The Coming Stock Market Crash and Recession? The End of American As You Know It? — Videos

Posted on March 3, 2014. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Photos, Politics, Press, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Securities and Exchange Commission, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 220: February 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 219: February 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 218: February 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 217: February 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 216: February 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 215: February 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 214: February 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 213: February 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 212: February 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 211: February 14, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 210: February 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 209: February 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 208: February 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 207: February 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 206: February 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 205: February 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 204: February 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 203: February 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 202: January 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 201: January 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 200: January 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 199: January 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 198: January 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 197: January 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 196: January 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-220

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

Story 1: The Coming Stock Market Crash and Recession? The End of American As You Know It? — Videos

Obama ObamaCare Economic Collapse stock-market-crash-1929 20141929-IS-A-MOLEHILL-COMPARED-TO-THIS-MOUNTAINdow-today-vs-1929-feb-5

01 - 140121 Strongest + Logest Bull Cycles in the DJIA since 1900stockMCrash

transfer payment

Bubble, Stock Market Crash Coming Like 1929

Bubble, Stock Market Crash Coming New uptade Economic Monitor 2014

Keiser Report: Guest Dough Casey

Doug Casey on Stupidity, Evil, and the Decline of the U.S.

Jim Rogers Stock Market Crash, The Fed Will Come To The Rescue

EU European Union Economic Crisis 2013 2014

Market Crash, Global Economic Shocks Coming in 2014, World War 3 Gerald Celente

World Economy : Chart shows similarities between 1929 Stock Market Crash and Today

Glenn Beck: 1929 vs. 2014

Peter Schiff Market Crash 2014 | London Real

Peter Schiff – Market Crash 2014 | London Real

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.

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

Obama’s Era of Austerity is Over — Let The Big Spending Beginning — President Is Delusional Suffers From Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD) — Videos

Posted on February 22, 2014. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, IRS, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Math, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Resources, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 216: February 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 215: February 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 214: February 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 213: February 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 212: February 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 211: February 14, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 210: February 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 209: February 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 208: February 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 207: February 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 206: February 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 205: February 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 204: February 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 203: February 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 202: January 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 201: January 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 200: January 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 199: January 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 198: January 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 197: January 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 196: January 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-216

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

Story 1: Obama’s Era of Austerity is Over — Let The Big Spending Beginning — President Is Delusional Suffers From Spending Addiction Disorder (SAD) — Videos

 Congressional Budget Office’s newest reports

45086-land-Figure1

In the past few years, debt held by the public has been significantly greater relative to GDP than at any time since just after World War II, and under current law it will continue to be quite high by historical standards during the next decade. With debt so large, federal spending on interest payments will increase substantially as interest rates rise to more typical levels. Moreover, because federal borrowing generally reduces national saving, the capital stock and wages will be smaller than if debt was lower. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they otherwise would to use tax and spending policies to respond to unanticipated challenges. Finally, such a large debt poses a greater risk of precipitating 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.

http://cbo.gov/publication/45086

Federal Budget Deficits Are Projected to Decline Through 2015 but Rise Thereafter, Further Boosting Federal Debt

posted by Barry Blom & Leigh Angres on february 20, 2014

CBO recently released The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024. In that report, CBO projects that if current laws remain in place, the federal budget deficit will total $514 billion in fiscal year 2014. That deficit will be $166 billion smaller than the figure posted in 2013 and down sharply from the shortfalls recorded between 2009 and 2012, which exceeded $1 trillion annually. At 3.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), this year’s deficit would be near the average experienced over the past 40 years and about 7 percentage points lower than the figure recorded in 2009.

Today’s post summarizes CBO’s assessment of the budget outlook over the next decade. Three more posts—to appear over the next several days—will provide more detail about the outlook for spending, revenues, and the economy. One more post will expand upon CBO’s economic forecast, explaining the reasons behind the slow recovery of the labor market.

Under Current Law, Federal Debt Will Grow to 79 Percent of GDP at the End of 2024, CBO Estimates

CBO constructs it baseline projections of federal revenues and spending over the coming decade under the assumption that current laws generally remain unchanged. Under that assumption, revenues are projected to grow by about 1 percentage point of GDP over the next 10 years—from 17.5 percent in 2014 to 18.4 percent in 2024. But outlays are projected to rise twice as much, from 20.5 percent of GDP in 2014 to 22.4 percent in 2024. The increase in outlays reflects substantial growth in the cost of the largest benefit programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—and in payments of interest on the government’s debt; those increases would more than offset a significant decline in discretionary spending relative to the size of the economy.

Although the deficit in CBO’s baseline projections continues to decline as a percentage of GDP in 2015, to 2.6 percent, it then starts to increase again in 2016, reaching 4.0 percent of GDP in 2024. That figure for the end of the 10-year projection period is roughly 1 percentage point above the average deficit over the past 40 years relative to the size of the economy.

That pattern of lower deficits initially, followed by higher deficits for the remainder of the projection period, would cause debt held by the public to follow a similar trajectory (see the figure below). Relative to the nation’s output, debt held by the public is projected to decline from 74 percent of GDP in 2014 to 72 percent of GDP in 2017, but to rise thereafter, to 79 percent of GDP at the end of 2024. (As recently as the end of 2007, debt held by the public was equal to 35 percent of GDP.)

Federal Debt Held by the Public

In the past few years, debt held by the public has been significantly greater relative to GDP than at any time since just after World War II, and under current law it will continue to be quite high by historical standards during the next decade. With debt so large, federal spending on interest payments will increase substantially as interest rates rise to more typical levels. Moreover, because federal borrowing generally reduces national saving, the capital stock and wages will be smaller than if debt was lower. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they otherwise would to use tax and spending policies to respond to unanticipated challenges. Finally, such a large debt poses a greater risk of precipitating 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. (For a discussion of the consequences of elevated debt, see CBO’s December 2013 report Choices for Deficit Reduction: An Update.)

Projected Deficits Reflect Substantial Growth in the Cost of the Largest Benefit Programs

Projected deficits and debt for the coming decade reflect some of the long-term budgetary pressures facing the nation. The aging of the population, the rising costs of health care, and the expansion in federal subsidies for health insurance that is now under way will substantially boost federal spending on Social Security and the government’s major health care programs by 2 percentage points of GDP over the next 10 years (see the figure below). But the pressures of aging and the rising costs of health care will intensify during the next few decades. Unless the laws governing those programs are changed—or the increased spending is accompanied by corresponding reductions in other spending relative to GDP, by sufficiently higher tax revenues, or by a combination of those changes—debt will rise sharply relative to GDP after 2024. (For a more detailed discussion of the long-term budget situation, see CBO’s September 2013 report The 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook.)

Spending and Revenues Projected in CBO's Baseline, Compared With Levels in 1974

Moreover, holding discretionary spending within the limits required under current law—an assumption that underlies these projections—may be quite difficult. The caps on discretionary budget authority established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25) and subsequently amended will reduce such spending to an unusually small amount relative to the size of the economy. With those caps in place, CBO projects, discretionary spending will equal 5.2 percent of GDP in 2024; by comparison, the lowest share for discretionary spending in any year since 1962 (the earliest year for which such data have been reported) was 6.0 percent in 1999. (Nevertheless, total federal spending would be a larger share of GDP than its average during the past 40 years because of higher spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other health insurance subsidies for low-income people, and interest payments on the debt.) Because the allocation of discretionary spending is determined by annual appropriation acts, lawmakers have not yet decided which specific government services and benefits will be reduced or constrained to meet the specified overall limits.

The Budget Outlook for the Coming Decade Has Worsened Since May 2013

The baseline budget outlook has worsened since May 2013, when CBO last published its 10-year projections. A description of the changes in CBO’s baseline since May 2013 can be found in Appendix A of the report. At that time, deficits projected under current law totaled $6.3 trillion for the 2014–2023 period, or about 3 percent of GDP. Deficits are now projected to be about $1 trillion larger. The bulk of that change occurred in CBO’s estimates of revenues: The agency has reduced its projection of total revenues by $1.6 trillion, mostly because of changes in the economic outlook. A decrease of $0.6 trillion in projected outlays through 2023 partially offset that change.

Barry Blom is an analyst in CBO’s Budget Analysis Division and Leigh Angres is special assistant to the CBO Director.

how_congress_spends_your_money

Bar Chart Data Source: Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS) published by the U. S. Treasury Department. WE DON’T MAKE THIS UP! IT COMES FROM THE U. S. GOVERNMENT! NO ADJUSTMENTS.

The MTS published in October, reports the final actual expenditures for the previous FY. This chart shows FY2013 actual spending data. Here is the link to download your own copy from the Treasury Department web site.

The chart normally shows the proposed budget line for the next fiscal year (FY2014 started 1 October 2013), but the two-year deal for 2014-2015 signed in December 2013, has so few details that showing a “budget” for 2014 or 2015 is no possible. And now Congress has passed the Appropriations (spending) bill that funds the budget through end of FY2014. The details are in a 1500+ page bill that no one in Congress read. But you CAN read it. Here it is H.R.3547 – Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. (it’s a large pdf document … give it time.)

But we may have an option; we will use the historical tables published by the OMB, about mid-FY2014, take the data from the “estimated” 2014 column. Look for it later.

The Congressional Budget Office reported on the Federal Debt and the Risk of a Financial Crisis in this report on the non-budget.

Look at the bar chart to find items that are growing and items that are being reduced. The largest growth is at the Department of Agriculture; it handles Food Stamps (SNAP). You pay taxes, your money is paying for food stamps.

- – - – - – -

Here is a MUST SEE … The Budget in Pictures!

NDAC studies the Budget Proposals submitted to the U.S. Senate each year by the President of the United States and the House of Representatives. One of the documents that goes along with the budget proposals, “Historical Tables“, is published by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our analysis is discussed on the home page of this web site.

http://www.federalbudget.com/chartinfo.html

Out-of-Control Spending Is to Blame for America’s Deficit Problem

Federal spending is projected to grow at a rapid pace beyond the 10-year budget window. Without reforms, spending on interest on the debt, health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc.), and Social Security will reach unsustainable levels. As a result, these spending levels will cause exploding deficits as tax revenues will be at their modern average level (1952-2008).

americas-deficit-federal-spending-680

Where Does All the Money Go?

In 2012, the major entitlement programs-Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care-consumed 45 percent of all federal spending. These programs, and interest on the debt, are on track to consume an even greater share of spending in future years, while the portion of federal spending dedicated to other national priorities will decline.

SHARE OF FEDERAL SPENDING IN 2012

where-did-your-tax-dollar-go-680

Entitlement Program Spending Is Massive

Annual spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs is massive compared to other federal spending priorities. There is too much waste and inappropriate spending in the discretionary budget as well, but Congress will not be able to rein in spending and debt without reforming the entitlement programs.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL SPENDING IN 2014

spending-cuts-680

Publicly Held Debt Set to Skyrocket

Runaway spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will drive federal debt to unsustainable levels over the next few decades. Total national debt comprises publicly held debt (the most relevant to credit markets) and debt that one part of the government owes to another, such as the Social Security Trust Fund.

national-debt-skyrocket-680

All Tax Revenue Will Go Toward Entitlements and Net Interest by 2030

In less than two decades, all projected tax revenues would be consumed by three federal programs (Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, which includes CHIP and Obamacare) and interest on the debt. Entitlement reform is a must.

entitlements-historical-tax-levels-680

What if a Typical Family Spent and Borrowed Like the Federal Government?

Families understand that it is unwise to repeatedly spend much more than they take in. But Washington continues its shopping spree on the taxpayer credit card with seemingly no regard to the stack of bills the nation has already piled up.

typical-family-spent-like-government-680

debt-limit-by-president-680

The Beatles – Taxman

How Obama could kill the Democratic Party

The Price of a U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade

U.S. deficit to decline, then rise as labor market struggles: CBO

Top 10 MILITARY BUDGETS

America : DHS preparing for possible Riots / Martial Law on Nov 1st over Food Stamps

With 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to era of austerity

By Zachary A. Goldfarb

President Obama’s forthcoming budget request will seek tens of billions of dollars in fresh spending for domestic priorities while abandoning a compromise proposal to tame the national debt in part by trimming Social Security benefits.

With the 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency and to his efforts to find common ground with Republicans. Instead, the president will focus on pumping new cash into job training, early-childhood education and other programs aimed at bolstering the middle class, providing Democrats with a policy blueprint heading into the midterm elections.

As part of that strategy, Obama will jettison the framework he unveiled last year for a so-called grand bargain that would have raised taxes on the rich and reined in skyrocketing retirement spending. A centerpiece of that framework was a proposal — demanded by GOP leaders — to use a less-generous measure of inflation to calculate Social Security benefits.

The idea infuriated Democrats and never gained much traction with rank-and-file Republicans, who also were unwilling to contemplate tax increases of any kind. On Thursday, administration officials said that the grand-bargain framework remains on the table but that it was time to move on.

“Over the course of last year, Republicans consistently showed a lack of willingness to negotiate on a deficit-reduction deal, refusing to identify even one unfair tax loophole they would be willing to close,” said a White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the budget before its official release. “That is not going to stop the president from promoting new policies that should be part of our public debate.”

Republicans said emerging details of the president’s budget prove he was never serious about addressing the nation’s long-term debt problems.

“This reaffirms what has become all too apparent: the president has no interest in doing anything, even modest, to address our looming debt crisis,” Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said in a statement. “The one and only idea the president has to offer is even more job-destroying tax hikes, and that non-starter won’t do anything to save the entitlement programs that are critical to so many Americans.”

The new budget request, due out March 4, comes during a relative lull in Washington’s lengthy budget wars. Late last year, Congress approved a two-year spending plan negotiated by the chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), that would ease automatic cuts, known as the sequester, that were eating away at agency spending. And this month, Congress agreed to forgo another battle over the federal debt limit, voting to suspend its enforcement until March 2015.

The lack of conflict is due in part to the collapse of the deficit as a political issue. While annual budget deficits remain high by historical standards, they have shrunken rapidly over the past few years as the economy recovered and Congress acted to cut spending.

The latest estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office show the deficit falling to$514 billion this year and to $478 billion in fiscal 2015 — well below the trillion-dollar deficits the nation racked up during the recession and immediately afterward. But the CBO warned that deficits would start to grow again in a few years.

n recognition of that fact, Obama would retain some parts of his grand-bargain framework, including a proposal to require wealthy seniors to pay more for Medicare benefits than they do now. White House officials said the president continues to believe that entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security must be reformed to be sustainable.

Meanwhile, Obama would fully pay for proposed new spending in his budget request, administration officials said, including $56 billion for what they called “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative.” The package, which would be split between domestic programs and defense, will include fresh cash for 45 new manufacturing institutes; a “Race to the Top” for states that promote energy efficiency; new job training programs and apprenticeships; and expanded educational programs for pre­schoolers.

White House officials declined to say Thursday how they would fund the initiative. But Obama has in the past proposed limiting the value of income-tax deductions for wealthy households and closing a variety of corporate tax breaks.

A senior administration official said the budget would also propose new corporate tax rules aimed at preventing companies from moving profits overseas to avoid U.S. taxes. For instance, the rules will seek to limit a company’s ability to borrow domestically — and take large tax deductions on the interest — and then invest the money overseas.

Prohibiting corporations from gaming the tax code has been a popular issue among Senate Democrats and would help emphasize bread-and-butter themes in a year when Democrats will also be focusing on raising the minimum wage and other populist measures.

“President Obama’s budget will be a powerful statement of Democratic principles,” Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement.

Senior administration officials said they decided to chart a more partisan, aspirational path after Republicans failed to respond to the olive branch offered last year. Then, after two years of near-misses on the budget in negotiations with Boehner, Obama still believed a deal was possible.

Now, they said, the president is not so optimistic. And he believes it is up to Republicans to make the next move.

At the same time, the nation’s debt problem has become markedly less urgent, they said, leading the president to back away from the most controversial part of his debt-reduction framework — the proposal to adopt a new measure of inflation known as the chained consumer price index, or chained CPI.

Although other cost-cutting proposals could yet cause tensions within his party, Obama’s decision not to include chained CPI in his budget request immediately won praise from Democrats.

“I applaud President Obama for his important decision to protect Social Security,” Sen. Bernard Sanders, the liberal independent from Vermont, said in a statement. “With the middle class struggling and more people living in poverty than ever before, we cannot afford to make life even more difficult for seniors and some of the most vulnerable people in America.”

Officials said Obama’s budget request will include other nuggets of note. For example, it assumes that an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws will pass Congress despite deep divisions in Republican ranks. It also assumes that a sharp, but somewhat mysterious slowdown in health-care spending will continue throughout the next decade.

As a result, the White House projects that annual budget deficits will fall below 2 percent of gross domestic product by the end of the decade. That outlook is much rosier than CBO projections, which show the deficit rising to 4 percent of GDP in 2024.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-2015-budget-request-obama-will-call-for-an-end-to-era-of-austerity/2014/02/20/332808c2-9a6e-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

Obama’s “End of Austerity” Budget Is Incoherent

Kevin Glass

President Obama’s legally-required but constantly-delayed official budget request to Congress will be on Capitol Hill soon. The Washington Post reportsthat “Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency.” There is much wrong with this worldview.

The only coherent way in which “austerity” has defined much of President Obama’s presidency is one in which America faced a once-in-a-generation economic crisis that President Obama himself responded to by massively ramping up federal spending over the course of his first few years in office. That increase in federal spending was combined with below-average tax revenue to create massive budget deficits that everyone, including President Obama, agreed were a problem.

In accordance with the general principles of Keynesian economics, Barack Obama enacted policies that cut the deficit as we continue to climb back out of the 2008 recession. Now, though, President Obama thinks the deficit is no longer a problem – so it’s time to increase it.

If I were a self-absorbed “fact checker” I’d rate this claim half-true. We’ve largely tamed the medium-term deficit through a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts. Taming the deficit doesn’t mean that it won’t be a problem in the future – and indeed, the Congressional Budget Office’s newest reports confirm that the deficit should still rate highly on the problems that policymakers should be looking to solve.

The CBO’s long-term budget report finds that the deficit will dip in 2014 and 2015 but then will start rising – and will never stop due to our increasing health and retirement obligations. The CBO reports on why that’s bad:

In the past few years, debt held by the public has been significantly greater relative to GDP than at any time since just after World War II, and under current law it will continue to be quite high by historical standards during the next decade. With debt so large, federal spending on interest payments will increase substantially as interest rates rise to more typical levels. Moreover, because federal borrowing generally reduces national saving, the capital stock and wages will be smaller than if debt was lower. In addition, lawmakers would have less flexibility than they otherwise would to use tax and spending policies to respond to unanticipated challenges. Finally, such a large debt poses a greater risk of precipitating 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.

It’s absurd that anyone would need to have a refresher on this, but apparently it’s needed: more debt is worse than less debt!

The CBO also confirms what has become even more apparent in the wake of Obamacare: the federal government is becoming less of a traditional government and more of a social insurance state, as more and more spending will go toward health and retirement entitlements, as well as the mere cost of servicing debt:

As Jonathan Chait points out, as a practical political reality, fighting the rise of our retirement obligations has about a ten-year lag time. It’s impractical to change the structure of retirement benefits – both Social Security and Medicare – for current and near-future beneficiaries. We need to get started on reforms now.

President Obama may want to put an end to the “era of austerity,” but it’s an era that he explicitly pushed for through his rhetoric, his desire for tax hikes and his compromises on spending cuts. The medium-term deficit might be under control, but that doesn’t mean fighting future deficits should no longer be a priority for policymakers.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/02/21/obamas-end-of-austerity-budget-is-incoherent-n1798636

Obama budget declares end to … austerity?

Say, did you know that we are living in the age of austerity budgets in Washington? This year’s budget will spend more than last year’s $3.44 trillion, but not as much as Barack Obama requested for FY2014, which was an apparently austere $3.778 trillion. Nevertheless, the Washington Post reports that a newly-emboldened President will demandan end to an “era of austerity” that we haven’t seen in decades with his new FY2015 budget proposal:

President Obama’s forthcoming budget request will seek tens of billions of dollars in fresh spending for domestic priorities while abandoning a compromise proposal to tame the national debt in part by trimming Social Security benefits.

With the 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency and to his efforts to find common ground with Republicans. Instead, the president will focus on pumping new cash into job training, early-childhood education and other programs aimed at bolstering the middle class, providing Democrats with a policy blueprint heading into the midterm elections. …

Republicans said emerging details of the president’s budget prove he was never serious about addressing the nation’s long-term debt problems.

“This reaffirms what has become all too apparent: the president has no interest in doing anything, even modest, to address our looming debt crisis,” Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), said in a statement. “The one and only idea the president has to offer is even more job-destroying tax hikes, and that non-starter won’t do anything to save the entitlement programs that are critical to so many Americans.”

The new budget request, due out March 4, comes during a relative lull in Washington’s lengthy budget wars. Late last year, Congress approved a two-year spending plan negotiated by the chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), that would ease automatic cuts, known as the sequester, that were eating away at agency spending. And this month, Congress agreed to forgo another battle over the federal debt limit, voting to suspend its enforcement until March 2015.

So what will be the top-line number for the FY2015 budget that will end this “era of austerity”? Actually, the Post doesn’t report the top-line outlay number, and the OMB doesn’t have the budget request available on the White House portal yet. One presumes that ending austerity means a demand north of the $3.498 trillion that House Republicans proposed in their budget plan from late last year. It may just be an additional $56 billion over the actual FY2014 levels, which would make it far below his FY2014 proposed budget.

Let’s take a look at all that austerity in the Obama presidency, shall we? Heritage produced this handy graphic in the middle of last year, but it’s very useful now:

heritage-fed-spending

Outlays for FY2014 authorized in the recent budget deal are still a bit ambiguous in the reams of data from both Congress and the White House, but CBO estimates it at $3.54 trillion. At that level, we are spending 9.3% more in FY2014 than in FY2008, the last budget signed by George W. Bush (Democrats stalled the FY2009 budget with continuing resolutions until Obama signed an omnibus bill in March 2009 to complete that budget).If the new budget ends “austerity” by returning to Obama’s original top-line outlay demand of last year’s budget request, that will mean an additional increase of federal spending of 6.7% in just one year. If it’s just $56 billion more than the actual FY2014 outlays, then the notion that this ends “austerity” is doubly laughable.

The notion that we’ve been laboring under an “era of austerity” is as ridiculous and out of touch as … well, as most of Obama’s budget requests during his presidency. This one has just as much chance of being enacted, too. The Post suggests that Democrats can use this to beat up Republicans on the campaign trail, but the GOP can easily parry that with this question: “Do you really believe Washington deserves a 6.7% raise after ObamaCare?” Good luck winning on this issue.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/21/obama-budget-declares-end-to-austerity/

Obama budget could be costly to Dems

By Chris Stirewalt

OBAMA BUDGET COULD BE COSTLY TO DEMS
The White House is teasing the president’s soon-to-be released blueprint for the next federal fiscal year. In a nod to his core liberal supporters, the president has dropped a prior nod to entitlement fixes, so-called “chained CPI,” a change in how to calculate the size of future increases to Social Security and other programs. The president is sucking up to his political base, the members of which consider the current trajectory for future hikes to be sacrosanct. That’s pretty good politics, especially since Obama did not seem particularly enthused about the idea before and that there is zero chance that this budget or any budget will be passed this election year. Republicans may be harrumphing about the president’s “unserious” approach to the debt, but it’s not like they thought otherwise before. Nor will the House GOP budget be anything more than pipe dreams. Poof!

You call that austerity? - Many pixels are being slaughtered to discuss the president’s irrelevant budget. Why? Partly, it’s because reporters salivate over anything that looks exclusive or new in a city where governing goes to die. Here in the great gridlock desert, this stuff may pass for news. But also because liberals are excited to see their champion drop the smokescreen of deficit concern. The prevailing Democratic wisdom is that deficits don’t matter and that Republicans ought to shut up about them. The WaPo enthused: “With the 2015 budget request, Obama will call for an end to the era of austerity that has dogged much of his presidency and to his efforts to find common ground with Republicans.” Austerity? The federal government continues to spend way more than it takes in and outlays in the Obama era have increased. From 2009 through 2012, the administration spent about $3.5 trillion a year. The approximate federal spending for the fiscal year that ended in October was $3.62 trillion. The estimate for the current year: $3.78 trillion. The Greeks would love to get some austerity like that.

Unicorns, rainbows and midterms - The WaPo goes on to say that instead of worrying about deficits, “…the president will focus on pumping new cash into job training, early-childhood education and other programs aimed at bolstering the middle class, providing Democrats with a policy blueprint heading into the midterm elections… The lack of conflict is due in part to the collapse of the deficit as a political issue. While annual budget deficits remain high by historical standards, they have shrunken rapidly over the past few years as the economy recovered and Congress acted to cut spending.” Wait. What? A Fox News Poll at the end of January showed that more voters said the federal deficit and Social Security outranked terrorism, foreign policy, guns and immigration as the most important issues for the government. Only the economy and health care were higher on the list of voter concerns. Nothing come close to those two, but do Democrats really think that they are off the hook for being the party of more borrowing and spending? Just because Republicans scampered away from the last debt limit lift fight doesn’t mean this isn’t potent stuff. If Democrats believe that borrowing more than half-a-trillion dollars can be turned into a political plus, they must be back to smoking Hopium. And remember, we haven’t even heard about all of the new taxes that the president will propose. Democrats are marching forward with the banner of bigger government aloft at precisely the moment Americans are fed up with ObamaCare the last big government initiative the Obama Democrats bequeathed them.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/21/obama-budget-could-be-costly-to-dems/

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

Democrats Lose 50 Year War on Poverty Start 100 Year War on Work: Millennial Moocher Mania — Grow The Government Shrink The Economy and Employment! — Progressive Permanent Poverty People — Videos Videos

Posted on February 10, 2014. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Comedy, Communications, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fraud, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Medicine, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 207: February 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 206: February 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 205: February 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 204: February 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 203: February 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 202: January 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 201: January 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 200: January 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 199: January 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 198: January 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 197: January 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 196: January 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-207

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

Story 1: Democrats Lose 50 Year War on Poverty Start 100 Year War on Work: Millennial Moocher Mania — Grow The Government Shrink The Economy and Employment! — Progressive Permanent Poverty People — Videos   Videos

entitlements

CBO_Impact_Obamacare_Employmentjob_impact

CBO_Labor_Participation_Rate

fiscal_policy_unstainablecbo_job_report

obama-economy-jobs-debt-deficit-political-cartoon-new-normal

cartoon_obamacare

obamacare_work_killer

obamacare_admitting

obamacare_impact

n0nh6p-ramirez.jobsdeathpanelobamacare_web_designercreating part time jobs

beeler_class_warfare_full

Appendix C: Labor Market Effect of Affordable Care Act: Updated Estimates

Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act— CBO’s February 2014 Baseline

Table 1. CBO’s May 2013 Estimate of the Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Health Insurance Coverage

Obamacare and jobs reports: Health care law could cost more than 2 million jobs

Casey Mulligan: Eroding incentives is damaging

W.H. defends Obamacare amid CBO findings

Obamacare ACA Impact On Workforce Why Work? Special Report All Star Panel

CBO Director to Congress: Obamacare Will Reduce Unemployment Rate

Hayes Admits CBO Obamacare Report ‘Not Some Right Wing Attack’

Obama Admin On CBO Report: You’re Now Free To “Work Or Not Work”, Thanks Obamacare – Stuart Varney

CBO Director: Obamacare creates ‘disincentive’ to work

Casey Mulligan – Affordable Care and the Labor Market

Casey Mulligan, PhD, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago
“Affordable Care and the Labor Market”
October 16, 2013
MacLean Center Seminar Series 2013-2014, Ethical Issues in Health Care Reform

15 Poverty and Welfare Programs

Public Economics and Finance – Social Insurance Programs

Public Economics and Finance – Social Insurance Programs Continued and Welfare Programs

Charles Murray: Why America is Coming Apart Along Class Lines

Uncommon Knowledge: White America Is ‘Coming Apart’

In Depth with Charles Murray

Appendix C: Labor Market Effect of Affordable Care Act: Updated Estimates

Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act— CBO’s February 2014 Baseline

Table 1. CBO’s May 2013 Estimate of the Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Health Insurance Coverage

The Economist Who Exposed ObamaCare

The Chicago professor examined the law’s incentives for the poor not to get a job or work harder, and this week Beltway budgeteers agreed.

By JOSEPH RAGO

In September, two weeks before the Affordable Care Act was due to launch, President Obama declared that “there’s no serious evidence that the law . . . is holding back economic growth.” As for repealing ObamaCare, he added, “That’s not an agenda for economic growth. You’re not going to meet an economist who says that that’s a number-one priority in terms of boosting growth and jobs in this country—at least not a serious economist.”

In a way, Mr. Obama had a point: “Never met him,” says economist Casey Mulligan. If the unfamiliarity is mutual, the confusion is all presidential. Mr. Mulligan studies how government choices influence the incentives and rewards for work—and many more people may recognize the University of Chicago professor as a serious economist after this week. That’s because, more than anyone, Mr. Mulligan is responsible for the still-raging furor over the Congressional Budget Office’s conclusion that ObamaCare will, in fact, harm growth and jobs.

Unaffordable_Careless_Act

Rarely are political tempers so raw over an 11-page appendix to a dense budget projection for the next decade. But then the CBO—Congress’s official fiscal scorekeeper, widely revered by Democrats and Republicans alike as the gold standard of economic analysis—reported that by 2024 the equivalent of 2.5 million Americans who were otherwise willing and able to work before ObamaCare will work less or not at all as a result of ObamaCare.

As the CBO admits, that’s a “substantially larger” and “considerably higher” subtraction to the labor force than the mere 800,000 the budget office estimated in 2010. The overall level of labor will fall by 1.5% to 2% over the decade, the CBO figures.

Mr. Mulligan’s empirical research puts the best estimate of the contraction at 3%. The CBO still has some of the economics wrong, he said in a phone interview Thursday, “but, boy, it’s a lot better to be off by a factor of two than a factor of six.”

The CBO’s intellectual conversion is all the more notable for accepting Mr. Mulligan’s premise, which is that what economists call “implicit marginal tax rates” in ObamaCare make work less financially valuable for lower-income Americans. Because the insurance subsidies are tied to income and phase out as cash wages rise, some people will have the incentive to remain poorer in order to continue capturing higher benefits. Another way of putting it is that taking away benefits has the same effect as a direct tax, so lower-income workers are discouraged from climbing the income ladder by working harder, logging extra hours, taking a promotion or investing in their future earnings through job training or education.

The CBO works in mysterious ways, but its commentary and a footnote suggest that two National Bureau of Economic Research papers Mr. Mulligan published last August were “roughly” the most important drivers of this revision to its model. In short, the CBO has pulled this economist’s arguments and analysis from the fringes to center of the health-care debate.

For his part, Mr. Mulligan declines to take too much credit. “I’m not an expert in that town, Washington,” he says, “but I showed them my work and I know they listened, carefully.”

At a February 2013 hearing he pointed out several discrepancies between the CBO’s marginal-tax-rate work and its health-care work, and, he says, “That couldn’t persist forever. There would have to be a time where they would reconcile those two approaches somehow.” More to the point, “I knew eventually it would be acknowledged that when you pay people for being low income you are going to have more low-income people.”

Mr. Mulligan thinks the CBO deserves particular credit for learning and then revising the old 800,000 number, not least because so many liberals cited it to dispute the claims of ObamaCare’s critics. The new finding might have prompted a debate about the marginal tax rates confronting the poor, but—well, it didn’t.

Instead, liberals have turned to claiming that ObamaCare’s missing workers will be a gift to society. Since employers aren’t cutting jobs per se through layoffs or hourly take-backs, people are merely choosing rationally to supply less labor. Thanks to ObamaCare, we’re told, Americans can finally quit the salt mines and blacking factories and retire early, or spend more time with the children, or become artists.

Mr. Mulligan reserves particular scorn for the economists making this “eliminated from the drudgery of labor market” argument, which he views as a form of trahison des clercs. “I don’t know what their intentions are,” he says, choosing his words carefully, “but it looks like they’re trying to leverage the lack of economic education in their audience by making these sorts of points.”

A job, Mr. Mulligan explains, “is a transaction between buyers and sellers. When a transaction doesn’t happen, it doesn’t happen. We know that it doesn’t matter on which side of the market you put the disincentives, the results are the same. . . . In this case you’re putting an implicit tax on work for households, and employers aren’t willing to compensate the households enough so they’ll still work.” Jobs can be destroyed by sellers (workers) as much as buyers (businesses).

He adds: “I can understand something like cigarettes and people believe that there’s too much smoking, so we put a tax on cigarettes, so people smoke less, and we say that’s a good thing. OK. But are we saying we were working too much before? Is that the new argument? I mean make up your mind. We’ve been complaining for six years now that there’s not enough work being done. . . . Even before the recession there was too little work in the economy. Now all of a sudden we wake up and say we’re glad that people are working less? We’re pursuing our dreams?”

The larger betrayal, Mr. Mulligan argues, is that the same economists now praising the great shrinking workforce used to claim that ObamaCare would expand the labor market.

He points to a 2011 letter organized by Harvard’s David Cutler and the University of Chicago’s Harold Pollack, signed by dozens of left-leaning economists including Nobel laureates, stating “our strong conclusion” that ObamaCare will strengthen the economy and create 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually. (Mr. Cutler has since qualified and walked back some of his claims.)

“Why didn’t they say, no, we didn’t mean the labor market’s going to get bigger. We mean it’s going to get smaller in a good way,” Mr. Mulligan wonders. “I’m unhappy with that, to be honest, as an American, as an economist. Those kind of conclusions are tarnishing the field of economics, which is a great, maybe the greatest, field. They’re sure not making it look good by doing stuff like that.”

Mr. Mulligan’s investigation into the Affordable Care Act builds on his earlier work studying the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the stimulus.

The Keynesian economists who dominate Mr. Obama’s Washington are preoccupied by demand, and their explanation for persistently high post-recession unemployment is weak demand for goods and thus demand for labor. Mr. Mulligan, by contrast, studies the supply of labor and attributes the state of the economy in large part to the expansion of the entitlement and welfare state, such as the surge in food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid and other safety-net programs. As these benefits were enriched and extended to more people by the stimulus, he argues in his 2012 book “The Redistribution Recession,” they were responsible for about half the drop in work hours since 2007, and possibly more.

The nearby chart tracks marginal tax rates over time for nonelderly household heads and spouses with median earnings. This index is a population-weighted average over various ages, jobs, employment decisions like full-time versus part-time. Basically, the chart shows the extra taxes paid and government benefits foregone as a result of earning an extra dollar of income.

The stimulus caused a spike in marginal rates, but at least it was temporary. ObamaCare will bring them permanently into the 47% range, or seven percentage points higher than in early 2007. Mr. Mulligan says the main response to his calculations is that people “didn’t realize the cumulative effect of these things together as a package to discourage work.”

Mr. Mulligan is uncomfortable speculating about whether the benefits of this shift outweigh the costs. Perhaps the public was willing to trade market efficiency for more income security after the 2008 crisis. “As an economist I can’t argue with that,” he says. “The thing that I argue with is the denial that there is a trade-off. I argue with the denial that if you pay unemployed people you’re going to get more unemployed people. There are consequences of that. That doesn’t mean the consequences aren’t worth paying. But you can’t deny the consequences for the labor market.”

One major risk is slower economic growth over time as people leave the workforce and contribute less to national prosperity. Another is that social programs with high marginal rates end up perpetuating the problems they’re supposed to be alleviating.

So amid the current wave of liberal ObamaCare denial about these realities, how did Mr. Mulligan end up conducting such “unconventional” research?

“Unconventional?” he asks with more than a little disbelief. “It’s not unconventional at all. The critique I get is that it’s not complicated enough.”

Well, then how come the CBO’s adoption of his insights is causing such a ruckus?

“I would phrase the question a little differently,” Mr. Mulligan responds, “which is: Why didn’t conventional economic analysis make its way to Washington? Why was I the only delivery boy? Why wasn’t there a laundry list?” The charitable explanation, he says, is that there was “a general lack of awareness” and economists simply didn’t realize everything that government was doing to undermine incentives for work. “You have to dig into it and see it,” he explains. “The Affordable Care Act’s not going to come and shake you out of your bed and say, ‘Look what’s in me.’ “

Judging by their reaction to the CBO report, the less charitable explanation is that liberals would have preferred that the public never found out.

Mr. Rago is a member of the Journal’s editorial board.

Lawmakers Spar Over CBO’s U.S. Health-Law Findings

Questions Over Impact on Workforce Create ‘Hysteria’ on Capitol Hill

A new report outlining the effect of the Affordable Care Act on the labor market continued to reverberate on Capitol Hill Wednesday, with lawmakers in both parties saying the findings bolstered their view of how the law would play out.

Republicans at a House Budget Committee hearing said the report, released Tuesday, shows the health law will drive people out of the work force. Democrats countered that the report shows the law will give workers flexibility to leave jobs they are locked into because of health-care benefits.

The sparring came in response to a Congressional Budget Office analysis concluding that subsidies in the law, combined with easier access to health care, would create incentives for many Americans to cut their work hours, leading to a net reduction of 1.5% to 2% from 2017 through 2024. This would be the equivalent of reducing the labor force by 2.5 million workers in 2024, the CBO found.

“The effects we estimated are almost entirely choices by people,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said at the hearing. He said, for example, that the labor changes wouldn’t be driven by employers cutting jobs, but rather workers deciding to cut back on their hours to take care of their children, parents, or to pursue other interests.

The report struck a chord in Washington. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) said at the hearing that the analysis by CBO, a nonpartisan agency that advises Congress, had caused “hysteria.”

Many Republicans said the CBO confirmed their long-held belief that the law would have a direct impact on the labor market and harm economic growth. They said it would expedite the decline in labor-force participation, which is expected to worsen in coming years as more aging Americans drop out of the work force.

“These changes—they disproportionately affect low-wage workers,” House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) said. “Translation: Washington is making the poverty trap worse.”

Democrats on Wednesday said the study confirmed their belief that the law would free many Americans from a phenomenon known as “job lock,” or the idea that people don’t change their jobs for fear of losing their health benefits.

“More Americans will be able to voluntarily, choose—choose—to work fewer hours or not take a job because they don’t depend on that job any more for the provision of health insurance,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) said. “Before the Affordable Care Act, if you lost your job, you lost your health insurance.”

Mr. Elmendorf stressed that the law’s impact on the labor market could be difficult to predict. He agreed, for example, with one Republican lawmaker who said that by reducing the number of hours worked by many Americans, it would reduce overall wages and lower the amount of money people paid in taxes from 2017 through 2024.

But he also agreed with a Democratic lawmaker who said the law could—in the short-term—create some new jobs by freeing up disposable income from workers who previously had to set aside money for health coverage.

The law’s impact on the labor market has drawn the focus of researchers since it was passed, in part because the law makes so many changes to health-care delivery that its broader economic impacts have proved difficult to predict.

A 2013 study by researchers at Northwestern University, Columbia University and the University of Chicago estimated the Affordable Care Act’s impact could be particularly acute, including among Americans who are near retirement and hang on to jobs to retain health care before they qualify for Medicare at age 65.

The study found the new law “creates a nonemployer option for health insurance that is going to be fairly priced for a large number of Americans, and that hasn’t been available,” said Craig Garthwaite, an assistant professor at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management, and one of the study’s co-authors.

But he said there is a trade-off to the broader access to health care, and said “there should be some pause for concern here about any policies that actually weaken labor-force attachment.”

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304181204579364933406260084?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304181204579364933406260084.html

Health Law To Cut Into Labor Force

CBO Report Forecasts More People Will Opt to Work Less as They Seek Coverage Through Affordable Care Act

By LOUISE RADNOFSKY and DAMIAN PALETTA

The new health law is projected to reduce the total number of hours Americans work by the equivalent of 2.3 million full-time jobs in 2021, a bigger impact on the workforce than previously expected, according to a nonpartisan congressional report.

The analysis, by the Congressional Budget Office, says a key factor is people scaling back how much they work and instead getting health coverage through the Affordable Care Act. The agency had earlier forecast the labor-force impact would be the equivalent of 800,000 workers in 2021.

Because the CBO estimated that the changes would be a result of workers’ choices, it said the law, President Barack Obama‘s signature initiative, wouldn’t lead to a rise in the unemployment rate. But the labor-force impact could slow growth in future years, though the precise impact is uncertain.

Social programs in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Social Security Administration, created in 1935, was the first major federal welfare agency and continues to be the most prominent.[1]

Social programs in the United States are welfare subsidies designed to aid the needs of the U.S. population. Proposals for federal programs began with Theodore Roosevelt‘s New Nationalism and expanded with Woodrow Wilson‘s New FreedomFranklin D. Roosevelt‘sNew DealJohn F. Kennedy‘s New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson‘s Great Society.

The programs vary in eligibility requirements and are provided by various organizations on a federal, state, local and private level. They help to provide food, shelter, education, healthcare and money to U.S. citizens through primary and secondary education, subsidies of college education, unemployment disability insurance, subsidies for eligible low-wage workers, subsidies for housing, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, pensions for eligible persons and health insurance programs that cover public employees. The Social Security system is the largest and most prominent social aid program.[1][2] Medicare is another prominent program.

Not including Social Security and Medicare, Congress allocated almost $717 billion in Federal funds in 2010 plus $210 billion was allocated in state funds ($927 billion total) for means tested welfare programs in the United States–later (after 2010) expenditures are unknown but higher.[3] As of 2011, the public social spending-to-GDP ratio in the United States was below the OECD average.[4]

Total Social Security and Medicare expenditures in 2013 were $1.3 trillion, 8.4% of the $16.3 trillion GNP (2013) and 37% of the total Federal expenditure budget of $3.684 trillion.[5][6]

In addition to government expenditures private welfare spending in the United States is thought to be about 10% of the U.S. GDP or another $1.6 trillion.[7]

Analysis

Household Characteristics

[hide]Characteristics of Households by Quintile 2010[8]

Household Income
Bracket
0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Earners Per Household 0.42 0.90 1.29 1.70 1.97
Marital Status
Married couples (%) 17.0 35.9 48.8 64.3 78.4
Single Parents or Single (%) 83.0 64.1 51.2 35.7 21.6
Ages of Householders
Under 35 23.3 24 24.5 21.8 14.6
36-64 years 43.6 46.6 55.4 64.3 74.7
65 years + 33.1 29.4 20.1 13.9 10.7
Work Status householders (%)
Worked Full Time (%) 17.4 44.7 61.1 71.5 77.2
Worked Part Time (%) 14.3 13.3 11.1 9.8 9.5
Did Not Work (%) 68.2 42.1 27.8 17.7 13.3
Education of Householders (%)
Less than High School 26.7 16.6 8.8 5.4 2.2
High School or some College 61.2 65.4 62.9 58.5 37.6
Bachelor’s degree or Higher 12.1 18.0 28.3 36.1 60.3
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Social programs have been implemented to promote a variety of societal goals, including alleviating the effects of poverty on those earning or receiving low income or encountering serious medical problems, and ensuring retired people have a basic standard of living.

Unlike in Europe, Christian democratic and social democratic theories have not played a major role in shaping welfare policy in the United States.[9] Entitlement programs in the U.S. were virtually non-existent until the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the implementation of the New Deal programs in response to the Great Depression. Between 1932 and 1981, modern American liberalism dominated U.S. economic policy and the entitlements grew along with American middle class wealth.[10]

Eligibility for welfare benefits depends on a variety of factors, including gross and net income, family size, pregnancy, homelessness, unemployment, and serious medical conditions like blindness, kidney failure or AIDS.

Drug Testing for applicants

Drug testing in order for potential recipients to receive welfare has become an increasingly controversial topic. Richard Hudson, a Republican from North Carolina claims he pushes for drug screening as a matter of “moral obligation” and that testing should be enforced as a way for the United States government to discourage drug usage. [11] Others claim that ordering the needy to drug test “stereotypes, stigmatizes, and criminalizes” them without need. [12] States that currently require drug tests to be performed in order to receive public assistance include ArizonaFloridaGeorgiaMissouriOklahomaTennessee, and Utah.[13]

Demographics of TANF Recipients

A chart showing the overall decline of average monthly welfare benefits (AFDC then TANF) per recipient 1962–2006 (in 2006 dollars).[14]

Some have argued that welfare has come to be associated with poverty. Martin Gilens, assistant professor of Political Science at Yale University, argues that blacks have overwhelmingly dominated images of poverty over the last few decades and states that “white Americans with the most exaggerated misunderstandings of the racial composition of the poor are the most likely to oppose welfare”.[15][16] This perception possibly perpetuates negative racial stereotypes and could increase Americans’ opposition and racialization of welfare policies.[15]

In FY 2010, African-American families comprised 31.9% of TANF families, white families comprised 31.8%, and 30.0% were Hispanic.[17] Since the implementation of TANF, the percentage of Hispanic families has increased, while the percentages of white and black families have decreased. In FY 1997, African-American families represented 37.3% of TANF recipient families, white families 34.5%, and Hispanic families 22.5%.[18] The population as a whole is composed of 63.7% whites, 16.3% Hispanic, 12.5% African-American, 4.8% Asian and 2.9% other races.[19] TANF programs at a cost of about $20.0 billion (2013) have decreased in use as Earned Income Tax CreditsMedicaid grants, food stamps (SNAP),Supplemental Security Income (SSI), child nutrition programs (CHIP), housing assistance, Feeding Programs (WIC & CSFP) along with about 70 more programs have increase to over $700.0 billion more in 2013.[20]

Costs

In 2002, total U.S. social welfare expenditure constitutes over 35% of GDP, with purely public expenditure constituting 21%, publicly supported but privately provided welfare services constituting 10% of GDP and purely private services constituting 4% of GDP. This compared to the “welfare” states of France and Sweden where welfare spending ranges from 30% to 35% of GDP.[21][22]

The Great Recession made a large impact on welfare spending. In a 2011 article, Forbes reported, “The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is $717 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending of about $210 million, total welfare spending for 2010 reached over $920 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%)”–and increasing fast.[23] The previous decade had seen a 60% decrease in the number of people receiving welfare benefits,[24] beginning with the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, but spending did not decrease proportionally during that time period.

Impact of social programs

[hide]Average Incomes and Taxes
CBO Study 2009*[25]

Households
by Income
Market
Income1
Federal
Transfers 2
Income +
Transfers
Avg Federal
Tax rate %3
Federal
Taxes $4
% Federal
Taxes Pd. 5
#W6 % Net
Income7
0-20% 7,600 22,900 30,500 1.0 200 0.3 0.42 6.2
21-40% 30,100 14,800 45,000 6.8 2,900 3.8 0.90 11.1
41-60% 54,200 10,400 64,600 11.1 7,200 9.4 1.29 15.8
61-80% 86,400 7,100 93,500 15.1 14,100 18.3 1.70 21.6
80-100 218,800 6,000 224,800 23.2 51,900 67.9 1.97 47.2
Source: Congressional Budget Office Study[25]
1. Market Income = All wages, tips, incomes etc. as listed on Income tax form
2. Federal Transfers = all EITC, CTC, medicaid, food stamps (SNAP), Social Security, SSI etc. received
3. Average tax rate includes all Social Security, Medicare, income, business income, excise, etc. taxes.
4. Net Federal taxes paid in dollars
5. Percent of all federal taxes paid
6. #W = Average number of workers per household in this quintile
7. % Net Income = percentage of all national income each quintile receives after taxes and transfers.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, social programs significantly raise the standard of living for low-income Americans, particularly the elderly. The poorest 20% of American households earn a before-tax average of only $7,600 – less than half of the federal poverty line. Social programs increase those households’ before-tax income to $30,500. Social Security and Medicare are responsible for two-thirds of that increase.[25]

History

Public Health nursing made available through child welfare services, 1935.

Federal Social Welfare programs

Colonial legislatures and later State governments adopted legislation patterned after the English “poor” laws. Aid to veterans, often free grants of land, and pensions for widows and handicapped veterans, have been offered in all U.S. wars. Following World War I, provisions were made for a full-scale system of hospital and medical care benefits for veterans. By 1929, workers’ compensation laws were in effect in all but four States. These state laws made industry and businesses responsible for the costs of compensating workers or their survivors when the worker was injured or killed in connection with his or her job. Retirement programs for mainly State and local government paid teachers, police officers, and fire fighters—date back to the 19th century. All these social programs were far from universal and varied considerably from one state to another.

Prior to the Great Depression the United States had social programs that mostly centered around individual efforts, family efforts, church charities, business workers compensation, life insurance and sick leave programs along with some state tax supported social programs. The misery and poverty of the great depression threatened to overwhelm all these programs. The severe Depression of the 1930s made Federal action almost a necessity, as neither the States and the local communities, businesses and industries, nor private charities had the financial resources to cope with the growing need among the American people. Beginning in 1932, the Federal Government first made loans, then grants, to States to pay for direct relief and work relief. After that, special Federal emergency relief like the Civilian Conservation Corps and other public works programs were started. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s administration proposed to Congress federal social relief programs and a federally sponsored retirement program. Congress followed by the passage of the 37 page Social Security Act, signed into law August 14, 1935 and “effective” by 1939–just as World War II began. This program was expanded several times over the years.

War on Poverty and Great Society programs (1960s)

Further information: War on Poverty and Great Society

After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a person who was not elderly or disabled could receive need-based aid from the federal government.[26][dubious – discuss] Aid could include general welfare payments, health care through Medicaidfood stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits.[26]

In 1968, 4.1% of families were headed by a woman receiving welfare assistance; by 1980, the percentage increased to 10%.[26] In the 1970s, California was the U.S. state with the most generous welfare system.[27] Virtually all food stamp costs are paid by the federal government.[28] In 2008, 28.7 percent of the households headed by single women were considered poor.[29]

Welfare reform (1990s)

Before the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, welfare assistance was “once considered an open-ended right,” but welfare reform converted it “into a finite program built to provide short-term cash assistance and steer people quickly into jobs.”[30] Prior to reform, states were given “limitless”[30] money by the federal government, increasing per family on welfare, under the 60-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.[31] This gave states no incentive to direct welfare funds to the neediest recipients or to encourage individuals to go off welfare benefits (the state lost federal money when someone left the system).[32] Nationwide, one child in seven received AFDC funds,[31] which mostly went to single mothers.[28]

In 1996, under the Bill Clinton administrationCongress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which gave more control of the welfare system to the states though there are basic requirements the states need to meet with regards to welfare services. Still, most states offer basic assistance, such as health care, food assistance, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, and housing assistance. After reforms, which President Clinton said would “end welfare as we know it,”[28]amounts from the federal government were given out in a flat rate per state based on population.[32]

Each state must meet certain criteria to ensure recipients are being encouraged to work themselves out of welfare. The new program is called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).[31] It encourages states to require some sort of employment search in exchange for providing funds to individuals, and imposes a five-year lifetime limit on cash assistance.[28][24][31] The bill restricts welfare from most legal immigrants and increased financial assistance for child care.[24] The federal government also maintains an emergency $2 billion TANF fund to assist states that may have rising unemployment.[31]

President Bill Clinton signing welfare reform legislation.

Following these changes, millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall),[24] employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced.[28] A 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found that incomes in affected families rose by 35%.[24] The reforms were “widely applauded”[33] after “bitter protest.”[28] The Times called the reform “one of the few undisputed triumphs of American government in the past 20 years.”[34]

Critics of the reforms sometimes point out that the massive decrease of people on the welfare rolls during the 1990s wasn’t due to a rise in actual gainful employment in this population, but rather, was due almost exclusively to their offloading into workfare, giving them a different classification than classic welfare recipient. The late 1990s were also considered an unusually strong economic time, and critics voiced their concern about what would happen in an economic downturn.[28]

National Review editorialized that the Economic Stimulus Act of 2009 will reverse the welfare-to-work provisions that Bill Clinton signed in the 1990s, and will again base federal grants to states on the number of people signed up for welfare rather than at a flat rate.[32] One of the experts who worked on the 1996 bill said that the provisions would lead to the largest one-year increase in welfare spending in American history.[34] The House bill provides $4 billion to pay 80% of states’ welfare caseloads.[31] Although each state received $16.5 billion annually from the federal government as welfare rolls dropped, they spent the rest of the block grant on other types of assistance rather than saving it for worse economic times.[30]

[hide]Spending on largest Welfare Programs
Federal Spending 2003-2013*[35]

Federal
Programs
Spending
2003*
Spending
2013*
Medicaid Grants to States $201,389 $266,565
Food Stamps (SNAP) 61,717 82,603
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 40,027 55,123
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 38,315 50,544
Housing assistance 37,205 49,739
Child Nutrition Program (CHIP) 13,558 20,842
Support Payments to States, TANF 28,980 20,842
Feeding Programs (WIC & CSFP) 5,695 6,671
Low Income Home Energy Assistance 2,542 3,704
Notes:
* Spending in millions of dollars

Timeline

The following is a short timeline of welfare in the United States:[36]

1880s–1890s: Attempts were made to move poor people from work yards to poor houses if they were in search of relief funds.

1893–1894: Attempts were made at the first unemployment payments, but were unsuccessful due to the 1893–1894recession.

1932: The Great Depression had gotten worse and the first attempts to fund relief failed. The “Emergency Relief Act”, which gave local governments $300 million, was passed into law.

1933: In March 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed Congress to establish the Civilian Conservation Corps.

1935: The Social Security Act was passed on June 17, 1935. The bill included direct relief (cash, food stamps, etc.) and changes for unemployment insurance.

1940: Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) was established.

1964: Johnson’s War on Poverty is underway, and the Economic Opportunity Act was passed. Commonly known as “the Great Society

1996: Passed under Clinton, the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996″ becomes law.

2013: Affordable Care Act goes into effect with large increases in Medicaid and subsidized medical insurance premiums go into effect.

Types of social programs

Means tested Social Programs

[hide]79 Means Tested Programs in U.S. (2011)[37]

Programs Federal
Spending*
State
Spending*
Total
Spending*
TOTAL cost in (billions) (2011) $717 $210 $927
Social Security OASDI (2013) $785
Medicare(2013) $574
TOTAL all programs (billions) $2,287
============================ ======= ====== ======
CASH ASSISTANCE (millions)
SSI/Old Age Assistance 56,462.00 4,673.00 61,135.00
Earned Income Tax Credit
(refundable portion)
55,652.00 55,652.00
Refundable Child Credit 22,691.00 22,691.00
Make Work Pay Tax Credit
(Refundable Portion)
13,905.00 13,905.00
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF, old AFDC)
6,882.89 6,876.86 13,759.74
Foster Care Title IVE 4,456.00 3,921.28 8,377.28
Adoption Assistance Title IVE 2,362.00 1,316 3,678.00
General Assistance Cash 2,625.00 2,625.00
Refugee Assistance 167.86 167.86
General Assistance to Indians 115.00 115.00
Assets for Independence 24.00 24.00
CASH TOTAL 162,717.75 19,412.14 182,129.88
MEDICAL
Medicaid 274,964.00 157,600.00 432,564.00
SCHIP State Supplemental
Health Insurance Program
8,629.00 3,796.76 12,425.76
Medical General Assistance 6,965.90 6,965.90
Consolidated Health Center
/Community Health Centers
1,481.00 1,481.00
Maternal & Child Health 656.00 492.00 1,148.00
Medical Assistance to Refugees 167.86 167.86
Healthy Start 104.00 104.00
MEDICAL TOTAL 289,816.86 168,854.66 458,671.52
FOOD
Food Stamps, SNAP 77,637.00 6,987.33 84,624.33
School Lunch Program 10,321.00 10,321.00
WIC Women, Infant and
Children Food Program
6,787.00 6,787.00
School Breakfast 3,076.00 3,076.00
Child Care Food Program 2,732.00 2,732.00
Nutrition Program for the
Elderly, Nutrition Service Incentives
820.00 139.40 959.40
Summer Program 376.00 376.00
Commodity Supplemental Food Program 196.00 196.00
TEFAP Temporary
Emergency Food Program
247.00 247.00
Needy Families 60.00 60.00
Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program 23.00 23.00
Special Milk Program 13.00 13.00
FOOD TOTAL 102,288.00 7,126.73 109,414.73
HOUSING
Section 8 Housing (HUD) 28,435.00 28,435.00
Public Housing (HUD) 8,973.00 8,973.00
Low Income Housing
Tax Credit for Developers
6,150.00 6,150.00
Home Investment
Partnership Program (HUD)
2,853.00 2,853.00
Homeless Assistance
Grants (HUD)
2,280.00 2,280.00
State Housing Expenditures (from SWE) 2,085.00 2,085.00
Rural Housing Insurance
Fund (Agriculture)
1,689.00 1,689.00
Rural Housing
Service (Agriculture)
1,085.00 1,085.00
Housing for the Elderly (HUD) 934.00 934.00
Native American
Housing Block Grants (HUD)
854.00 854.00
Other Assisted Housing
Programs (HUD)
496.00 496.00
Housing for Persons
with Disabilities (HUD)
309.00 309.00
HOUSING TOTAL 54,058.00 2,085.00 56,143.00
ENERGY AND UTILITIES
LIHEAP Low Income Home
Energy Assistance
4,419.00 4,419.00
Universal Service Fund
Subsidized Low Income Phone Service
1,750.00 1,750.00
Weatherization 234.00 234.00
ENERGY AND UTILITIES TOTAL 6,403.00 6,403.00
EDUCATION
Pell Grants 41,458.00 41,458.00
Title One Grants to
Local Education Authorities
14,472.00 14,472.00
21st Century Learning Centers 1,157.00 1,157.00
Special Programs for
Disadvantaged (TRIO)
883.00 883.00
Supplemental Education
Opportunity Grants
740.00 740.00
Adult Basic Education Grants 607.00 607.00
Migrant Education 444.00 444.00
Gear-Up 303.00 303.00
LEAP Formerly State Student
Incentive Grant Program (SSIG)
1.00 1.00
Education for Homeless
Children and Youth
65.00 65.00
Even Start 4.00 4.00
Aid for Graduate and Professional
Study for Disadvantaged and Minorities
41.00 41.00
EDUCATION TOTAL 60,175.00 60,175.00
TRAINING
TANF Work Activities and Training 2,504.90 831.93 3,336.83
Job Corps 1,659.00 1,659.00
WIA Youth Opportunity Grants
Formerly Summer Youth Employment
946.00 946.00
Senior Community Service Employment 705.00 77.55 782.55
WIA Adult Employment and Training
formerly JTPA IIA Training for
Disadvantaged Adults & Youth
766.00 766.00
Food Stamp Employment
and Training Program
393.00 166.00 559.00
Foster Grandparents 104.00 10.40 114.40
YouthBuild 110.00 110.00
Migrant Training 85.00 85.00
Native American Training 52.00 52.00
TRAINING TOTAL 7,324.90 1,085.88 8,410.78
SERVICES
TANF Block Grant Services 5,385.12 4,838.13 10,223.25
Title XX Social Services Block Grant 1,787.00 1,787.00
Community Service Block Grant 678.00 678.00
Social Services for
Refugees Asylees and Humanitarian Cases
417.28 417.28
Safe and Stable Families 553.00 553.00
Title III Aging Americans Act 369.00 369.00
Legal Services Block Grant 406.00 406.00
Family Planning 298.00 298.00
Emergency Food and Shelter Program 48.00 48.00
Healthy Marriage and
Responsible Fatherhood Grants
50.00 150.00
Independent Living (Chafee
Foster Care Independence Program)
140.00 28.00 168.00
Independent Living Training Vouchers 45.00 45.00
Maternal, Infants and
Children Home Visitation
36.00 36.00
SERVICES TOTAL 10,411.40 4,866.13 15,277.53
CHILD CARE AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
Headstart 7,559.0 1,889.75 9,448.75
Childcare and
Child Development Block Grant
2,984 2,176.00 5,160.00
Childcare Entitlement to the States 3,100.00 3,100.00
TANF Block Grant Child Care 2,318.56 2,643.78 4,962.35
CHILD CARE & CHILD DEVELOPMENT TOTAL 15,961.56 6,709.53 22,671.10
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Community Development Block Grant
and Related Development Funds
7,445.00 7,445.00
Economic Development
Administration (Dept. of Commerce)
423.00 423.00
Appalachian Regional Development 68.00 68.00
Empowerment Zones,
Enterprise Communities Renewal
1.00 1.00
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TOTAL 7,937.00 7,937.00
TOTAL in millions (2011) $717,093.48 $210,140.07 $927,233.55
Social Security OASDI (2013) $785,700
Medicare(2013) $574,200
TOTAL in millions $2,287,133
Notes:
* Spending in millions of dollars
2.3 Trillion Dollar Total of Social Security, Medicare and Means Tested Welfare
is low since latest 2013 means tested data not available but 2013
“real” TOTAL will be higher

Social security

The Social Security program mainly refers to the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, and possibly the unemployment insurance program. Retirement Insurance Benefits (RIB), also known as Old-age Insurance Benefits, are a form of social insurance payments made by the U.S. Social Security Administration paid based upon the attainment old age (62 or older).

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD or SSDI) is a federal insurance program that providesincome supplements to people who are restricted in their ability to be employed because of a notable disability.

Unemployment insurance, also known as unemployment compensation, provides for money, from the United States and the state collected from employers, to workers who have become unemployed through no fault of their own. The unemployment benefits are run by each state with different state defined criteria for duration, percent of income paid, etc.. Nearly all require the recipient to document their search for employment to continue receiving benefits. Extensions of time for receiving benefits are sometimes offered for extensive work unemployment. These extra benefits are usually in the form of loans from the federal government that have to be repaid by each state.

General welfare

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged (65 or older), blind, or disabled.

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provides cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children.

Healthcare spending

Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. Health care facilities are largely owned and operated by the private sectorHealth insurance in the United States is now primarily provided by the government in the public sector, with 60–65% of healthcare provision and spending coming from programs such as Medicare, Medicaid,TRICARE, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the Veterans Health Administration.

Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over; to those who are under 65 and are permanently physically disabled or who have a congenital physical disability; or to those who meet other special criteria like the End Stage Renal Disease program (ESRD). Medicare in the United States somewhat resembles a single-payer health care system but is not. Before Medicare, only 51% of people aged 65 and older had health care coverage, and nearly 30% lived below the federal poverty level.

Medicaid is a health program for certain people and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the state and federal governments, and is managed by the states.[38] People served by Medicaid are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, including low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities. Poverty alone does not necessarily qualify someone for Medicaid. Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a program administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services that provides matching funds to states for health insurance to families with children.[39] The program was designed to cover uninsured children in families with incomes that are modest but too high to qualify for Medicaid.

The Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Services Block Grant (or ADMS Block Grant) is a federal assistance block grant given by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Education spending

University of California, Berkeley is one of the oldest public universities in the U.S.

Per capita spending on tertiary education is among the highest in the world[citation needed]. Public education is managed by individual states, municipalities and regional school districts. As in all developed countries, primary and secondary education is free, universal and mandatory. Parents do have the option of home-schooling their children, though some states, such as California (until a 2008 legal ruling overturned this requirement[40]), require parents to obtain teaching credentials before doing so. Experimental programs give lower-income parents the option of using government issued vouchers to send their kids to private rather than public schools in some states/regions.

As of 2007, more than 80% of all primary and secondary students were enrolled in public schools, including 75% of those from households with incomes in the top 5%. Public schools commonly offer after-school programs and the government subsidizes private after school programs, such as the Boys & Girls Club. While pre-school education is subsidized as well, through programs such as Head Start, many Americans still find themselves unable to take advantage of them. Some education critics have therefore proposed creating a comprehensive transfer system to make pre-school education universal, pointing out that the financial returns alone would compensate for the cost.

Tertiary education is not free, but is subsidized by individual states and the federal government. Some of the costs at public institutions is carried by the state.

The government also provides grants, scholarships and subsidized loans to most students. Those who do not qualify for any type of aid, can obtain a government guaranteed loan and tuition can often be deducted from the federal income tax. Despite subsidized attendance cost at public institutions and tax deductions, however, tuition costs have risen at three times the rate of median household income since 1982.[41] In fear that many future Americans might be excluded from tertiary education, progressive Democrats have proposed increasing financial aid and subsidizing an increased share of attendance costs. Some Democratic politicians and political groups have also proposed to make public tertiary education free of charge, i.e. subsidizing 100% of attendance cost.[citation needed]

Food assistance

In the U.S., financial assistance for food purchasing for low- and no-income people is provided through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program.[42] This federal aid program is administered by the Food and Nutrition Serviceof the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but benefits are distributed by the individual U.S. states. It is historically and commonly known as the Food Stamp Program, though all legal references to “stamp” and “coupon” have been replaced by “EBT” and “card,” referring to the refillable, plastic Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards that replaced the paper “food stamp” coupons. To be eligible for SNAP benefits, the recipients must have incomes below 130 percent of the poverty line, and also own few assets.[43] Since the economic downturn began in 2008, the use of food stamps has increased.[43]

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is a child nutrition program for healthcare and nutrition of low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under the age of five. The eligibility requirement is a family income below 185% of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines, but if a person participates in other benefit programs, or has family members who participate in SNAP, Medicaid, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, they automatically meet the eligibility requirements.

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) is a type of United States Federal assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to states in order to provide a daily subsidized food service for an estimated 3.2 million children and 112,000 elderly or mentally or physically impaired adults[44] in non-residential, day-care settings.[45]

Public housing

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 created Section 8 housing, the payment of rent assistance to private landlords on behalf of low-income households.

See also

General:

References

  1. Jump up to:a b Krugman, P. (2007). The Conscience of a Liberal. New York: W. W. Norton
  2. Jump up^ Feldstein, M. (2005). Rethinking social insurance. American Economic Review, 95(1), pp. 1–24.
  3. Jump up^ Means tested programs [1] accessed 19 Nov 2013
  4. Jump up^ Social spending after the crisis. OECD. (Social spending in a historical perspective, Pg. 5). Retrieved: 26 December 2012.
  5. Jump up^ 2013 Status Of The Social Security And Medicare Programs [2] accessed 16 Oct 2013
  6. Jump up^ White house Historical tables. Table 1 [3] accessed 16 Oct 2013
  7. Jump up^ OECD database on social expenditures[4] accessed 9 Dec 2013
  8. Jump up^ Characteristics if Households by Quintile 2010 [5] accessed 19 Nov 2013
  9. Jump up^ Esping-Andersen, G. (1991). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  10. Jump up^ by G. William Domhoff. “Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power”. Sociology.ucsc.edu. Retrieved 2012-08-14.
  11. Jump up^ Delaney, Arthur. “Food Stamp Cuts Might Come With Drug Testing”. Huffington Post.
  12. Jump up^ Goetzl, Celia. “Government Mandated Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients: Special Need or Unconstitutional Condition?”. Retrieved October 24, 2013.
  13. Jump up^ Cohen, Robin. “Drug Testing of Public Assistance Recipients”. OLR Research Report. Retrieved October 24, 2013.
  14. Jump up^ 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence Figure TANF 2.
  15. Jump up to:a b Gilens, Martin (1996). “Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60, no. 4, pp. 515–541.
  16. Jump up^ Gilens, Martin (1996). “Race and Poverty in America: Public Misperceptions and the American News Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60, no. 4, p. 516
  17. Jump up^ “Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients – Fiscal Year 2010“. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
  18. Jump up^ “Demographic And Financial Characteristics Of Families Receiving Assistance“. United States Department of Health and Human Services.
  19. Jump up^ Demographics of U.S. population Table 1[6] accessed 26 Dec 2013
  20. Jump up^ 79 Means tested welfare programs in the United States[7] accessed 26 Dec 2013
  21. Jump up^ Alber, J. (1988). Is There a Crisis of the Welfare State? Cross-National Evidence from Europe, North America, and Japan. European Sociological Review, 4(3), 181–207.
  22. Jump up^ Hacker, J. S. (2002). The Divided Welfare State. New York: Cambridge University Press, USA.
  23. Jump up^ Ferrara, Peter (2011-04-22). “America’s Ever Expanding Welfare Empire”Forbes. Retrieved 2012-04-10.
  24. Jump up to:a b c d e Goodman, Peter S. (2008-04-11). “From Welfare Shift in ’96, a Reminder for Clinton”The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
  25. Jump up to:a b c Average Incomes and Taxes 2009 [8] accessed 19 Nov 2013
  26. Jump up to:a b c Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The ’70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 72. ISBN 0-465-04195-7.
  27. Jump up^ Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The ’70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 325.ISBN 0-465-04195-7.
  28. Jump up to:a b c d e f g Deparle, Jason (2009-02-02). “Welfare Aid Isn’t Growing as Economy Drops Off”The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
  29. Jump up^ NPC.umich.edu
  30. Jump up to:a b c “Welfare Rolls See First Climb in Years”The Washington Post. 2008-12-17. Retrieved 2009-02-13.
  31. Jump up to:a b c d e f “Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending”.Heritage Foundation. 2009-02-11. Retrieved 2009-02-12.
  32. Jump up to:a b c “Ending Welfare Reform as We Knew It”The National Review. 2009-02-12. Retrieved 2009-02-12.[dead link]
  33. Jump up^ “Change for the Worse”New York Post. 2009-01-30. Retrieved 2009-02-12.[dead link]
  34. Jump up to:a b AllenMills, Tony (2009-02-15). “Obama warned over ‘welfare spendathon’”The Times(London). Retrieved 2009-02-15.
  35. Jump up^ Spending on largest Welfare Programs in U.S. [9] accessed 19 Nov 2013
  36. Jump up^ “Welfare Reform History Timeline – 1900s to current United States.” SearchBeat. Web. 12 Oct. 2009. <http://society.searchbeat.com/welfare9.htm>.
  37. Jump up^ Means Tested Programs in U.S. [10] accessed 19 Nov 2013
  38. Jump up^ Medicaid General Information from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . (CMS) website
  39. Jump up^ Sultz, H., & Young, K. Health Care USA Understanding its Organization and Delivery pg. 257
  40. Jump up^ Jonathan L. v. Superior Court, 165 Cal.App.4th 1074 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2008). Text of opinion
  41. Jump up^ Lewin, Tamar. “NYT on increase in tuition”The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-15.
  42. Jump up^ “Nutrition Assistance Program Home Page”, U.S. Department of Agriculture (official website), March 3, 2011 (last revised). Accessed March 4, 2011.
  43. Jump up to:a b Erik Eckholm (March 31, 2008). “Food stamp use in U.S. at record pace as jobs vanish”The New York Times. Retrieved January 30, 2012.
  44. Jump up^ Why CACFP Is Important, Child and Adult Care Food Program Homepage, Food and Nutrition Service, US Department of Agriculture
  45. Jump up^ Child and Adult Care Food Program (CFDA 10.558);OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement; Part 4: Agency Program Requirements: Department of Housing and Urban Development, pg. 4-10.558-1

Further reading

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

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 207, February 10, 2014, Story 2: The Pronk Pops Show 207, February 10, 2014, Story 1: Snowden Used Automated Web Crawler To Scrap Data From Over 1.7 Million Restricted National Security Agency Files — Videos

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

Senator Session Warns Republicans — Immigration Bill is Bad Politics, Bad Policy and Bad Economics — Videos

Posted on January 30, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Food, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, IRS, Language, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Reviews, Security, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 201: January 201, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 200: January 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 199: January 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 198: January 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 197: January 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 196: January 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

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 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

 Senator Session Warns Republicans — Immigration Bill is Bad Politics, Bad Policy and Bad Economics — Videos

Sen Sessions: Immigration Increases Income Inequality – The Real Story W Gretchen Carlson

Jeff Sessions Elite Group With Special Agendas Behind Legislation That Impacts All America

Jeff Session Mocks Gang Of Eight and Special Interest Forces Immigration Debate

Jeff Sessions: ‘Elite Group With Special Agendas’ Behind Legislation That Impacts All Amer

The entire memo is here and worth a read:

Sessions Warns House GOP: Immigration Bill Is Bad Politics, Bad Policy

Offers a better way forward.

By DANIEL HALPER

Yesterday afternoon, before President Obama’s State of the Union Address, Senator Jeff Sessions’ staff hand-delivered to each Republican member of the House an important memo on the so-called immigration reform bill being debated on Capital Hill. The 3-page document, written by Sessions, argues that pushing the current immigration legislation forward is bad politics, bad policy, and that there’s a better way for Republicans.

Jeff Sessions

Sessions believes House Republicans are at risk of falling into President Obama’s trap. “[A]ccording to news reports, House Republican leaders are instead turning 2014 into a headlong rush towards Gang-of-Eight style ‘immigration reform,’” writes Sessions. “They are reportedly drafting an immigration plan that is uncomfortably similar to a ‘piecemeal’ repackaging of the disastrous Senate plan—and even privately negotiating a final package with Democrat activists before consulting with their own members.”

It’s bad politics, Sessions writes. “In the rush to pass an immigration bill, there has been a near absence of any serious thought about the conditions facing American workers. The last 40 years has been a period of record immigration to the U.S., with the last 10 years seeing more new arrivals than any prior 10- year period in history. This trend has coincided with wage stagnation, enormous growth in welfare programs, and a shrinking workforce participation rate. A sensible, conservative approach would focus on lifting those living here today, both immigrant and native-born, out of poverty and into the middle class—before doubling or tripling the level of immigration into the U.S.

A sensible immigration policy would also listen to the opinion of the American people. Not the opinions of the paid-for consultants trotted out with their agenda-driven polls to GOP member meetings—but the actual, honest opinion of the people who sent us here. There is a reason why none of the corporate-funded ads for amnesty breathe a word about doubling immigration levels. According to Rasmussen Reports, working and middle class Americans strongly oppose large expansions of our already generous immigration system. Those earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase by an overwhelming 3-1 margin.

And bad policy, the senator from Alabama details. “Coordinating with a small group of the nation’s most powerful special interests, last year President Obama and Senate Democrats forced through an immigration bill which can only be described as a hammer blow to the American middle class. Not only would it grant work permits to millions of illegal immigrants at a time of record joblessness, it would also double the annual flow of new immigrant workers and provide green cards to more than 30 million permanent residents over the next decade. These new workers, mostly lesser-skilled, will compete for jobs in every sector, industry, and occupation in the U.S. economy.”

He adds, “House Republicans, in crafting immigration principles, should reply to the President’s immigration campaign with a simple message: our focus is to help unemployed Americans get back to work—not to grant amnesty or to answer the whims of immigration activists and CEOs. In turn, that message could be joined with a detailed and unifying policy agenda for accomplishing that moral and social objective.”

As for Sessions’ “Better Agenda,” he lays it out very precisely:

The GOP’s 2014 agenda should not be to assist the President in passing his immigration plan. Rather, it should be a consuming focus on restoring hope and opportunity to millions of discouraged workers. The GOP’s 2014 agenda should be a national effort—announced proudly and boldly—to reduce the welfare rolls and get America back to work, including:

  •  More American energy that creates good-paying jobs right here in the U.S.
  •  A more competitive tax and regulatory code that allows U.S. businesses and workers tocompete on a level global playing field
  •  A trade policy that increases U.S. exports and expands domestic manufacturing
  •  An immigration policy that serves the interests of the American people
  •  Converting the welfare office into a job training center
  •  Making government leaner and more accountable to U.S. taxpayers
  •  Restoring economic confidence by continuing our effort to balance the federal budget

An all-out immigration push is inimical to these goals.

Rep. Ryan: GOP Looking at Legal Status, Chance for Citizenship

Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), a leading GOP advocate for tackling immigration, confirmed Wednesday that Republicans are looking to give illegal immigrants legal status right away, with the chance for a green card—and citizenship—down the line.

Officials familiar with the planning had said as much before. But Mr. Ryan is the first member of the GOP leadership to lay out the Republican vision publicly.

At issue is how to handle more than 11 million people already in the U.S. illegally. Most House Republicans oppose the Senate approach, whereby all qualified illegal immigrants would first win legal status, then have the chance to apply for legal permanent residence (also known as a green card), and then for citizenship. House Republicans call that a “special path to citizenship” that is unavailable to those who followed the law.

House Republicans have been talking since last summer about a different approach, and Mr. Ryan laid it out on Wednesday in an interview with MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown.”

First, illegal immigrants would be offered a “probationary” status, allowing them to work while the government tightened border security and interior enforcement. Officials have explained that this would allow people to work legally while they wait for permanent legal status. (Officials have explained that this group could revert to illegal status if enforcement benchmarks are not met.)

Mr. Ryan said it would make sure that the Obama administration went ahead with the enforcement provisions. “We want to make sure that we write a law that he can’t avoid,” Mr. Ryan said.

After that, they would be eligible for a “regular work permit,” he said.

“If those things are met, you satisfy the terms of your probation, you’re not on welfare, you pay a fine, you learn English and civics, and the border’s been secured and interior enforcement independently verified, then you can get a regular work permit,” he said.

At that point, this group could apply for green cards using the same system available to any newcomer.

“That’s the kind of process we envision,” he said. “Which is not a special pathway to citizenship and it’s not going to automatically in any way give an undocumented immigrant citizenship.”

Some Democrats and immigration advocates have signaled that they could accept this approach, depending on the details. It’s unclear whether enough Republicans would feel the same. The idea will get its first full airing on Thursday afternoon, when House Republicans are scheduled to discuss immigration at their retreat in Cambridge, Md.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/01/29/rep-ryan-gop-looking-at-legal-status-chance-for-citizenship/

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

The Stupid Republican Party Leadership About To Commit Political Suicide By Supporting Legal Status For 40 Million Plus Illegal Aliens — The Party Will Split and Their Base Will Stay Home On Election Day 4 November 2014 — Videos

Posted on January 28, 2014. Filed under: American History, Business, College, Communications, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Security, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 199: January 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 198: January 27, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 197: January 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 196: January 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

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 194-199

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

Story 1: The Stupid Republican Party Leadership About To Commit Political Suicide By Supporting Legal Status For 40 Million Plus Illegal Aliens — The Party Will Split and Their Base Will Stay Home On Election Day 4 November 2014 — Videos

Immigration Reform Bill May Offer Protections For Illegal Aliens Convicted Of Certain Crimes!

John Boehner’s Sad Excuses On Immigration Reform

Backing in G.O.P. for Legal Status for Immigrants

The House Republican leadership’s broad framework for overhauling the nation’s immigration laws will call this week for a path to legal status — but not citizenship — for many of the 11 million adult immigrants who are in the country illegally, according to aides who have seen the party’s statement of principles. For immigrants brought to the United States illegally as young children, the Republicans would offer a path to citizenship.

But even before the document is unveiled later, some of the party’s leading strategists and conservative voices are urging that the immigration push be abandoned, or delayed until next year, to avoid an internal party rupture before the midterm elections.

“It’s one of the few things that could actually disrupt what looks like a strong Republican year,” said William Kristol, editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, calling an immigration push “a recipe for disaster.”

At the same time, Republicans have seen their support from Latinos plummet precisely because of their stance on immigration, and the “statement of principles,” barely more than a page, is intended to try to reverse that trajectory.

The statement of principles criticizes the American higher education system for educating some of the world’s best and brightest students only to lose them to their home countries because they cannot obtain green cards; insists that Republicans demand that current immigration laws be enforced before illegal immigrants are granted legal status; and mentions that some kind of triggers must be included in an immigration overhaul to ensure that borders are secured first, said Republican officials who have seen the principles.

With concern already brewing among conservatives who call any form of legal status “amnesty,” the document has the feel more of an attempt to test the waters than a blueprint for action. House Republican leaders will circulate it at a three-day retreat for their members that begins Wednesday on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Several pro-immigration organizations that have been briefed on the guidelines say they are not intended to serve as a conservative starting point for future negotiations, but as a gauge of how far to the left House Republicans are willing to move.

The principles say that Republicans do not support a “special path to citizenship,” but make an exception for the “Dreamers,” the immigrants brought into the country illegally as children, quoting a 2013 speech by Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader. “One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents,” Mr. Cantor said at the time. “It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children and who know no other home.”

Even ardent proponents of an immigration-law overhaul are, at best, cautiously optimistic. In June, a broad immigration overhaul — with a 13-year path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants now in the country illegally, and stricter border security provisions that would have to be in place before the immigrants could gain legal status — passed the Senate with bipartisan support. But that legislation has largely stalled in the Republican-controlled House, where Mr. Boehner has rejected any negotiations with the Senate over its comprehensive bill.

“This is obviously a long, hard road,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat, who helped negotiate the Senate bill, “but I think since August, the number on the other side vehemently opposed has stayed the same, the number who think it should go forward has grown, and numbers in the wide middle are less opposed than they used to be. But that doesn’t guarantee an outcome one way or another.”

Republican Party leaders, backed strongly by business groups, have said an overhaul is critical if they are to repair their political position with Latino and other immigrant voters.

Barry Jackson, Mr. Boehner’s former chief of staff, is consulting for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which supports an overhaul that expands high-technology visas and guest worker programs.

But immigration is less of an issue during midterm elections, when immigrants are not as likely to vote and House members in safe districts are insulated somewhat from the wrath of more moderate swing voters. Often the biggest threats to Republicans are primary challenges from more conservative candidates who say that changing the immigration status of someone who is in the country illegally amounts to amnesty for a lawbreaker.

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

Rand Paul Interview By Peter Robinson and Others — Videos

Posted on July 27, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, IRS, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

rand_paul

Just gave up on Rand Paul as future President of the United States.

Enforce the existing immigration laws and deport illegal aliens now.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are selling out the American people.

Get a clue Senator, there are over 25 million American citizens looking for a full-time job.

The number of illegal aliens is not 11 million but over 40 million.

What we have now is not de facto amnesty but the unwillingness to enforce existing immigration law by both the Democratic and Republican parties.

More and more American citizens are leaving both political parties over this issue and out of control government spending.

The number of independents is growing while the number of Democrats and Republicans is declining.

Pass comprehensive immigration reform and the Democratic Party will get 75% of the formerly illegal alien vote.

The FairTax is much better than a flat income tax that does not require the huge IRS to collect.

Looks like Ted Cruz will be getting my vote.

I am a pro-life, limited government classical liberal and support the Tea Party and want balanced budgets now and budgeting to last years tax collections and eliminating baseline budgeting.

While I wanted to support Senator Paul for President, I will not be doing so now.

I have been a libertarian conservative that used to vote for Republicans, but no longer.

Both the Democratic and Republican  parties have been captured by big interventionist government statists (BIGS).

Time to start another political party that puts the American citizens first and not illegal aliens.

The Republican Party has become the party of big interventionist government statists.

Start another political party or stay home.

Presidents Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower enforced immigration law.

It is the responsibility of the Federal government under the Constitution to protect the states from invasions.

If millions of illegal aliens are over staying their visas and entering the U.S. illegally, this is an invasion.

Enforce existing immigration laws by removing illegal aliens from their place of employment and deporting them.

Stop encouraging and rewarding illegal behavior.

Otherwise you will keep attracting more and more illegal aliens.

Senator Rand Paul discusses individualism, freedom, and national security on Uncommon Knowledge

Senator Rand Paul “I Say To ALL Americans Enough’s ENOUGH! We’re NOT Gonna Take It Anymore!”

Pat Buchanan brings up operation Wet Back with open border liberal

Operation Wetback 1954

Rand Paul slams Obama s plans for Syria involvement

FULL Sen. Rand Paul Interview: President Obama Loses Moral Authority to Lead the Nation

Rand Paul: Voters ready for Libertarian Republican in 2016

Rand Paul (R KY) Interview On Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace

Rand Paul Discuses Civil Liberties On FreedomWorks on Tap – 7/17/2013

Sen Rand Paul Interviewed By Bill Bennett, July 25, 2013

Sen. Rand Paul Speaks at Veterans of Foreign Wars 144th National Convention- July 22, 2013

Rand Paul Interview Senator Are You Saying The General And Other Officials Are Liars

Rand Paul on Immigration Reform – We already have de facto amnesty for 11 Million

Rand Paul Interview: Rush Limbaugh (7 March 2013)

Rand Paul extended interview on The Sean Hannity Show 3/19/13

Laura Ingraham: Neoconservative view has clearly hurt the GOP (Rand Paul interview 3/08/13)

Tom Woods Interviews Rand Paul on the Budget, Ron Paul, and More

Rand Paul At Howard.  Full Speech and Q & A

 

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

NSA’s PRISM Political Payoff: 40 Million Plus Foreigners Are In USA As Illegal Aliens! — 75% Plus Lean Towards Democratic Party — Pathway To One Party Rule By 2025 If Senate Bill Becomes Law Giving Illegal Aliens Legal Status — 25 Million American Citizens Looking For Full Time Jobs! — Videos

Posted on June 13, 2013. Filed under: Airplanes, American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, IRS, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Programming, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Terrorism, Transportation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

800px-US-border-notice

“This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”

~Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy, D-Mass, regarding an amnesty bill passed in 1986

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010

1984 – Ronald Reagan on Amnesty 

In this brief video-clip from the 1984 presidential debates Ronald Reagan discusses immigration, amnesty and the failure of the first attempt to pass the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Reform and Control Act. [When the act finally passed (1986) did we get reform? Did we get control?]

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

Illegal Alien

A foreigner who has either entered a country illegally (e.g. without inspection or proper documents) or who has violated the terms of legal admission to the country (e.g. by overstaying the duration of a tourist or student visa).

8 USC § 1101 – Definitions

(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US?  – Walsh – 1 

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1.

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US?  – Walsh – 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.

Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts.  The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.

US immigration system moves towards reform

Sen. Ted Cruz Speaks on the Senate Floor in Opposition to the Gang of Eight’s Immigration Bill

Glenn Beck to Release Name of 70 House Republicans for Showdown w John Boehner on Amnesty Bill

Glenn Beck: Interview with House Republicans Planning Revolt On Immigration Bill

Glenn Beck Program Immigration and Equal Opportunity 06132013

prism-slide-1

prism-slide-2

prism-slide-4

prism

new prism slide

U.S. and World Population Clock

http://www.census.gov/popclock/

316 Million and Counting

Less 40 Million Plus Foreigners (Illegal Aliens) and Rapidly Growing

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

US Senate Votes to Consider Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

News Wrap: Senate Votes to Begin Immigration Reform Debate

Border Insecurity Citizens Track Surge Of Illegal Immigration! – Wake Up America!!

Chris Pyle, Whistleblower on CIA Domestic Spying in 70s, Says Be Wary of Attacks on NSA’s Critics

NSA Chief Grilled at Senate Hearing on Surveillance Programs

He told you so: Bill Binney talks NSA leaks

“In the wake of multiple leaks regarding the data mining programs PRISM and Boundless Informant, whistleblowers are coming out in droves to talk about the unprecedented government surveillance on the American public. RT Correspondent Meghan Lopez had a chance to sit down with NSA whistleblower William Binney to talk about the latest developments coming out of the NSA case. Binney is a 32 year veteran of the NSA, where he helped design a top secret program he says helps collect data on foreign enemies. He is regarded as one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in NSA history. He became an NSA whistleblower in 2002 when he realized the program he helped create to spy no foreign enemies was being used on Americans.”

A Massive Surveillance State   Glenn Greenwald Exposes Covert NSA Program Collecting Calls, Emails

What You Should Know About The New NSA Utah Data Center

Glenn Greenwald Vs Bush Press Sec. Ari Fleischer Over NSA’s PRISM

NSA Whistleblowers: “All U.S.Citizens” Targeted By Surveillance Program, Not Just Verizon Customers

Experts Say NSA Leak Damage Could be Significant

“SPY AND DENY” IS THE NEW NORMAL IN USA!

Era of Online Sharing Offers ‘Big Data,’ Privacy Trade-Offs

Rep King Drops Bombshell; Sen Lee To Talk Claim Chief Justice Roberts Blackmailed

How PRISM Easily Gives Your Private Data Over to Big Brother

“The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.

The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called Prism, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.”*

We’ve been assured by the president that the NSA’s PRISM program won’t affect “ordinary” U.S. citizens, but what is the criteria for deciding who gets their data mined and monitored? Cenk Uygur, Ben Mankiewicz, and John Iadarola (Host, TYT University) discuss the egregious reach of the Obama administration’s secret mass surveillance program.

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: ‘I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things’

Microtargeting

RNC/DNC Collecting Your Info En Masse

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS DESTROYING AMERICA

The Dangers of Unlimited Legal & Illegal Immigration

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010

THEY COME TO AMERICA II. The Cost of Amnesty

They Come to America (Trailer 2)

2012: They Come to America. The Cost of Illegal Immigration.

Schumer Refuses To Estimate Future Immigration Flow Under Gang Of Eight Proposal

Obama To Stop Deporting Young Illegal Immigrants

“The Obama administration will stop deporting young illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and who do not pose a security threat, senior administration officials said this morning, a move that could prove important in a presidential campaign that will turn in part on who wins over Latino voters.
Effective immediately, young immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally before they turned 16 will be allowed to apply for work permits as long as they have no criminal history and meet other criteria, officials said.

Reality Check: President Obama’s Immigration Reform Rings Hollow

(Part I) A Day in the Life of an Arizona Rancher: Fences, Illegal Aliens, and One Man’s Watchtower

(Part II) A Day in the Life of an Arizona Rancher: Fences, Illegal Aliens, and One Man’s Watchtower

Background Articles and Videos

Ap’s “Illegal Immigrant” Stand – Leno: Illegal Immigrants That is Out, Now “Undocumented Democrats”

Illegal immigration to the United States – Wiki Article

Illegal immigration to the United States is the act of foreign nationals entering the United States, without government permission and in violation of United States nationality law, or staying beyond the termination date of a visa, also in violation of the law.

The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007. Other estimates range from 7 to 20 million. According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 56% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 22% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America; 13% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe and Canada; and 3% were from Africa and the rest of the world.

Profile and demographics

Illegal immigrants continue to outpace the number of legal immigrants —a trend that’s held steady since the 1990s. While the majority of illegal immigrants continue to concentrate in places with existing large Hispanic communities, increasingly illegals are settling throughout the rest of the country.

An estimated 14 million people live in families in which the head of household or the spouse is in the United States illegaly . The number of illegal immigrants arriving in recent years tend to be better educated than those who have been in the country a decade or more. A quarter of all immigrants who have arrived in recent years have at least some college education. Nonetheless, illegal immigrants as a group tend to be less educated than other sections of the U.S. population: 49 percent haven’t completed high school, compared with 9 percent of native-born Americans and 25 percent of legal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants work in many sectors of the U.S. economy. According to National Public Radio in 2005, about 3 percent work in agriculture; 33 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (16 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (17 percent). According to USA Today in 2006, about 4 percent work in farming; 21 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (19 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (15 percent), with 12% in sales, 10% in management, and 8% in transportation. Illegal immigrants have lower incomes than both legal immigrants and native-born Americans, but earnings do increase somewhat the longer an individual is in the country.

A percentage of illegal immigrants do not remain indefinitely but do return to their country of origin; they are often referred to as “sojourners: they come to the United States for several years but eventually return to their home country.”

Breakdown by state

As of 2006, the following data table shows a spread of distribution of locations where illegal immigrants reside by state.

Number of illegal immigrants

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), different estimates of the total number of illegal immigrants vary depending on how the term is defined. There are also questions about data reliability.

The GAO has stated that “it seems clear that the population of undocumented foreign-born persons is large and has increased rapidly.” On April 26, 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center (PHC) estimated that in March 2005 the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals. This number was derived by a statistical method known as the “residual method.” According to the General Accounting office the residual estimation (1) starts with a census count or survey estimate of the number of foreign-born residents who have not become U.S. citizens and (2) subtracts out estimated numbers of legally present individuals in various categories, based on administrative data and assumptions (because censuses and surveys do not ask about legal status). The remainder, or residual, represents an indirect estimate of

Senate Dismisses Any Pretense of Enforcement in the Gang of Eight Immigration Bill

Rubio Reneges on Promise to Fix Flaws in the Bill

(Washington, D.C. June 13, 2013) In the first important vote on amendments to the Gang of Eight immigration bill, S.744, the United States Senate quickly dismissed any pretense that they intend to deliver on promises of future immigration enforcement, declared the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). By a 57-43 vote, the Senate tabled an amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that would have required that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) demonstrate effective control of U.S. borders for six months before illegal aliens could gain amnesty.

“Today’s vote makes it clear that a majority of senators place a higher priority on granting amnesty to illegal aliens than they do on fulfilling their promises to the American people that our borders will be secured and that our immigration laws will be enforced,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “Tellingly, Gang of Eight member Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who has repeatedly vowed to oppose the bill if border enforcement provisions are not strengthened, was among the majority of senators who voted to kill the Grassley amendment.”

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) described the amendment as a “poison pill” and used a parliamentary procedure to shut off debate on it. “In the Alice in Wonderland world of the United States Senate, securing our borders and fulfilling promises to the American people, before rewarding illegal aliens, is considered a ‘poison pill,’” observed Stein.

“The vote also undermines whatever credibility Sen. Rubio had left as an honest broker on behalf of the interests of the American people. The fix is in and Rubio is off the fence. The Gang of Eight and the Senate leadership will employ any tactic to prevent amendments that might upset special interest constituencies from supporting the bill,” Stein continued.

“Under this bill there will be no border security. There will be no immigration enforcement. The Gang of Eight bill is about delivering amnesty to illegal aliens and cheap labor to business interests, and nothing else,” Stein concluded.

http://www.fairus.org/news/senate-dismisses-any-pretense-of-enforcement-in-the-gang-of-eight-immigration-bill

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Amnesty Before Enforcement — Congressional Gangsters’ Comprehensive Immigration “Reform” Bill Targets American Citizens For Unemployment — American Citizens Want All Illegal Aliens Deported Not Rewarded With Legal Status — Target The Amnesty Illegal Alien Gangsters For Defeat — Videos

No Such Agency — NSA — National Security Agency — Threat To The Liberty and Privacy of The American People — None Of Their Damn Business — Still Trust The Federal Government? — Videos

Big Brother Barack Targets All The American People As Enemies of The State and Democratic Party — National Security Agency’s PRISM Is The Secret Security Surveillance State (S4) Means of Invading Privacy and Limiting Liberty — Outrageous Overreach — Videos

U.S. Hacking China and Hong Kong — Videos

Digital Campaigns Using Microtargeting and Data Mining To Target Voters — Videos

Sasha Issenberg — The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns — Videos

Related Posts on Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 0: Marxist-Leninists Go To The Wall With Holder — The Man Who Knows Where The Bodies Are Buried Enjoys President Obama’s Full Confidence Says Political Fixer Valerie Jarrett — Wall Street Wants Holder To Hang On — American People Say Hit The Road Jack — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013: Segment 1: U.S. Real Gross Domestic Product Growth Still Stagnating At 2.4% in First Quarter of 2013 As Institute for Supply Management Factory Index Sinks to 49.0 Lowest Since June 2009 — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 2: Federal Advisory Council (FAC) May 17, 2013 Report — No Exit To A Bridge Over Troubled Waters — Keyboarding Money — We’re screwed! — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 3: Official Unemployment Rate Rises To 7.6% with 11.8 Million Americans Unemployed and Only 175,000 Jobs Created in May — Videos

Pronk Pops Show 112, June 7, 2013, Segment 4: No Such Agency — NSA — National Security Agency — Threat To The Liberty and Privacy of The American People — None Of Their Damn Business — Still Trust The Federal Government? — Videos

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

Santa Obama’s $9 Minimum Wage: Good Propaganda, Bad Economics–Videos

Posted on February 19, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Inflation, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Talk Radio, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Santa Obama’s $9 minimum wage: good propaganda, bad economics

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

Presidential economic policies like the proverbial “road to hell” are often paved with good intentions.

In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said:

“Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong. Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour. This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets.”

Why not increase the minimum wage to $18 per hour and win America’s war on poverty?

What are the economic consequences or impact of a $9 minimum wage on young high school and college students seeking employment? A decidedly negative impact if economic history is any guide.

The large increase in teenage unemployment is partly driven by the increase in the minimum wage. When the minimum wage rate was increased in July 2008 from $5.85 to $6.55 there was an upward spike in the teenage unemployment rate to greater than 20 percent. When the minimum wage was again increased in July 2009 from $6.55 to its current rate of $7.25, there was another upward spike in the teenage unemployment rate to greater than 25 percent. This rising trend of upward spikes in teenage unemployment rates after an increase in the minimum wage is reflected in the following chart.

Unemployment rate or percent of 16-19 years from 1948 to present

             unemployment_rate_1948_present_16_19-years_edited           

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor

David Neumark, professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine and William L. Wascher, deputy director in the Division of Research and Statistics at the Federal Reserve Board, in their book, “Minimum Wages,” provide a comprehensive review of the evidence on the economic effects of minimum wage laws. They concluded that such laws reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers, tend to reduce their earnings and are not very effective in reducing poverty.

If Congress passes an increase in the minimum wage to $9 as proposed by Obama, young, inexperienced, low-skill workers, especially blacks and Hispanics, will again be hurt for they will not be hired by businesses who cannot afford to pay them the higher mandated minimum wage. This will be reflected in yet another spike upward in the teenage unemployment rate that might exceed 30 percent.

Furthermore, young American citizens, especially blacks and Hispanics, will face stiff competition from the more than 11 million illegal aliens who predominantly seek low-skilled jobs. Obama and progressives in both the Democratic and Republican parties want to grant these illegal aliens immediate legal status to work in the U.S.

Obama is repeating the past economic policy mistakes of progressive presidents from both political parties such as Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and the Bushes in mandating higher than free market wage rates. These well-intentioned but massive government interventionist economic policies lead to prolonged depressions and recessions with high unemployment rates, especially for young, inexperienced, low skilled and minority workers.

Thirty years ago the black economist, Walter E. Williams, explored the effects of federal and state government intervention into the economy, including minimum wage laws, in the PBS documentary, Good Intentions, based upon his 1982 book, “The State Against Blacks.” Those favoring a rise in the federal minimum wage would be well advised to view this video together with “Milton Friedman on the Minimum Wage” on YouTube before advocating an increase in the minimum wage.

For young American citizens an entry-level job paying a lower competitive market wage rate is preferable to no job at a higher government mandated minimum wage.

Good intentions are not enough. Results measured in jobs created count.

Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Fridays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com/

Digital Age-Why is Coolidge the Forgotten President?-Amity Shlaes

Sumner’s Explanation of The Forgotten Man – Revised for the 21st Century

Sumner’s Explanation of The Forgotten Man – Revised for the 21st
Century

By Joshua Lyons 9/25/09

As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong,  from which X is suffering, A talks it over  with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed – with the praise of Y – to remedy  the evil and help X.

Their law always proposes to determine  what C shall do for X or, in the better case,  what A, B and C shall do for  X.

As for A and B, who get a  law to make themselves do for X what they are willing to do for  him, we have nothing to say except that they might better have done it without  any law, but C is forced to comply with the new law.

All this  is done while Y looks on with glee and proclaims that  A and B are so good for helping poor  X.

A is the  politician
B is the humanitarian, special interest, do-gooder, reformer, social speculator, etc.
C is The Forgotten Man (i.e. you, me, us)
X is the downtrodden, the oppressed, the little guy, the misunderstood, etc.
Y is the Mainstream Media

In other words…
As soon as THE POLITICIAN observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which THE DOWNTRODDEN is suffering, THE POLITICIAN talks it over with THE HUMANITARIAN, and THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN then propose to get a law passed – with the praise of THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA – to remedy the evil and help THE DOWNTRODDEN.

Their law always proposes to determine what THE FORGOTTEN MAN shall do for THE DOWNTRODDEN or, in the
better case, what THE POLITICIAN, THE HUMANITARIAN and THE FORGOTTEN MAN shall do for THE DOWNTRODDEN.

As for THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN, who get a law to make themselves do for THE DOWNTRODDEN what they are willing to do for him, we have
nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but THE FORGOTTEN MAN is forced to comply with the new law.

All this is done while THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA looks on with glee and proclaims that THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN are so good for helping poor THE DOWNTRODDEN.

The preceding commentary was based on William Graham Sumner’s explanation of The Forgotten Man.

http://forgottenmenblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/sumners-explanation-of-forgotten-man.html

MinimumWage

food-stamps-minimum-wage-graph-1970-2010-no-population

The Truth about the Minimum Wage

Obama: “Raise Minimum Wage to $9 an Hour” – SOTU 2013

More on Minimum Wage

Obama’s $9/Hour SOTU Minimum Wage 

 Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage

Power of the Market – Minimum Wage

Williams with Sowell – Minimum Wage

The Job-Killing Impact of Minimum Wage Laws

“Good Intentions” by Dr. Walter Williams

Dr. Walter Williams’ 1982 PBS documentary “Good Intentions” based on his book, “The State Against Blacks”. The documentary was very controversial at the time it was released and led to many animosities and even threats of murder.

In “Good Intentions”, Dr. Williams examines the failure of the war on poverty and the devastating effect of well meaning government policies on blacks asserting that the state harms people in the U.S. more than it helps them. He shows how government anti-poverty programs have often locked people into poverty making the points that:

- being forced to attend 3rd rate public schools leave students unprepared for working life
- minimum wages prevent young people from obtaining jobs at an early age
- licensing and labor laws have had the effect of restricting entrance of blacks into the skilled trades and unions
- the welfare system creates perverse incentives for the poor to make bad choices they otherwise would not

Dr. Williams presents the following solutions to these problems:

Failing Public Schools – Give parents greater control over their children’s education by setting up a tuition tax credit or voucher system to broaden competition in turn revitalizing both public and non-public schools

Minimum Wages – Remove the minimum wage from youngsters to give more young people the chance to learn the world of work at an early age instead spending their free time idle an possibly falling into the habits of the street

Restrictive Labor Laws, Jobs Programs – Eliminate government roadblocks that prevent new entrepreneurs from starting their own business

Welfare Programs – Enact a compassionate welfare system such as a negative income tax which would remove dependency and dis-incentives for the poor to get themselves out of poverty

Scholars interviewed in the documentary include Donald Eberle, Charles Murray, and George Gilder.

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

Good Intentions 2 of 3 Minimum Wage, Licensing, and Labor Laws with Walter

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

Government Intervention and Individual Freedom | Walter Williams

Obama: “Time to Pass Immigration Reform” – State of the Union 2013 

Contrasting Views of the Great Depression | Robert P. Murphy

 

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Uncommon Knowledge: The Great Depression with Amity Shlaes

Calvin Coolidge: The Best President You’ve Never Heard Of – Amity Shlaes

Amity Shlaes, Author, “Coolidge”

Keep Cool With Coolidge, Not Obama: Obama Reveals His True Hatred of Business

Obama Wants $9 Minimum Wage…

 

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

America’s Dilemma: Citizenship or Deportation?—President Barack Obama’s Speech On Illegal Immigration in Las Vegas–January 29, 2013–Videos

Posted on January 30, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Obama-Time-to-fix-immigration

President Obama Las Vegas speech on comprehensive immigration reform on Jan. 29

Credit: http://www.upi.com

reagan

FULL SPEECH – US President Obama Immigration Reform from LAS VEGAS 1/29/2013

1984 – Ronald Reagan on Amnesty

Sessions Warns Washington Elites Against Rush To Amnesty

Amnesty – Not the Solution: Talk Border

Immigration: The real Third Rail of politics on TalkBorder

Talk Border: Safe Borders, Not Racism

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts 

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010

David Meir-Levi on Talk Border 

Martin Sieff on TalkBorder.com

Lou Barletta on Talk Border 

Michael Cutler, INS Special Agent

Charles Faddis, CIA (Ret), speaks with Michael Cutler, INS (Ret) on National Security and more in one part of a three-part interview for The United States of Common Sense, hosted by Charles Faddis..

Michael Cutler, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, an advisor to the 911 Families for a Secure America, and a consultant, retired in 2002 after a distinguished career with the INS of over 30 years, including 26 as a Special Agent. In 1991, he was promoted to the position of Senior Special Agent and was assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and worked with members of other federal and state law enforcement agencies as well as law enforcement organizations of other countries. The task force’s investigations of aliens involved in major drug trafficking organizations ultimately resulted in the seizure of their assets and prosecutions for a wide variety of criminal violations.

Mr. Cutler has testified as an expert witness at nine Congressional hearings on issues relating to the enforcement of immigration laws having been called by members of both political parties. Mr. Cutler also furnished testimony to the Presidential Commission on the Terrorist Attacks of September 11. Mr. Cutler has appeared on numerous television and radio programs including the OReilly Radio Factor, OReillys No Spin Zone, Fox News and the Lou Dobbs Tonight Program on CNN to discuss the enforcement of immigration laws and has participated in various public debates and panel discussions on issues involving the enforcement and administration of immigration laws. Among the areas of concern that he is able to speak about authoritatively are the nexus between immigration and national security, the impact of immigration on the criminal justice system, strategies to combat illegal immigration, and why amnesty for illegal aliens is wrong.

Roy talks about ICE lawsuit with FNC’s Neil Cavuto

The Dangers of Unlimited Legal & Illegal Immigration

Stop Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants – Expert Reveals the True Cost of Amnesty

Path to illegal citizenship: The high cost of Illegal and legal lImmigration for U.S. Citizens 

Why Oppose the DREAM Act?

 

The E-Verify Solution for Illegal Hiring 

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US?  – Walsh – 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts.  The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.

America’s dilemma: citizenship or deportation?

By Raymond Thomas Pronk            

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

President Barack Obama flew to Las Vegas last week to give a speech at a local school outlining his views and principles for comprehensive immigration reform. “Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows.  Yes, they broke the rules.  They crossed the border illegally.  Maybe they overstayed their visas.  Those are facts.  Nobody disputes them.  But these 11 million men and women are now here,” Obama said.

Why are there more than 11 million illegal aliens in the United States? Simply, the federal government under both Democratic and Republican progressive presidents has refused to vigorously enforce existing immigration law as set forth in federal statutes and regulations and failed to control and secure U.S. borders against a massive invasion of illegal aliens. These presidents betrayed their oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution.

In a debate with Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale in 1984, President Ronald Reagan said, “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though some time back they may have entered illegally.”

On Nov. 6, 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, to reform immigration law and control the number of illegal immigrants entering the country. Reagan signed the bill.

Under this law approximately three million illegal aliens who had continuously resided in the U.S. before Jan.1, 1982 were granted legal status and eventually citizenship — amnesty for illegal aliens.

Since then the federal government has failed to control and secure the borders and by so doing, the 1986 law by granting amnesty created a strong magnet or incentive for future illegal aliens. Both Reagan and the American people were double-crossed by progressive Democrats and Republicans in Congress who really wanted open borders and unlimited illegal immigration.

The American people are asking for immigration law enforcement and secure borders and not Obama’s comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship. Americans favor limited controlled legal immigration but oppose open borders with unlimited illegal immigration. So-called “undocumented workers” or more accurately illegal aliens should, as required by federal law, be removed from their place of work and deported to their country of origin.

Why? First, aliens broke into the country illegally when they entered the U.S. without a valid visa or over stayed their visas and did not return to the country of origin. Second, aliens broke the law when they either stole identities of U.S. citizens or purchased fraudulent documents such as driver’s licenses and Social Security cards in order to obtain employment in the U.S. Third, aliens broke the law when they worked in the U.S. without having the legal status to do so. Fourth, many employers broke the law when they knowingly hired illegal aliens. You do not reward criminal behavior by granting a pathway to citizenship. The rule of law requires federal government enforcement of immigration law by deporting illegal aliens.

When you multiple these crimes by millions, you are dealing with a crime wave and mass invasion that has been sanctioned by the progressive ruling elites in Washington D.C. from both the Democratic and Republican parties who favor open borders and token enforcement of existing federal immigration law.

Why did these ruling elites ignore the will of the American people? The Democratic Party favors open borders and a pathway to citizenship or amnesty for illegal aliens because they believe the overwhelming majority of these illegal aliens will, when they become citizens, vote for Democratic candidates.

Progressive Republicans likewise favored open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens because many of the businesses that employ illegal aliens also contribute to the campaigns of Republican candidates.

Both political parties could care less that millions of American citizens are unemployed as a direct result of policies that encouraged massive illegal immigration. Staying in power, not the welfare of the American people, was and is the top priority of these politicians.

The 11 million illegal aliens and their dependents should be given the choice to either voluntarily return to their country of origin by a certain date or face deportation under existing federal immigration law. With over 25 million American citizens seeking permanent full time jobs, this would immediately reduce the number of unemployed citizens by millions.

Most Americans would agree with two of Obama’s principles of comprehensive immigration reform namely “to stay focused on enforcement” and “to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century.”  However, most Americans would not agree with Obama to first give the 11 million plus illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship or amnesty for illegal aliens before first controlling and securing the borders and enforcing existing immigration law.

There is a saying in Texas, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” — Abraham Lincoln

Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Fridays and author of the companion blog http://www.pronkpops.wordpress.com/

Background Articles and Videos

Opinion: Will Obama Poison Immigration Reform?

Reagan on immingration 2 

Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 1

Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 2 of 2

E-Verify: Employment Verification 

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US?  – Walsh – 1 

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US?  – Walsh – 2

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.

Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts.  The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________
For Immediate Release                          January 29, 2013
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM
Del Sol High School
Las Vegas, Nevada

11:40 A.M. PST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you!  (Applause.)  Thank you!  Thank you so much.  (Applause.)  It is good to be back in Las Vegas!  (Applause.)  And it is good to be among so many good friends.

Let me start off by thanking everybody at Del Sol High School for hosting us.  (Applause.)  Go Dragons!  Let me especially thank your outstanding principal, Lisa Primas.  (Applause.)

There are all kinds of notable guests here, but I just want to mention a few.  First of all, our outstanding Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is here.  (Applause.)  Our wonderful Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar.  (Applause.)  Former Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis.  (Applause.)  Two of the outstanding members of the congressional delegation from Nevada, Steve Horsford and Dina Titus.  (Applause.)  Your own mayor, Carolyn Goodman.  (Applause.)

But we also have some mayors that flew in because they know how important the issue we’re going to talk about today is.  Marie Lopez Rogers from Avondale, Arizona.  (Applause.)  Kasim Reed from Atlanta, Georgia.  (Applause.)  Greg Stanton from Phoenix, Arizona.  (Applause.)  And Ashley Swearengin from Fresno, California.  (Applause.)

And all of you are here, as well as some of the top labor leaders in the country.  And we are just so grateful.  Some outstanding business leaders are here as well.  And of course, we’ve got wonderful students here, so I could not be prouder of our students.  (Applause.)

Now, those of you have a seat, feel free to take a seat.  I don’t mind.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I love you, Mr. President!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.)

Now, last week, I had the honor of being sworn in for a second term as President of the United States.  (Applause.)  And during my inaugural address, I talked about how making progress on the defining challenges of our time doesn’t require us to settle every debate or ignore every difference that we may have, but it does require us to find common ground and move forward in common purpose.  It requires us to act.

I know that some issues will be harder to lift than others.  Some debates will be more contentious.  That’s to be expected.  But the reason I came here today is because of a challenge where the differences are dwindling; where a broad consensus is emerging; and where a call for action can now be heard coming from all across America.  I’m here today because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform.  (Applause.)  The time is now.  Now is the time.  Now is the time.  Now is the time.

AUDIENCE:  Sí se puede!  Sí se puede!

THE PRESIDENT:  Now is the time.

I’m here because most Americans agree that it’s time to fix a system that’s been broken for way too long.  I’m here because business leaders, faith leaders, labor leaders, law enforcement, and leaders from both parties are coming together to say now is the time to find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as the land of opportunity.  Now is the time to do this so we can strengthen our economy and strengthen our country’s future.

Think about it — we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants.  That’s who we are — in our bones.  The promise we see in those who come here from every corner of the globe, that’s always been one of our greatest strengths.  It keeps our workforce young.  It keeps our country on the cutting edge.  And it’s helped build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.

After all, immigrants helped start businesses like Google and Yahoo!.  They created entire new industries that, in turn, created new jobs and new prosperity for our citizens.  In recent years, one in four high-tech startups in America were founded by immigrants.  One in four new small business owners were immigrants, including right here in Nevada — folks who came here seeking opportunity and now want to share that opportunity with other Americans.

But we all know that today, we have an immigration system that’s out of date and badly broken; a system that’s holding us back instead of helping us grow our economy and strengthen our middle class.

Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows.  Yes, they broke the rules.  They crossed the border illegally.  Maybe they overstayed their visas.  Those are facts.  Nobody disputes them.  But these 11 million men and women are now here.  Many of them have been here for years.  And the overwhelming majority of these individuals aren’t looking for any trouble.  They’re contributing members of the community.  They’re looking out for their families.  They’re looking out for their neighbors.  They’re woven into the fabric of our lives.

Every day, like the rest of us, they go out and try to earn a living.  Often they do that in a shadow economy — a place where employers may offer them less than the minimum wage or make them work overtime without extra pay.  And when that happens, it’s not just bad for them, it’s bad for the entire economy.  Because all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing — that are hiring people legally, paying a decent wage, following the rules — they’re the ones who suffer.   They’ve got to compete against companies that are breaking the rules.  And the wages and working conditions of American workers are threatened, too.

So if we’re truly committed to strengthening our middle class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class, we’ve got to fix the system.

We have to make sure that every business and every worker in America is playing by the same set of rules.  We have to bring this shadow economy into the light so that everybody is held accountable — businesses for who they hire, and immigrants for getting on the right side of the law.  That’s common sense.  And that’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform.  (Applause.)

There’s another economic reason why we need reform.  It’s not just about the folks who come here illegally and have the effect they have on our economy.  It’s also about the folks who try to come here legally but have a hard time doing so, and the effect that has on our economy.

Right now, there are brilliant students from all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities.  They’re earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer science.  But once they finish school, once they earn that diploma, there’s a good chance they’ll have to leave our country.  Think about that.

Intel was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here.  Instagram was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here.  Right now in one of those classrooms, there’s a student wrestling with how to turn their big idea — their Intel or Instagram — into a big business.  We’re giving them all the skills they need to figure that out, but then we’re going to turn around and tell them to start that business and create those jobs in China or India or Mexico or someplace else?  That’s not how you grow new industries in America.  That’s how you give new industries to our competitors.   That’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform.  (Applause.)

Now, during my first term, we took steps to try and patch up some of the worst cracks in the system.

First, we strengthened security at the borders so that we could finally stem the tide of illegal immigrants.  We put more boots on the ground on the southern border than at any time in our history.  And today, illegal crossings are down nearly 80 percent from their peak in 2000.  (Applause.)

Second, we focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and who endanger our communities.  And today, deportations of criminals is at its highest level ever.  (Applause.)

And third, we took up the cause of the DREAMers — (applause) — the young people who were brought to this country as children, young people who have grown up here, built their lives here, have futures here.  We said that if you’re able to meet some basic criteria like pursuing an education, then we’ll consider offering you the chance to come out of the shadows so that you can live here and work here legally, so that you can finally have the dignity of knowing you belong.

But because this change isn’t permanent, we need Congress to act — and not just on the DREAM Act.  We need Congress to act on a comprehensive approach that finally deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the country right now.  That’s what we need.  (Applause.)

Now, the good news is that for the first time in many years, Republicans and Democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together.  (Applause.)  Members of both parties, in both chambers, are actively working on a solution.  Yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators announced their principles for comprehensive immigration reform, which are very much in line with the principles I’ve proposed and campaigned on for the last few years.  So at this moment, it looks like there’s a genuine desire to get this done soon, and that’s very encouraging.

But this time, action must follow.  (Applause.)  We can’t allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate.  We’ve been debating this a very long time.  So it’s not as if we don’t know technically what needs to get done.  As a consequence, to help move this process along, today I’m laying out my ideas for immigration reform.  And my hope is that this provides some key markers to members of Congress as they craft a bill, because the ideas I’m proposing have traditionally been supported by both Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like President George W. Bush.  You don’t get that matchup very often.  (Laughter.)  So we know where the consensus should be.

Now, of course, there will be rigorous debate about many of the details, and every stakeholder should engage in real give and take in the process.  But it’s important for us to recognize that the foundation for bipartisan action is already in place.  And if Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away.  (Applause.)

So the principles are pretty straightforward.  There are a lot of details behind it.  We’re going to hand out a bunch of paper so that everybody will know exactly what we’re talking about.  But the principles are pretty straightforward.

First, I believe we need to stay focused on enforcement.  That means continuing to strengthen security at our borders.  It means cracking down more forcefully on businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers.  To be fair, most businesses want to do the right thing, but a lot of them have a hard time figuring out who’s here legally, who’s not.  So we need to implement a national system that allows businesses to quickly and accurately verify someone’s employment status.  And if they still knowingly hire undocumented workers, then we need to ramp up the penalties.

Second, we have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally.  We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship.  But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship.  (Applause.)

We’ve got to lay out a path — a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally.  That’s only fair, right?  (Applause.)

So that means it won’t be a quick process but it will be a fair process.  And it will lift these individuals out of the shadows and give them a chance to earn their way to a green card and eventually to citizenship.  (Applause.)

And the third principle is we’ve got to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century because it no longer reflects the realities of our time.  (Applause.)  For example, if you are a citizen, you shouldn’t have to wait years before your family is able to join you in America.  You shouldn’t have to wait years.  (Applause.)

If you’re a foreign student who wants to pursue a career in science or technology, or a foreign entrepreneur who wants to start a business with the backing of American investors, we should help you do that here.  Because if you succeed, you’ll create American businesses and American jobs.  You’ll help us grow our economy.  You’ll help us strengthen our middle class.

So that’s what comprehensive immigration reform looks like:  smarter enforcement; a pathway to earned citizenship; improvements in the legal immigration system so that we continue to be a magnet for the best and the brightest all around the world.  It’s pretty straightforward.

The question now is simple:  Do we have the resolve as a people, as a country, as a government to finally put this issue behind us?  I believe that we do.  I believe that we do.  (Applause.)  I believe we are finally at a moment where comprehensive immigration reform is within our grasp.

But I promise you this:  The closer we get, the more emotional this debate is going to become.  Immigration has always been an issue that enflames passions.  That’s not surprising.  There are few things that are more important to us as a society than who gets to come here and call our country home; who gets the privilege of becoming a citizen of the United States of America.  That’s a big deal.

When we talk about that in the abstract, it’s easy sometimes for the discussion to take on a feeling of “us” versus “them.”  And when that happens, a lot of folks forget that most of “us” used to be “them.”  We forget that.  (Applause.)

It’s really important for us to remember our history.  Unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else.  Somebody brought you.  (Applause.)

Ken Salazar, he’s of Mexican American descent, but he points that his family has been living where he lives for 400 years, so he didn’t immigrate anywhere.  (Laughter.)

The Irish who left behind a land of famine.  The Germans who fled persecution.  The Scandinavians who arrived eager to pioneer out west.  The Polish.  The Russians.  The Italians.  The Chinese.  The Japanese.  The West Indians.  The huddled masses who came through Ellis Island on one coast and Angel Island on the other.  (Applause.)  All those folks, before they were “us,” they were “them.”

And when each new wave of immigrants arrived, they faced resistance from those who were already here.  They faced hardship.  They faced racism.  They faced ridicule.  But over time, as they went about their daily lives, as they earned a living, as they raised a family, as they built a community, as their kids went to school here, they did their part to build a nation.

They were the Einsteins and the Carnegies.  But they were also the millions of women and men whose names history may not remember, but whose actions helped make us who we are; who built this country hand by hand, brick by brick.  (Applause.)  They all came here knowing that what makes somebody an American is not just blood or birth, but allegiance to our founding principles and the faith in the idea that anyone from anywhere can write the next great chapter of our story.

And that’s still true today.  Just ask Alan Aleman.  Alan is here this afternoon — where is Alan?  He’s around here — there he is right here.  (Applause.)  Alan was born in Mexico.  (Applause.)  He was brought to this country by his parents when he was a child.  Growing up, Alan went to an American school, pledged allegiance to the American flag, felt American in every way — and he was, except for one:  on paper.

In high school, Alan watched his friends come of age — driving around town with their new licenses, earning some extra cash from their summer jobs at the mall.  He knew he couldn’t do those things.  But it didn’t matter that much.  What mattered to Alan was earning an education so that he could live up to his God-given potential.

Last year, when Alan heard the news that we were going to offer a chance for folks like him to emerge from the shadows — even if it’s just for two years at a time — he was one of the first to sign up.  And a few months ago he was one of the first people in Nevada to get approved.  (Applause.)  In that moment, Alan said, “I felt the fear vanish.  I felt accepted.”

So today, Alan is in his second year at the College of Southern Nevada.  (Applause.)  Alan is studying to become a doctor.  (Applause.)  He hopes to join the Air Force.  He’s working hard every single day to build a better life for himself and his family.  And all he wants is the opportunity to do his part to build a better America.  (Applause.)

So in the coming weeks, as the idea of reform becomes more real and the debate becomes more heated, and there are folks who are trying to pull this thing apart, remember Alan and all those who share the same hopes and the same dreams.  Remember that this is not just a debate about policy.  It’s about people.  It’s about men and women and young people who want nothing more than the chance to earn their way into the American story.

Throughout our history, that has only made our nation stronger.  And it’s how we will make sure that this century is the same as the last:  an American century welcoming of everybody who aspires to do something more, and who is willing to work hard to do it, and is willing to pledge that allegiance to our flag.

Thank you.  God bless you.  And God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

END                12:05 P.M. PST

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

History Repeats Itself on The Fiscal Cliff–House of Representatives Should Extend Bush Tax Rates Another Year–Let Obama Jump Off The Fiscal Cliff–Focus On Growing The Economy By Lowering Tax Rates and Balancing The Budget–Videos

Posted on December 2, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Law, liberty, Links, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Resources, Tax Policy, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

Barack Obama-Taking Us Over a Cliff

Balancing the Budget Without Cutting Spending Would Cause Taxes to Skyrocket

America is running massive deficits, and a balanced budget requirement is often considered a way to rein in red ink.

Without serious entitlement and spending reforms, the level of taxes required to balance the budget would reach economically stagnating levels.

balancing-budget-680

Entitlement Spending Will Nearly Double by 2050

Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Obamacare subsidies will soar as 78 million baby boomers retire and health care costs climb.

Total spending on federal health care programs will more than double.

Future generations will be left with an untenable debt burden.

entitlement-spending-double

Tax Revenues Devoured By Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security in 2045

Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, the Obamacare subsidies, and Social Security will devour all revenues by 2045.

Entitlement spending is already crowding out vital constitutional functions, such as defense.\

entitlements-historical-tax-levels

Robert Welch Accurately Predicted Fall Off Fiscal Cliff in 1974

Peter Schiff 2012 – Stop spending and consuming, start saving and producing! 

What is the Fiscal Cliff? Everything You Need To Know

Pat Buchanan: Republicans Should Stand Their Ground on Tax Hikes

Speaker Boehner: “I’m Determined to Solve Our Debt Problem. We Have a Serious Spending Problem”

Ouch! Geithner Is Busted Lying About Non-Existent War Savings

Timothy Geithner ‘This Week’ Interview: Fiscal Cliff is in the GOP’s Court 

Fiscal Cliff Explained – How Do We Land? Mike Maloney Gold & Silver Inc 

When Will the Real Fiscal Cliff Negotiations Begin?: ‘This Week’ Roundtable Discussion 

Ron Paul on Secession, Romney, Fiscal Cliff, the GOP’s Future and

Constitutional Conservatism or Die

Fiscal Cliff history lesson

Hear a history lesson about the fiscal cliff of 1990 known as the 1990 Budget summit agreement. It resulted in budget surpluses and balanced budgets for our federal government from 1994 until just after the attack of 9/11 of 2001. Elizabeth B. Letchworth is the only women in the United States Senate history to be elected by the Senate to serve as the U.S. Senate Secretary for the Majority for the Republicans. She is now a principal @ Congressional Global Strategy, LLC and owner of GradeGov.com

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Forward Off The Fiscal Cliff…Falling…Falling…Splat!–Videos

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 )

Ryan Nails Obama–Videos

Posted on August 31, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Paul Ryan RNC Convention Speech: This is Ryan’s entire 2012 speech

Paul Ryan, the Republican Party’s Vice President candidate, attacked President Barack Obama’s record of 43 months of unemployment rates exceeding 8 percent with over 23 million Americans seeking a full-time job, Obamacare and adding over $5 trillion to the national debt, in his acceptance speech before the GOP National Convention in Tampa, Florida, late Wednesday evening, Aug. 29.

Ryan said, “Here we were, faced with a massive job crisis–so deep, that if everyone out of work stood in single file, that unemployment line would stretch the length of the entire American continent. You would think that any president, whatever his party, would make job creation, and nothing else, his first order of economic business. But this president didn’t do that.”

Ryan broadened and pressed his attack on the Obama record on job creation and Obamacare. Ryan said, “Instead, we got a long, divisive, all-or-nothing attempt to put the federal government in charge of health care. Obamacare comes to more than two thousand pages of rules, mandates, taxes, fees, and fines that have no place in a free country.”

Ryan body slammed Obama for raiding Medicare funding to pay for Obamacare.

Ryan said, “And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. You see, even with all the hidden taxes to pay for the health care takeover, even with new taxes on nearly a million small businesses, the planners in Washington still didn’t have enough money. They needed more. They needed hundreds of billion more. So, they just took it all from Medicare. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.”

Ryan nailed Obama by pointing out that “back in 2008, candidate Obama called a $10 trillion national debt “unpatriotic”.” Ryan said, “Yet by his own decisions, President Obama had added more debt than any other president before him, and more than all the troubled governments in Europe combined. One president, one term, $5 trillion in new debt.”

Ryan finished off Obama’s debt record with these words:

    “So here we are, $16 trillion in debt and he still does nothing. In Europe, massive debts have put entire governments at risk of collapse, and still he does nothing. And all we have heard from this president and his team are attacks on anyone who dares to point out the obvious.”
Ryan spoke to the many millions of unemployed college graduates when he said:
    “College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life. Everyone who feels stuck in the Obama economy is right to focus on the here and now. …You have not failed, your leaders have failed you.”
Ryan asked the key question early in his speech when he remarked, “Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years?”
This reminds me of the single debate between President Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan in late Oct. 1980. Ronald Reagan asked the American people to answer this question when they went to vote for the next president: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” This one crucial question turned a very tight presidential race with the incumbent President Carter with a slight lead in the polls to a landslide victory for Ronald Reagan.

Ryan nailed Obama’s record. On election day in November, the American people will answer both Ryan’s and Reagan’s question.

Background Articles and Videos

Full Text: Paul Ryan’s Speech at the Republican National Convention

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/full-text-paul-ryan-s-speech-at-the-republican-national-convention-20120829?page=1

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

Niall Ferguson–Obama’s Gotta Go–Videos

Posted on August 23, 2012. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Medicine, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Science, Security, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Ferguson – Hit the Road Barack

Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”

Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.

In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.

Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.

And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222 trillion.

The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House.

There’s some truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.

On paper it looked like an economics dream team: Larry Summers, Christina Romer, and Austan Goolsbee, not to mention Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, and Paul Volcker. The inside story, however, is that the president was wholly unable to manage the mighty brains—and egos—he had assembled to advise him.

According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone … I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues].” On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)

This problem extended beyond the White House. After the imperial presidency of the Bush era, there was something more like parliamentary government in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The president proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political pork. And it was the Democrats in Congress—led by Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank—who devised the 2,319-page Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank, for short), a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation. The act requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. It eliminates one regulator and creates two new ones.

It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed.

Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy.

And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.

Ironically, the core Obamacare concept of the “individual mandate” (requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine) was something the president himself had opposed when vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. A much more accurate term would be “Pelosicare,” since it was she who really forced the bill through Congress.

Pelosicare was not only a political disaster. Polls consistently showed that only a minority of the public liked the ACA, and it was the main reason why Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. It was also another fiscal snafu. The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.

The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States.

Meanwhile, the fiscal train wreck has already initiated a process of steep cuts in the defense budget, at a time when it is very far from clear that the world has become a safer place—least of all in the Middle East.

For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.

In Tokyo in November 2009, the president gave his boilerplate hug-a-foreigner speech: “In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another … The United States does not seek to contain China … On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.” Yet by fall 2011, this approach had been jettisoned in favor of a “pivot” back to the Pacific, including risible deployments of troops to Australia and Singapore. From the vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility.

His Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, was an especially clumsy bid to ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional revolution. “I’m also proud to carry with me,” he told Egyptians, “a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu alaikum … I’ve come here … to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based … upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.”

Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail.

In the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria. In Libya he was cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways, exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.” The result was a foreign-policy debacle. Not only were Egypt’s elites appalled by what seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had nothing to be grateful for. America’s closest Middle Eastern allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.

“This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times in February 2011. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”

Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”

The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.

America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.

It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has “lost his narrative” since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious “you didn’t build that” speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved.

Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.

Over the past few years Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 (not current or imminent recipients), turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U.S. private sector. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.

Just as importantly, Ryan has learned that politics is the art of the possible. There are parts of his plan that he is understandably soft-pedaling right now—notably the new source of federal revenue referred to in his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future” as a “business consumption tax.” Stockman needs to remind himself that the real “fairy-tale budget plans” have been the ones produced by the White House since 2009.

I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.

.

It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.

The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.

Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.

I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.

I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.

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 )

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 )

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 )

When Mitt Romney Came To Town — Full, complete version–Think You Know Mitt Romney–Mitt The Ripper–Video

Posted on January 17, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, government, government spending, Investments, Law, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Strategy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

When Mitt Romney Came To Town — Full, complete version

Still Voting For ‘Mitt Romney’?

Colbert Super PAC Ad – Mitt the Ripper

Ron Paul – Three of a Kind

George Carlin -”Who Really Controls America”

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

50 Year American Tax Revolution: The Impossible Became The Inevitable–Flat Tax or FairTax?Videos

Posted on November 1, 2011. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Reviews, Science, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 52:November 2, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 51:October 26, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 50:October 19, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 49:October 12, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 48:October 5, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52

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 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

Segment 0: 50 Year American Tax Revolution: When The Impossible Became The Inevitable–Flat Tax or FairTax–Videos

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/

The Recession and Recovery in Perspective

Post-WWII Recessions

The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research determines the beginning and ending dates of U.S. recessions. http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

It has determined that the U.S. economy experienced 10 recessions from 1946 through 2006. The committee determined that the 2007-2009 recession began in December 2007 and ended in June of 2009. Ending dates are typically announced several months after the recession officially ends. Read the June 2009 trough announcement by the NBER.

Length of Recessions

The 10 previous postwar recessions ranged in length from 6 months to 16 months, averaging about 10 1/2 months. The 2007-09 recession was the longest recession in the postwar period, at 18 months.

Depth of Recessions

The severity of a recession is determined in part by its length; perhaps even more important is the magnitude of the decline in economic activity. The 2007-09 recession was the deepest recession in the postwar period; at their lowest points employment fell by 6.3 percent and output fell by 5.1 percent.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/

http://seekingalpha.com/article/142954-two-charts-imply-current-u-s-recession-may-be-longest-in-history

the National Bureau of Economic Research

US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Taxes and Long-Term Economic Growth

Executive Summary

The 1960s and 1980s were periods of sustained high growth rates in the economy. The major reason for this growth is the tax cuts enacted in the beginning of each decade. President Kennedy’s and President Reagan’s tax cuts resulted in higher investment, lower unemployment, and improved overall economic performance.

Since March 1991, the U.S. economy has been expanding, though at a slower rate than previous post-war expansions. Productivity growth has been weak and must be improved. A tax cut that improves incentives to work, save, and invest is necessary to provide a framework for prosperity. As President Kennedy said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”

http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/longterm/longterm.htm

2011 IRS Tax Brackets

Here are the 2011 tax tables, which make it easy to find which marginal tax bracket you are in:

Tax Bracket Single Married Filing Jointly Head of Household
10% Bracket $0 – $8,500 $0 – $17,000 $0 – $12,150
15% Bracket $8,500 – $34,500 $17,000 – $69,000 $12,150 – $46,250
25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600 $69,000 – $139,350 $46,250 – $119,400
28% Bracket $83,600 – $174,400 $139,350 – $212,300 $119,400 – $193,350
33% Bracket $174,400 – $379,150 $212,300 – $379,150 $193,350 – $379,150
35% Bracket $379,150+ $379,150+ $379,150+

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Table 1 Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2009

Number of Returns with Positive AGI

AGI ($ millions)

Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)

Group’s Share of Total AGI

Group’s Share of Income Taxes

Income Split Point

Average Tax Rate

All Taxpayers 137,982,203 $7,825,389 $865,863 100.0% 100.0% - 11.06%
Top 1% 1,379,822 $1,324,572 $318,043 16.9% 36.7% $343,927.00 24.01%
1-5% 5,519,288 $1,157,918 $189,864 14.8% 22.0% 16.40%
Top 5% 6,899,110 $2,482,490 $507,907 31.7% 58.7% $154,643.00 20.46%
5-10% 6,899,110 $897,241 $102,249 11.5% 11.8% 11.40%
Top 10% 13,798,220 $3,379,731 $610,156 43.2% 70.5% $112,124.00 18.05%
10-25% 20,697,331

$1,770,140

$145,747 22.6% 17.0% 8.23%
Top 25% 34,495,551 $5,149,871 $755,903 65.8% 87.3% $ 66,193.00 14.68%
25-50% 34,495,551 $1,620,303 $90,449 20.7% 11.0% 5.58%
Top 50% 68,991,102 $6,770,174 $846,352 86.5% 97.7% > $32,396 12.50%
Bottom 50% 68,991,102

$1,055,215

$19,511 13.5% 2.3% < $32,396 1.85%

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Table 6

Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2009 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group)

Year

Total

Top 0.1%

Top 1%

Top 5%

Between 5% & 10%

Top 10%

Between 10% & 25%

Top 25%

Between 25% & 50%

Top 50%

Bottom 50%

1980

100%

19.05%

36.84%

12.44%

49.28%

23.74%

73.02%

19.93%

92.95%

7.05%

1981

100%

17.58%

35.06%

12.90%

47.96%

24.33%

72.29%

20.26%

92.55%

7.45%

1982

100%

19.03%

36.13%

12.45%

48.59%

23.91%

72.50%

20.15%

92.65%

7.35%

1983

100%

20.32%

37.26%

12.44%

49.71%

23.39%

73.10%

19.73%

92.83%

7.17%

1984

100%

21.12%

37.98%

12.58%

50.56%

22.92%

73.49%

19.16%

92.65%

7.35%

1985

100%

21.81%

38.78%

12.67%

51.46%

22.60%

74.06%

18.77%

92.83%

7.17%

1986

100%

25.75%

42.57%

12.12%

54.69%

21.33%

76.02%

17.52%

93.54%

6.46%

Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable

1987

100%

24.81%

43.26%

12.35%

55.61%

21.31%

76.92%

17.02%

93.93%

6.07%

1988

100%

27.58%

45.62%

11.66%

57.28%

20.57%

77.84%

16.44%

94.28%

5.72%

1989

100%

25.24%

43.94%

11.85%

55.78%

21.44%

77.22%

16.94%

94.17%

5.83%

1990

100%

25.13%

43.64%

11.73%

55.36%

21.66%

77.02%

17.16%

94.19%

5.81%

1991

100%

24.82%

43.38%

12.45%

55.82%

21.46%

77.29%

17.23%

94.52%

5.48%

1992

100%

27.54%

45.88%

12.12%

58.01%

20.47%

78.48%

16.46%

94.94%

5.06%

1993

100%

29.01%

47.36%

11.88%

59.24%

20.03%

79.27%

15.92%

95.19%

4.81%

1994

100%

28.86%

47.52%

11.93%

59.45%

20.10%

79.55%

15.68%

95.23%

4.77%

1995

100%

30.26%

48.91%

11.84%

60.75%

19.62%

80.36%

15.03%

95.39%

4.61%

1996

100%

32.31%

50.97%

11.54%

62.51%

18.80%

81.32%

14.36%

95.68%

4.32%

1997

100%

33.17%

51.87%

11.33%

63.20%

18.47%

81.67%

14.05%

95.72%

4.28%

1998

100%

34.75%

53.84%

11.20%

65.04%

17.65%

82.69%

13.10%

95.79%

4.21%

1999

100%

36.18%

55.45%

11.00%

66.45%

17.09%

83.54%

12.46%

96.00%

4.00%

2000

100%

37.42%

56.47%

10.86%

67.33%

16.68%

84.01%

12.08%

96.09%

3.91%

2001

100%

16.06%

33.89%

53.25%

11.64%

64.89%

18.01%

82.90%

13.13%

96.03%

3.97%

2002

100%

15.43%

33.71%

53.80%

11.94%

65.73%

18.16%

83.90%

12.60%

96.50%

3.50%

2003

100%

15.68%

34.27%

54.36%

11.48%

65.84%

18.04%

83.88%

12.65%

96.54%

3.46%

2004

100%

17.44%

36.89%

57.13%

11.07%

68.19%

16.67%

84.86%

11.85%

96.70%

3.30%

2005

100%

19.26%

39.38%

59.67%

10.63%

70.30%

15.69%

85.99%

10.94%

96.93%

3.07%

2006

100%

19.56%

39.89%

60.14%

10.65%

70.79%

15.47%

86.27%

10.75%

97.01%

2.99%

2007

100%

20.19%

40.41%

60.61%

10.59%

71.20%

15.37%

86.57%

10.54%

97.11%

2.89%

2008

100%

18.47%

38.02%

58.72%

11.22%

69.94%

16.40%

86.34%

10.96%

97.30%

2.70%

2009

100%

17.11%

36.73%

58.66%

11.81%

70.47%

16.83%

87.30%

10.45%

97.75%

2.25%

Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1

JFK – Path to Prosperity

Excerpts from President John F Kennedy’s speech delivered on December 14, 1962 to the Economic Club of New York.

Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13

JFK speech on tax cuts

John F. Kennedy State of the Union Address to a Joint Session of the United States Congress (1963)

JFK State of the Union Address (1963) (Part 1)

Interesting that the audio for the tax cut part of the speech is missing. “This net reduction in tax liabilities of $10 billion will increase the purchasing power of American families and business enterprises in every tax bracket, with greatest increase going to our low-income consumers. It will, in addition, encourage the initiative and risk-taking on which our free system depends–induce more investment, production, and capacity use–help provide the 2 million new jobs we need every year…”

January 14, 1963 – John F. Kennedy’s delivers the State of the Union address

State of the Union Address (January 14, 1963)

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

“…At home, the recession is behind us. Well over a million more men and women are working today than were working 2 years ago. The average factory workweek is once again more than 40 hours; our industries are turning out more goods than ever before; and more than half of the manufacturing capacity that lay silent and wasted 100 weeks ago is humming with activity.

In short, both at home and abroad, there may now be a temptation to relax. For the road has been long, the burden heavy, and the pace consistently urgent.

But we cannot be satisfied to rest here. This is the side of the hill, not the top. The mere absence of war is not peace. The mere absence of recession is not growth. We have made a beginning–but we have only begun.

Now the time has come to make the most of our gains–to translate the renewal of our national strength into the achievement of our national purpose.

America has enjoyed 22 months of uninterrupted economic recovery. But recovery is not enough. If we are to prevail in the long run, we must expand the long-run strength of our economy. We must move along the path to a higher rate of growth and full employment.

For this would mean tens of billions of dollars more each year in production, profits, wages, and public revenues. It would mean an end to the persistent slack which has kept our unemployment at or above 5 percent for 61 out of the past 62 months–and an end to the growing pressures for such restrictive measures as the 35-hour week, which alone could increase hourly labor costs by as much as 14 percent, start a new wage-price spiral of inflation, and undercut our efforts to compete with other nations.

To achieve these greater gains, one step, above all, is essential–the enactment this year of a substantial reduction and revision in Federal income taxes.

For it is increasingly clear–to those in Government, business, and labor who are responsible for our economy’s success–that our obsolete tax system exerts too heavy a drag on private purchasing power, profits, and employment. Designed to check inflation in earlier years, it now checks growth instead. It discourages extra effort and risk. It distorts the use of resources. It invites recurrent recessions, depresses our Federal revenues, and causes chronic budget deficits.

Now, when the inflationary pressures of the war and the post-war years no longer threaten, and the dollar commands new respect-now, when no military crisis strains our resources–now is the time to act. We cannot afford to be timid or slow. For this is the most urgent task confronting the Congress in 1963.

In an early message, I shall propose a permanent reduction in tax rates which will lower liabilities by $13.5 billion. Of this, $11 billion results from reducing individual tax rates, which now range between 20 and 91 percent, to a more sensible range of 14 to 65 percent, with a split in the present first bracket. Two and one-half billion dollars results from reducing corporate tax rates, from 52 percent–which gives the Government today a majority interest in profits-to the permanent pre-Korean level of 47 percent. This is in addition to the more than $2 billion cut in corporate tax liabilities resulting from last year’s investment credit and depreciation reform.

To achieve this reduction within the limits of a manageable budgetary deficit, I urge: first, that these cuts be phased over 3 calendar years, beginning in 1963 with a cut of some $6 billion at annual rates; second, that these reductions be coupled with selected structural changes, beginning in 1964, which will broaden the tax base, end unfair or unnecessary preferences, remove or lighten certain hardships, and in the net offset some $3.5 billion of the revenue loss; and third, that budgetary receipts at the outset be increased by $1.5 billion a year, without any change in tax liabilities, by gradually shifting the tax payments of large corporations to a . more current time schedule. This combined program, by increasing the amount of our national income, will in time result in still higher Federal revenues. It is a fiscally responsible program–the surest and the soundest way of achieving in time a balanced budget in a balanced full employment economy.

This net reduction in tax liabilities of $10 billion will increase the purchasing power of American families and business enterprises in every tax bracket, with greatest increase going to our low-income consumers. It will, in addition, encourage the initiative and risk-taking on which our free system depends–induce more investment, production, and capacity use–help provide the 2 million new jobs we need every year–and reinforce the American principle of additional reward for additional effort.

I do not say that a measure for tax reduction and reform is the only way to achieve these goals.

–No doubt a massive increase in Federal spending could also create jobs and growth-but, in today’s setting, private consumers, employers, and investors should be given a full opportunity first.

–No doubt a temporary tax cut could provide a spur to our economy–but a long run problem compels a long-run solution.

–No doubt a reduction in either individual or corporation taxes alone would be of great help–but corporations need customers and job seekers need jobs.

–No doubt tax reduction without reform would sound simpler and more attractive to many–but our growth is also hampered by a host of tax inequities and special preferences which have distorted the flow of investment.

–And, finally, there are no doubt some who would prefer to put off a tax cut in the hope that ultimately an end to the cold war would make possible an equivalent cut in expenditures-but that end is not in view and to wait for it would be costly and self-defeating.

In submitting a tax program which will, of course, temporarily increase the deficit but can ultimately end it–and in recognition of the need to control expenditures–I will shortly submit a fiscal 1964 administrative budget which, while allowing for needed rises in defense, space, and fixed interest charges, holds total expenditures for all other purposes below this year’s level.

This requires the reduction or postponement of many desirable programs, the absorption of a large part of last year’s Federal pay raise through personnel and other economies, the termination of certain installations and projects, and the substitution in several programs of private for public credit. But I am convinced that the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic problems in this Congress. For we cannot for long lead the cause of peace and freedom, if we ever cease to set the pace here at home.

Tax reduction alone, however, is not enough to strengthen our society, to provide opportunities for the four million Americans who are born every year, to improve the lives of 32 million Americans who live on the outskirts of poverty.

The quality of American life must keep pace with the quantity of American goods.

This country cannot afford to be materially rich and spiritually poor.

Therefore, by holding down the budgetary cost of existing programs to keep within the limitations I have set, it is both possible and imperative to adopt other new measures that we cannot afford to postpone. …”

http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/5762

Reagan on Taxes

Ronald Reagan-Remarks on Signing the Tax Reform Act (October 22, 1986)

President Reagans Remarks on Signing the Tax Reform Act of 1986 – 10/22/86

Dan Mitchell explains the fair tax

The Flat Tax: How it Works and Why it is Good for America

What is the FairTax legislation?

Herman Cain breaks down his 9-9-9 plan (Fox Debate)

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Tax Plan (AEI Interview)

Herman Cain on Taxes (Interview)

Milton Friedman – The Free Lunch Myth

Ron Paul on Taxes (Speech)

Ron Paul – THE FAIRTAX REVOLUTION (speech)

Herman Cain 999 plan will add new taxes explained by Ron Paul

Herman Cain Lied To Ron Paul

Reagan; Taxes and Budget Deficit: Revenue 19% of GDP; Spending is 23%; Revenue is sufficient

JFK Defends The First Amendment

Background Articles and Videos

Taxes Due

If you are trying to calculate your taxes due, these tables may be more helpful. Remember that taxes are due on your adjusted income after accounting for deductions and other adjustments.

Single Filers

These tables are for single filers who are not surviving spouses or heads of household:

Taxable Income Tax
$0 – $8,500 10% of taxable income
$8,500 – $34,500 $850 plus 15% of excess over $8,500
$34,500 – $83,600 $4,750 plus 25% of excess over $34,500
$83,600 – $174,400 $17,025 plus 28% of excess over $83,600
$174,400 – $379,150 $42,449 plus 33% of excess over $174,400
$379,150+ $110,016.50 plus 35% of excess over $379,150

Married & Surviving Spouses

These tables are for married filing jointly or surviving spouses:

Taxable Income Tax
$0 – $17,000 10% of taxable income
$17,000 – $69,000 $1,700 plus 15% of excess over $17,000
$69,000 – $139,350 $9,500 plus 25% of excess over $69,000
$139,350 – $212,300 $27,087.50 plus 28% of excess over $139,350
$212,300 – $379,150 $47,513.50 plus 33% of excess over $212,300
$379,150+ $102,574 plus 35% of excess over $379,150

Head of Household

These tax tables are for those considered Heads of Household:

Taxable Income Tax
$0 – $12,150 10% of taxable income
$12,150 – $46,250 $1,215 plus 15% of excess over $12,150
$46,250 – $119,400 $6,330 plus 25% of excess over $46,250
$119,400 – $193,350 $24,617.50 plus 28% of excess over $119,400
$193,350 – $379,150 $45,323.50 plus 33% of excess over $193,350
$379,150+ $106,637.50 plus 35% of excess over $379,150

Married Filing Separately

These are tax tables for those filing as Married Filing Separately:

Taxable Income Tax
$0 – $8,500 10% of taxable income
$8,500 – $34,500 $850 plus 15% of excess over $8,500
$34,500 – $69,675 $4,750 plus 25% of excess over $34,500
$69,675 – $106,150 $13,543.75 plus 28% of excess over $69,675
$106,150 – $189,575 $23,756.75 plus 33% of excess over $106,150
$189,575+ $51,287 plus 35% of excess over $189,575

With the passage of the Bush era tax cut extension, these brackets aren’t much different than the 2010 tax brackets after an adjustment for inflation.

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html

History of Federal Individual Income Bottom and Top Bracket Rates

Historical Income Tax Rates & Brackets

Tax Rates 1

Bottom bracket

Top bracket

Calendar Year

Rate
(percent)

Taxable Income Up to

Rate
(percent)

Taxable
Income over

1913-15 1 20,000 7 500,000
1916 2 20,000 15 2,000,000
1917 2 2,000 67 2,000,000
1918 6 4,000 77 1,000,000
1919-20 4 4,000 73 1,000,000
1921 4 4,000 73 1,000,000
1922 4 4,000 56 200,000
1923 3 4,000 56 200,000
1924 2 1.5 4,000 46 500,000
1925-28 2 1? 4,000 25 100,000
1929 2 4? 4,000 24 100,000
1930-31 2 1? 4,000 25 100,000
1932-33 4 4,000 63 1,000,000
1934-35 3 4 4,000 63 1,000,000
1936-39 3 4 4,000 79 5,000,000
1940 3 4.4 4,000 81.1 5,000,000
1941 3 10 2,000 81 5,000,000
1942-434 3 19 2,000 88 200,000
1944-45 23 2,000 5 94 200,000
1946-47 19 2,000 5 86.45 200,000
1948-49 16.6 4,000 5 82.13 400,000
1950 17.4 4,000 5 91 400,000
1951 20.4 4,000 5 91 400,000
1952-53 22.2 4,000 5 92 400,000
1954-63 20 4,000 5 91 400,000
1964 16 1,000 77 400,000
1965-67 14 1,000 70 200,000
1968 14 1,000 6 75.25 200,000
1969 14 1,000 6 77 200,000
1970 14 1,000 6 71.75 200,000
1971 14 1,000 7 70 200,000
1972-78 814 1,000 7 70 200,000
1979-80 814 2,100 7 70 212,000
1981 8 9 13.825 2,100 7 9 69.125 212,000
1982 8 12 2,100 50 106,000
1983 8 11 2,100 50 106,000
1984 8 11 2,100 50 159,000
1985 8 11 2,180 50 165,480
1986 8 11 2,270 50 171,580
1987 8 11 3,000 38.5 90,000
1988 8 15 29,750 1028 29,750
1989 8 15 30,950 1028 30,950
1990 8 15 32,450 1028 32,450
1991 8 15 34,000 31 82,150
1992 8 15 35,800 31 86,500
1993 8 15 36,900 39.6 250,000
1994 8 15 38,000 39.6 250,000
1995 8 15 39,000 39.6 256,500
1996 8 15 40,100 39.6 263,750
1997 8 15 41,200 39.6 271,050
1998 8 15 42,350 39.6 278,450
1999 8 15 43,050 39.6 283,150
2000 8 15 43,850 39.6 288,350
2001 8 15 45,200 39.1 297,350
2002 8 10 12,000 38.6 307,050
200311 8 10 14,000 35.0 311,950
2004 8 10 14,300 35.0 319,100
2005 8 10 14,600 35.0 326,450
2006 8 10 15,100 35.0 336,550
2007 8 10 15,650 35.0 349,700
2008 8 10 16,050 35.0 357,700
2009
10
16,700 35.0 372,950
2010
10
16,700 35.0 373,650
201112
10
17,000 35.0 379,150

1 Taxable income excludes zero bracket amount from 1977 through 1986. Rates shown apply only to married persons filing joint returns beginning in 1948. Does not include either the add on minimum tax on preference items (1970-1982) or the alternative minimum tax (1979-present). Also, does not include the effects of the various tax benefit phase-outs (e.g. the personal exemption phase-out). From 1922 through 1986 and from 1991 forward, lower rates applied to long-term capital gains.

2 After earned-income deduction equal to 25 percent of earned income.

3 After earned-income deduction equal to 10 percent of earned income.

4 Exclusive of Victory Tax.

5 Subject to the following maximum effective rate limitations.

[year and maximum rate (in percent)] 1944-45 –90; 1946-47 –85.5; 1948-49 –77.0; 1950 –87.0; 1951 –87.2; 1952-53 –88.0; 1954-63 –87.0.

6 Includes surcharge of 7.5 percent in 1968, 10 percent in 1969, and 2.6 percent in 1970.

7 Earned income was subject to maximum marginal rates of 60 percent in 1971 and 50 percent from 1972 through 1981.

8 Beginning in 1975, a refundable earned-income credit is allowed for low-income individuals.

9 After tax credit is 1.25 percent against regular tax.

10 The benefit of the first rate bracket is eliminated by an increased rate above certain thresholds. The phase-out range of the benefit of the first rate bracket was as follows: Taxable income between $71,900 and $149,250 in 1988; taxable income between $74,850 and $155,320 in 1989; and taxable income between $78,400 and $162,770 in 1990. The phase-out of the benefit the first rate bracket was repealed for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1990. This added 5 percentage points to the marginal rate for those by the phaseout, producing a 33 percent effective rate.

11 Rates for 2003 are after enactment of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. Prior to enactment the rates were 10% up to $12,000 and 38.6% on amounts over $311,950.

12 The 2011 rates were extended for two years after enactment of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.

Sources: Joint Committee on Taxation, “Overview of Present Law and Economic Analysis Relating to Marginal Tax Rates and the President’s Individual Income Tax Rate Proposals” (JCX-6-01), March 6, 2001, and Congressional Research Service, “Statutory Individual Income Tax Rates and Other Elements of the Tax System: 1988 through 2008,” (RL34498) May 21, 2008. Tax Foundation, “Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History: Income Years 1913-2011,”

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

Paul Samuelson and Tax Policy in the Kennedy
Administration

Joseph J. Thorndike

“…Recovery from the recession of 1958 had been anemic. The nation had never
returned to anything like high employment, with more than 5 percent of workers
continually idle: “A most disappointing performance in comparison with earlier
post-war recoveries and desirable social goals.” Such sluggishness threatened to
become permanent, unless Congress did something to foster not just short-term
recovery, but long-term growth.

Expansionary fiscal policy was the only viable solution, Samuelson explained,
because monetary policy was constrained by a chronic balance of payments
deficit. Policymakers should move quickly to increase and accelerate spending
programs that were “desirable for their own sake.” They should also boost
unemployment benefits, foster residential housing construction through various
incentives, and pursue a variety of other socially desirable spending programs,
including urban renewal and natural resource development.

Tax Cuts

Samuelson warned that additional spending might not be
enough to win the battle against recession — and keep it won. In that case, the
nation must turn to a second line of economic defense: tax cuts. Samuelson
understood that expansionary tax cuts were controversial, not least because they
seemed to flout the hoary traditions of fiscal conservatism. If deficits were a
natural byproduct of recession, then making them even bigger by slashing tax
rates seemed rash — at least to many policymakers.

But Samuelson directly challenged such atavistic orthodoxies. Deficits that
arose from stimulatory fiscal policy were not just tolerable, but desirable.
They had to be distinguished, he insisted, from shortfalls brought on by
excessive spending:

The deficits that come automatically from recession or which are a necessary part of a determined effort to restore the economic system to health are quite different phenomena [from deficits driven by out-of-control spending].They are signs that our automatic built-in stabilizers are working, and that we no longer will run the risk of going into one of the great depressions that characterized our economic history before the war.

In the face of persistently high unemployment, policymakers should enact temporary tax cuts,
Samuelson advised. “Congress could legislate, for example, a cut of three or
four percentage points in the tax rate applicable to every income class, to take
effect immediately under our withholding system, in March or April and to
continue until the end of the year,” he wrote. Also, the president might be
granted authority to extend those tax cuts for six months or a year after their
initial expiration.

Tax cuts must be temporary, however, if only to preserve the nation’s
long-term fiscal health. “With the continued international uncertainty and with
new public programs coming up in the years ahead,” Samuelson wrote, “sound
finance may require a maintenance of our present tax structure, and any
weakening of it in order to fight a recession might be tragic.”

The report left room for more permanent reductions in personal income tax
rates, which most economists considered excessively high. But such cuts should
be part of more fundamental tax reform, including efforts to broaden the tax
base by reducing preferences. That sort of tax program should be advanced on its
own merits, Samuelson wrote, not as part of an antirecession package.

A Moderate Manifesto

Samuelson’s report was ambitious, but it
was hardly radical. By stressing a few relatively moderate spending increases –
and the acceleration of existing spending programs — it sought to draft
expansionary fiscal policy out of existing spending priorities. It also stressed
that major new spending programs should await further analysis of the
economic situation.

“It is just as important to know what not to do as to know what to do,” the
report noted. “What is definitely not called for in the present situation is a
massive program of hastily devised public works whose primary purpose is merely
that of making jobs and getting money pumped into the economy.” The New Deal was
replete with such spending, but 1961 was not 1933. There was no need to “push
the panic button and resort to inefficient spending devices,” the report said.

The Samuelson report received a generally warm welcome, especially from the
press. Most observers seemed to understand that it was carefully designed to put
a moderate face on Democratic policies, and they valued the effort. Still, not
everyone was convinced that it would succeed. “The recommendations, of course,
are those of a small group of men operating independently of the many political
and bureaucratic factors that go into the formation of national policy,” The
New York Times
observed. “That gives the recommendations the virtue of being
relatively ‘pure,’ but it also makes them subject to some revision in the
government wringer.”9

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/AAFB5F763226FD37852576A80075F253?OpenDocument

Economics USA, Fiscal Policy

The Kennedy Tax Cut John F. Kennedy took office as the country was
already beginning its recovery from the Recession of 1960, but unemployment
remained high. Kennedy’s advisors realized the government would soon be taking
in ore than it was spending. That surplus would stop economic growth, well short
of full employment. That could be corrected in two ways: by tax cuts or
increased expenditures. Kennedy was committed to tax cuts despite calls from
John Kenneth Galbraith, a long-time friend, who lobbied that social programs on
the behalf of the poor were in need of more support. The Treasury Department was
dubious about a big tax-cut and wanted only a 4 billion cut. Kennedy advisor and
chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors Walter Heller was pushing for a 12
billion cut. Kennedy tried to sell the $12 billion tax-cut to a reluctant
congress. Congress passed the Kennedy tax program following his death. The
economy immediately took off in a burst of prosperity.

Comment and
Analysis by Richard Gill.
What the tax cut did was simply give more
disposable income to consumers. It shifted private spending up. The gap between
spending and full employment was eradicated.. The apparent success of the
tax-cut of 1964 was hailed by many as a total vindication of Keynesian ideas

http://www.crawfordsworld.com/rob/ape/EconU$A/Pgm06.html

Economic Policy and the Road to Serfdom: The Watershed of 1913
Brian Domitrovic

“…The answer to the first question is that the saved pay did not retain its value, meaning that one cannot really hold that there had been a true return to full employment during the war. From 1944 to 1948, the United States experienced inflation of 42 percent (the Fed had been expansionist again), devaluing savings accrued before that time. Moreover, redemptions of U.S. war bonds (where so much of workers’ pay had gone during World War II) were taxed at one’s marginal income tax rate, and rates were jacked up across the board, the top one reaching 91 percent. Therefore, when World War II employees redeemed the bonds after the war, the World War II employer—the government—recovered much of what it had laid out in pay to its workers. A conservative estimate is that given inflation and taxes, the average World War II worker lost half of his or her pay to the government. In economic terms, this means that World War II solved the unemployment problem of the 1930s only half as much as is commonly supposed.

As for the second question, GDP fell precipitously from 1944 to 1947, by 13 percent, as prices soared. This was a clear indication that the growth of the war years was artificial. Nonetheless, living standards improved, as the real sector made huge inroads into the government’s share of economic production. Then a transition hit: the postwar inflation stopped. This occurred because the U.S. government focused on its commitment to the world made at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference that it would not overproduce the dollar so as to jeopardize the $35 gold price. And when Republicans won control of Congress in 1946, they insisted on getting a tax cut; they finally passed it over President Harry Truman’s veto in April 1948. The institutions of 1913 had signaled a posture of retreat.

That is when postwar prosperity got going. From 1947 to 1953, growth rolled in at the old familiar rate of 4.6 percent per annum, as unemployment dived and prices stayed at par except for a strange 8 percent burst just as the Korean War started.

Taxes were still high, however, with rates that started at 20 percent and peaked at 91 percent. When recession hit in 1953, a chorus rose that they be hacked away. But for the eight years of his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower resisted these calls for tax relief. Despite the common myth of “Eisenhower prosperity,” the years 1953 to 1960 saw economic growth far below the old par, at only 2.4 percent, and there were three recessions during this period. Monetary policy, for its part, was unremarkable. Once again the coincidence held: unremarkable monetary policy and aggressive tax policy led to a half-baked result.

Much ink has been spilled on how the JFK tax cuts of 1962 and 1964 were “Keynesian” and “demand-side.” Whatever we want to call the policy mix of the day, in the JFK and early Lyndon B. Johnson years, fiscal and monetary policy clearly retreated. Income taxes got cut across the board, with every rate in the Eisenhower structure going down, the top from 91 percent to 70 percent, the bottom from 20 percent to 14 percent. And monetary policy zeroed in (at least through 1965) on a stable value of the dollar, with the gold price and the price level sticking at par after making startling moves up with the final Eisenhower recessions. The results: from 1961 to 1968, real U.S. growth was 5.1 percent yearly; unemployment hit peacetime lows; and inflation held in the heroic 1 percent range before the latter third of the period, when it began creeping up by a point a year. The real effects inspired slogans. If four decades prior had been the “Roaring ’20s,” these were the “Swingin’ ’60s” and “The Go-Go Years.”

At the end of the decade, however, the government loudly signaled a reversal in fiscal and monetary policy. The Fed volunteered that it would finance budget deficits, and LBJ pleaded for and got an income tax surcharge, soon accompanied (under Richard M. Nixon) by an increase in the capital-gains rate on the order of 100 percent. This two-front reassertion of fiscal and monetary policy held for a dozen years. The nickname eventually given to that period, in view of the real effects, was the “stagflation era” (for stagnation plus inflation). From 1969 to 1982, real GDP went to half that of the Go-Go Years, to 2.46 percent; the price level tripled (with gold going up twentyfold); average unemployment roughly doubled to 7.5 percent; three double-dip recessions occurred; and stocks and bonds suffered a 75 percent real loss. It was the worst decade of American macroeconomic history save the 1930s …”

http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1484

How the Government Dealt With Past Recessions

Since the Great Depression, presidents have frequently experimented with Keynesian economics to combat recessions. Three economists chronicle the history of government policy during past recessions and explain what worked and what didn’t.
FISCAL POLICY: ITS MACROECONOMIC PERSPECTIVEby James Tobin
“…In making a major cut in federal income taxes the centerpiece of his program,
George w. Bush has followed two influential precedents, one of Democratic
Presidents Kennedy and Johnson in 1962-64 and the other of course that of
Republican President Reagan in 1981. Candidate Bob Dole obeyed Republican
tradition by proposing in his 1996 campaign a 15% across-the-board cut in income
tax rates. Instead the reelection of Bill Clinton continued the regime of fiscal
discipline and monetary wisdom begun by Treasury Secretary Rubin and Federal
Reserve Chairman Greenspan in 1993. The economy and the federal budget were
doing so well in election year 2000 that it seemed unlikely that young Mr. Bush
could be elected, much less succeed in reviving Reaganomic fiscal policies. Yet
now in 2001 it seems quite probable that a substantial permanent cut in income
taxes will be enacted, along with an emergency package to encourage spending
soon this year.
The story of macroeconomic and fiscal developments over the last
forty years is an amalgam of economic theory, politics, and ideology. I admit to
being both a Keynesian and a neoclassical economist and both a liberal and a
conservative in public policy. I was an adviser to President Kennedy, and an
informal consultant to other Democratic candidates. Win or lose, my advice was
very often not taken. In 1962-64, when JFK first considered and then recommended
cutting taxes, the economy was hesitantly recovering from the 1959-60 recession.
Kennedy’s first measures were incentives for business plant and equipment
investments, accelerated depreciation allowances and tax credits. The major tax
legislation, in 1964, was intended to keep the recovery from petering out
prematurely. Unemployment had fallen from 7% at JFK’s inauguration in 1961 to
the 5-6% range, but the Administration’s target was 4%. It was reached in 1965.
The stimulus of the tax cut was unexpectedly augmented by spending for Vietnam.
The combined spending was excessive, reducing unemployment a point below the 4%
target and unleashing unwelcome inflation in 1966-68. President Johnson
belatedly and reluctantly was persuaded to prevail on the Congress to raise
taxes temporarily in 1968. It was too late, and the Nixon Administration
inherited a difficult economy. Moral: unforeseen events may make you regret a
permanent loss of federal revenue, and it is awfully difficult ever to raise
taxes. This is even truer now that any tax increase is a deadly sin in the
litany of the G.O.P.
REAGAN’S 1981 CUT: SUPPLY-SIDE REFORM WAS DEMAND STIMULUS
INSTEAD

Ronald Reagan’s tax cut took effect at the depths of the worst
recession since World War II. Unemployment had hit double digits. This was the
cost of the crusade of the Federal Reserve under Chairman Paul Volcker against
an inflation that itself had in 1979-80 hit double digits. The tax cut was a big
stimulus to consumer and business spending, reinforced by Reagan’s buildup of
the U.S. military.

The period 1981-88 was one of recovery from the recession,
bringing unemployment back down to 6%. The high year-to-year rates of increase
of economic activity and real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during such
business-cycle upswings reflect the re-employment of idle resources, both
workers and industrial capacity. This additional output growth is the essence of
prosperity. But this pace cannot be sustained. Once the economy returns to full
employment, the economy can grow only at its long-run sustainable rates of
increase in the supplies of economic resources and, especially, in their
productivity.

The architects of Reaganomics styled themselves Supply-Siders.
They scorned the Demand-Side theories and policies they attributed to John
Maynard Keynes and to his “liberal” followers, whom they held responsible for
the stagflation of the 1970s. In their view the Federal Reserve could and should
control inflation by stabilizing the supply of money, as preached in the
Monetarism of Milton Friedman. Keynesians were, they argued, dangerously wrong
to think that demand-side stimuli to spending could lift employment, GDP, and
economic welfare. Instead what the country needs are policies to enhance supply,
in particular by lowering taxes, providing incentives to work, save, innovate,
take risks. That was the spirit and the purpose of Reagan fiscal policy.

In practice Reaganomics turned out to be the biggest and most
successful Demand-side fiscal gambit in peacetime U.S. history. What it was not
was what it was intended to be, a Supply-side transformation of the economy.
There was zero evidence that the American economy’s capacity to produce goods
and services at full employment was any greater at the end of the
eighties than would have been prophesied a decade earlier without Reagan fiscal
policy. The trend of productivity growth was the same as before.

These Supply-side failures may seem surprising, since income tax
cuts were meant to embody incentives for more productive and innovative
behavior. Unfortunately these cuts in tax rates also bring windfalls for
behavior that already took place. For example, offering concessions for capital
gains on future acquisitions of assets might be socially useful, while reducing
taxes on gains realized on holdings bought years ago clearly is not. The test is
whether the taxpayer must in order to benefit change his behavior in the desired
supply-side direction. If yes, the touted incentives work. If no, the individual
taxpayers’ gains have to be defended otherwise, as deserved and just.
Undergraduate microeconomics students know the difference between the “income
effects” and “substitution effects” of variations in prices or taxes. The
substitution effects are responses to incentives, but they are often outweighed
by income effects in the perverse direction. Income effects may sometimes be
what the doctor ordered, more consumer spending. But those effects can overwhelm
Supply-side objectives. A cut in marginal income tax rates may elicit more work
from some taxpayers, but workers whose taxes are reduced anyway may take some of
their gains in leisure. The same objections apply to tax credits intended to
induce desirable behavior, for example saving or paying school and college
tuitions. These devices have long been favorites of politicians in both
parties. …”

http://www.econ.yale.edu/news/tobin/jt_01_tp_perspective.htm

Econ 101: How do Tax Cuts Work?

Despite the medias portrayal, tax cuts for the rich arent bad and they boost the economy.

By Gary Wolfram, Ph.D.

http://www.mrc.org/bmi/commentary/2006/Econ__How_do_Tax_Cuts_Work_.html

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 1: Newt Gingrich’s Optional 15% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–More Taxes Than Cain’s-9-9-9 (27%) Tax Plan But Less Than Perry’s Optional 20% Flat Tax Plus 15.3% Social SecurityTax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment: 2: Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 Plan: 9% Business Income Flat Tax, 9% Personal Income Flat Tax, 9% National Retail Consumption Tax–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 3: Perry proposes optional flat 20 percent income tax and cap on government spending–Videos

Pronk Pops Show 52, November 2, 2011: Segment 4: A Ron Paul tax reform plan: no income taxes or IRS — FairTax Less!–”When The Impossible Became The Inevitable”–Videos

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 )

Who Is Behind And Funding Occupy Wall Street–The Radical Left: Communist Party USA, Socialist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, Worker’s World Party,Working Families Party (front for ACORN), New York Communities For Change, Adbusters, George Soros and Barack Obama–Video

Posted on October 16, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Computers, Crime, Culture, Drug Cartels, Economics, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Union, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

~ Benjamin Franklin

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent
of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

~Thomas Jefferson

UPDATED

Occupy Wall Street TRUTH! (Message to young Protesters) 

Congratulations You Figured It Out!

Suggest You Add This Link To Your List

http://mises.org/


  How to Reject the Statist Quo | Jeffrey A. Tucker

Inside Occupy Wall Street’s Office 

Obama gets his class war

Police arrest protesters on ‘day of action’ – ‘Occupy Wall Street’

Occupy:  Soros, Piven and SEIU Working to Destroy Americas Financial System to Create Revolution

How ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Was Organized From Day One by SEIU

SEIU President Arrested At Occupy Brooklyn Bridge Protest

Occupy Wall Street Was Organized by SEIU, ACORN Front Group ‘The Working Family Party’

ANGELA DAVIS

(Communist Party Member)

Angela Davis…Occupy Oakland

Angela Davis Occupy Wall St @ Washington Sq Park Oct 30 2011 General Strike November 2

Glenn Beck: Soros connections to OWS

Glenn Beck: Occupy is SEIU world Marxist movement

Glenn Beck: Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street

GBTV: What is Occupy Wall Street going to do for the their two month anniversary

Occupy Wall Street = What Democrats, Nazis And Communists All Have In Common

OWS – ACORN Behind Occupy Wall Street Movement!

The Greatest Revolution in History has Begun! BEST OCCUPY DOCUMENTARY

Growing Anti-Semitism In The Occupy Wall Street Movement! (They’re EVIL I Tells Ya! E V I L !)

Voices from Occupy Wall Street (Nov-2011)(POLITICS IS ACTION series)

OCCUPY OAKLAND Police launch tear gas, flash bang canisters into crowd of protesters OWS Wall Street

Fox News says, OCCUPY WALL STREET are FAR-LEFT ANTI-AMERICAN SOCIALISTS

OWS: Occupy Oakland Anarchists Smash Windows and Destroy Business Property

Fox News says, OCCUPY WALL STREET are DEMONIC, BRAINLESS, LOSERS

TEA PARTY Invades OCCUPY DC- (explicit)

Occupy Wall Street Protestor on Federal Reserve

 A great and brilliant speech from a young Ron Paul supporter. Three cheers for capitalism!

My advice to classical liberals or libertarians and Ron Paul supporters is to stay clear of the Occupy Wall Street mob.

The primary organizers of Occupy Wall Street are radical left political parties and unions.

All of them are collectivists that oppose limited government and instead want to increase government dependency.

Just to name a few, they include the Communist Party USA, Socialist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, Worker’s World Party, SEIU, and AFL-CIO.

Do not become one of the dupes.

The entire Occupy Wall Street action is a distraction from the Obama Administration’s and Democratic Party’s failed economic policies resulting in even higher unemployment rates and more people dependent upon government.

This is exactly why Obama intentionally implemented the first stimulus package and now asks for a second one relabeled the American Jobs Act.

Both Obama and Occupy Wall Street are executing the Cloward-Piven strategy to blame the high unemployment on business and not the government.

Government is the problem not the solution.

All the far left  radical parties are advocating more government in the form of socialism and communism as the solution.

Simply ignore Occupy Wall Street.

They will quickly fade into history and be soon forgotten.

Judge Napolitano: Freedom Is The Law Of The Land! ( Occupy Wall Street Protest ) ( OWS )

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Three and a Half Days

OCCUPY WALL STREET = BRAINWASHED SHEEP HIPPIES SOCIALISTS COMMUNISTS

Budding Occupy Wall Street Movement Gives Voice to Anger Over Greed, Corporations

What We Saw at the Occupy Wall Street Protest

Occupy Wall Street Organized by Acorn Front; Connection to Obama Admin & Socialist Parties

‘Occupy Wall Street’ Growing More Organized

Freedom Watch – Judge Napolitano’s Open Letter to Occupy Wall Street Oct 13, 2011

Obama SEIU’s Agenda is My Agenda

Andy Stern, SEIU President and Communist

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka Supporting Occupy Wall Street

Unions join w/ Occupy Wall St.

Occupy Wall Street Journal is Funded By George Soros’ Tides

Alex Jones – Webster Tarpley – George Soros Hijacking Occupy Wall Street  – part 1/2

Alex Jones – Webster Tarpley – George Soros Hijacking Occupy Wall Street  – part 2/2

Communist Jed Brandt_ We Need To Destroy The United States (Occupy Wall Street).

Communist Party Occupy Wall Street Conference Call 10/11/11

Occupy Wall Street: Communist and Marxist professor, Slavoj Zizek, galvanizes the crowd

Communist and Marxist Slavoj Zizek en Occupy Wall Street

Cornel West in Liberty Plaza Warns Protest Will Grow

Occupy Protests in LA and DC: Are Socialists, Crazies and Hate-Mongers Really the 99%?

[#OccupyWallstreet] Socialist Revolution at occupy wall street

#Occupy Wall Street Frances Fox Piven ‘We Desperately Need a Popular Uprising in the US’

Frances Fox Piven Fellow Professors Indoctrinating College Students at CUNY

Occupy Wall Street Journal is Funded By George Soros’ Tides, Code Pink and Michael Moore

George Soros backs anti-Wall Street protests

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 1

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 2

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 3

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 4

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 5

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 6

Background Articles and Videos

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism, Part 1

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism, Part 2

In Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, a man named Frank is mention. Frank is Frank Marshall Davis, member of the Communist Party an an early mentor of Barack Obama.

Paul Kengor (1 of 3)

Paul Kengor (2 of 3)

Paul Kengor (3 of 3)

Angela Davis interviewed by Julian Bond:  Explorations in Black Leadership Series

Angela Y. Davis

“…Angela Y. Davis (born January 26, 1944) is an American political activist, scholar, and author. Davis was most politically active during the late 1960s through the 1970s and was associated with the Communist Party USA, the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Panther Party. Prisoner rights have been among her continuing interests; she is the founder of “Critical Resistance”, an organization working to abolish the “prison-industrial complex”. She is a retired professor with the History of Consciousness Department at the University of California, Santa Cruz and is the former director of the university’s Feminist Studies department.[1] Her research interests are in feminism, African American studies, critical theory, Marxism, popular music and social consciousness, and the philosophy and history of punishment and prisons.[2]

Her membership in the Communist Party led to Ronald Reagan’s request in 1969 to have her barred from teaching at any university in the State of California. She was tried and acquitted of suspected involvement in the Soledad brothers’ August 1970 abduction and murder of Judge Harold Haley in Marin County, California.

She was twice a candidate for Vice President on the Communist Party USA ticket during the 1980s. …”

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

Working Families Party: Agendas, Activities, and Alliances

By Richard Poe
Discover The Networks
2005

Democratic Socialists of America

“…The Working Families Party (WFP) is a front group for the radical cult ACORN. It functions as a political party in New York State and Connecticut, promoting ACORN-friendly candidates. Unlike conventional political parties, WFP charges its members dues – about $60 per year – a policy characteristic of ACORN and its affiliates.

According to the party’s Web site, WFP is a coalition founded by ACORN, the Communications Workers of America, and the United Automobile Workers. However, ACORN clearly dominates the coalition. New York ACORN leader Steven Kest was the moving force in forming the party. WFP headquarters  is located at the same address as ACORN’s national office, at 88 Third Avenue in Brooklyn.

“The [Working Families Party] was created in 1998 to help push the Democratic Party toward the left,” noted the Associated Press on March 28, 2000. In pursuit of this goal, WFP runs radical candidates in state and local elections. Generally, WFP candidates conceal their extremism beneath a veneer of populist rhetoric, promoting bread-and-butter issues designed to appeal to union workers and other blue-collar voters, Republican and Democrat alike.

The Working Families Party benefits from a quirk of New York State election law, which allows parties to “cross-endorse” candidates of other parties. Thus when Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate in 2000, she ran both on the Democratic Party ticket and on the Working Families Party ticket. Of the 3.4 million popular votes Hillary received from New Yorkers, the Working Families Party delivered 103,000. …”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/wfpparty.html

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

  • Largest Socialist organization in the U.S.
  • Works closely with the radical Democratic Progressive Caucus

At the height of the Cold War and the Vietnam War era, the Socialist Party USA of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas split in two over the issue of whether to criticize or even denounce the Soviet Union, its allies, and Communism: One faction rejected and denounced the USSR and its allies, including Castro’s Cuba, the Sandinistas, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong, and supported Poland’s Solidarity Movement, etc.  This anti-Communist faction took the name Social Democrats USA. (Many of its leaders — including Carl Gershman, who became Jeane Kirkpatrick’s counselor of embassy at the United Nations — grew more conservative and became Reagan Democrats.) The other faction, however, refused to reject Marxism, refused to criticize or denounce the Soviet Union and its allies, and continued to support their policies — including the Soviet-backed nuclear-freeze program that would have consolidated Soviet nuclear superiority in Europe. This faction, whose leading figure was Michael Harrington, in 1973 took the name Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee (DSOC), whose membership included many former Students for a Democratic Society activists. By 1979 DSOC had made major inroads into the Democratic Party and claimed a national membership of some 3,000 people. In 1982 DSOC merged with the New American Movement to form the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

DSA describes itself as “the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International” and ranks as the largest socialist organization in the United States. “We are socialists,” reads the organization’s boilerplate, “because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.” “To achieve a more just society,” adds DSA, “many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed. … Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States.”

DSA summarizes its philosophy as follows: “Today … [r]esources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them. Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic Socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. … While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.”

DSA seeks to increase its political influence not by establishing its own party, but rather by working closely with the Democratic Party to promote leftist agendas. “Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party,” says DSA. “We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. … Maybe sometime in the future … an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.”

Until 1999, DSA hosted the website of the Progressive Caucus. Following a subsequent expose of the link between the two entities, the Progressive Caucus established its own website under the auspices of Congress. But DSA and the Progressive Caucus remain intimately linked. All 58 Progressive Caucus members also belong to DSA. In addition to these members of Congress, other prominent DSA members include Noam Chomsky, Ed Asner, Gloria Steinem, and Cornel West, who serves as the organization’s honorary Chair.

DSA was a Cosponsoring Organization of the April 25, 2004 “March for Women’s Lives” held in Washington, D.C., a rally that drew more than a million demonstrators advocating for the right to unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.

DSA was also a signatory to a petition of self-described “civil society” organizations that opposed globalization and “any effort to expand the powers of the World Trade Organization (WTO) through a new comprehensive round of trade liberalization.”

DSA endorsed Pay Equity Now! – a petition jointly issued in 2000 by the National Organization for Women, the Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union Women, and the International Wages for Housework Campaign – to “expose and oppose U.S. opposition to pay equity” for women. The petition charged that: “the U.S. government opposes pay equity – equal pay for work of equal value – in national policy and international agreements”; “women are often segregated in caring and service work for low pay, much like the housework they are expected to do for no pay at home”; and “underpaying women is a massive subsidy to employers that is both sexist and racist.”

In the wake of 9/11, DSA characterized the terror attacks as acts of retaliation for American-perpetrated global injustices. “We live in a world,” said DSA, “organized so that the greatest benefits go to a small fraction of the world’s population while the vast majority experiences injustice, poverty, and often hopelessness. Only by eliminating the political, social, and economic conditions that lead people to these small extremist groups can we be truly secure.”

Strongly opposed to the U.S. War on Terror and America’s post-9/11 military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, DSA is a member organization of the United For Peace and Justice anti-war coalition led by Leslie Cagan, a longtime committed socialist who aligns her politics with those of Fidel Castro’s Communist Cuba.

DSA publishes a quarterly journal titled Democratic Left, which discusses issues of concern to the organization and its constituents. The Founding Editor of this publication was Michael Harrington. DSA has also created a youth association called Young Democratic Socialists.

Annual fees for membership in DSA range from $15 to $60 per year. DSA raises additional funds via sales made through its online Book Shop, which features dozens of titles by leftist authors, among whom are Michael Harrington, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Todd Gitlin, Stanley Aronowitz, Howard Zinn, Eric Foner, Tom Hayden, Manning Marable, Michael Eric Dyson, and Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward.

As of March 2010, some of DSA’s most notable honorary chairs included Barbara Ehrenreich, Dolores Huerta, Frances Fox Piven (co-creator of the Cloward-Piven Strategy), Eliseo Medina (executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union), Gloria Steinem, and Cornel West.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk0cQwX6B-I&feature=related

George Soros

“…George Soros is one of the most powerful men on earth. A New York  hedge fund manager, he has amassed a personal fortune estimated at  about $13  billion (as of 2009). His company, Soros  Fund Management, controls at  least another $25  billion
in investor assets. Since 1979, Soros’s foundation network — whose  flagship is the Open  Society Institute (OSI) — has dispensed more than $5 billion to  a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent  with those of Soros. With assets of $1.93 billion as of 2008, OSI  alone donates scores of millions of dollars annually to these  various groups. Following  is a sampling of the major agendas advanced by groups that Soros and  OSI support financially. Listed under each category heading are a few
OSI donees fitting that description. …”

“…The Open Society Institute is not the only vehicle by which George  Soros works to reshape America’s political landscape. Indeed, Soros  was the prime mover in the creation of the so-called “Shadow  Democratic Party,” or “Shadow  Party,” in 2003. This term refers to a nationwide network of  labor unions, non-profit activist groups, and think  tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, and which are  engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. This network’s activities  include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising,  opposition research, and media manipulation.

The Shadow Party  was conceived  and organized principally by George  Soros, Hillary  Clinton and Harold  McEwan Ickes – all identified with the Democratic  Party left. Other key players included:

  • Morton  H. Halperin: Director of Soros’ Open  Society Institute
  • John  Podesta: Democrat strategist and former chief of staff for Bill  Clinton
  • Jeremy Rosner: Democrat strategist  and pollster, ex-foreign policy speechwriter for Bill Clinton
  • Robert Boorstin: Democrat  strategist and pollster, ex-national security speechwriter for Bill  Clinton
  • Carl  Pope: Co-founder of America  Coming Together, Democrat strategist, and Sierra  Club Executive Director
  • Steve  Rosenthal: Labor leader, CEO of America Coming Together, and  former chief advisor on union matters to Clinton Labor Secretary  Robert  Reich
  • Peter  Lewis: Major Democrat donor and insurance entrepreneur
  • Rob Glaser: Major Democrat donor  and Silicon Valley pioneer
  • Ellen  Malcolm: Co-founder and President of America Coming  Together, and founder of EMILY’s  List
  • Rob McKay: Major Democrat donor,  Taco Bell heir, and McKay Family Foundation President
  • Lewis and Dorothy Cullman: Major Democrat donors

To develop the Shadow Party as a cohesive entity, Harold Ickes  undertook the task of building a 21st-century version of the Left’s
traditional alliance of the “oppressed” and  “disenfranchised.” By the time Ickes was done, he had  created or helped to create six new groups, and had co-opted a  seventh called MoveOn.org.
Together, these seven groups constituted the administrative core of  the newly formed Shadow Party:

  • America  Coming Together
  • America  Votes
  • Center  for American Progress
  • Joint  Victory Campaign 2004
  • Media  Fund
  • MoveOn.org
  • Thunder  Road Group

These organizations, along with the many leftist groups with which  they collaborate, have played a major role in helping Soros
advance his political and social agendas.

According  to Richard Poe, co-author (with David Horowitz) of the 2006 book  The Shadow Party:

“The Shadow Party is the real power driving the  Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to  transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive. The  leader of these radicals is … George Soros. He has essentially  privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal  control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he  exerts that control…. It works by siphoning off hundreds of  millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to  the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions  at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money  to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit. In 2003, Soros  set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or  mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we  would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as  shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns,  and so forth.  However, it performs these functions under the  private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates. The Shadow Party  derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money.  By controlling the Democrat purse strings, the Shadow Party can make
or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund  him. During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more  than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its  operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli  Pariser, to declare, ‘Now it’s our party.  We bought it,  we own it…’”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

SEIU Stephen Lerner’s Plan to Sabotage American Economy and Stock Market and To Destroy Capitalism–Videos

Collectivists vs. Individualists: Occupy Wall Street Compared To Tea Party–Videos

Glenn Beck Is Back–Warning–Danger–The Marxist Roots of Occupy Wall Street–Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialists &amp; SEIU–Executing The Cloward Piven Strategy–Videos

Public Sector Unions vs. The America People: Replacing The American Dream With The Socialist Union Nightmare–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

Eat The Rich!–Vote Obama In 2012 For More Spending, More Taxes, More Deficits, More Debt, More Unemployment, More Recession–No Hope–No Change–No Deal!–Videos

Posted on September 20, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

EAT THE RICH!

 

Obama sets the record straight: It’s not class warfare …It’s MATH

 

President Obama – It’s Not Class Warfare to Ask Millionaire to Pay Same Tax Rate as Secretary

 

Obama the Socialist wants to spread YOUR money around

Obama – Taxes, Capital Gains

 

President Barack Obama, September 19, 2011

“…So I am ready, I am eager, to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the tax code to make it simpler, make it fairer, and make America more competitive.  But any reform plan will have to raise revenue to help close our deficit.  That has to be part of the formula.  And any reform should follow another simple principle:  Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires.  That’s pretty straightforward.  It’s hard to argue against that.  Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.  There is no justification for it.

It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out.  They should have to defend that unfairness — explain why somebody who’s making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that — paying a higher rate.  They ought to have to answer for it.  And if they’re pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution. …”

2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets

Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:

2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets

Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:

Tax Rate Single Married Filing Joint Married Filing Separate Head of Household
10% Up to $8,500 Up to $17,000 Up to $8,500 Up to $12,150
15% $8,501 – $34,500 $17,001 – $69,000 $8,501 – $34,500 $12,151 – $46,250
25% $34,501 – $83,600 $69,001 – $139,350 $34,501 – $69,675 $46,251 – $119,400
28% $83,601 – $174,400 $139,351 – $212,300 $69,676 – $106,150 $119,401 – $193,350
33% $174,401 – $379,150 $212,301 – $379,150 $106,151 – $189,575 $193,351 – $379,150
35% Over $379,150 Over $379,150 Over $189,575 Over $379,150

In addition to the tax brackets above, you may owe tax under the alternative minimum tax. You can review the 2011 AMT exemption to see if it will apply to you.

Proposed 2012 Tax Rates & Tax Brackets

Tax Rate Single Married Filing Joint Head of Household
10% Up to $8,600 Up to $17,200 Up to $12,250
15% $8,601 – $34,900 $17,201 – $69,800 $12,251 – $46,750
25% $34,901 – $84,500 $69,801 – $140,850 $46,751 – $120,700
28% $84,501 – $195,950 $140,851 – $237,700 $120,701 – $216,800
36% $195,951 – $383,350 $237,701 – $383,350 $216,801 – $383,350
39.6% Over $383,350 Over $383,350 Over $383,350

Married Filing Separate was not included in the release. I’ll update the 2012 federal tax tables for all filing statuses as soon as the information is available.

2012 Tax Rates vs 2011 Tax Rates

Want to compare the proposed 2012 tax brackets to the current year to see the changes?

The biggest changes in the proposal are expanding the 28% bracket and replacing the 33% and 35% brackets with 36% and 39.6% brackets.

http://www.mydollarplan.com/tax-brackets/

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

“…This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1
percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes
and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think
tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15
percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between
$40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in
federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7
percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income
taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or
more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes,
according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal
income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3
percent.

Obama’s claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and
individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The
top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax
rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above
$379,150.

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because
the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and
credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper on
revenue issues.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low-
and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most,
however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes. …”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b

Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008(Updated October 2010)

Number of Returns with Positive AGI AGI ($ millions) Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) Group’s Share of Total AGI Group’s Share of Income Taxes Income Split Point Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers 139,960,580 8,426,625 1,031,512 100% 100% - 12.24%
Top 1% 1,399,606 1,685,472 392,149 20.00% 38.02% $380,354 23.27%
1-5% 5,598,423 1,241,229 213,569 14.73% 20.70% 17.21%
Top 5% 6,998,029 2,926,701 605,718 34.73% 58.72% $159,619 20.70%
5-10% 6,998,029 929,761 115,703 11.03% 11.22% 12.44%
Top 10% 13,996,058 3,856,462 721,421 45.77% 69.94% $113,799 18.71%
10-25% 20,994,087 1,821,717 169,193 21.62% 16.40% 9.29%
Top 25% 34,990,145 5,678,179 890,614 67.38% 86.34% $67,280 15.68%
25-50% 34,990,145 1,673,932 113,025 19.86% 10.96% 6.75%
Top 50% 69,980,290 7,352,111 1,003,639 87.25% 97.30% >$33,048 13.65%
Bottom 50% 69,980,290 1,074,514 27,873 12.75% 2.70% <$33,048 2.59%
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Table 6
Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2008 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 100% 19.05% 36.84% 12.44% 49.28% 23.74% 73.02% 19.93% 92.95% 7.05%
1981 100% 17.58% 35.06% 12.90% 47.96% 24.33% 72.29% 20.26% 92.55% 7.45%
1982 100% 19.03% 36.13% 12.45% 48.59% 23.91% 72.50% 20.15% 92.65% 7.35%
1983 100% 20.32% 37.26% 12.44% 49.71% 23.39% 73.10% 19.73% 92.83% 7.17%
1984 100% 21.12% 37.98% 12.58% 50.56% 22.92% 73.49% 19.16% 92.65% 7.35%
1985 100% 21.81% 38.78% 12.67% 51.46% 22.60% 74.06% 18.77% 92.83% 7.17%
1986 100% 25.75% 42.57% 12.12% 54.69% 21.33% 76.02% 17.52% 93.54% 6.46%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 100% 24.81% 43.26% 12.35% 55.61% 21.31% 76.92% 17.02% 93.93% 6.07%
1988 100% 27.58% 45.62% 11.66% 57.28% 20.57% 77.84% 16.44% 94.28% 5.72%
1989 100% 25.24% 43.94% 11.85% 55.78% 21.44% 77.22% 16.94% 94.17% 5.83%
1990 100% 25.13% 43.64% 11.73% 55.36% 21.66% 77.02% 17.16% 94.19% 5.81%
1991 100% 24.82% 43.38% 12.45% 55.82% 21.46% 77.29% 17.23% 94.52% 5.48%
1992 100% 27.54% 45.88% 12.12% 58.01% 20.47% 78.48% 16.46% 94.94% 5.06%
1993 100% 29.01% 47.36% 11.88% 59.24% 20.03% 79.27% 15.92% 95.19% 4.81%
1994 100% 28.86% 47.52% 11.93% 59.45% 20.10% 79.55% 15.68% 95.23% 4.77%
1995 100% 30.26% 48.91% 11.84% 60.75% 19.62% 80.36% 15.03% 95.39% 4.61%
1996 100% 32.31% 50.97% 11.54% 62.51% 18.80% 81.32% 14.36% 95.68% 4.32%
1997 100% 33.17% 51.87% 11.33% 63.20% 18.47% 81.67% 14.05% 95.72% 4.28%
1998 100% 34.75% 53.84% 11.20% 65.04% 17.65% 82.69% 13.10% 95.79% 4.21%
1999 100% 36.18% 55.45% 11.00% 66.45% 17.09% 83.54% 12.46% 96.00% 4.00%
2000 100% 37.42% 56.47% 10.86% 67.33% 16.68% 84.01% 12.08% 96.09% 3.91%
2001 100% 16.06% 33.89% 53.25% 11.64% 64.89% 18.01% 82.90% 13.13% 96.03% 3.97%
2002 100% 15.43% 33.71% 53.80% 11.94% 65.73% 18.16% 83.90% 12.60% 96.50% 3.50%
2003 100% 15.68% 34.27% 54.36% 11.48% 65.84% 18.04% 83.88% 12.65% 96.54% 3.46%
2004 100% 17.44% 36.89% 57.13% 11.07% 68.19% 16.67% 84.86% 11.85% 96.70% 3.30%
2005 100% 19.26% 39.38% 59.67% 10.63% 70.30% 15.69% 85.99% 10.94% 96.93% 3.07%
2006 100% 19.56% 39.89% 60.14% 10.65% 70.79% 15.47% 86.27% 10.75% 97.01% 2.99%
2007 100% 20.19% 40.41% 60.61% 10.59% 71.20% 15.37% 86.57% 10.54% 97.11% 2.89%
2008 100% 18.47% 38.02% 58.72% 11.22% 69.94% 16.40% 86.34% 10.96% 97.30% 2.70%
Source: IRS
Table 8
Average Tax Rate, 1980-2008 (Percent of AGI paid in income taxes)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 15.31% 34.47% 26.85% 17.13% 23.49% 14.80% 19.72% 11.91% 17.29% 6.10%
1981 15.76% 33.37% 26.59% 18.16% 23.64% 15.53% 20.11% 12.48% 17.73% 6.62%
1982 14.72% 31.43% 25.05% 16.61% 22.17% 14.35% 18.79% 11.63% 16.57% 6.10%
1983 13.79% 30.18% 23.64% 15.54% 20.91% 13.20% 17.62% 10.76% 15.52% 5.66%
1984 13.68% 29.92% 23.42% 15.57% 20.81% 12.90% 17.47% 10.48% 15.35% 5.77%
1985 13.73% 29.86% 23.50% 15.69% 20.93% 12.83% 17.55% 10.41% 15.41% 5.70%
1986 14.54% 33.13% 25.68% 15.99% 22.64% 12.97% 18.72% 10.48% 16.32% 5.63%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 13.12% 26.41% 22.10% 14.43% 19.77% 11.71% 16.61% 9.45% 14.60% 5.09%
1988 13.21% 24.04% 21.14% 14.07% 19.18% 11.82% 16.47% 9.60% 14.64% 5.06%
1989 13.12% 23.34% 20.71% 13.93% 18.77% 12.08% 16.27% 9.77% 14.53% 5.11%
1990 12.95% 23.25% 20.46% 13.63% 18.50% 12.01% 16.06% 9.73% 14.36% 5.01%
1991 12.75% 24.37% 20.62% 13.96% 18.63% 11.57% 15.93% 9.55% 14.20% 4.62%
1992 12.94% 25.05% 21.19% 13.99% 19.13% 11.39% 16.25% 9.42% 14.44% 4.39%
1993 13.32% 28.01% 22.71% 14.01% 20.20% 11.40% 16.90% 9.37% 14.90% 4.29%
1994 13.50% 28.23% 23.04% 14.20% 20.48% 11.57% 17.15% 9.42% 15.11% 4.32%
1995 13.86% 28.73% 23.53% 14.46% 20.97% 11.71% 17.58% 9.43% 15.47% 4.39%
1996 14.34% 28.87% 24.07% 14.74% 21.55% 11.86% 18.12% 9.53% 15.96% 4.40%
1997 14.48% 27.64% 23.62% 14.87% 21.36% 12.04% 18.18% 9.63% 16.09% 4.48%
1998 14.42% 27.12% 23.63% 14.79% 21.42% 11.63% 18.16% 9.12% 16.00% 4.44%
1999 14.85% 27.53% 24.18% 15.06% 21.98% 11.76% 18.66% 9.12% 16.43% 4.48%
2000 15.26% 27.45% 24.42% 15.48% 22.34% 12.04% 19.09% 9.28% 16.86% 4.60%
2001 14.23% 28.20% 27.50% 23.68% 14.89% 21.41% 11.58% 18.08% 8.91% 15.85% 4.09%
2002 13.03% 28.49% 27.25% 22.95% 13.87% 20.51% 10.47% 16.99% 7.67% 14.66% 3.21%
2003 11.90% 24.64% 24.31% 20.74% 12.22% 18.49% 9.54% 15.38% 7.12% 13.35% 2.95%
2004 12.10% 23.09% 23.49% 20.67% 12.28% 18.60% 9.26% 15.53% 7.01% 13.51% 2.97%
2005 12.45% 22.52% 23.13% 20.78% 12.37% 18.84% 9.27% 15.86% 6.93% 13.84% 2.98%
2006 12.60% 21.98% 22.79% 20.68% 12.60% 18.86% 9.36% 15.95% 7.01% 13.98% 3.01%
2007 12.68% 21.46% 22.45% 20.53% 12.66% 18.79% 9.43% 15.98% 7.01% 14.03% 2.99%
2008 12.24% 22.70% 23.27% 20.70% 12.44% 18.71% 9.29% 15.68% 6.75% 13.65% 2.59%
Source: IRS

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

Summary of Outlays, Revenues (Receipts), Deficits, Surpluses Fiscal Years 1980-2010(Nominal Dollars in Millions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues (Receipts) Deficits (-), Surpluses
1980 590,941 517,112 -73,830
1981 678,241 599,272 -78,968
1982 745,743 617,766 -127,977
1983 808,364 600,562 -207,802
1984 851,805 666,488 -185,367
1985 946,344 734,037 -212,308
1986 990,382 769,155 -221,277
1987 1,004,017 854,288 -149,730
1988 1,064,417 854,288 -155,178
1989 1,143,744 991,105 -152,639
1990 1,252,994 1,031,958 -221,036
1991 1,324,226 1,054,988 -269,238
1992 1,381,529 1,091,208 -290,321
1993 1,409,386 1,154,335 -255,051
1994 1,461,753 1,258,566 -203,186
1995 1,515,742 1,351,790 -163,392
1996 1,560,484 1,453,053 -107,431
1997 1,601,116 1,579,232 -21,884
1998 1,652,458 1,721,728 69,270
1999 1,701,842 1,827,452 125,610
2000 1,788,950 2,025,191 236,241
2001 1,862,846 1,991,082 128,236
2002 2,010,894 1,853,136 -157,758
2003 2,159,899 1,782,314 -377,585
2004 2,292,841 1,880,114 -412,727
2005 2,471,957 2,153,611 -318,346
2006 2,655,050 2,406,869 -248,181
2007 2,728,686 2,567,985 -160,701
2008 2,982,544 2,523,991 -458,553
2009 3,517,677 2,104,989 -1,412,688
2010 3,456,213 2,162,724 -1,293,489
2011 Est. 3,818,819 2,173,700 -1,645,119
2012 Est. 3,728,686 2,627,449 -1,101,237
2013 Est. 3,770,876 3,003,345 -767,531

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data

Obama lied, it is Marxist class warfare as the above charts clearly show! Marxist Math!

The Story of Spending

Is Washington Bankrupting America?

Obama sets the record straight: It’s not class warfare …It’s MATH

President Obama – It’s Not Class Warfare to Ask Millionaire to Pay Same Tax Rate as Secretary

President Obama on Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction

Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished

Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

The Empirical Evidence Against Big Government

Background Articles and Videos

What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise

What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism

What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation

What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law

What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights

What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration

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 )

Obama’s Approval Rating On Economy Hits New Gallup Poll Low Of 26%–Republican Presidential Candidates Romney, Perry, Paul and Bachmann Attack Obama’s Job Creation Record–Videos

Posted on August 22, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Inflation, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

OBAMA´S APPROVAL RATING ON ECONOMY HITS LOW

Peter Schiff, John Lonski, Dennis Berman – on Inflation, Deflation & Recession

Mitt Romney Presidential Announcement

Obama Isn’t Working: Chicago

Obama Isn’t Working: Allentown, PA

Obama Isn’t Working: New Hampshire

Obama Isn’t Working: Where are the Jobs?

Gov. Rick Perry Blasts Obama’s Record on Jobs as an “Economic Disaster”

Rick Perry announces he will run for President (Part 1 of 2) — August 13, 2011

Rick Perry announces he will run for President (Part 2 of 2) — August 13, 2011

Ron Paul Ad – “The one who can beat Obama”

Ron Paul on America Live with Megyn Kelly

Ron Paul: Perry Makes Me Look Like a Moderate

 

Ron Paul – the Most Untalked About Top Tier Presidential Candidate

Ron Paul Ignored By The Media

Editor-in-Chief Insights: Intense Favorites

 

Face The Nation with B…: Michele Bachmann wins straw poll, lays out

Face The Nation with B…: GOP presidential race picks up the pace

Newt Gingrich Releases 2012 Presidential Candidacy Announcement Video

A new job’s plan

Obama Plans Major Jobs/Debt Speech

Obama’s jobs plan – What’s the holdup [CNN 8-18-2011]

Obama says new job creating plan on the way 8/17/2011

SR Allstars – August 17 – Part 1: Obama Jobs Plan?

SR Allstars – August 17 – Part 2: 2012, Perry, Ryan, Paul

Fox’s Andrew Napolitano Predicts Obama’s Jobs Plan Will Be A ‘Giveaway To Select Groups That He And

The Triumph of Human Freedom: THE PLAIN TRUTH by Judge Napolitano 8/18/11

 

Obama’s approval rating on economy hits new Gallup Poll low of 26 percent

Republican presidential candidates Romney, Perry, Paul and Bachmann attack Obama’s job creation record

By Raymond Thomas Pronk

In Feb. 2009 President Barack Obama’s Gallup Poll approval rating on the economy was at its highest at 59 percent and his disapproval rating was at its lowest of 30 percent. The official unemployment rate was 7.8 percent in Jan 2009. In Aug. 2011 Obama’s Gallup Poll approval rating on the economy was 26%, a new low, and his disapproval rating was 71%, a new high.  The July 2011 unemployment rate was 9.1%. The unemployment rate has been over 8% for the last 31 months. Obama’s overall job approval rating according to the Gallup’s daily three-day rolling average tracking poll of Aug. 11-13 dipped below 40 percent for the first time when it hit a new low of 39 percent. It fell again on Aug. 20 to 38 percent.

Unemployment Rate Percent from Jan. 2001-Aug. 2011

 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor

In the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Aug. 23, 2011 President Obama also hit a new low on the Presidential Approval Index of -26 with 45 percent strongly disapproving and 19 percent strongly approving. Rasmussen Reports on Aug. 23, 2011 that among likely voters Obama is at 39 percent and Paul at 38 percent. In a matchup between Obama and a generic Republican candidate among likely voters, Obama is at 43 percent and the generic Republican at 48 percent.

The Misery Index is an economic indicator that is the sum of the unemployment and inflation rates. When President Obama entered office, his Misery Index stood at 7.73 percent. Today it is over 12.7 percent. Obama’s average Misery index is 10.52 which is greater than George W. Bush’s average Misery Index of 8.11 and Bill Clinton’s average misery index of 7.8 percent.

Should the U.S. economy enter another recession, the unemployment rate will most likely again exceed 10 percent. Obama’s approval rating on the economy will most likely fall even lower and his Misery Index will be even higher. However, it is unlikely that Obama’s Misery Index will beat President Jimmy Carter’s June 1980 record Misery Index of 21.98. Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election with 489 electoral votes and 43,903,230 popular votes to Jimmy Carter’s 49 electoral votes and 35,480,115 popular votes—a landslide Republican victory over an incumbent Democratic president.

Jobs and the economy will be the number one political issue in the 2012 Presidential election. The leading Republican candidates, former Massachusetts’s Governor Mitt Romney, Texas Governor Rick Perry, Texas Congressman Ron Paul and Minnesotan Congresswoman Michele Bachmann have been very critical of President Obama’s performance in terms of job creation and the growth in the economy measured by the Gross Domestic Product.

A television attack ad paid for by Romney ends with the tagline, “Obama isn’t working”, with a photo of an unemployment office with a long twisting line of Americans looking for jobs. This is one of a series of one minute attacks ads where the phrase, “Obama isn’t working” is repeated and the employment situation prior to the Obama administration is compared with the employment situation today in a particular city or state. Another attack ad in the series is directed at college students and begins with Obama promising students at the University of Maryland a better future in 2009 and ends with the questions, “Where is the opportunity? Where are the jobs?”

Perry recently entered the presidential race and does not have any Obama attack ads to date. However, Perry in a recent speech to the South Carolina GOP blasted Obama’s record on job creation comparing it to his record on job creation in Texas. Perry stated “The fact is one in six work eligible Americans cannot find a full time job. That is not a recovery, it is an economic disaster.” Perry continued that “we tried for two and half years government trying to create jobs. It is time for the private sector to be given the chance to create jobs.” Perry is proud of his job creation record in Texas and pointed out that “since June of 2009 my home state has created 40 percent of all new jobs created in America.”

Paul has a one minute TV attack ad which asserts that he was the one “voting against every tax increase, every unbalanced budget, every time, standing up to the Washington machine, guiding by principle, Ron Paul who will stop the spending, save the dollar, create jobs, bring peace, the one who will restore liberty. Ron Paul the one who can beat Obama and restore America now.”

Bachmann in an interview on Face the Nation emphasized that she is the chief author of two bills that would repeal Obamacare (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Companies are telling her “that those bills are leading them not to be able to create jobs.” Bachmann also favors “repeal of the existing tax code in its current form, it is 3.8 million words”; “we need a tax code that is job friendly, this is not a job friendly tax code. When you have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world at 34 percent that is not going to incentivize people to start new businesses.”

President Obama announced that he will release his new jobs plan after Labor Day. He said “I will be putting forward when they come back in September a very specific plan to boost the economy, to create jobs, and control our deficit.” Two of the specifics of Obama’s plan that have leaked to the press include an extension of unemployment benefits and extension of the payroll tax cut. The Romney and Paul ads, Perry speech, Bachmann interview and Obama announcement can be viewed in their entirety on YouTube.com with links to them on www.pronkpops.wordpress.com .

In a recent Gallup Poll released on Aug. 22, President Obama is running neck and neck with the top four Republican candidates. Romney leads Obama 48 percent to 46 percent. Perry and Obama are tied in the poll at 47 percent each. Obama leads Republican candidates Paul, 47 percent to 45 percent and Bachmann, 48 percent to 44 percent.

Among independents Romney and Paul lead Obama by 3 percent and Perry leads Obama by 2 percent. Obama beats Bachmann by 6 percent among independents. The Gallup Poll was conducted on Aug. 16 and 17  and has a margin of error of 3.3 percent. For the American people, jobs and the economy are the leading issues of the 2012 presidential election.

[Raymond Thomas Pronk is host of the Pronk Pops Show on KDUX web radio from 3-5 p.m. Wednesday and author of the companion www.pronkpops.wordpress.com blog with links to online videos and articles and past radio show podcasts and downloads—Give It A Listen!]

Background Articles and Videos

Gallup poll: GOP contenders neck-and-neck with Obama

Republicans line up behind candidates to a greater extent than Dems behind president

By Steven Shepard

“…The poll, conducted last week as Obama’s approval rating cratered around 40 percent, shows Obama leading Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., 48 to 44 percent, and Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., 47 to 45 percent.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry ties the president at 47 percent each, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads Obama, 48 to 46 percent.

At this early stage of the campaign, Republicans are largely lined up behind their candidates to a greater extent than Democrats are behind the incumbent president.

Republicans are firmly behind Perry (92 percent) and Romney (91 percent). Bachmann (86 percent) and Paul (82 percent) perform slightly worse among members of their own party. …”

“…Independents are split: Romney and Paul lead among that group by three points, Perry by two, but Obama leads Bachmann among independents by six points. …”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44235036/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/gallup-poll-gop-contenders-neck-and-neck-obama/

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

Each result is based on a three-day rolling average

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Rasmussen Reports

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

// // <!–[CDATA[
OAS_rn = new String (Math.random());
OAS_rns = OAS_rn.substring (2, 11);
document.write('');
// ]]>http://b3.mookie1.com/2/247B3/ATTW/2H_11Q3/AV/300/1197849455@x90

“…The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 19% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -26 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_cont&#8221; href=”http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history&#8221; target=”_blank”>see trends).

This is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for President Obama. The previous low was -24 reached yesterday and also in September 2010. Additionally, the level of Strong Approval matches the lowest yet recorded. By way of comparison, President Bush had ratings near the end of his second term in the minus 30s.  …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Obama 39%, Paul 38%
“…The president and the maverick are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Just a month ago, Obama posted a 41% to 37% lead over Paul, who ran second to Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in the recent high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.

Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the longtime congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_39_paul_38

Election 2012: Generic Presidential Ballot
Election 2012: Generic Republican 48%, Obama 43%
“… A generic Republican candidate now holds a five-point advantage over President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up for the week ending Sunday, August 21. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds the generic Republican earning 48% of the vote, while the president picks up support from 43%.  Two percent (2%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided. ,,,”

The US Misery Index
January 1948 to July 2011

Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbymonth.asp

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

Obama’s Regime Change Vote of No Confidence–First: S&P Downgrade–Second: Labor Participate Rate Hits 27 Year Low–Third: Consumer Confidence Hits 30 Year Low of 54.9–Obama Is Not Working!

Posted on August 13, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 

August 12th 2011 CNBC Stock Market Squawk on the Street (Consumer Sentiment)

MORE THAN HALF OF AMERICANS SAY ECONOMY IS WORSENING CCTV News

The truth about the unemployment rate

 

US FED TO KEEP RATES LOW FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS

 

 

Peter Schiff – ‘The world is propping up the Dollar’ (10-Aug-11)(FINANCE & ECONOMICS series)

 

Peter Schiff telling it like it is!

 

S&P Explains Rating Downgrade

 

Ron Paul: I’m Surprised AAA Downgrade Didn’t Happen A Lot Sooner

 

Economic Data Show U.S. Growth Slowing Considerably

 

Ryan, Obama Budget Plans Both Fail in Senate

 

 

U.S. Consumer Confidence Drops to Three-Decade Low Amid Economic Headwinds

By Jillian Berman -Aug 12, 2011

“…Confidence among U.S. consumers plunged in August to the lowest level since May 1980, adding to concern that weak employment gains and volatility in the stock market will prompt households to retrench.

The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary index of consumer sentiment slumped to 54.9 from 63.7 the prior month. The gauge was projected to decline to 62, according to the median forecast in a Bloomberg News survey.

The biggest one-week slump in stocks since 2008 and the threat of default on the nation’s debt may have exacerbated consumers’ concerns as unemployment hovers above 9 percent and companies are hesitant to hire. Rising pessimism poses a risk household spending will cool further, hindering a recovery that Federal Reserve policy makers said this week was already advancing “considerably slower” than projected.

“The mood is very depressed,” said Chris Christopher, an economist at IHS Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts. “Consumers are very fatigued and very uncertain. In the short term, people are going to pull back on spending.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-12/u-s-consumer-sentiment-falls-more-than-expected-to-54-9-in-michigan-index.html

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

The Pronk Plan for A Peace and Prosperity Economy–Videos

Posted on July 23, 2011. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, European History, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Natural Gas, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“…It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, “in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.” If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them….”

~Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 21, The Federalist Papers

“The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.”

~Barry Goldwater

The FairTax: It’s Time

Lugar Cosponsors the FairTax

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Ron Paul July 19th – If the debt is the problem, how do you solve it with more debt?

Ron Paul We Didnt Permit The Bankruptcies FOUR YEARS AGO Problems Got Worse! Debt Exploded

Ron Paul & The Gold Standard

Milton Friedman on The Gold Standard

“If we cannot persuade the public that it is desirable to do these things, we have no right to impose them even if we had the power to do it.”

~ Milton Friedman

The Pronk Plan for A Peace and Prosperity Economy

1. Federal Tax Reform and End The Internal Revenue Service: The FairTax should  replace all Federal taxes and the Internal Revenue Service should be ended with all Internal Revenue records destroyed. A bureau of FairTax Revenues (FTR) would be established in the Department of the Treasury to both send monthly prebates to each American citizen and collect FairTax revenues from retailers and the states.

2. Government Spending: surplus budgets to pay down the National Debt by restricting fiscal year spending outlays to 80% of previous year’s  FairTax revenue collections with the remaining 20% of revenue collection to pay down the national debt.

3. Size and scope of the government: At least ten Federal Departments, many Federal agencies and hundreds of Federal programs should be closed down permanently. The number of Federal government employees and contract personnel and consultants needs to be cut by at least 50%.

4. National Defense: Budget 5% of our nation’s gross domestic product for national defense, intelligence gathering, securing our borders and homeland security.

5. Foreign Affairs: End US involvement with the United Nations and bring all the troops home from abroad including from the countries of  Germany,  Italy, United Kingdom, Spain, Japan, South Korea,  Afghanistan,  Bahrain, Djibouti,  Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, and Qatar.

6. Social Security and Medicare: Transform them from a government controlled and operated system to an individual controlled and owned investment system where benefits are based upon payments into a person’s account and investment performance. All persons over the age of forty-five would have the option to remain under the existing Social Security and Medicare programs or go into the new individual controlled and owned  system. All persons under age forty-five would establish, control and own their individual disability, life and health insurance  and retirement savings accounts with a maximum contributions of twenty-five percent (25%) of their income per year. All persons over the age of sixty-five would continue to receive Social Security and Medicare Benefits under the existing system.

7. Immigration: immigration law enforcement, illegal alien removal and deportation, and controlled and limited legal immigration. The number of legal immigrants each year would range from a minimum of 200,000 persons when the official unemployment rate exceeds eight percent (8%) to a maximum of 500,000 persons per year when the official unemployment rate is less than two percent (2%). All new citizens must speak, read and write English before becoming a United States citizen.

8. Promote competition in education: provide  all parents with  school vouchers that enable them to choose the school their children attend including home schooling and online schooling.

9. Health Care Reform: affordable, portable, individual, tax favored, and competitive health insurance plans and expanded health savings accounts.

10. End the Federal Reserve System and fiat paper money and  institute  a new gold backed currency standard. Let money interest rates be determined in the market place and not controlled and fixed by the Federal Reserve System.

11. End all Federal subsidies to businesses no matter what form the subsidies take.

12. Eliminate Federal Government regulations that put U.S. businesses at a competitive disadvantage.

13. Energy Independence: repeal all laws and regulations that are impeding the growth and expansion of US energy production including oil and gas exploration and refining and nuclear electrical power generation plant construction and operation.

14. Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America: appoint judges and public servants that will uphold their oaths.

The above Fourteen Issue Positions  should receive the support of the vast majority of the American people including Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and others.

However, both the Democratic and Republican Party establishments would not support these Fourteen Issue Positions in their entirety.

The Tea Party movement must transform itself into a viable political party that is fundamentally different from both the Democratic and Republican parties.

The ruling political class and elites in Washington, D.C. are responsible for the economic, political and military mess the United States and the American people currently finds themselves.

The warfare and welfare economy of ever-expanding centralized collectivist government must be transformed into a peace and prosperity economy with a limited and constrained Constitutional republic.

Background Articles and Videos

The Gold Standard Revisited

The Gold Standard in Theory and Myth (by Joseph Salerno)

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

The American People’s Solution To Economic Stagnation: Increase National Debt Ceiling By $2,000 Billion To $16,300 Billion In Exchange For Passage of A Balanced Budget Amendment And The FairTax Bills And Repealing The Income Tax 16th Amendment To U.S. Constitution–A Balanced, Fair And Transparent Approach To Creating Jobs and Growing A Peace and Prosperity Economy–Videos

Posted on July 18, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector,