these decision in our hands–the hands of the American people.

In Our Hands: American Free Enterprise, Anti-Communism, and the Cold War (1950)

 

With less than 5% of the world population and less than 6% of world’s land, the United States today produces over 20% of the world’s gross domestic product.  Sixty years ago the United States produced nearly 50% of the world gross domestic product!.

Put the American people back to work in a peace and prosperity economy and a constitutional republic.

Vote progressive radical socialists out of office including President Obama with his so-called energy policy with his master plan.

 

” In spite of the anticapitalistic policies of all governments and of almost all political parties, the capitalist mode of production is still fulfilling its social function in supplying the consumers with more, better and cheaper goods.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Planned Chaos, page 15


“Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy, page 10

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

President Obama on Green Energy

Taking lawmakers to coal plants and a coal mine in 2010

How a coal power station works

Oil Crises and History

By Ed Wallace

“…Then the most overlooked story of all came out: Oil Movements, the British firm that tracks oil shipments worldwide, pointed out that OPEC nations were already shipping less oil last month. Not because of any uprisings or closures of oil fields as in Libya, but because oil shipments always fall this time of year. Refineries worldwide go down for maintenance, preparing to switch to summer fuels for the northern hemisphere and winter fuels for the southern regions.

In a nutshell, the system already has some slack because refineries don’t want as much oil right now.

Here in America, oil marketers have not picked up oil in certain Texas counties because there’s a shortage of tankers and rail cars to carry all of the crude available. That’s because refiners want oil from the Midwest and EF Sour Crude. Those carry a discount right now, which improves refiners’ profits.

Basically, oil prices are once again being over-hyped based on speculation. This time the only legitimate fear is that, if Saudi Arabia comes undone, a real oil crisis might break out. But that possibility is remote. …”

Oil Prices and History

“…

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

Oil reserves

“…The total estimated amount of oil in an oil reservoir, including both producible and non-producible oil, is called oil in place. However, because of reservoir characteristics and limitations in petroleum extraction technologies, only a fraction of this oil can be brought to the surface, and it is only this producible fraction that is considered to be reserves. The ratio of producible oil reserves to total oil in place for a given field is often referred to as the recovery factor. Recovery factors vary greatly among oil fields. The recovery factor of any particular field may change over time based on operating history and in response to changes in technology and economics. The recovery factor may also rise over time if additional investment is made in enhanced oil recovery techniques such as gas injection, water-flooding,[1] or microbial enhanced oil recovery.

Because the geology of the subsurface cannot be examined directly, indirect techniques must be used to estimate the size and recoverability of the resource. While new technologies have increased the accuracy of these techniques, significant uncertainties still remain. In general, most early estimates of the reserves of an oil field are conservative and tend to grow with time. This phenomenon is called reserves growth.[2]

Many oil-producing nations do not reveal their reservoir engineering field data and instead provide unaudited claims for their oil reserves. The numbers disclosed by some national governments are suspected of being manipulated for political reasons.[3] …”

Summary of Reserve Data as of 2010
Country Reserves [16] Production [17] Reserve life 1
109 bbl 109 m3 106 bbl/d 103 m3/d years
Venezuela 297 47.2 2.7 430 301
Saudi Arabia 267 42.4 9.7 1,540 127.5
Canada 179 28.5 2.1 330 188
Iraq 143 22.7 3.5 560 112
Iran 138 21.9 4.0 640 95
Kuwait 104 16.5 2.6 410 110
United Arab Emirates 98 15.6 2.9 460 93
Russia 60 9.5 9.9 1,570 17
Kazakhstan 47 7.5 1.4 220 93
Libya 41 6.5 1.7 270 66
Nigeria 36 5.7 2.4 380 41
United States 21 3.3 7.5 1,190 8
China 16 2.5 3.9 620 11
Qatar 15 2.4 0.9 140 46
Algeria 12 1.9 2.2 350 15
Brazil 12 1.9 2.3 370 14
Mexico 12 1.9 3.5 560 9
Total of top seventeen reserves 1,243 197.6 63.5 10,100 54

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

List of countries by population

Rank↓ Country / Territory↓ Population↓ Date of estimate↓ % of World population↓ Source
- World 6,909,700,000 April 3, 2011 100.00% US Census Bureau’s World Population Clock
1 People’s Republic of Chinan2 1,341,000,000 December 31, 2010 19.41% Official Chinese Population Estimate
2 India 1,210,193,422 March 1, 2011 17.51% Provisional 2011 Indian Census result
3 United States 311,092,000 April 3, 2011 4.5% Official United States Population Clock
4 Indonesia 237,556,363 May 2010 3.44% 2010 Indonesian Census
5 Brazil 190,732,694 August 1, 2010 2.76% 2010 Official Brazilian Census results
6 Pakistan 175,636,000 April 3, 2011 2.54% Official Pakistani Population clock
7 Nigeria 158,259,000 2010 2.29% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
8 Bangladesh 150,314,000 April 3, 2011 2.18% Official Bangladeshi Population Clock
9 Russia 142,905,200 January 1, 2011 2.07% 2010 Russian Census
10 Japan 127,960,000 March 1, 2011 1.84% Official Japan Statistics Bureau
11 Mexico 112,336,538 June 12, 2010 1.63% 2010 final census result
12 Philippines 94,013,200 Mid-2010 1.36% National Statistics Office medium projection
13 Vietnam 86,930,000 April 1, 2010 1.26% Official estimate
14 Germany 81,802,000 December 31, 2009 1.18% Official estimate
15 Egypt 80,025,000 April 3, 2011 1.16% Official Egyptian Population clock
16 Ethiopia 79,455,634 July 2010 1.15% Official estimate
17 Iran 75,078,000 2010 1.09% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
18 Turkey 73,722,988 December 31, 2010 1.07% Turkish Statistical Institute
19 Dem. Rep. of Congo 67,827,000 2010 0.98% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
20 Thailand 67,070,000 December 1, 2009 0.97% Official estimate
21 Francen3 65,821,885 January 1, 2011 0.95% Official INSEE estimate
The population figure for metropolitan France alone (without its
overseas departments and oveseas collectivities) is 63,182,000.[4]
22 United Kingdom 62,041,708 January 1, 2010 0.9% Eurostat estimate
23 Italy 60,605,053 November, 2010 0.88% Official ISTAT estimate
24 Myanmar (Burma) 50,496,000 2010 0.73% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
25 South Africa 49,991,300 July 1, 2010 0.72% Statistics South Africa
26 South Korea 48,988,833 2011 0.71% Statistics Korea
27 Spain 46,152,925 January 1, 2011 0.67% Official INE estimate
28 Colombia 45,919,000 April 3, 2011 0.66% Official Colombian Population clock
29 Ukraine 45,778,500 January 1, 2011 0.66% Official UKRSTAT estimate
30 Sudan 43,192,000 2010 0.63% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
31 Tanzania 43,187,823 2010 0.63% Official estimate
32 Argentina 40,091,359 October 27, 2010 0.58% Provisional census results
33 Kenya 38,610,097 August 24-25, 2009 0.56% Official census results
34 Poland 38,092,000 mid-2010 0.55% Official estimate
35 Algeria 36,300,000 January 1, 2011 0.53% Official estimate
36 Canada 34,406,000 April 3, 2011 0.5% Official Canadian Population clock
37 Morocco 32,107,000 April 3, 2011 0.46% Official Moroccan Population clock
38 Uganda 31,800,000 2010 0.46% Official estimate
39 Iraq 31,467,000 2010 0.46% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
40 Peru 29,461,933 June 30, 2010 0.43% Official INEI estimate (in Spanish)
41 Venezuela 29,167,000 April 3, 2011 0.42% Official Venezuelan Population clock
42 Afghanistan 29,117,000 2010 0.42% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
43 Nepal 28,584,975 2011 0.41% Official estimate
44 Uzbekistan 27,794,000 2010 0.4% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
45 Malaysia 27,565,821 2010 0.4% The 2010 Population and Housing Census (Census 2010)
46 Saudi Arabia 27,136,977 2010 0.39% Official Saudi estimate
47 Ghana 24,233,431 September 26, 2010 0.35% Provisional 2010 census results
48 North Korea 23,991,000 2010 0.35% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
49 Republic of China (Taiwan)n4 23,164,457 February 28, 2011 0.34% Official National Statistics Taiwan estimate
50 Australian5 22,608,000 April 3, 2011 0.32% Australian Official Population Clock
51 Yemen 22,492,035 2009 0.33% Official estimate
52 Mozambique 22,416,881 2010 0.32% Official estimate
53 Côte d’Ivoire 21,571,000 2010 0.31% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
54 Romania 21,466,174 January 1, 2010 0.31% Eurostat estimate
55 Syria 20,995,000 April 3, 2011 0.3% Syrian Official Population Clock
56 Sri Lanka 20,410,000 2010 0.3% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
57 Madagascar 20,146,000 2010 0.29% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
58 Cameroon 19,406,100 January 1, 2010 0.28% Official estimate
59 Angola 18,993,000 2010 0.27% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
60 Chile 17,211,200 April 3, 2011 0.25% Official INE projection (page 36)
61 Netherlands 16,659,100 April 3, 2011 0.241% Official Netherlands population clock
62 Kazakhstan 16,433,000 January 1, 2011 0.24% National Statistics Agency estimate
63 Burkina Faso 15,730,977 July 1, 2010 0.23% Official estimate
64 Malawi 15,692,000 2010 0.23% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
65 Niger 15,203,822 2010 0.22% Official estimate
66 Mali 14,517,176 April 1, 2009 0.21% Preliminary 2009 census result
67 Guatemala 14,361,666 2010 0.21% Official estimate
68 Ecuador 14,306,876 November 28, 2010 0.21% Preliminary 2010 Ecuadorian census result
69 Cambodia 13,395,682 March 3, 2008 0.19% Cambodian 2008 Census
70 Zambia 13,046,508 October 16, 2010 0.19% 2010 Zambia Census result
71 Senegal 12,861,000 2010 0.19% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
72 Zimbabwe 12,644,000 2010 0.18% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
73 Chad 11,506,000 2010 0.17% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
74 Greece 11,306,183 January 1, 2010 0.16% Eurostat estimate
75 Cuba 11,240,841 December 31, 2010 0.16% Official estimate
76 Belgium 10,827,519 January 1, 2010 0.16% Eurostat estimate
77 Portugal 10,636,888 January 1, 2010 0.15% Eurostat estimate
78 Tunisia 10,549,100 July 1, 2010 0.15% National Statistics Institute of Tunisia
79 Czech Republic 10,515,818 June 30, 2010 0.15% Official estimate
80 Bolivia 10,426,154 2010 0.15% Official estimate
81 Rwanda 10,412,820 2010 0.15% Official estimate
82 Guinea 10,324,000 2010 0.15% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
83 Haiti 10,085,214 2010 0.15% Official estimate
84 Hungary 10,014,324 January 1, 2010 0.14% Official estimate
85 Belarus 9,481,100 January 1, 2011 0.14% National Statistical Committee
86 Sweden 9,418,732 January 31, 2011 0.14% Statistics Sweden
87 Dominican Republic 9,378,818 December 1, 2010 0.14% Preliminary census result
88 Somalian7 9,359,000 2010 0.14% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
89 Azerbaijan 8,997,400 January 1, 2010 0.13% State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan
90 Benin 8,778,646 2010 0.13% Official estimate
91 Burundi 8,519,000 2010 0.12% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
92 Austria 8,396,760 2010 0.12% Official estimate
93 United Arab Emirates 8,264,070 2010 0.12% Official estimate
94 Honduras 8,215,313 2011 0.12% Official estimate
95 Switzerland 7,782,900 December 31, 2009 0.11% Official Switzerland Statistics estimate
96 Israeln8 7,708,400 January 31, 2011 0.11% Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics
97 Bulgaria 7,528,103 2010 0.11% Official estimate
98 Serbian6 7,306,677 January 1, 2010 0.11% Official estimate
99 Tajikistan 7,075,000 2010 0.102% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
100 Hong Kong 7,061,200 July 31, 2010 0.102% Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department
101 Papua New Guinea 6,888,000 2010 0.1% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
102 Togo 6,780,000 2010 0.098% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
103 Libya 6,546,000 2010 0.095% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
104 Jordan 6,472,000 2010 0.094% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
105 Paraguay 6,460,000 2010 0.093% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
106 Laos 6,230,200 2010 0.09% Official estimate
107 El Salvador 6,194,000 2010 0.09% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
108 Sierra Leone 5,836,000 2010 0.084% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
109 Nicaragua 5,822,000 2010 0.084% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
110 Denmark 5,560,628 January 1, 2011 0.08% Statistics Denmark
111 Slovakia 5,435,273 December 31, 2010 0.079% Statistics Slovakia
112 Kyrgyzstan 5,418,300 2010 0.078% Official estimate
113 Finlandn9 5,379,800 April 3, 2011 0.078% Official Finnish Population clock
114 Eritrea 5,224,000 2010 0.076% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
115 Turkmenistan 5,177,000 2010 0.075% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
116 Singapore 5,076,700 June 30, 2010 0.073% Statistics Singapore
117 Norwayn10 4,932,700 April 3, 2011 0.007% Official Norwegian Population clock
118 Costa Rica 4,563,538 2010 0.066% Official estimate
119 Central African Republic 4,506,000 2010 0.065% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
120 Ireland 4,470,700 April 2010 0.065% Irish Central Statistics Office estimate 2010
121 Georgian11 4,436,000 January 1, 2010 0.064% National Statistics Office of Georgia
122 Croatia 4,425,747 January 1, 2010 0.064% Eurostat estimate
123 New Zealand 4,406,000 April 3, 2011 0.064% Official New Zealand Population clock
124 Lebanon 4,255,000 2010 0.062% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
125 Liberia 4,102,000 2010 0.059% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
126 Palestinian territories 3,935,249 2009 0.057% Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics
127 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3,843,126 June 30, 2010 0.056% Official estimate
128 Republic of the Congo 3,759,000 2010 0.054% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
129 Puerto Rico 3,725,789 April 1, 2010 0.054% 2010 census
130 Moldovan12 3,563,800 January 1, 2010 0.052% National Bureau of Statistics of Moldova
131 Panama 3,405,813 May 16, 2010 0.049% Final 2010 census results
132 Mauritania 3,366,000 2010 0.049% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
133 Uruguay 3,356,584 June 30, 2010 0.049% Official estimate
134 Armenia 3,254,300 September 2010 0.047% Monthly official estimate
135 Lithuania 3,249,400 December 2010 0.047% Monthly official estimate
136 Albania 3,195,000 January 1, 2010 0.046% Institute of Statistics INSTAT Albania
137 Kuwait 3,051,000 2010 0.044% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
138 Mongolia 2,798,000 April 3, 2011 0.04% Official Mongolian population clock
139 Jamaica 2,730,000 2010 0.04% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
140 Oman 2,694,094 December 12, 2010 0.039% Preliminary census results
141 Latvia 2,229,500 January 1, 2011 0.032% Official Statistics of Latvia
142 Namibia 2,212,000 2010 0.032% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
143 Lesotho 2,084,000 2010 0.03% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
144 Republic of Macedonia 2,052,722 January 1, 2010 0.03% Eurostat estimate
145 Slovenia 2,046,930 April 3, 2011 0.03% Official Slovenian population clock
146 Botswana 1,800,098 2010 0.026% Official estimate
147 Gambia 1,751,000 2010 0.025% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
148 Qatar 1,696,563 April 20, 2010 0.025% Preliminary 2010 Census Results
149 Guinea-Bissau 1,647,000 2010 0.024% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
150 Gabon 1,501,000 2010 0.022% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
151 Estonia 1,340,122 January 1, 2011 0.019% Official estimate
152 Trinidad and Tobago 1,317,714 July 1, 2010 0.019% Official estimate
153 Mauritius 1,280,925 July 1, 2010 0.019% Official estimate
154 Swaziland 1,202,000 2010 0.017% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
155 East Timor 1,171,000 2010 0.017% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
156 Djibouti 879,000 2010 0.013% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
157 Fiji 854,000 2010 0.012% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
158 Bahrain 807,000 2010 0.012% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
159 Cyprusn14 801,851 January 1, 2010 0.012% Eurostat estimate
160 Guyana 784,894 2010 0.011% Official estimate
161 Bhutan 695,822 2010 0.01% Official estimate
162 Equatorial Guinea [5] 693,000 2010 0.01% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
163 Comorosn15 691,000 2010 0.01% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
164 Montenegro 641,966 2010 0.009% Official estimate
165 Macau 542,200 December 31, 2009 0.008% Macau Statistics and Census Service
166 Solomon Islands 530,669 2010 0.008% Official estimate
167 Western Sahara 530,000 2010 0.008% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
168 Suriname 524,000 2010 0.008% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
169 Luxembourg 502,100 2010 0.007% Official estimate
170 Cape Verde 491,575 June 16, 2010 0.007% Official estimate
171 Malta 416,333 January 1, 2010 0.006% Eurostat estimate
172 Brunei 407,000 2010 0.006% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
173 Bahamas 353,658 May 3, 2010 0.005% Official estimate
174 Belize 333,200 Mid-2009 0.005% Statistical Institute of Belize
175 Iceland 318,452 January 1, 2011 0.005% Statistics Iceland
176 Maldives 317,280 2010 0.005% Official estimate
177 Barbados 257,000 2010 0.004% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
178 Vanuatu 246,000 2010 0.004% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
179 Samoa 187,032 2010 0.003% Official estimate
180 Guam 180,000 2010 0.003% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
181 Saint Lucia 166,526 May 10, 2010 0.002% Preliminary census result
182 São Tomé and Príncipe 165,000 2010 0.002% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
183 Curaçao 142,180 January 1, 2010 0.002% Official estimate
184 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 109,000 2010 0.002% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
185 U.S. Virgin Islands 109,000 2010 0.002% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
186 Aruba 107,000 2010 0.002% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
187 Grenada 104,000 2010 0.002% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
188 Tonga 104,000 2010 0.002% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
189 Federated States of Micronesia 102,624 April 4, 2010 0.001% Preliminary census results
190 Kiribati 100,000 2010 0.001% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
191 Jersey 92,500 December 31, 2009 0.001% Official estimate
192 Antigua and Barbuda 89,000 2010 0.001% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
193 Northern Mariana Islands 88,000 2010 0.001% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
194 Seychelles 86,525 July 1, 2010 0.001% Official estimate
195 Andorra 84,082 December 31, 2009 0.001% Official estimate
196 Isle of Man 80,000 2010 0.001% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
197 American Samoa 69,000 2010 0.001% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
198 Dominica 67,000 2010 0.001% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
199 Bermuda 64,566 July 1, 2010 0.001% Official estimate
200 Guernsey 62,274 March 31, 2009 0.001% Official estimate
201 Greenland 56,452 2010 0.001% Official estimate
202 Cayman Islands 54,878 October 10, 2010 0.001% Preliminary census result
203 Marshall Islands 54,305 2010 0.001% Official estimate
204 Saint Kitts and Nevis 52,000 2010 0.001% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
205 Faroe Islands 48,585 January 1, 2011 0.001% Official statistics of the Faroe Islands
206 Turks and Caicos Islands 40,357 2010 0.0006% Official estimate
207 Sint Maarten 37,429 January 1, 2010 0.0005% Official estimate
208 Liechtenstein 36,157 December 31, 2010 0.0005% Official estimate
209 Monaco 33,000 2010 0.0005% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
210 San Marino 31,887 December 31, 2010 0.0005% Monthly official estimate
211 Gibraltar 31,000 2010 0.0004% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
212 British Virgin Islands 28,213 2008 0.0004% Official estimate
213 Cook Islands 23,400 September 2010 0.0003% Official monthly estimate
214 Palau 21,000 0.0003% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
215 Anguilla 15,236 2011 0.0002% Official estimate
216 Nauru 10,000 0.0001% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
217 Tuvalu 10,000 0.0001% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
218 Montserrat 6,000 0.0001% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
219 Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha 4,000 0.0001% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
220 Falkland Islands 3,000 0.00005% 2008 UN estimate for year 2010
221 Niue 1,500 0.00003% UN estimate
222 Tokelau 1,200 0.00003% UN estimate
223 Vatican City 800 0.00002% UN estimate
224 Pitcairn Islands 50 0.000001% UN estimate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

List of countries by GDP (nominal)

“… This article includes a list of countries of the world sorted by their gross domestic product (GDP), the market value of all final goods and services from a nation in a given year. The GDP dollar estimates presented here are calculated at market or government official exchange rates.

Several economies which are not considered to be countries (world, the EU, Eurozone, and some dependent territories) are included in the list because they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed.

The first list includes 2010 data estimates[nb 1] for members of the International Monetary Fund. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Rank↓ Country↓ GDP (millions of USD)↓
World 61,963,429[4]
European Union 16,106,896[4]
1 United States 14,624,184
2 People’s Republic of China 5,745,133
3 Japan 5,390,897
4 Germany 3,305,898
5 France 2,555,439
6 United Kingdom 2,258,565
7 Italy 2,036,687
8 Brazil 2,023,528
9 Canada 1,563,664
10 Russia 1,476,912
11 India 1,430,020
12 Spain 1,374,779
13 Australia 1,219,722
14 Mexico 1,004,042
15 South Korea 986,256
16 Netherlands 770,312
17 Turkey 729,051
18 Indonesia 695,059
19 Switzerland 522,435
20 Belgium 461,331
21 Sweden 444,585
22 Poland 438,884
23 Saudi Arabia 434,440
24 Republic of China (Taiwan) 426,984
25 Norway 413,511
26 Austria 366,259
27 South Africa 354,414
28 Argentina 351,015
29 Iran 337,901
30 Thailand 312,605
31 Greece 305,005
32 Denmark 304,555
33 Venezuela 285,214
34 Colombia 283,109
35 United Arab Emirates 239,650
36 Finland 231,982
Hong Kong 226,485
37 Portugal 223,700
38 Malaysia 218,950
39 Singapore 217,377
40 Egypt 216,830
41 Nigeria 206,664
42 Ireland 204,144
43 Israel 201,254
44 Chile 199,183
45 Czech Republic 195,232
46 Philippines 189,061
47 Pakistan 164,792
48 Algeria 158,969
49 Romania 158,393
50 Peru 153,549
51 New Zealand 138,003
52 Ukraine 136,561
53 Hungary 132,276
54 Kazakhstan 129,757
55 Qatar 126,518
56 Kuwait 117,316
57 Bangladesh 105,402
58 Vietnam 101,987
59 Morocco 91,702
60 Slovakia 86,262
61 Angola 85,808
62 Iraq 84,136
63 Libya 77,912
64 Sudan 65,930
65 Ecuador 61,489
66 Croatia 59,917
67 Syria 59,633
68 Oman 53,782
69 Belarus 52,887
70 Luxembourg 52,433
71 Azerbaijan 52,166
72 Dominican Republic 50,874
73 Sri Lanka 48,241
74 Slovenia 46,442
75 Bulgaria 44,843
76 Tunisia 43,863
77 Guatemala 40,773
78 Uruguay 40,714
79 Lebanon 39,149
80 Serbia 38,921
81 Uzbekistan 37,724
82 Lithuania 35,734
83 Burma 35,646
84 Costa Rica 35,019
85 Kenya 32,417
86 Ethiopia 30,941
87 Yemen 30,023
88 Panama 27,199
89 Jordan 27,129
90 Latvia 23,385
91 Cyprus 22,752
92 Tanzania 22,434
93 Côte d’Ivoire 22,384
94 Cameroon 21,882
95 El Salvador 21,796
96 Bahrain 21,733
97 Trinidad and Tobago 21,195
98 Estonia 19,220
99 Bolivia 19,182
100 Ghana 18,058
101 Paraguay 17,168
102 Uganda 17,121
103 Afghanistan 16,631
104 Bosnia and Herzegovina 16,202
105 Zambia 15,691
106 Honduras 15,340
107 Nepal 15,108
108 Equatorial Guinea 14,547
109 Jamaica 13,737
110 Iceland 12,767
111 Senegal 12,657
112 Democratic Republic of the Congo 12,600
113 Gabon 12,563
114 Botswana 12,501
115 Brunei 11,963
116 Republic of the Congo 11,884
117 Albania 11,578
118 Namibia 11,451
119 Cambodia 11,360
120 Georgia 11,234
121 Mozambique 10,212
122 Macedonia 9,580
123 Mauritius 9,427
124 Mali 9,077
125 Armenia 8,830
126 Papua New Guinea 8,809
127 Burkina Faso 8,672
128 Madagascar 8,330
129 Malta 7,801
130 Chad 7,592
131 The Bahamas 7,538
132 Haiti 6,495
133 Benin 6,494
134 Nicaragua 6,375
135 Laos 6,341
136 Mongolia 5,807
137 Kosovo 5,728
138 Rwanda 5,693
139 Niger 5,603
140 Tajikistan 5,578
141 Zimbabwe 5,574
142 Moldova 5,357
143 Malawi 5,035
144 Kyrgyzstan 4,444
145 Guinea 4,344
146 Barbados 3,963
147 Montenegro 3,884
148 Mauritania 3,486
149 Suriname 3,297
150 Swaziland 3,165
151 Fiji 3,154
152 Togo 3,074
153 Eritrea 2,254
154 Guyana 2,197
155 Central African Republic 2,113
156 Sierra Leone 1,901
157 Lesotho 1,799
158 Cape Verde 1,573
159 Burundi 1,469
160 Maldives 1,433
161 Belize 1,431
162 Bhutan 1,397
163 Djibouti 1,139
164 Antigua and Barbuda 1,099
165 The Gambia 1,040
166 Saint Lucia 1,000
167 Liberia 977
168 Seychelles 919
169 Guinea-Bissau 825
170 Vanuatu 721
171 Solomon Islands 674
172 Grenada 645
173 East Timor 616
174 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 583
175 Saint Kitts and Nevis 562
176 Comoros 557
177 Samoa 550
178 Dominica 375
179 Tonga 301
180 São Tomé and Príncipe 187
181 Kiribati 152

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

ANWR: Pristine–Pristine–Pristine–Desolute–Desolute–Desolute–Drill–Drill–Drill– McCain/Romney: Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Going Deep–Cool–Deep Ocean Water (DOW)–Ocean Power!

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Bankrupting America–Look Before Your Leap–Stop Spending–Balanced Budgets–Videos

Posted on November 23, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Transportation, Video | Tags: , , , , |

Is Washington Bankrupting America?

 

Instead of budgeting, Congress is….

 

Public Pulse: how the American public views its government

 

 

Beyond the Headlines: the truth about our jobs crisis

 

How to create one million jobs

 

The Greecing of America, Simplified

 

Wait and See

 

Truth about government bailouts

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Tea Party Patriots–Come To Where The Jobs Are–Come To Washington D.C.–Saturday August 28, 2009–A 100 Year Plan Unvailed–Restoring Honor!

Posted on July 17, 2010. Filed under: Agriculture, Blogroll, Books, Climate, Communications, Computers, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Immigration, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Security, Taxes, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.”

~Abraham Lincoln

 

Martin Luther King speech: ” I Have a Dream ”  

Glenn Beck – We Need Heroes

Frequently Asked Questions 

http://media.glennbeck.com/828/828kit.pdf

 

Glenn Beck reveals the Plan

“…- I have begun meeting with some of the best minds in the country that believe in limited government, maximum freedom and the values of our Founders. I am developing a 100 year plan. I know that the bipartisan corruption in Washington that has brought us to this brink and it will not be defeated easily. It will require unconventional thinking and a radical plan to restore our nation to the maximum freedoms we were supposed to have been protecting, using only the battlefield of ideas.

- All of the above will culminate in The Plan, a book that will provide specific policies, principles and, most importantly, action steps that each of us can take to play a role in this Refounding.

- On August 28, 2010, I ask you, your family and neighbors to join me at the feet of Abraham Lincoln on the National Mall for the unveiling of The Plan and the birthday of a new national movement to restore our great country. …”

 

 

 

 

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/33398/

 

Glenn Beck under attack about 8/28 Restoring Honor Rally

 

Restoring Honor – Glenn at the Washington Monument

Rod Stewart & Jeff Beck – People Get Ready

 

 

 

“The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.”

George Washington

 

Background Articles and Videos

http://www.nationalrealty.biz/map/washington-dc.htm

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Founding Mothers–Videos

The Black Founding Fathers–Videos

The Wisdom of The Founding Fathers–Videos

Glenn Beck On James Madison–The Father Of The United States Constitution–Videos

Glenn Beck On Founding Father Benjamin Franklin–Videos

Glenn Beck On The History of Black Americans In The American Revolution And Civil War–Videos

Glenn Beck–A Forgotten Founding Father–George Whitefield–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Indispensable Founding Father–George Washington–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams and The First American Revolution–Videos

Lincoln Gettysburg Address –November 19, 1863

The American People March on Washington D.C.–August 28, 2010–At The Lincoln Memorial! Mark Your Calendar–Be There–Three Million Minimum–Join The Second American Revolution

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Drillgate–Crime Inc. aka Barack Obama and The Progressive Radical Socialist Gang Shakedown The American People–Shakedown–Breakdown–Takedown–You’re Busted!

Posted on June 21, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Communications, Crime, Cult, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

CHANGE” is Killing this Country…

Flashback: Obama Loans 2 Billion To Petrobras/Soros For Offshore Exploration In Brazil

 

Glenn Beck Obama loans 2 billion to brasil co.

What is George Soros Investing In? – Bloomberg

Glenn Beck-06/21/10-A

Glenn Beck-06/21/10-B

Glenn Beck-06/21/10-C

Glenn Beck-06/21/10-D

Drilling Moratorium May Imperil Louisiana’s Oil Industry

The Impact of a Drilling Moratorium

 

Obama – Oil Moratorium No Less Than Treason

As Oil Spills, Obama Touts Alternative Energy

Glenn Beck – The American Power Act (Cap n Trade) CRIME INC.

Glenn Beck – CRIME INC The Second Chapter

HardTalk on Brazil Petrobras Development 1 of 3 – BBC Interview

HardTalk on Brazil Petrobras Development 2 of 3 – BBC Interview

HardTalk on Brazil Petrobras Development 3 of 3 – BBC Interview

President Obama’s response to the oil spill is to again push for an energy tax that would increase the cost of electricity, heating oil and gasoline to the American people as well as the cost of all goods and services that need electricity, heating oil and gasoline for their manufacture and distribution.

The cap and trade energy tax under a new name would destroy more jobs, wreck the U.S. economy and kill the American dream.

President Obama and the progressive radical socialists in Congress and the Senate are attempting to shakedown the American people with a new energy tax that impacts all Americans.

While this is being proposed, Obama is rewarding the financial contributions and support of George Soros and his friends and allies.

Beck breakdowns the crime and corruption of Crime Inc., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization of the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party led by President Barack Obama.

The actions of Obama and his corrupt cronies are bordering on an impeachable offense for high crimes.

Assuming the Republicans take the House of Representatives in November, Congressional hearings and a special procecutor appear completely warranted.

Both the timing of the Soros investment in Petrobras and the Export-Import Bank loans to the company together with the six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling needs to be throughly investigated.

Obama past political assistance to real estate investor and developer, Tony Rezko, looks strikingly similiar to his political assistance to hedge fund investor George Soros.

Obama and Rezko

 

Obama’s Rezko real estate deal

OBAMANOMICS explained


Time to takedown and bust these crooks.

Vote the criminals out of office in November and then impeach and convict President Obama for crimes against the American people.

BOB SEGER – SHAKEDOWN

 

Background Articles and Videos

President Obama s Pledge Never to Raise Taxes on Anyone Making Less Than 250 000 a Year

Obama Cap And Trade My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

Cap & Trade Bill Cannibalism Against Capitalism

 

Cap and Trade Biggest Tax Increase since World War II

CarbonGate: Rep. Barton attacks Cap & Trade, hidden costs on American people

Inhofe Explains the High Cost of Cap and Trade on Fox News

President Obama’s Oval Office Address on BP Oil Spill & Energy

President Obama Opens Atlantic Coastal Waters to Offshore Drilling

Barack Obama on Offshore Oil Drilling

Obama Lifts Ban on Offshore Drilling

Petrobras’ Gabrielli Sees More Long-Term Output, Hiring

Pr. Obama Export Initiative (1 of 3) for Growth of Jobs, Economy, Business

Pr. Obama Export Initiative (2 of 3) for Growth of Jobs, Economy, Business

Pr. Obama Export Initiative (3 of 3) for Growth of Jobs, Economy, Business

The Right Reasons

“…Within 48 hours after President Obama issued the six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling, the George Soros-backed Brazilian oil company, Petrobras, contacted a large New Orleans company, Laborde Marine, which services the deep-water drilling market. The company was seeking to lease all its vessels. “If the moratorium on deep-water drilling is not lifted, 33 semi-submersible rigs and/or drill ships affected will simply go to other countries where they will be well received, such as Brazil,” Cliffe F. Laborde and J. Peter Laborde, Jr. wrote in a June 4 letter to their Louisiana Senators.

Could this be merely a happy coincidence for George Soros, the major financial backer of Obama’s presidential campaign who also has $811 million invested in the Brazilian oil company, Petrobras? Wasn’t it enough of a payback to Soros when the Obama Administration loaned up to $10 billion to Petrobras? Soros, with his far left-wing organization, MoveOn, is called the Godfather of world socialism. But most relevant currently is that he has been an enthusiastic proponent of global warming and environmental liberalism. He has urged adoption of a global carbon tax. Could it be more than coincidence that his position is strikingly similar to what Obama called for in his June 14 Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill and future energy actions? …”

http://www.therightreasons.net/index.php?/topic/21934-george-soross-oil-spill-payoff/

Soros reports 73.5% increase in Petrobras stake

By Tony Cooke

“…Billionaire investor George Soros on Tuesday reported that during the fourth quarter he increased his already considerable stakes in Brazilian state-controlled oil company Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. /quotes/comstock/13*!pbr/quotes/nls/pbr (PBR 37.99, -0.68, -1.75%) and Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc. /quotes/comstock/13*!pot/quotes/nls/pot (POT 98.50, -0.09, -0.09%) .

Soros, through his Soros Fund Management LLC, reported holding 36.8 million American depositary receipts of the Brazilian oil company known as Petrobras as of Dec. 31 – a holding valued at about $900 million at the time. Soros held 21.2 million ADRs at Sept. 30, according to his disclosure filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Soros also reported holding $434 million in Potash shares as of Dec. 31 – a total of about 5.9 million shares. He reported holding 3.3 million Potash shares as of Sept. 30.

Petrobras and Potash were the two largest stakes reported by the Soros fund as of Dec. 30. …”

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/soros-reports-735-increase-petrobras-stake

OFF-SHORE OIL-DRILLING, OBAMA, SOROS, PETROBRAS: CONNECTING THE DOTS

“…The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a “preliminary commitment” letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and has discussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-Im Bank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form of a direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreign aid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seems desperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations in the Americas. …”

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1101837/pg1

Petrobras May Borrow $5 Billion From U.S. Ex-Im Bank (Update2)

“…July 30 (Bloomberg) — Petroleo Brasileiro SA said it may more than double its borrowings from the U.S. Export-Import Bank to as much as $5 billion, following a $10 billion loan from China.

Petrobras, as the state-controlled oil company is known, may increase the loans from $2 billion now, Chief Financial Officer Almir Barbassa said today at a press conference in Rio de Janeiro. The initial loan made in April was an “opening amount,” Fred Hochberg, president of the U.S. bank, said earlier today in an interview in Rio.

“The Export-Import Bank met yesterday with Petrobras, and it offered more resources to the company,” Brazilian Energy Minister Edison Lobao said at the press conference.

Investment in Brazil’s oil industry is expected to surge to more than $200 billion over the next five years, buoyed by spending on the Americas’ largest oil find since 1976. Petrobras in February secured $10 billion in financing from the China Development Bank Corp.

China replaced the U.S. as Brazil’s biggest trading partner this year, after the global recession choked sales to the U.S. The Chinese bank, which plans to open an office in Rio de Janeiro next year, has also agreed to lend $800 million to Brazil’s state development bank, known as BNDES.

The U.S. and Chinese loans will help Petrobras pay for part of its $174 billion, five-year investment plan to expand output. …”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aogq9sBiBhYo

Shakedown

“Shakedown” is a 1987 single by Bob Seger that is from the soundtrack of the film Beverly Hills Cop II. The music was written by Harold Faltermeyer, who wrote the score for the film, and Keith Forsey, and the lyrics by Seger.

The music video featured scenes from the film intercut with Seger and the band performing it, with some members approaching glam metal moves. “Shakedown” became a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot 100, Seger’s only such top mark singles-wise, as well as the Album Rock Tracks chart, where it became his second number-one hit, spending four weeks at the top.

Cover versions by an uncredited artist appeared in two episodes of the animated series Captain N: The Game Master. However, due to legal issues, these songs have been edited out of the DVD releases of the show. …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakedown_(Bob_Seger_song)

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Glenn Beck On Crime Inc and Subversion of The United States of America–Videos

G. Edward Griffin–Hidden Agenda–Videos

Glenn Beck On Maurice Strong and The American Power Act–The Cap and Trade Energy Tax Repackaged–A Huge Tax Increase–Skyrocketing Prices!

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

Maurice Strong–Videos

Glenn Beck–The Obama Con and Crimes Continue–American Citizen Tax Money Bailing Out Greece–Time To Throw The Progressive Radical Socialist Democrats Out Of Office!

The Coming Massive Failure of Progressive/Liberal Democrat State and Local Government Debt Obligations–No Federal Bailouts By American Taxpayers!

Voters Beware: The Radical Rules of Saul Alinsky and Leftist Democrats

Glenn Beck On Crime Inc., The Crime of The Century, and Crushing Capitalism and Consumer Sovereignty!–

Glenn Beck On The Rule of Law Or The Rule of Few By Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations

Glenn Beck Exposes The Crime of The Century By The Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party–The Global Warming Investment Fraud, Political Scam and Science Scandal–Extorting and Robbing The American People–Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Case!

These Boots Are Meant To Walk All Over You–Obama and Progressive Radical Socialist Salazar and Gibbs On Federal Government Boot On The Neck/Throat of British Petroleum/BP and American People!

What Kind of Socialist Is Barack Obama? Progressive Radical Socialist–Not Neo-Socialist–With Narcissistic Personality Disorder!

Obama’s Enemies List: Glenn Beck Exposes The Progressive Radical Socialist Attack On American People and Freedom Of Speech–Not Racist, Not Violent, Not Silent Anymore!

Fox News Scares Narcissist Obama–Mirror Mirror Mirror On The Wall Who Is The Fairest Of Them All–Sarah Palin–Obama Attacks Mirror!

Fox’s Glenn Beck Installs Hotline to Narcissist Obama–Beck Continues To Be Obama’s Narcissistic Supplier!

Glenn Beck’s Documentary On The Collectivists: Marxists, Socialists, Progressives, Communists, Fascists, National Socialists–Progressive Radical Socialists of The Democratic and Republican Parties!

Cloward Piven

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

Cloward Piven Strategy–The Crisis Strategy Of Barack Obama

President Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy of Controlled Crisis Creation Crippling Capitalism–Coup D-Etat On America

George Soros

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

George Soros On Reflexivity And Fallibility–Videos

 

Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Fred Singer On The Climate and Global Warming Alarmists and Junk Science Computer Models –Videos

Cap and Trade

Glenn Beck Exposes The Crime of The Century By The Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party–The Global Warming Investment Fraud, Political Scam and Science Scandal–Extorting and Robbing The American People–Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Case!

Jeffrey Miron–Obamaomics–Videos

William A. Sprigg, PhD., an IPCC climate scientist, On “Climategate”–Videos

Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Fred Singer On The Climate and Global Warming Alarmists and Junk Science Computer Models –Videos

Global Warming Is Caused By Man: The Arrogance of Man–The Wrath Of Mother Nature–

Al Gore Global Warming Hot Head Says The Artic Ice Cap Will Disappear In 5-10-15 Years–Volcanoe Gate–Eruptions Melt Ice and Increase Carbon Dioxide!–Videos

Climategate–A Political Scam, Investment Fraud, and Science Scandal of The Century Exposed–The Progressive Radical Socialist’s Big Lie And Con That Man Is The Cause Of Global Warming Was In Fact Nothing More Than Politicians, Investment Bankers, and Government Scientists Creating Climate Crisis!–

Glenn Beck, John Bolton, and Lord Christopher Monckton On Copenhagen 2009 Treaty, Climate Change and World Government–Videos

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

Time To Sound The Alarm: Call Your Representative and Senators–Cap and Trade Bill to be Voted in U.S. House on Friday–Kill The Cap and Trade Energy Tax Today! UPDATED

Green Government Gestapo Goons: Global Warming Police Force Invades Your Home And Living in Your Home May Be A Crime!

White House Memo: Carbon Dioxide Is Not A Pollutant and A Cap And Trade Program (Carbon Dioxide Tax) Serious Economic Impact –The Smoking Gun Video!

Save Your Job and Life–Abolish The Environmental Protection Agency!

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE–Videos

Facing Fundamental Facts

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Jeffrey Miron–Obamaomics–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!

Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!

Progressives

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

The Bloody History of Communism–Videos

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Richard Ebeling–America’s New Road to Serfdom and the Continuing Relevance of Austrian Economics –Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Videos

Robert Higgs–Why Are Politicians Always Trying to Scare Us?–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Government Stimulus: Repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr–How Empires Bamboozle the Bourgeoisie–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray N. Rothbard–Introduction to Economics: A Private Seminar–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Econ Talk With Thomas Sowell–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Market Economy–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Second American Revolution–The Taxing, Spending, Borrowing, Health Care, Illegal Immigration and Jobs Revolt!

Posted on May 10, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

Woman Goes Nuclear At California Town Hall Meeting

Peter Schiff: Jobs, Emigration, Student Loans, Capital Controls

 

Peter Schiff One-on-One Interview with Dan Mangru – The Mangru Report – Episode 2 – May 8, 2010

Illegal Aliens Bankrupting “Free Taxpayer” Hospital

 

Online Tax Revolt’s Mission For Tax Day

The ONLINE TAX REVOLT March ~ Join in the protest, without leaving the comforts of home!

Black America is mad about illegal alien immigration

BLACKS RISE UP AND FIGHT THE ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION!!

Illegal immigration effects on Americans

Obama Jobless Recovery gets Advice from Bernanke and causes tent sales to rise

 

Economic Collapse Prep: Home Fortification 

Socialism is a Disease…

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Entitlements

Schiff on Double-Dip Recession

 

Peter Schiff debates David Epstein of Columbia University — Nov 11 2009 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Health Care

Jeffrey Miron–Obamaomics–Videos

Individuals–Yes, Collectivists–No, Dissent–Yes, Racism–No, Life–Yes, Abortion–No, Ballots–Yes, Bullets–No–We The People Want Faith, Hope, Charity and Courage!

Obama’s Big Whopper–”The largest deficit reduction plan in a decade.”–Delusional Deceitful Democrats–Massive Tax Increases and Economy Wrecker–Health Care Bill If Passed Is Unconstitutional!

Senator Coburn Educates The Educated Fools aka Progressive Radical Socialists Who Cannot Write, Read, Or Understand The Health Care Bill or Competitive Markets!

Senator Coburn Educates The Educated Fools aka Progressive Radical Socialists Who Cannot Write, Read, Or Understand The Health Care Bill or Competitive Markets!

Senator Tom Coburn Makes The Progressive Radical Socialists Read Their Socialized Medicine Amendment to Health Care Bill!–Three Cheers–Kill The Bill!

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted ACORN Felon Richard Creamer!

Obama’s Trick On The American People: Health Insurance Reform=Huge Hikes in Taxes and Premiums for Health Insurance and Massive Medicare Funding and Payment Reimbursement Cuts–Congressional Coercion–It’s Alive!

Second Opinion: Doctors Speak Up On Proposed Health Care Reform–And A Third Texas Opinion!–Videos

American Citizens Want Jobs and Criminal Alien Removal, Not Criminal Alien Census and Health Care!

Illegal Aliens Can Buy Health Insurance Plans–No ID Needed:–Demand Criminal Alien Removal and Deportation!

Congressman Paul Ryan–Townhall Meeting–Health Care Reform and The Patients Choice Act–Videos

The Arrogance of President Obama: Hectoring Habitual Liar

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Public Option = Government Option = Pathway to Single Payer = Single Payer = Socialized Medicine = Blue Pill = Poison Pill

Obama: First We Kill The Babies, Then We Kill The Elderly, Then We Kill The Veterans–Your Life, Your Choices–Your Time Is Up!

This Joker Is A Lost Cause: Keeping President Obama Honest on Health Care–Let’s But A Smile On That Face–Staying Alive

Fact 1. Federal Government Health Insurance Is Compulsory–Kill The Bill–H.R. 3200

Patient Empowerment: Health Savings Accounts–High Deductible Catastrophic Health Insurance–Affordable, Portable, Fair, Individual Health Care Plan–Consumer Driven Health Care Reform!

The Dangers Of A Single Payer Health Care System: Ronald Reagan On Socialized Medicine and Friedrich A. Hayek On State Monopoly

The American People Believe The Government Public Option Plan Is The Path To The Single Payer Government Plan–Socialized Medicine–Obama Caught Lying To The American People!

The American People Confront Obama’s Red Shirts (ACORN) and Purple Shirts (SEIU)–Bullhorns and Beatings Over Obama Care!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Obama’s Marching Orders For His Red Shirts (ACORN), Purple Shirts (SEIU) and Black Shirts (New Panther Party)–Progressive Radical Socialists

Health Care Resources

Republican Health Care Reform: The Patients’ Choice Act

Medical Doctor and Senator Tom Coburn On Health Care–Videos

The Senate Doctors Show–Videos

Obama’s Waterloo– Government Compulsory Single Payer Socialized Medicine!–Videos

President Obama’s Plan of Massive Deficit Spending Is Destroying The US Economy–The American People Say Stop Socialism BS Now!

The Bum’s Rush of The American People: The Totally Irresponsible Democratic Party Health Care Bill and Obama’s Big Lie Exposed

Chairman Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Bill Kills Individual Private Health Care Insurance–Join The Second American Revolution!

The Obama Big Lie and Inconvenient Truth About Health Care–The Public Option Trojan Horse–Leads To A Single Payor Goverment Monopoly of Health Care and The Bankruptcy of USA!

The Obama Public Option Poison Pill For A Government Health Care Monopoly–Single Payer System–Betting Your Life and Paying Though The Nose

Government Bureaucracy: Organizational Chart of The House Democrats’ Health Plan

Dr. Robert W. Christensen–Videos

John Stossel–Sick In America–Videos

Congressman Paul Ryan–Townhall Meeting–Health Care Reform and The Patients Choice Act–Videos

The Small Business and Self-Employed Perspective on Health Care Reform

Immigration

Your Papers Please–Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic and Republican Senators Proposed National ID Card–Vote These Bums Out Of Office–Time For Operation Wetback II

Cheap Tomatoes, Cheap Labor, Criminal Aliens, Corrupt Polticians, Costing Trillions–Cradle To Grave Progressive Radical Socialism!

Obama Aids and Abets Illegal Immigration and High American Citizen Unemployment By Attacking Arizona State Law!

American Citizens Want Jobs and Criminal Alien Removal, Not Criminal Alien Census and Health Care!

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Discover The Left’s Organized Crime Network–Crime Pays–Organized Crimes Pays More–Apply for Census Taker Jobs!

US Immigration Videos

Borderline Chaos: Immigration Out of Control–Videos

The Hyphenated American and The Hyphen

The Signed “Stimulus Package” Did Not Include Funding for E-Verify and Border Fence Construction–Less Jobs And Security for American Citizens

President Obama Delays E-Verify–Shame On You Mr. President!

The Issue of The United States 2008 Presidential Election–Criminal Alien Removal (CAR) and A Border Security Fence (BSF)

The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid!

Appeasers and Oath Breakers All: Bush, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama…Who is next?

Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election! — Gum Balls

Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits

John McCain’s Position on Illegal Immigration and Criminal Alien Removal?

Alan Keyes on Immigration

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Entitlements

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama Depression Worsens And Continues: Unemployment Rates Hit 9.9% (U-3, Official) and 17.1% (U-6, Real)–Over 27 Million Americans Seeking Full Time Job–35 State Unemployment Insurance Funds Insolvent–Start of Second American Revolution Or World War III?

Posted on May 7, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

[Percent]
Measure Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted
Apr.
2009
Mar.
2010
Apr.
2010
Apr.
2009
Dec.
2009
Jan.
2010
Feb.
2010
Mar.
2010
Apr.
2010
U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force 4.5 6.3 6.3 4.1 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8
 
U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force 5.6 6.7 5.9 5.7 6.3 6.1 6.2 6.1 6.0
 
U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate) 8.6 10.2 9.5 8.9 10.0 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9
 
U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers 9.0 10.8 10.2 9.4 10.5 10.3 10.4 10.3 10.6
 
U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other persons marginally attached to the labor force, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force 9.8 11.5 10.9 10.1 11.4 11.2 11.1 11.1 11.3
 
U-6 Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force 15.4 17.5 16.6 15.8 17.3 16.5 16.8 16.9 17.1
NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Christina Romer on Jobs, Deficit

 

Obama On April 2010 Job Growth

3 Reasons Public Sector Employees are Killing the Economy

U.S. Government is biggest employer of Illegal Alien Workers

Peter Schiff, How an Economy Grows Why it Crashes


 

President Obama is an economic illiterate.

Higher unemployment is not an accomplishment, it is an economic disaster.

In May and June when graduating  high school and college students enter the labor force and cannot find jobs, by the President’s logic this is progress as the unemployment rates increase even more.

Cut the rubbish Mr. President.

More Americans looking for a job is not the same as more Americans finding jobs.

Only when the unemployment rates start to decline and fall back to under 5% will real progress be made.

Nobody is falling for this nonsense and spin.

 Stop lying Mr. President.

There are actually over thirty million Americans looking for a full-time job.

This is more than double the number of Americans looking for a full-time job in the worse month of the Great Depression, March 1933, when nearly 13 million Americans  were unemployed.

Had President Obama done absolutely nothing, the economy would be in far better shape than it is now. 

Instead the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party passed a stimulus package that simply did not work.

The only sector of the economy that has experienced significant  job and salary growth is the Federal Government.

Over 8.4 million jobs have been lost since December 2007 of which over 4 million jobs have been lost under the Presidency of Barack Obama.

Over 35 state unemployment insurance trust funds are insolvent and are being bailed out by loans from the Federal Government.

There are currently between 10 million to 15 million illegal aliens working in the United States.

Now if the President and the Federal Government would enforce immigration laws and remove from the work place illegal aliens and deport them back to their country of origin, the unemployment rate would  decline by about a third as American citizens took the jobs.

 President Obama appears to be more concerned about illegal aliens than American citizens.

No wonder the President and his surrogates are race baiting those in Arizona that are demanding immigration law enforcement in self-defense of their lives and property.

The youth, blacks, Hispanics and whites that are currently unemployed will remember the progressive radical socialist Democratic Party led by President Obama put illegal alien rights ahead of jobs for American citizens.

 May 6 10 Hearing on the Solvency of the Unemployment Insurance System, McDermott Opening Statement


 

May 6 10 Hearing on the Solvency of the Unemployment Insurance System, Brill Opening Statement

May 6 10 Hearing on th

e Solvency of the Unemployment Insurance System, Sherill Opening Statement

May 6 10 Hearing on the Solvency of the Unemployment Insurance System, Lee Opening Statement

May 6 10 Hearing on the Solvency of the Unemployment Insurance System, Holmes Opening Statement

 

May 6 10 Hearing on the Solvency of the Unemployment Insurance System, Stettner Opening Statement

Gerald Celente: Economic recovery a cover up

Gerald Celente The Coming Great War of Our Age on Alex Jones Tv 1 8

 

Gerald Celente The Coming Great War of Our Age on Alex Jones Tv 2 8

Series Id:           LNS14000000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

 

Year

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9  
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7  
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0  
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2