Santa Obama’s $9 Minimum Wage: Good Propaganda, Bad Economics–Videos
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
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
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
President Obama Las Vegas speech on comprehensive immigration reform on Jan. 29
Credit: http://www.upi.com
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.
Office of the Press Secretary
______________________
For Immediate Release January 29, 2013REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORMDel 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
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
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.
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.
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.\
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
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. …”
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
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 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:
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
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Niall Ferguson–Obama’s Gotta Go–Videos
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.
Related Stories
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.
Why You Are Unemployed?–The Minimum Wage Law–Good Intentions Are Not Enough–Videos
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
Forward Radical Progressive Socialists–Better Not Look Down–More Deadly Than War–Barack Obama–Videos
“…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
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. …”
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
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
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
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/
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
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.
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.
7 Earned income was subject to maximum marginal rates of 60 percent in 1971 and 50 percent from 1972 through 1981.
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
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.
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.
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
“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 )
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
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 $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and
credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper on
revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low-
and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most,
however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes. …”
Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008(Updated October 2010)
| Number of Returns with Positive AGI | AGI ($ 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 | |||||||
| 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 | |||||||||||
| 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 )
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
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. …”
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
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” href=”http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history” 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. …”
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%. …”
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 )The Pronk Plan for A Peace and Prosperity Economy–Videos
“…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
Pronk Pops Show 37:July 20, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 36:July 13, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 35:July 6, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 34:June 29, 2011
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
Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis
The Story of Spending
Smoke and Mirrors on Spending Cuts
Spending Restraint, Part I: Lessons from Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton
Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending
The National Debt Road Trip
How To Balance the Obama Budget
It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes
National Debt- How Much Is A Billion Dollars? Dave Walker
Obama: I’m Willing to Compromise
We Cannot Bind a Future Congress
GOP: We Need a Balanced Budget Amendment
Obama: We don’t need a balanced budget amendment
A Balanced Budget Amendment: The Path to Fiscal Sanity
The Time is NOW – Balanced Budget Amendment
Senator Lee Introduces Cut, Cap, Balance Act as a Sensible Solution for Raising the Debt Ceiling
Our Troubling Tax System
Barack Obama will raise Capital Gains Taxes…even if it means less tax revenue!!
Ron Paul & Judge Napolitano on FOX News 03/10/11
The FairTax: It’s Time
Lugar Cosponsors the FairTax
Herman Cain on Taxes
Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax
Ron Paul – THE FAIRTAX REVOLUTION
Mike Huckabee – What is the “Fair Tax?”
Fair Tax Panel with Grover Norquist on FOX Business
Ron Paul Opposes Raising Debt Limit
Bachmann Stands Strong Against Raising Debt Ceiling
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)
How To Amend The U.S. Constitution
How To Amend the U.S. Constitution
Cut, Cap & Balance! Senators Paul, Lee and Vitter want a Constitutional Amendment
Cut, Cap and Balance…A Great Way To Keep Our Debt From Overtaking Our Future
Ron Paul Ad – Conviction Not Compromise
Ron Paul Will Beat Obama In 2012
I agree with Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann that the National Debt ceiling should not be increased.
I support and have signed the cut, cap, and balance pledge.
Only if both the balanced budget amendment and FairTax bills are passed with a provision repealing the income tax 16th Amendment would I support the raising of the National Debt ceiling by an amount not exceeding $2,000 billion.
This would require the Democratic Party in both the House of Representatives and Senate to vote for this and the President signing these bills.
Barring this, the President needs to start informing nonessential government employees that their jobs have been terminated.
The priorities for Federal Government outlays should be as follows:
1. Interest on the national debt
2. Social Security
3. Medicare and Medicaid
5. Department of Treasury
6. Department of Justice
7. Department of State
8. Department of Defense (60% of total budget outlays) with salaries of military personnel on active duty paid first.
The above is about 65% of total government expenditures or outlays.
The Federal government should start selling all of its real estate asset and gold to make up any shortfall in tax revenues.
The remaining Federal Departments need to be closed and only operations that are absolutely essential should continue operating.
It should take a minimum of two to five years to have the necessary 38 states ratify the Balanced Budget Amendment and an Amendment repealing the income tax 16th Amendment to the Consitution to the United States.
Until these amendments are ratified the U.S. Federal Government budget should be balanced and the income tax replaced by the consumption tax–The FairTax.
The Budget for Fiscal Year 2012 should not exceed $3,000 billion not the proposed $3,500 billion Republican budget which has a deficit of nearly $1,000 billion.
Congress should balance the budget starting in Fiscal Year 2013 at $ 3,000 billion or less.
Time for the House of Representatives to call President Obama’s bluff.
The American people want Federal Government spending to be drastically cut and all U.S. Federal Government budgets balanced starting no later than Fiscal year 2013.
The American people want all Federal Government taxes to be replaced with a national retail consumption sales tax on all new goods and services–the FairTax.
The FairTax should go into operation on January 1, 2013 at the latest and would replace all Federal Government taxes including income, payroll, gift and estate taxes.
The time has come to call the President’s bluff.
If the Democrats vote against this, then the American people will blame them for shutting down the Federal Government.
Background Articles and Videos
Legendary investor Jim Rogers- “Ron Paul is the only politician that has a clue”
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 |
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
STAR – TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)
ACCOUNTING DATE: 06/11
PERIOD RECEIPTS OUTLAYS DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+ ____________________________________________________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________
PRIOR YEAR
OCTOBER 135,293 311,656 176,363
NOVEMBER 133,563 253,850 120,287
DECEMBER 218,919 310,329 91,410
JANUARY 205,239 247,873 42,634
FEBRUARY 107,520 328,429 220,909
MARCH 153,358 218,745 65,387
APRIL 245,260 327,950 82,689
MAY 146,794 282,721 135,927
JUNE 251,048 319,470 68,422
JULY 155,546 320,588 165,043
AUGUST 163,998 254,524 90,526
SEPTEMBER 245,207 279,813 34,607
YEAR-TO-DATE 2,161,746 3,455,949 1,294,204
CURRENT YEAR
OCTOBER 145,951 286,384 140,432
NOVEMBER 148,970 299,364 150,394
DECEMBER 236,875 315,009 78,134
JANUARY 226,550 276,346 49,796
FEBRUARY 110,656 333,163 222,507
MARCH 150,894 339,047 188,153
APRIL 289,543 329,929 40,387
MAY 174,936 232,577 57,641
JUNE 249,658 292,738 43,080
YEAR-TO-DATE 1,734,033 2,704,557 970,524
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0611.txt
U.S. Federal Government Budget Receipts and Outlays
Totals Include On-Budget and Off-Budget Amounts
From Coolidge To Obama, In Billions of Dollars
| Total Budget | Percent of G.D.P. | |||||||
| President | Fiscal Year |
Receipts | Outlays | Surplus orDeficits | G.D.P. | Receipts | Outlays | Surplus orDeficit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calvin Coolidge | 1930 | 4.1 | 3.3 | 0.7 | 97.4 | 4.2 | 3.4 | .8 |
| Herbert Hoover | 1931 | 3.1 | 3.6 | -0.5 | 83.9 | 3.7 | 4.3 | -0.6 |
| 1932 | 1.9 | 4.7 | -2.7 | 67.6 | 2.8 | 6.9 | -4.9 | |
| 1933 | 2.0 | 4.6 | -2.6 | 57.6 | 3.5 | 8.0 | -4.5 | |
| F.D.Roosevelt | 1934 | 3.0 | 6.5 | -3.6 | 61.2 | 4.8 | 10.7 | -5.9 |
| 1935 | 3.6 | 6.4 | -2.8 | 69.6 | 5.2 | 9.2 | -4.0 | |
| 1936 | 3.9 | 8.2 | -4.3 | 78.5 | 5.0 | 10.5 | -5.5 | |
| 1937 | 5.4 | 7.6 | -2.2 | 87.8 | 6.1 | 8.6 | -2.5 | |
| 1938 | 6.8 | 6.8 | -0.1 | 89.0 | 7.6 | 7.7 | -0.1 | |
| 1939 | 6.3 | 9.1 | -2.8 | 89.1 | 7.1 | 10.3 | -3.2 | |
| 1940 | 6.5 | 9.5 | -2.9 | 96.8 | 6.8 | 9.8 | -3.0 | |
| 1941 | 8.7 | 13.7 | -4.9 | 114.1 | 7.6 | 12.0 | -4.3 | |
| 1942 | 14.6 | 35.1 | -20.5 | 144.3 | 10.1 | 24.3 | -14.2 | |
| 1943 | 24.0 | 78.6 | -54.6 | 180.3 | 13.3 | 43.6 | -30.3 | |
| 1944 | 43.7 | 91.3 | -47.6 | 209.2 | 20.9 | 43.6 | -22.7 | |
| 1945 | 45.2 | 92.7 | -47.6 | 221.4 | 20.4 | 41.9 | -21.5 | |
| 1946 | 39.3 | 55.2 | -15.9 | 222.6 | 17.7 | 24.8 | -7.2 | |
| Harry S.Truman | 1947 | 38.5 | 34.5 | 4.0 | 233.2 | 16.5 | 14.8 | 1.7 |
| 1948 | 41.6 | 29.8 | 11.8 | 256.6 | 16.2 | 6.9 | 4.6 | |
| 1949 | 39.4 | 38.8 | 0.6 | 271.3 | 14.5 | 14.3 | 0.2 | |
| 1950 | 39.4 | 38.8 | 0.6 | 273.1 | 14.4 | 15.6 | -1.1 | |
| 1951 | 51.6 | 45.5 | 6.1 | 320.2 | 16.1 | 14.2 | 1.9 | |
| 1952 | 66.2 | 67.7 | -1.5 | 348.7 | 19.0 | 19.4 | -0.3 | |
| 1953 | 60.7 | 70.9 | -6.5 | 372.5 | 18.7 | 20.4 | -1.7 | |
| D.D.Eisenhower | 1954 | 69.7 | 70.9 | -1.2 | 377.0 | 18.5 | 18.8 | -0.3 |
| 1955 | 65.5 | 68.4 | -3.07 | 395.9 | 16.5 | 17.3 | -.8 | |
| 1956 | 74.6 | 70.6 | 3.9 | 427.0 | 17.5 | 16.5 | 0.9 | |
| 1957 | 80.0 | 76.6 | 3.4 | 450.9 | 17.7 | 17.0 | 0.8 | |
| 1958 | 79.6 | 82.4 | -2.8 | 460.0 | 17.3 | 17.9 | -0.6 | |
| 1959 | 79.2 | 92.1 | -12.8 | 490.2 | 16.2 | 18.8 | -2.6 | |
| 1960 | 92.5 | 92.2 | 0.3 | 518.9 | 17.8 | 17.8 | 0.1 | |
| 1961 | 94.4 | 97.7 | -3.3 | 529.9 | 17.8 | 18.4 | -1.3 | |
| John F.Kennedy | 1962 | 99.7 | 106.8 | -4.8 | 567.8 | 17.6 | 18.8 | -1.3 |
| 1963 | 106.6 | 111.3 | -4.8 | 599.2 | 17.8 | 18.4 | -0.6 | |
| Lyndon B.Johnson | 1964 | 112.6 | 118.5 | -5.9 | 641.5 | 17.6 | 18.5 | -0.9 |
| 1965 | 116.8 | 118.2 | -1.4 | 687.5 | 17.0 | 17.2 | -0.2 | |
| 1966 | 130.8 | 134.5 | -3.7 | 755.8 | 17.3 | 17.8 | -0.5 | |
| 1967 | 148.8 | 157.5 | -8.6 | 810.0 | 18.4 | 19.4 | -1.1 | |
| 1968 | 153.0 | 178.1 | -25.2 | 868.4 | 17.6 | 20.5 | -2.9 | |
| 1969 | 186.9 | 183.6 | 3.2 | 948.1 | 19.7 | 19.4 | -0.3 | |
| Richard N.Nixon | 1970 | 192.8 | 195.6 | -2.8 | 1,012.7 | 19.0 | 19.3 | -0.3 |
| 1971 | 187.1 | 210.2 | -23.0 | 1,080.0 | 17.3 | 19.5 | -2.1 | |
| 1972 | 207.3 | 230.7 | -23.4 | 1,176.5 | 17.6 | 19.6 | -2.0 | |
| 1973 | 230.8 | 245.7 | -14.9 | 1,310.6 | 17.6 | 18.7 | -1.1 | |
| 1974 | 263.2 | 269.4 | -6.1 | 1,438.5 | 18.3 | 18.7 | -0.4 | |
| Gerald R.Ford | 1975 | 279.1 | 332.3 | -53.2 | 1,560.2 | 17.9 | 21.3 | -3.4 |
| 1976 | 298.1 | 371.8 | -73.7 | 1,738.16 | 17.1 | 21.4 | -4.2 | |
| TQ | 81.2 | 96.0 | -14.7 | 459.4 | 17.7 | 20.0 | -3.2 | |
| 1977 | 355.6 | 409.2 | -53.7 | 1,973.5 | 18.0 | 20.7 | -2.7 | |
| Jimmy Carter | 1978 | 399.6 | 458.7 | -59.2 | 2,217.5 | 18.0 | 20.7 | -2.7 |
| 1979 | 463.3 | 504.0 | -40.7 | 2,501.4 | 18.5 | 20.1 | -1.6 | |
| 1980 | 517.1 | 590.9 | -73.8 | 2,724.2 | 19.0 | 21.7 | -2.7 | |
| 1981 | 599.3 | 678.2 | -79.0 | 3,057.0 | 19.6 | 22.2 | -2.6 | |
| Ronald Reagan | 1982 | 617.8 | 745.7 | -128.0 | 3,223.7 | 19.2 | 23.1 | -4.0 |
| 1983 | 600.6 | 808.4 | -207.8 | 3,440.7 | 17.5 | 23.5 | -6.0 | |
| 1984 | 666.4 | 851.8 | -185.4 | 3,844.4 | 17.3 | 22.2 | -4.8 | |
| 1985 | 734.0 | 946.3 | -212.3 | 4,146.3 | 17.7 | 22.8 | -5.1 | |
| Ronald Reagan | 1986 | 769.2 | 990.4 | -212.2 | 4,403.9 | 17.5 | 22.5 | -4.9 |
| 1987 | 854.3 | 1,004.0 | -149.7 | 4,651.4 | 18.4 | 21.6 | -3.2 | |
| 1988 | 909.2 | 1,064.4 | -155.2 | 5,008.5 | 18.2 | 21.3 | -3.0 | |
| 1989 | 991.1 | 1,143.7 | -152.6 | 5,399.5 | 18.4 | 21.2 | -4.9 | |
| George H.W.Bush | 1990 | 1,032.0 | 1,253.0 | -221.0 | 5,734.5 | 18.0 | 21.9 | -3.9 |
| 1991 | 1,055.0 | 1,324.2 | -269.2 | 5,930.5 | 17.8 | 22.3 | -4.5 | |
| 1992 | 1,091.2 | 1,381.5 | -290.3 | 6,242.0 | 17.5 | 22.1 | -4.7 | |
| 1993 | 1,154.3 | 1,409.4 | -255.1 | 6,587.3 | 17.5 | 21.4 | -3.9 | |
| William J. Clinton | 1994 | 1,258.6 | 1,461.8 | -203.2 | 6,976.6 | 2.8 | 6.9 | -4.9 |
| 1995 | 1,351.8 | 1,515.8 | -164.0 | 7,341.1 | 18.4 | 20.6 | -2.2 | |
| 1996 | 1,453.1 | 1,560.5 | -107.4 | 7,718.3 | 18.8 | 20.2 | -1.4 | |
| 1997 | 1,579.2 | 1,601.1 | -21.9 | 8,211.7 | 19.2 | 19.5 | -0.3 | |
| William J. Clinton | 1998 | 1,721.7 | 1,652.5 | 69.3 | 67.6 | 19.9 | 19.1 | 0.8 |
| 1999 | 1,827.5 | 1,701.8 | 125.6 | 9,208.4 | 19.8 | 18.5 | 1.4 | |
| 2000 | 2,025.2 | 1,789.0 | 236.2 | 9,821.0 | 20.6 | 18.2 | 2.4 | |
| 2001 | 1,991.1 | 1,862.9 | 128.2 | 10,225.3 | 19.5 | 18.2 | 1.3 | |
| George W.Bush | 2002 | 1,853.1 | 2,010.9 | -157.8 | 10,543.9 | 17.6 | 19.1 | -1.5 |
| 2003 | 1,782.3 | 2,159.9 | -377.6 | 10,979.8 | 16.2 | 19.7 | -3.4 | |
| 2004 | 1,880.1 | 2,292.9 | -412.7 | 11,685.6 | 16.1 | 19.6 | -3.5 | |
| 2005 | 2,153.6 | 2,472.0 | -318.3 | 12,445.7 | 17.3 | 19.9 | -2.6 | |
| George W.Bush | 2006 | 2,406.0 | 2,655.1 | -248.2 | 13,224.9 | 18.2 | 20.1 | -1.9 |
| 2007 | 2,568.0 | 2,728.7 | -160.7 | 13,896.0 | 18.5 | 19.6 | -1.2 | |
| 2008 | 2,524.0 | 2,982.6 | -458.6 | 14,439.0 | 17.5 | 20.7 | -3.2 | |
| 2009 | 2,105.0 | 3,517.7 | -1,412.7 | 14,237.2 | 14.8 | 24.7 | -9.9 | |
| Barack H.Obama | 2010 | 2,165.1 | 3,720.7 | -1,555.6 | 14,623.9 | 14.8 | 25.4 | -10.6 |
| estimates | 2011 | 2,567.2 | 3,833.9 | -1,266.7 | 15,299.0 | 16.8 | 25.1 | -8.3 |
| estimates | 2012 | 2,926.4 | 3,754.9 | -828.5 | 16,203.3 | 18.1 | 23.2 | -5.1 |
Prior to fiscal year 1977 the Federal fiscal years began on July 1 and ended on June 30. For example, John F. Kennedy assumed office on January 20, 1961, but the FY 1961 budget was prepared by the Eisenhower Administration.
In calendar year 1976 the July-September period was a separate accounting period (known as the transition quarter or TQ) to bridge the period required to shift to the new fiscal year.
The Fiscal Year begins on October 1 of the previous year. For example, Fiscal Year 2012 begins on October 1, 2011. For this reason, budget years appear to not correspond with a president’s administration. For example, Barack H. Obama took office in January 2009, but the FY 2009 budget was prepared by the Bush Administration.
Lipstick On A Pig–Great Obama Depression– Deeper and Longer–Official U-3 Unemployment Rate Hits 9.2% In June 2011 With 14 Million Unemployed and Total Unemployment Rate U-6 Hits 16.2% With Over 24.8 Million Americans Seeking Full Time Job–Obama Is Not Working–2012–End An Error!–Fire Obama–Videos
Dismal Unemployment Report Suggests Recovery May Be Stalling
President Obama on June Job Numbers wants to create New Jobs
O’Reilly Factor – Friday – July 8th 2011 – Nations Unemployment at 9.2%
Obamanomics: Unemployment Climb At 9.2%
July 8th 2011 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box June 2011 Jobs Report
Nonfarm Payrolls Rose By 18,000 In June, Missing Consensus Estimates For A Rise Of 125,000
USA Unemployment Rate Rises to 9.2% in June 2011 — Report
Wesbury Says Jobs Report May Be Last Weak Economic Data
Unemployment Rate is Not 9%, It’s 18% (CNN’s Your Money )
Lebas Says Second-Half Forecasts Are `Wildly Optimistic’ and Warren Buffett’s Reactions
Labor’s Solis `Disappointed’ by U.S. June Jobs Report
Rep. Noem Discusses Latest Jobs Report
Crescenzi Says Jobs Data Reflects U.S. Structural Issues
Pat Buchanan’s Debt Talk Prediction: “Obama Will Fold”
Brooks, Marcus on Job Numbers, Debt Deal Reality, Media Culture
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4.8 | 5.1 | 4.9 | 5.4 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 6.1 | 6.2 | 6.6 | 6.8 | 7.3 | |
| 2009 | 7.8 | 8.2 | 8.6 | 8.9 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 10.1 | 9.9 | 9.9 | |
| 2010 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 9.4 | |
| 2011 | 9.0 | 8.9 | 8.8 | 9.0 | 9.1 | 9.2 |
Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 6023 | 6089 | 6141 | 6271 | 6226 | 6484 | 6583 | 7042 | 7142 | 7694 | 8003 | 8258 | |
| 2002 | 8182 | 8215 | 8304 | 8599 | 8399 | 8393 | 8390 | 8304 | 8251 | 8307 | 8520 | 8640 | |
| 2003 | 8520 | 8618 | 8588 | 8842 | 8957 | 9266 | 9011 | 8896 | 8921 | 8732 | 8576 | 8317 | |
| 2004 | 8370 | 8167 | 8491 | 8170 | 8212 | 8286 | 8136 | 7990 | 7927 | 8061 | 7932 | 7934 | |
| 2005 | 7784 | 7980 | 7737 | 7672 | 7651 | 7524 | 7406 | 7345 | 7553 | 7453 | 7566 | 7279 | |
| 2006 | 7064 | 7184 | 7072 | 7120 | 6980 | 7001 | 7175 | 7091 | 6847 | 6727 | 6872 | 6762 | |
| 2007 | 7100 | 6900 | 6721 | 6836 | 6766 | 6980 | 7149 | 7085 | 7191 | 7272 | 7261 | 7664 | |
| 2008 | 7653 | 7441 | 7781 | 7606 | 8398 | 8590 | 8953 | 9489 | 9557 | 10176 | 10552 | 11344 | |
| 2009 | 11984 | 12737 | 13278 | 13734 | 14512 | 14776 | 14663 | 14953 | 15149 | 15628 | 15206 | 15212 | |
| 2010 | 14842 | 14860 | 14943 | 15138 | 14884 | 14593 | 14637 | 14849 | 14746 | 14876 | 15041 | 14485 | |
| 2011 | 13863 | 13673 | 13542 | 13747 | 13914 | 14087 |
Series Id: LNS13327709 Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 7.4 | 7.5 | 7.9 | 7.8 | 8.1 | 8.7 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 9.6 | |
| 2002 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 9.8 | |
| 2003 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.0 | 10.2 | 10.1 | 10.3 | 10.3 | 10.1 | 10.4 | 10.2 | 10.0 | 9.8 | |
| 2004 | 9.9 | 9.7 | 10.0 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 9.2 | |
| 2005 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 8.8 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 8.7 | 8.7 | 8.6 | |
| 2006 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 8.2 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 8.4 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 7.9 | |
| 2007 | 8.4 | 8.1 | 8.0 | 8.2 | 8.2 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 8.4 | 8.4 | 8.5 | 8.8 | |
| 2008 | 9.1 | 8.9 | 9.0 | 9.2 | 9.7 | 10.1 | 10.5 | 10.9 | 11.2 | 11.9 | 12.7 | 13.6 | |
| 2009 | 14.1 | 15.0 | 15.6 | 15.8 | 16.4 | 16.6 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 17.0 | 17.4 | 17.1 | 17.2 | |
| 2010 | 16.5 | 16.8 | 16.8 | 17.0 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.5 | 16.7 | 17.1 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 16.7 | |
| 2011 | 16.1 | 15.9 | 15.7 | 15.9 | 15.8 | 16.2 |
Series Id: LNS11000000 Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level Labor force status: Civilian labor force Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over
| Year | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Annual |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 143800 | 143701 | 143924 | 143569 | 143318 | 143357 | 143654 | 143284 | 143989 | 144086 | 144240 | 144305 | |
| 2002 | 143883 | 144653 | 144481 | 144725 | 144938 | 144808 | 144803 | 145009 | 145552 | 145314 | 145041 | 145066 | |
| 2003 | 145937(1) | 146100 | 146022 | 146474 | 146500 | 147056 | 146485 | 146445 | 146530 | 146716 | 147000 | 146729 | |
| 2004 | 146842(1) | 146709 | 146944 | 146850 | 147065 | 147460 | 147692 | 147564 | 147415 | 147793 | 148162 | 148059 | |
| 2005 | 148029(1) | 148364 | 148391 | 148926 | 149261 | 149238 | 149432 | 149779 | 149954 | 150001 | 150065 | 150030 | |
| 2006 | 150214(1) | 150641 | 150813 | 150881 | 151069 | 151354 | 151377 | 151716 | 151662 | 152041 | 152406 | 152732 | |
| 2007 | 153133(1) | 152966 | 153054 | 152446 | 152666 | 153038 | 153035 | 152756 | 153422 | 153209 | 153845 | 153936 | |
| 2008 | 154060(1) | 153624 | 153924 | 153779 | 154322 | 154315 | 154432 | 154656 | 154613 | 154953 | 154621 | 154669 | |
| 2009 | 154185(1) | 154424 | 154100 | 154453 | 154805 | 154754 | 154457 | 154362 | 153940 | 154022 | 153795 | 153172 | |
| 2010 | 153353(1) | 153558 | 153895 | 154520 | 154237 | 153684 | 153628 | 154117 | 154124 | 153960 | 153950 | 153690 | |
| 2011 | 153186(1) | 153246 | 153406 | 153421 | 153693 | 153421 | |||||||
| 1 : Data affected by changes in population controls. | |||||||||||||
YearJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAnnual200167.267.167.266.966.766.766.866.566.866.766.766.7 200266.566.866.666.766.766.666.566.666.766.666.466.3 200366.466.466.366.466.466.566.266.166.166.166.165.9 200466.166.066.065.966.066.166.166.065.865.966.065.9 200565.865.965.966.166.166.166.166.266.166.166.066.0 200666.066.166.266.166.166.266.166.266.166.266.366.4 200766.466.366.265.966.066.066.065.866.065.866.066.0 200866.266.066.165.966.166.166.066.166.066.065.865.8 200965.765.765.665.665.765.765.565.465.165.165.064.7 201064.864.864.965.164.964.764.664.764.764.564.564.3 201164.264.264.264.264.264.1
Background Articles and Videos
Employment Situation Summary
Transmission of material in this release is embargoed USDL-11-1011
until 8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, July 8, 2011
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JUNE 2011
Nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged in June (+18,000), and the
unemployment rate was little changed at 9.2 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Employment in most major private-sector industries
changed little over the month. Government employment continued to trend down.
Household Survey Data The number of unemployed persons (14.1 million) and the unemployment rate (9.2 percent) were essentially unchanged over the month. Since March, the number of
unemployed persons has increased by 545,000, and the unemployment rate has
risen by 0.4 percentage point. The labor force, at 153.4 million, changed
little over the month. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (9.1 percent),
adult women (8.0 percent), teenagers (24.5 percent), whites (8.1 percent), blacks (16.2 percent), and Hispanics (11.6 percent) showed little or no change in June.
The jobless rate for Asians was 6.8 percent, not seasonally adjusted. (See tables
A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
The number of persons unemployed for less than 5 weeks increased by 412,000 in
June. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks and over)
was essentially unchanged over the month, at 6.3 million, and accounted for 44.4
percent of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
The civilian labor force participation rate was little changed in June at 64.1 percent. The employment-population ratio decreased by 0.2 percentage point to 58.2 percent. (See table A-1.) The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred
to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged in June at 8.6
million. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been
cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)
In June, 2.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, about
the same as a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) These
individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and
had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as
unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 982,000 discouraged workers in June,
down by 225,000 from a year earlier. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they
believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining 1.7 million persons
marginally attached to the labor force in June had not searched for work in the
4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance or family
responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data Total nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged in June (+18,000).
Following gains averaging 215,000 per month from February through April,
employment has been essentially flat for the past 2 months. Employment in most
major private-sector industries changed little in June, while government
employment continued to trend down. (See table B-1.)
Within professional and business services, employment in professional and
technical services increased in June (+24,000). This industry has added 245,000
jobs since a recent low in March 2010. Employment in temporary help services
changed little over the month and has shown little movement on net so far this
year.
Health care employment continued to trend up in June (+14,000), with the largest
gain in ambulatory health care services. Over the prior 12 months, health care had
added an average of 24,000 jobs per month.
In June, employment in mining rose by 8,000, with most of the gain occurring in
support activities for mining. Employment in mining has increased by 128,000 since
a recent low in October 2009.
Employment in leisure and hospitality edged up (+34,000) in June and has grown by
279,000 since a recent low in January 2010.
Employment in government continued to trend down over the month (-39,000). Federal
employment declined by 14,000 in June. Employment in both state government and local
government continued to trend down over the month and has been falling since the
second half of 2008.
Manufacturing employment changed little in June. Following gains totaling 164,000
between November 2010 and April 2011, employment in this industry has been flat for
the past 2 months. In June, job gains in fabricated metal products (+8,000) were
partially offset by a loss in wood products (-5,000).
Construction employment was essentially unchanged in June. After having fallen
sharply during the 2007-09 period, employment in construction has shown little
movement on net since early 2010.
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls decreased by 0.1 hour to 34.3 hours in June. The manufacturing workweek for all employees decreased
by 0.3 hour to 40.3 hours over the month; factory overtime edged down by 0.1 hour
to 3.1 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on
private nonfarm payrolls remained at 33.6 hours in June. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)
In June, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
decreased by 1 cent to $22.99. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings
have increased by 1.9 percent. In June, average hourly earnings of private-sector
production and nonsupervisory employees declined by 1 cent to $19.41. (See tables
B-3 and B-8.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for April was revised from +232,000 to +217,000, and the change for May was revised from +54,000 to +25,000. _____________
The Employment Situation for July is scheduled to be released on Friday, August 5,
2011, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).
http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Jobs Picture Gets Even Worse as Rate Swells to 9.2%
“…U.S. employment growth ground to a halt in June, with employers hiring the fewest number of workers in nine months, dousing hopes the economy would regain momentum in the second half of the year.
Nonfarm payrolls rose only 18,000, the weakest reading since September, the Labor Department said on Friday, well below economists’ expectations for a 90,000 rise.
The unemployment rate climbed to a six-month high of 9.2 percent, even as jobseekers left the labor force in droves, from 9.1 percent in May.
“The message on the economy is ongoing stagnation,” said Pierre Ellis, senior economist at Decision economics in New York. “Income growth is marginal so there’s no indication of momentum.
The government revised April and May payrolls to show 44,000 fewer jobs created than previously reported.
The report shattered expectations the economy was starting to accelerate after a soft patch in the first half of the year. It could prompt calls for the Federal Reserve to consider further action to help the economy, but Fed officials have set a high bar.
The U.S. central bank wrapped up a $600 billion bond-buying program last week designed to spur lending and stimulate growth.
“This confirms our view that the Fed will continue to keep rates on hold into 2012 and if weak employment continues it will be pushed out even further,” said Tom Porcelli, chief economist, RBC Capital Markets in New York. …”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43682730
An Establishment in Panic
By Pat Buchanan
“…For how, exactly, are Republicans threatening the republic?
The House has not said it will not raise the debt ceiling. It must and will. It has not said it will not accept budget cuts. It has indicated a willingness to accept the budget cuts agreed to in the Biden negotiations.
Where the GOP has stood its ground is on tax increases.
Is fanaticism behind this stance? Does this manifest insanity? How does this imperil the nation’s honor and future?
Behind the GOP opposition to tax hikes is the party’s word given to the country that elected it in 2010, its political principles, its traditional view of what not to do when the nation is in a slump, and party history.
Fully 235 Republican House members signed a 2010 pledge not to raise taxes. And by giving their word they were rewarded with victory.
Should they now dishonor that pledge, what would differentiate them from George H.W. Bush, who famously promised in 1988: “Read my lips! No new taxes!” then went back on his word and took the party down to defeat with him?
Second, the GOP is the party of small government and low taxes.
Why would it agree to raise taxes on the private productive sector when federal spending, now at a peacetime record of 25 percent of GDP, is the problem?
Third, America is in a slump, with 9 percent of the workforce unemployed, another 7 percent underemployed and the economy growing at a tepid 1.8 percent.
What school of economic thought — Keynesian, supply-side or monetarist — says raising taxes in a slumping economy is the recipe for a return to prosperity? There is no such school.
Why, when the whole country is talking about the need to create jobs, would Congress raise taxes on a private productive sector that employs six in seven Americans and is the creator of real jobs?
In 1982, President Reagan agreed to the same deal being offered the party today: three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases to which he assented. As he ruefully told this writer more than once, he was lied to. He got one dollar in spending cuts for every three in tax increases.
What of the charge that the Republican House is holding America hostage, blackmailing the nation with a suicidal threat to throw us all into national default if it does not get its way?
This smear is the precise opposite of the truth.
The Republican Party has not said it will refuse to raise the debt ceiling. It has an obligation to do so, and will.
The House has simply said it will not accept new taxes on a nation whose fiscal crisis comes from overspending. …”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/08/an_establishment_in_panic_110501.html
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Bloomberg Poll Bad News For Obama–Only 30% Certain They Will Vote For Obama in 2012!–66% Think Country On The Wrong Track!–Videos
Pronk Pops Show 33:June 22, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 32:June 15, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 31:June 8, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 30:June 2, 2011
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Obama Gets 30% Certain to Back His Re-Election in Poll
Poll: 70 percent think US on wrong track
Obama Gets 30% of Americans Certain to Support Re-Election in Economy Poll
By Julianna Goldman
“…Americans are growing more dissatisfied with President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy and say it will be hard to vote to re-elect him without seeing significant progress over the next year and a half.
By a margin of 61 percent to 37 percent, a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20 shows Americans say they believe that Obama will have had his chance to make the economy “substantially better” by the end of 2012.
Only 30 percent of respondents said they are certain to vote for the president and 36 percent said they definitely won’t. Among likely independent voters, only 23 percent said they will back his re-election, while 36 percent said they definitely will look for another candidate. …”
“…With unemployment and jobs ranking as the most important issue facing the country and lawmakers mired in debates to cut the nation’s long-term debt, the poll’s findings underscore a central challenge for Obama’s re-election team: making the 2012 campaign a choice between competing visions for the country’s future rather than a referendum on his job performance. …”
“…Economy Performance Ratings
Obama’s performance ratings drop significantly when the focus turns to his management of the economy, jobs and deficits. By a margin of 61 percent to 32 percent, Americans disapprove of the job Obama is doing to tackle the budget deficit. Fifty-seven percent of respondents disapproved of his efforts to create jobs and overall 57 percent disapproved of his handling of the economy….”
Background Articles and Videos
Poll: 70 percent think US on wrong track
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )OMI-Obama Misery Index–U.S. Misery Index Is Rising As Both The Unemployment Rate and Inflation Rate Increase!–Vidoes
The “Obama Misery Index”
The US Misery Index by President
January 1948 to March 2011
Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate
| President | Time Period | Start | End | Change | Avg. |
| Richard M. Nixon | 1969-01 – 1974-07 | 7.80 | 17.01 | 9.21 | 10.57 |
| James E. Carter, Jr. | 1977-01 – 1980-12 | 12.72 | 19.72 | 7.00 | 16.26 |
| Dwight D. Eisenhower | 1953-01 – 1960-12 | 3.28 | 7.96 | 4.68 | 6.26 |
| Barack H. Obama | 2009-01 – 2011-03 | 7.73 | 11.48 | 3.75 | 10.21 |
| Lyndon B. Johnson | 1963-11 – 1968-12 | 7.02 | 8.12 | 1.10 | 6.77 |
| George H.W. Bush | 1989-01 – 1992-12 | 10.07 | 10.30 | 0.23 | 10.68 |
| George W. Bush | 2001-01 – 2008-12 | 7.93 | 7.49 | -0.44 | 8.11 |
| John F. Kennedy | 1961-01 – 1963-10 | 8.31 | 6.82 | -1.49 | 7.14 |
| William J. Clinton | 1993-01 – 2000-12 | 10.56 | 7.29 | -3.27 | 7.80 |
| Gerald R. Ford | 1974-08 – 1976-12 | 16.36 | 12.66 | -3.70 | 16.00 |
| Ronald W. Reagan | 1981-01 – 1988-12 | 19.33 | 9.72 | -9.61 | 12.19 |
| Harry S. Truman | 1948-01 – 1952-12 | 13.63 | 3.45 | -10.18 | 7.88 |
http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbypresident.asp
The Misery Index
“…The misery index is an economic indicator, created by economist Arthur Okun, and found by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. It is assumed that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflation create economic and social costs for a country.[1] It is often incorrectly attributed to Harvard economist Robert Barro in the 1970s, due to the Barro Misery Index that additionally includes GDP and the bank rate.[2]
A 2001 paper looking at large-scale surveys in Europe and the United States concluded that the basic misery index underweights the unhappiness caused by joblessness: “the estimates suggest that people would trade off a 1-percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate for a 1.7-percentage-point increase in the inflation rate.”[3]
U.S. misery index
During the Presidential campaign of 1976, Democratic candidate Jimmy Carter made frequent references to the Misery Index, which by the summer of 1976 was at 13.57%. Carter stated that no man responsible for giving a country a misery index that high had a right to even ask to be President. Carter won the 1976 election. However, by 1980, when President Carter was running for re-election against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index had reached an all-time high of 21.98%. Carter lost the election to Reagan.
Misery index – era by U.S president
Rank |
President |
Time Period |
Average |
Low | High | Start |
End |
Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Harry Truman | 1948–1952 | 7.88 | Dec 1952 = 3.45 | Jan 1948 = 13.63 | 13.63 | 3.45 | -10.18 |
| 1 | Dwight D. Eisenhower | 1953–1960 | 6.26 | Jul 1953 = 2.97 | Apr 1958 = 10.98 | 3.28 | 7.96 | +4.68 |
| 3 | John F. Kennedy | 1961–1962 | 7.14 | Jul 1962 = 6.40 | Jul 1961 = 8.38 | 8.31 | 6.82 | -1.49 |
| 2 | Lyndon B. Johnson | 1963–1968 | 6.77 | Nov 1965 = 5.70 | Jul 1968 = 8.19 | 7.02 | 8.12 | +1.10 |
| 8 | Richard Nixon | 1969–1973 | 10.57 | Jan 1969 = 7.80 | Jul 1974 = 17.01 | 7.80 | 17.01 | +9.21 |
| 10 | Gerald Ford | 1974–1976 | 16.00 | Dec 1976 = 12.66 | Jan 1975 = 19.90 | 16.36 | 12.66 | -3.70 |
| 11 | Jimmy Carter | 1977–1980 | 16.26 | Apr 1978 = 12.60 | Jun 1980 = 21.98 | 12.72 | 19.72 | +7.00 |
| 9 | Ronald Reagan | 1981–1988 | 12.19 | Dec 1986 = 7.70 | Jan 1981 = 19.33 | 19.33 | 9.72 | -9.61 |
| 7 | George H. W. Bush | 1989–1992 | 10.68 | Sep 1989 = 9.64 | Nov 1990 = 12.47 | 10.07 | 10.30 | +0.23 |
| 6 | Bill Clinton | 1993–2000 | 7.80 | Apr 1998 = 5.74 | Jan 1993 = 10.56 | 10.56 | 7.29 | -3.27 |
| 5 | George W. Bush | 2001–2008 | 8.11 | Oct 2006 = 5.71 | Aug 2008 = 11.47 | 7.93 | 7.49 | -0.44 |
| N/A | Barack Obama | 2009–Present Incomplete data Data updated through March 2011 |
10.21 | July 2009 = 7.30 index offset by negative inflation (-2.10) |
Dec 2009 = 12.72 | 7.73 | 11.48 | +3.75 |
[4] …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)
The US Misery Index
Misery Index (11.48) = Unemployment rate (8.8) + Inflation rate (2.68)
The misery index was initiated by economist Arthur Okun, an adviser to President Lyndon Johnson in the 1960′s. It is simply the unemployment rate added to the inflation rate. It is assumed that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflation both create economic and social costs for a country. A combination of rising inflation and more people out of work implies a deterioration in economic performance and a rise in the misery index.
|
The Current Misery Index is
|
|
|
Misery Index by Year
|
Misery Index by Month
|
| (1948 to 2010) | (January 1948 to March 2011) |
| (All Months for any given Year) | |
| (By President) | |
| (By Congress) |
|
Unemployment Rate
|
Inflation Rate
|
| By Year (1948 to 2010) | By Year (1948 to 2010) |
| By Month (January 1948 to March 2011) |
By Month (January 1948 to March 2011) |
http://www.miseryindex.us/
Background Articles and Videos
Obama’s Misery Index
Frank Gutting
In 1980, Ronald Reagan masterfully handed Jimmy Carter the misery index to illustrate the pain caused by his incoherent policies. The misery index added the inflation rate to the unemployment rate and came to a total of 21.98. Barack Obama has surpassed Jimmy Carter. From gas prices and inflation to unemployment and massive federal spending, Barack Obama is happily presiding over the decline of the powerhouse that was the United States economy.
Lesson 3 – Inflation Explained [pt. 1]
Lesson 3 – Inflation Explained [pt. 2]
Lesson 3 – Inflation Explained [pt. 3]
Lesson 3 – Inflation Explained [pt. 4]
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Pronk Pops Shows 1-25–Podcasts or Download–Give It A Listen!
Give It A listen!
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-25
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
Pronk Pops Show 25
Pronk Pops Show 25, April 26, 2011
Segment 0: Eva Cassidy–A Singer’s Singer
Segment 1: Ron Paul Is Running For President of The United States In 2012!–The Third Time Is The Charm–A Man Of Integrity–A Candidate For Peace and Prosperity–Neither A Big Government Warfare Republican Nor A Massive Government Welfare Democrat–A Man Of And For The American People–A Tea Party Patriot–Ron Paul–Videos
For additional information and videos:
Segment 3: President Obama Is The Reason Your Gasoline Prices Are Going Up!–American People Favor Drilling For Oil and Gas!–Drill Baby Drill–Videos
For additional information and videos:
Pronk Pops Show 24
Pronk Pops Show 24: April 19, 2011
Segment 0: S&P Rating Outlook Changed From “Stable” To “Negative” For U.S. Treasury Debt–Videos
Segment 1: Who is John Galt? Who is Ayn Rand–Videos
For additional information and videos:
Segment 2: President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Speech Of April 13, 2011–Eat The Rich And Killing The American Dream Class Warfare–Cuts National Security Spending and Raise Taxes On The Rich–Produces Massive Deficits, National Debt, and Higher Unemployment For 12 More Years–Progressive Radical Socialist Economic Stagflation–Videos
For additional information and videos:
http://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/pronk-pops-show-24-april-18-2011-segment-2-president-obamas-fiscal-year-2012-budget-speech-of-april-13-2011-eat-the-rich-and-killing-the-american-dream-class-warfare-cuts-national-security-sp/
Segment 3: The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos
For additional information and videos:
Pronk Pops Show 23
Pronk Pops Show 23: April 12, 2011
Segment 0: Sidney Lumet–Rest In Peace–Videos
Segment 1: Tea Party Movement Demands Passage of Balanced Budget Amendment and The FairTax As The Price For Raising The National Statutory Debt Limit of $ 14,294,000,000 One Last Time By $1,000,000,000,000!–Videos
For additional information and videos:
Segment 2: The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos
For additional information and videos:
Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 2)
Pronk Pops Show 22, April 7, 2011
Segment 1: 3,500,000 Million Americans Unemployed in March 2011 Still Exceeds Great Depression High of 13,000,000 In March 1933–The Obama Depressions Continues–Bureau of Labor Statistics: 8.8% Official Unemployment Rate (U-3) vs. Gallup Unemployment Rate of 10.0%–Nonfarm Payroll Increased By 216,000–The Government Makes The Depression Worse!–Videos
Segment 2: Obama’s Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Growth, Anti-Jobs, and Anti-Security Energy Policy–Videos
Segment 3: Republican Establishment Will Propose A Ten Year $6,200 Billion Cut In Spending Over Ten Years–The Problem Is It Does Not Balance The Budget For Another Five Years At The Earliest–Tea Party Movement Demands Balanced Budgets Starting In 2012 For The Next Ten Years!–A Jet Plane To Prosperity Not A Path To Prosperity–Videos
Segment 4: Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!–Videos
For additional information and videos on the above segments:
Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 1)
Pronk Pops: Show 22, April 7, 2011
Segment 0: Glenn Beck Ending His Show At Fox News
Segment 1: 3,500,000 Million Americans Unemployed in March 2011 Still Exceeds Great Depression High of 13,000,000 In March 1933–The Obama Depressions Continues–Bureau of Labor Statistics: 8.8% Official Unemployment Rate (U-3) vs. Gallup Unemployment Rate of 10.0%–Nonfarm Payroll Increased By 216,000–The Government Makes The Depression Worse!–Videos
Segment 2: Obama’s Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Growth, Anti-Jobs, and Anti-Security Energy Policy–Videos
Segment 3: Republican Establishment Will Propose A Ten Year $6,200 Billion Cut In Spending Over Ten Years–The Problem Is It Does Not Balance The Budget For Another Five Years At The Earliest–Tea Party Movement Demands Balanced Budgets Starting In 2012 For The Next Ten Years!–A Jet Plane To Prosperity Not A Path To Prosperity–Videos
Segment 4: Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!–Videos
For additional information and videos on the above segments:
Pronk Pops Show 21
Pronk Pops Show 21, March 29, 2010
Segment 1: The Truth And Consequences About Undeclared Wars–Real Strange Bedfellows–Obama Allies U.S. with Libyan Rebels Including Islamic Jihadists, Moslem Brotherhood, and Al-Qaeda!–Give Peace A Chance–AC-130 Gunship–A-10 Warthogs–F-15E Strike Eagles and Special Operation Smash Squads
For Additional Information and Videos:
Pronk Pops Show 20
Pronk Pops Show 20: March 22, 2011
Segment 1:F-15 Crashes In Libya
Segment 2
ne Unconstitutional and Undeclared War Too Many: The Great Pretender, Peace Candidate And Noble Peace Prize Winner, President Barack Obama Undeclared War On Libya’s Muammar Ghaddafi In Defense Of Libyian Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) Rebels Linked To al-Qaeda and The BP Libyian Oil Deal Linked To Obama Campaign Contributions–A Political Payoff!–Obama Has To Go In 2012–Videos
Segment 3:Earthquake Damages Japanese Nuclear Plant At Fukushima Daiichi, Four Explosions and Four Nuclear Reactors Flooded With Seawater To Contain Release Of Radioactive Material and Plant Released Radioactive Materials To Stop Pressure Buildup–Partial Meltdown Of Nuclear Core Feared–Radioactive Material Escaping From Plant–Over 250,000 Ordered Evacuated From 20 Kilometer (12.4 Miles) Radius From Plant–Videos
For Additional Information and Videos:
Pronk Pops Show 19
Pronk Pops Show 19: March 8, 2011
Segment 1: The Washington Political Elites of Both Parties Are Not Serious About Balancing The Federal Budget And Funding Entitlement Liabilities–Send In The Clowns–Don’t Bother There Here–Videos
Segment 2, Gallup–U.S. Unemployment Hits 10.3% In February 2011 Vs. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) U.S. Unemployment Rate Declined By .1% To 8.9% in February 2011 With Job Creation of 192,000 In February 2011–Over 13.7 Million Americans Unemployed More Than Worse Month of Great Depression!
For more information and videos related to this show click on links below:
Pronk Pops Show 18
Pronk Pops Show 18: March 3, 2011
Segment 1: Remembering The Brooklyn Dodgers and Duke Snider
Segment 2: The National Debt Will Hit $20,000,000,000,000 By 2020!
Segment 3 Public Sector Unions vs. The America People: Replacing The American Dream With The Socialist Union Nightmare
For additional information and videos on the above segments:
Pronk Pop Show 17
Pronk Pops Show 17: February 22, 2011
Black History Month–Progressives–Eugenics–Black Population Control–Abortion–Black Genocide–Planned Parenthood–Barack Obama
For more information and videos relating to the show:
Pronk Pops Show 16
Pronk Pops Show 16: February 15, 2011
Conservative Political Action Conference 2011
President Obama’s Saint Valentine’s Massacre of The American People–Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Buster–Spending $3,729 Billion–Taxes $2,627 Billion–Deficit $1,101 Billion–Dead On Arrival–DOA– 3 Million Tea Party Patriots To March On Washington D.C. On Friday, April 15, 2011 In Protest!
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 15: Hour 3
Pronk Pops Show 15:February 8,2011, Hour 3
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Obama’s Unbelievable Unemployment Numbers
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 15: Hour 2
Pronk Pops Show 15: February 8, 2011 Hour 2
Rolling Power Outages in Texas
Obama Care Declared Unconstitutional and Void By Federal Judge
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 15: Hour 1
Pronk Pops Show 15: February 8,2011, Hour 1
Super Storm and Super Bowl In Dallas, Texas
Man-Made Carbon Dioxide Emission and Global Warming–Science vs. Politics
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 14
Pronk Pops Show 14: January 27, 2011
The Big Lie and Free Speech
President Obama’s State of the Union Campaign Speech
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 13
Pronk Pops Show 13: December 9, 2010
Latest News Update on WikiLeaks
Federal Reserve Unconventional Monetary Policy
President Obama and Republicans Agree To Two Year Tax Rate Extension and
One Year Unemployment Benefit Extension–More Deficit Spending and Debt!
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 12
Pronk Pops Show 12: December 8, 2010
News Update On WikiLeaks and Julian Assange
The Chairman of The Federal Reserve and Quantitative Easing 2
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 11
Pronk Pops Show 11: December 3, 2010
News and Commentary On November 2010 Unemployment Rate and Level Statistics
WikiLeaks
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 10
Pronk Pops Show 10: December 1, 2010
Update on new TSA Airport Screening Procedures
Portland, Oregon Terrorist Bomber Arrested by F.B.I.
WikiLeaks Posts Department of State Cables
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
http://pronkpops.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/pronk-pops-show-10-november-24-2010-food-prices-rising-fairtax-updates-on-tsa-and-quantitative-easing-money-printing-videos/
Pronk Pops Show 9
Pronk Pops Show 9: November 19, 2010
Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke Responds To Critics of Monetary Policy
Transportation Security Administration or TSA New Screening Procedures:
Full Body Scanners and Extended Pat-Downs
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Commentary 1
Pronk Pops Commentary 1: November 11, 2010
Stop Federal Reserve Quantitative Easing or Money Printing
Pronk Pops Show 8
Pronk Pops Show 8: November 10, 2010
Tea Party Major Issues: Jobs, Spending, Deficits, Debt, Taxes, Health Care and Illegal Immigration
Tea Party Stars: Senators: Rand Paul and Marco Rubio
Republican Tea Party Test: Cutting Federal Spending By Over $1,000 Billion To Balance The Budget For Fiscal Years 2011, 2012, and 2013.
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 7
Pronk Pops Show 7: November 9, 2010
Unemployment News
Tea Party Effect On 2010 Elections
Key Issues: Federal Budget Deficits and National Debt
Cutting Federal Government Spending and Balancing The Federal Budget
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 6
Pronk Pops Show 6: November 3, 2010
Winning Elections With MOMMA (Money, Organization, Message, Momentum, Ambition) and The Tea Party Movement Effect
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 5
Pronk Pops Show 5: October 27, 2010
Democratic Party’s National Attack Ad Campaign on Candidates and the Flat Tax
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 4
Pronk Pops Show 4: October 20, 2010
Money, Quantitative Easing and Inflation in the United States Economy
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 3
Pronk Pops Show 3: October 14, 2010
Unemployment and inflation in the United States economy
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 2
Pronk Pops Show 2: October 13, 2010
The 10:10 carbon emission ad campaign on climate change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wliC2Eiwoyw
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replacing Vice President Joseph Biden on the 2010 Democratic Party ticket
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Pronk Pops Show 1
Pronk Pops Show 1: September 29, 2010
University of Texas at Austin shooting/suicide
The Tea Party Movement in the United States
For more information and videos related to this show click on link below:
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-25
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
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Fed Policy of Quantative Easing 2 (Creating Money) and Very Low Interest Rates Results In U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Growth Rates Falling–U.S. Consumer Prices Rising–Unemployment Rates Remain High–Stagflation!–Videos
United States Interest Rate
“…The benchmark interest rate in the United States was last reported at 0.25 percent. In the United States, authority for interest rate decisions is divided between the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (Board) and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The Board decides on changes in discount rates after recommendations submitted by one or more of the regional Federal Reserve Banks. The FOMC decides on open market operations, including the desired levels of central bank money or the desired federal funds market rate. From 1971 until 2010 the United States’ average interest rate was 6.45 percent reaching an historical high of 20.00 percent in March of 1980 and a record low of 0.25 percent in December of 2008. This page includes: United States Interest Rate chart, historical data and news. …”
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate
United States GDP Growth Rate
“…The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the United States expanded 1.8 percent in the first quarter of 2011 over the previous quarter. From 1947 until 2010 The United States’ average quarterly GDP Growth was 3.30 percent reaching an historical high of 17.20 percent in March of 1950 and a record low of -10.40 percent in March of 1958. The economy of the United States is the largest in the world. The United States is a market-oriented economy where private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions. The federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. This page includes: United States GDP Growth Rate chart, historical data and news. …”
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth
United States Inflation Rate
“…The inflation rate in United States was last reported at 2.7 percent in March of 2011. From 1914 until 2010, the average inflation rate in United States was 3.38 percent reaching an historical high of 23.70 percent in June of 1920 and a record low of -15.80 percent in June of 1921. Inflation rate refers to a general rise in prices measured against a standard level of purchasing power. The most well known measures of Inflation are the CPI which measures consumer prices, and the GDP deflator, which measures inflation in the whole of the domestic economy. This page includes: United States Inflation Rate chart, historical data and news. …”
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation-cpi
United States Unemployment Rate
“…The unemployment rate in the United States was last reported at 8.8 percent in March of 2011. From 1948 until 2010 the United States’ Unemployment Rate averaged 5.70 percent reaching an historical high of 10.80 percent in November of 1982 and a record low of 2.50 percent in May of 1953. The labour force is defined as the number of people employed plus the number unemployed but seeking work. The nonlabour force includes those who are not looking for work, those who are institutionalised and those serving in the military. This page includes: United States Unemployment Rate chart, historical data and news. …”
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
Quantitative Easing Explained
Grant Expects Another Round of Fed Quantitative Easing
Ben Bernanke’s Own Words on Fed Policy, QE2, U.S. Economy
Bernanke Spotlights Political, Economic Challenges in Historic News Conference
Bernanke Meets The Press In Historic News Conference
Ron Paul Responds to Fed Press Conference 04/27/11
Kudlow Report, April 27, 2011
Gerald Celente on RT: Discusses Ben Bernanke’s statements on US Economy
Ron Paul & The Federal Reserve – End the Fed (27-Apri-11)(POLITICS IN ACTION series)
Ron Paul on Bloomberg 4/27/11
FIRST EVER: Federal Reserve Press Conference Since US Coup d’etat of 1913
Swonk Says Gold Prices `Huge Indicator’ of Uncertainty
Hastings Says Gasoline Price Rise Won’t Halt U.S. Growth
Strasser Says U.S. Consumer to Feel Higher Food Prices
Fed Lowers 2011 GDP Growth Estimate, Raises Core Inflation Expectation
Gold and Silver Prices Signal the Destruction of the Dollar
Peter Schiff Is The Age Of America Nearing It s End
Marc Faber on Inflation – “The Ben Bernanke is a Murderer of the Working & Middle Class!”
Ed Butowsky | Stagflation Frustration
END FED: Walmart Warns Of Serious Inflation (Food-Clothing) Ahead; Fed-Bankers Caused Stagflation
*Hyperinflation Report* Proof Food Packaging is Getting Smaller Tuna, Chips
END FED: Oil Prices Rise Due To 1)Oil Comanies Can’t Drill 2)Fed Money Printing 3)Wars & Instability
Fed Takes Foot Off the Gas
By JON HILSENRATH And LUCA DI LEO
“…The Federal Reserve used its first-ever news conference to signal it will phase out a controversial bond-buying program—and to reassure a skeptical public that the central bank is doing everything it can to control inflation and expand an uneven recovery that has yet to reach many Americans.
WSJ’s Kelly Evans leads a discussion breaking down Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s first-ever press conference.
“It is very hard to blame the American public for being impatient,” Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, a former economics professor, told about 60 reporters at Wednesday’s one-hour news conference, which was transmitted on the Internet and televised. “Conditions are far from where we would like them to be. The combination of high unemployment, high gas prices and high foreclosure rates is a terrible combination and a lot of people are having a very tough time.”
Mr. Bernanke said the central bank would complete its $600 billion bond-buying program in June, as planned, and maintain ultra-low interest-rates for the now.
Amid 8.8% unemployment, a moribund housing market, and rising gas and food prices, the Fed chairman took his message directly to the public.
He aimed in part to better explain the thinking within a central bank whose reputation has been bruised by the recession and its aftermath. That reputation is especially important right now, because Mr. Bernanke needs to convince the public that he won’t let inflation take off after pushing interest rates to near zero or employ unconventional measures, such as the bond-buying program, to boost growth.
By ending the bond purchases, the Fed has effectively decided that it won’t do more to boost growth, even though the economy appeared to stumble during the first quarter. Fed officials now will turn their attention to when the central bank might start raising interest rates. Mr. Bernanke made clear he isn’t inclined to do that for a long time, unless the inflation outlook worsens. …”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704099704576289030398644312.html
Economic Growth Slow as Inflation Measure Spikes Up
“…Growth in U.S. gross domestic product—a measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders—braked to a 1.8 percent annual rate after a 3.1 percent fourth quarter pace, the Commerce Department said on Thursday. Economists had expected a 2 percent growth pace.
“We hit a bit of a soft patch in the first quarter, but that should prove temporary because weather was a drag and we got blindsided a bit by a jump in gasoline prices late in the quarter,” said Ryan Sweet, a senior economist at Moody’s Analytics before the report was released.
The Federal Reserve on Wednesday acknowledged the slowdown in first-quarter growth, describing the recovery as proceeding at a “moderate pace”—a slight step back from a statement in March when it said the economy was on a “firmer footing.”
It trimmed its growth estimate for 2011 to between 3.1 and 3.3 percent from a 3.4 to 3.9 percent January projection. …”
“…Rising commodity prices meant the households that drive about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity had less money to spend on other items. The report also underscored the pain that strong food and gasoline prices are inflicting on households.
A broader measure of inflation, the personal consumption expenditures price index, rose at a 3.8 percent rate—its fastest pace since the third quarter of 2008—after increasing 1.7 percent in the fourth quarter.
The core index, which excludes food and energy costs, accelerated to a 1.5 percent rate—the fastest since the fourth quarter of 2009 — from 0.4 percent in the fourth quarter. The core gauge is closely watched by Fed officials, who would like it around 2 percent. …”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42796520
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Speech Of April 13, 2011–Eat The Rich And Killing The American Dream Class Warfare–Cuts National Security Spending and Raise Taxes On The Rich–Produces Massive Deficits, National Debt, and Higher Unemployment For 12 More Years–Progressive Radical Socialist Economic Stagflation–Videos
Pronk Pops Show 24: April 19, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 23: April 12, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 2): April 7, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 1): April 7, 2011
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
~Thomas Jefferson
President Obama’s Speech on 2012 Budget – April 13, 2011
Rep. Scott: Taxing those at $100,000 and up 100% will not cover deficit
Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won’t work.
Paul Ryan Thrashes Obama’s Speech: “Exploiting People’s Emotions” Is “Demagoguery”!
Ryan: Debt crisis lies within spending, not taxes
House Session 2011-04-14 (16:55:00-17:56:59)
Responsibility to the Poor
Howard Roark makes a case against Barack Obama Individual vs collectivism
Ayn Rand – Individual Rights
Francisco’s Money Speech Part 1
Francisco’s money speech Part 2
The Normal State of Man: Misery & Tyranny
Capitalism, Socialism, and the Jews
Who Is John Galt?
Why Did President Obama Invite Paul Ryan To A Front Row Seat To His Speech To Then Insult and Demonize Him?
Paul Ryan: Hiding Spending Doesn’t Reduce Spending
Eat The Rich
It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes
Boehner: We Can’t Tax The Very People We Expect To Create Jobs
Krauthammer: Obama’s Deficit Speech ‘A Disgrace’, ‘Shallow’, ‘Hyper-partisan’ and ‘Deeply Dishonest’
The Problem
“Extreme Spending”
Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis
Partial Solutions
Senator Rand Paul on balancing the budget
Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Five-Year Balanced Budget Plan
Shelby Introduces Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution
Which Budgets Are Fiscally Responsible?
Which Budgets Are Living Within Ones Means?
Democratic Party Budget Proposals
| S-1 FY2012 President’s Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions) | ||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Deficits | Debt Held By Public |
| 2011 | 3,819 | 2,174 | -1,645 | 10,856 |
| 2012 | 3,729 | 2,627 | -1,101 | 11,881 |
| 2013 | 3,771 | 3,003 | -768 | 12,784 |
| 2014 | 3,977 | 3,333 | -646 | 13,562 |
| 2015 | 4,190 | 3,583 | -607 | 14,301 |
| 2016 | 4,468 | 3,819 | -649 | 15,064 |
| 2017 | 4,669 | 4,042 | -627 | 15,795 |
| 2018 | 4,876 | 4,257 | -619 | 16,513 |
| 2019 | 5,154 | 4,473 | -681 | 17,284 |
| 2020 | 5,442 | 4,686 | -735 | 18,103 |
| 2021 | 5,697 | 4,923 | -774 | 18,967 |
| 2012-2021 | 45,952 | 38,747 | -7,205 | n.a. |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
Republican Party Budget Proposals
| S-1 FY2012 Chairman’s Markup(Nominal Dollars in Billions) | ||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Deficits | Debt Held By Public |
| 2011 | 3,618 | 2,230 | -1,388 | 10,351 |
| 2012 | 3,529 | 2,533 | -995 | 11,418 |
| 2013 | 3,559 | 2,860 | -699 | 12,217 |
| 2014 | 3,586 | 3,094 | -492 | 12,801 |
| 2015 | 3,671 | 3,237 | -434 | 13,326 |
| 2016 | 3,858 | 3,377 | -481 | 13,886 |
| 2017 | 3,998 | 3,589 | -408 | 14,363 |
| 2018 | 4,123 | 3,745 | -379 | 14,800 |
| 2019 | 4,352 | 3,939 | -414 | 15,254 |
| 2020 | 4,544 | 4,142 | -402 | 15,681 |
| 2021 | 4,739 | 4,354 | -385 | 16,071 |
| 2012-2021 | 39,958 | 34,870 | -5,088 | n.a. |
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
Tea Party Solution
Tea Party Budget Proposals
| S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions) | ||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Surpluses | Debt Held By Public |
| 2012 | 2,500 | 2,500 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2013 | 2,800 | 2,800 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2014 | 3,000 | 3,000 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2015 | 3,200 | 3,200 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2016 | 3,300 | 3,300 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2017 | 3,400 | 3,500 | 100 | 10,800 |
| 2018 | 3,500 | 3,700 | 200 | 10,600 |
| 2019 | 3,600 | 3,900 | 300 | 10,300 |
| 2020 | 3,700 | 4,000 | 300 | 10,000 |
| 2021 | 3,800 | 4,300 | 500 | 9,500 |
| 2012-2021 | 32,800 | 34,200 | 1,400 | n.a. |
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)
The FairTax: It’s Time
What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
The FairTax:
- Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
- Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
- Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
- Allows American products to compete fairly
- Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
- Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
- Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
- Abolishes the IRS
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 | |||||||||||
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Federal income tax rates
1930 – 1960
Historical income tax rates for Married Filing Jointly at stated income levels.[3]
| Year | $20,001 | $60,001 | $100,001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1930 | 10% | 21% | 25% |
| 1932 | 16% | 36% | 56% |
| 1934 | 19% | 37% | 56% |
| 1936 | 19% | 39% | 62% |
| 1938 | 19% | 39% | 62% |
| 1940 | 28% | 51% | 62% |
| 1942 | 55% | 75% | 85% |
| 1944 | 59% | 81% | 92% |
| 1946 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1948 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1950 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1952 | 62% | 80% | 90% |
| 1954 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1956 | 38% | 62% | 75% |
| 1958 | 38% | 62% | 75% |
| 1960 | 38% | 62% | 75% |
Year 2008 income brackets and tax rates
| Marginal Tax Rate | Single | Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) | Married Filing Separately | Head of Household |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | $0 – $8,025 | $0 – $16,050 | $0 – $8,025 | $0 – $11,450 |
| 15% | $8,026 – $32,550 | $16,051 – $65,100 | $8,026 – $32,550 | $11,451 – $43,650 |
| 25% | $32,551 – $78,850 | $65,101 – $131,450 | $32,551 – $65,725 | $43,651 – $112,650 |
| 28% | $78,851 – $164,550 | $131,451 – $200,300 | $65,726 – $100,150 | $112,651 – $182,400 |
| 33% | $164,551 – $357,700 | $200,301 – $357,700 | $100,151 – $178,850 | $182,401 – $357,700 |
| 35% | $357,701+ | $357,701+ | $178,851+ | $357,701+ |
Year 2009 income brackets and tax rates
| Marginal Tax Rate[4] | Single | Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) | Married Filing Separately | Head of Household |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | $0 – $8,350 | $0 – $16,700 | $0 – $8,350 | $0 – $11,950 |
| 15% | $8,351 – $33,950 | $16,701 – $67,900 | $8,351 – $33,950 | $11,951 – $45,500 |
| 25% | $33,951 – $82,250 | $67,901 – $137,050 | $33,951 – $68,525 | $45,501 – $117,450 |
| 28% | $82,251 – $171,550 | $137,051 – $208,850 | $68,526 – $104,425 | $117,451 – $190,200 |
| 33% | $171,551 – $372,950 | $208,851 – $372,950 | $104,426 – $186,475 | $190,201 – $372,950 |
| 35% | $372,951+ | $372,951+ | $186,476+ | $372,951+ |
Year 2010 income brackets and tax rates
| Marginal Tax Rate[5] | Single | Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) | Married Filing Separately | Head of Household |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | $0 – $8,375 | $0 – $16,750 | $0 – $8,375 | $0 – $11,950 |
| 15% | $8,376 – $34,000 | $16,751 – $68,000 | $8,376 – $34,000 | $11,951 – $45,550 |
| 25% | $34,001 – $82,400 | $68,001 – $137,300 | $34,001 – $68,650 | $45,551 – $117,650 |
| 28% | $82,401 – $171,850 | $137,301 – $209,250 | $68,651 – $104,625 | $117,651 – $190,550 |
| 33% | $171,851 – $373,650 | $209,251 – $373,650 | $104,626 – $186,825 | $190,551 – $373,650 |
| 35% | $373,651+ | $373,651+ | $186,826+ | $373,651+ |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
U.S. Debt Clock
| Year | Gross Debt in Billions undeflated[11] | as % of GDP | Debt Held By Public ($Billions) | as % of GDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1910 | 2.6 | unk. | 2.6 | unk. |
| 1920 | 25.9 | unk. | 25.9 | unk. |
| 1928 | 18.5[12] | unk. | 18.5 | unk. |
| 1930 | 16.2 | unk. | 16.2 | unk. |
| 1940 | 50.6 | 52.4 | 42.8 | 44.2 |
| 1950 | 256.8 | 94.0 | 219.0 | 80.2 |
| 1960 | 290.5 | 56.0 | 236.8 | 45.6 |
| 1970 | 380.9 | 37.6 | 283.2 | 28.0 |
| 1980 | 909.0 | 33.4 | 711.9 | 26.1 |
| 1990 | 3,206.3 | 55.9 | 2,411.6 | 42.0 |
| 2000 | 5,628.7 | 58.0 | 3,409.8 | 35.1 |
| 2001 | 5,769.9 | 57.4 | 3,319.6 | 33.0 |
| 2002 | 6,198.4 | 59.7 | 3,540.4 | 34.1 |
| 2003 | 6,760.0 | 62.6 | 3,913.4 | 35.1 |
| 2004 | 7,354.7 | 63.9 | 4,295.5 | 37.3 |
| 2005 | 7,905.3 | 64.6 | 4,592.2 | 37.5 |
| 2006 | 8,451.4 | 65.0 | 4,829.0 | 37.1 |
| 2007 | 8,950.7 | 65.6 | 5,035.1 | 36.9 |
| 2008 | 9,985.8 | 70.2 | 5,802.7 | 40.8 |
| 2009 | 12,311.4 | 86.1 | 7,811.1 | 54.6 |
| 2010 (31 Dec) | 14,025.2 | 95.2 (3rd Q) | 9,390.5 | 63.7 (3rd Q) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2010
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.
To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.
MONTHLY STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
OF THE UNITED STATES
MARCH 31, 2011
TABLE I — SUMMARY OF TREASURY SECURITIES OUTSTANDING, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
Amount Outstanding
Title Debt Held Intragovernmental Totals
By the Public Holdings
Marketable:
Bills………………………………… 1,694,692 3,809 1,698,501
Notes………………………………… 5,843,938 3,933 5,847,871
Bonds………………………………… 931,474 3,815 935,289
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities….. 640,714 125 640,840
Federal Financing Bank 1 …………….. 0 10,239 10,239
Total Marketable a……………………… 9,110,819 21,921 2 9,132,740
Nonmarketable:
Domestic Series……………………….. 29,995 0 29,995
Foreign Series………………………… 3,786 0 3,786
State and Local Government Series……….. 181,922 0 181,922
United States Savings Securities………… 186,864 0 186,864
Government Account Series………………. 136,956 4,596,057 4,733,014
Hope Bonds 19…………………………. 0 493 493
Other………………………………… 1,301 0 1,301
Total Nonmarketable b…………………… 540,824 4,596,550 5,137,374
Total Public Debt Outstanding ……………. 9,651,643 4,618,471 14,270,115
TABLE II — STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
Amount Outstanding
Title Debt Held Intragovernmental Totals
By the Public 17, 2Holdings
Debt Subject to Limit: 17, 20
Public Debt Outstanding………………… 9,651,643 4,618,471 14,270,115
Less Amounts Not Subject to Limit:
Other Debt Not Subject to Limit……….. 488 0 488
Unamortized Discount 3………………. 20,388 20,657 41,046
Federal Financing Bank 1 ………… 0 10,239 10,239
Hope Bonds 19……………………….. 0 493 493
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit………. 9,630,767 4,587,082 14,217,849
Other Debt Subject to Limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies 4 13 0 13
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit ……… 9,630,780 4,587,082 14,217,862
Statutory Debt Limit 5…………………………………………………………… 14,294,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit……………………………………………………. 76,138
COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
http://www.TreasuryDirect.gov
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opds032011.prn
| Date | Dollar Amount |
|---|---|
| 09/30/2010 | 13,561,623,030,891.79 |
| 09/30/2009 | 11,909,829,003,511.75 |
| 09/30/2008 | 10,024,724,896,912.49 |
| 09/30/2007 | 9,007,653,372,262.48 |
| 09/30/2006 | 8,506,973,899,215.23 |
| 09/30/2005 | 7,932,709,661,723.50 |
| 09/30/2004 | 7,379,052,696,330.32 |
| 09/30/2003 | 6,783,231,062,743.62 |
| 09/30/2002 | 6,228,235,965,597.16 |
| 09/30/2001 | 5,807,463,412,200.06 |
| 09/30/2000 | 5,674,178,209,886.86 |
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
The Presidential Divider
Obama’s toxic speech and even worse plan for deficits and debt.
“…Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama’s extraordinary response to Paul Ryan’s budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama’s fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.
Joseph Rago and Steve Moore on who will pay more under the White House’s planned tax increases.
The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.
Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan’s plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. “Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” he said, supposedly pitting “children with autism or Down’s syndrome” against “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.” The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.
Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which “starts,” he said, “by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.” The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards. …”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Sam Vaknin Analyzes Barack Obama–Videos
Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann And Rand Paul–Stop Spending Money You Don’t Have!–Balance The Budget–Tea Party Budget Gets It Right–Videos
Republican Party Establishment Ruling Class Betrays The Tea Party Movement and American People With A Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution With A Deficit of $995 Billion And Budgets Not Balanced In Next Ten Years–Replace Republican Party Leadership–Videos
Tea Party Movement Demands Passage of Balanced Budget Amendment and The FairTax As The Price For Raising The National Statutory Debt Limit of $ 14,294,000,000 One Last Time By $1,000,000,000,000!–Videos
Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!
The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos
The Washington Political Elites of Both Parties Are Not Serious About Balancing The Federal Budget And Funding Entitlement Liabilities–Send In The Clowns–Don’t Bother There Here–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!
Give it a listen!
Pronk Pops Show 24: April 19, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 23: April 12, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 2): April 7, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 1): April 7, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 22, April 7, 2011
Segment 1: 3,500,000 Million Americans Unemployed in March 2011 Still Exceeds Great Depression High of 13,000,000 In March 1933–The Obama Depressions Continues–Bureau of Labor Statistics: 8.8% Official Unemployment Rate (U-3) vs. Gallup Unemployment Rate of 10.0%–Nonfarm Payroll Increased By 216,000–The Government Makes The Depression Worse!–Videos
Segment 2: Obama’s Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Growth, Anti-Jobs, and Anti-Security Energy Policy–Videos
Segment 3: Republican Establishment Will Propose A Ten Year $6,200 Billion Cut In Spending Over Ten Years–The Problem Is It Does Not Balance The Budget For Another Five Years At The Earliest–Tea Party Movement Demands Balanced Budgets Starting In 2012 For The Next Ten Years!–A Jet Plane To Prosperity Not A Path To Prosperity–Videos
Segment 4: Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!–Videos
For additional information and videos on the above segments:
Johnny Mathis – The Twelfth Of Never
Ryan Unveils Much Anticipated 2012 Budget Plan
Sean Interviews Paul Ryan
|
S-1 FY2012 Chairman’s Markup (Nominal Dollars in Billions) |
||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Deficits | Debt Held By Public |
| 2011 | 3,618 | 2,230 | -1,388 | 10,351 |
| 2012 | 3,529 | 2,533 | -995 | 11,418 |
| 2013 | 3,559 | 2,860 | -699 | 12,217 |
| 2014 | 3,586 | 3,094 | -492 | 12,801 |
| 2015 | 3,671 | 3,237 | -434 | 13,326 |
| 2016 | 3,858 | 3,377 | -481 | 13,886 |
| 2017 | 3,998 | 3,589 | -408 | 14,363 |
| 2018 | 4,123 | 3,745 | -379 | 14,800 |
| 2019 | 4,352 | 3,939 | -414 | 15,254 |
| 2020 | 4,544 | 4,142 | -402 | 15,681 |
| 2021 | 4,739 | 4,354 | -385 | 16,071 |
| 2012-2021 | 39,958 | 34,870 | -5,088 | n.a. |
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
|
S-1 FY2012 President’s Budget (Nominal Dollars in Billions) |
||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Deficits | Debt Held By Public |
| 2011 | 3,819 | 2,174 | -1,645 | 10,856 |
| 2012 | 3,729 | 2,627 | -1,101 | 11,881 |
| 2013 | 3,771 | 3,003 | -768 | 12,784 |
| 2014 | 3,977 | 3,333 | -646 | 13,562 |
| 2015 | 4,190 | 3,583 | -607 | 14,301 |
| 2016 | 4,468 | 3,819 | -649 | 15,064 |
| 2017 | 4,669 | 4,042 | -627 | 15,795 |
| 2018 | 4,876 | 4,257 | -619 | 16,513 |
| 2019 | 5,154 | 4,473 | -681 | 17,284 |
| 2020 | 5,442 | 4,686 | -735 | 18,103 |
| 2021 | 5,697 | 4,923 | -774 | 18,967 |
| 2012-2021 | 45,952 | 38,747 | -7,205 | n.a. |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
The tea party movement’s budget would require the Federal Government to have a balanced or surplus budget in every fiscal year starting in 2012 with a declining national debt starting in Fiscal Year 2017.
|
S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget (Nominal Dollars in Billions) |
||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Surpluses | Debt Held By Public |
| 2012 | 2,500 | 2,500 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2013 | 2,800 | 2,800 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2014 | 3,000 | 3,000 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2015 | 3,200 | 3,200 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2016 | 3,300 | 3,300 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2017 | 3,400 | 3,500 | 100 | 10,800 |
| 2018 | 3,500 | 3,700 | 200 | 10,600 |
| 2019 | 3,600 | 3,900 | 300 | 10,300 |
| 2020 | 3,700 | 4,000 | 300 | 10,000 |
| 2021 | 3,800 | 4,300 | 500 | 9,500 |
| 2012-2021 | 32,800 | 34,200 | 1,400 | n.a. |
|
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 |
For a history of the Federal Government’s Receipts (Revenues), Outlays, and Deficits and Surpluses
Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2016
“…Historical Tables provides data on budget receipts, outlays, surpluses or deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an extended time period, generally from 1940 or earlier to 2012 or 2016.
To the extent feasible, the data have been adjusted to provide consistency with the 2012 Budget and to provide comparability over time.
To download the Historical Tables as a single PDF, click here (360 pages, 3.2 MB) …”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Neither the Republican nor Democratic Party is capable of living within the means of the American people.
The political class or elites are not serious and do not understand the problem.
If they did they would have a sense of urgency which is lacking in both the Democratic and Republican proposed budgets.
The Republicans are proposing a budget for Fiscal Year 2012 of $3,618 billion compared with the President Obama’s $3,729.
This results in a deficit of $995 billion for the Republican budget and $1,101 billion for President Obama’s budget.
As the above tables clearly show, neither party is capable of balancing the budget in the next ten years.
The above budgets are needed to support a warfare and welfare economy with a collectivist state.
The above budgets are not a pathway to a peace and prosperity economy with a constitutional republic.
The budget needs to be balanced starting in fiscal year 2012 at $2,500 billion or less.
The tea party movement demands that from here on out that all budgets be either balanced or in surplus with no tax increases.
Please do not tell me Congressman Ryan that the budget will me in primary balance by 2015.
Primary balance means you exclude interest on the national debt from expenditures or outlays.
A budget in primary balance is just a rather lame-duck president’s attempt to confuse the American people.
I am not confused or amused by President Obama totally irresponsible Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal.
Nor am I impressed with the so-called path to a balanced budget and a path to prosperity for the United States economy.
The tea party movement does not want a path to prosperity but a jet plane ride to a balanced budget in Fiscal Year 2012 without any new taxes.
Start permanently shutting down ten Federal Departments before you even begin to think about cutting mandatory spending or entitlements including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The American people want the FairTax not the continuation of an overly complicated Federal Income taxation system even with a lower rate of 25% for individuals and corporations.
The FairTax: It’s Time
President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget gets a F and it will cost him his re-election.
The American people have no intention of getting in the Democratic Party’s car driven by Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama:
The American people have no intention of getting on the Republican Party’s path to prosperity either.
The Republican Fiscal Year 2012 budget gets a D+.
Milton Friedman would give you a D-:
The American people demand fiscal responsibility or living within ones means for the Federal Government starting with the Fiscal Year 2012 Federal Government Budget.
The American people were listening when the Republican establishment’s leadership said they heard the American people.
Republicans roll out “Pledge to America”
Pledge to America Preamble
“Pledge to America” Unveiled by Republicans (Full Text)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017335-503544.html
The Republican Pledge to America clearly stated that:
“We have a plan to impose fiscal discipline and cut government down to size.”
The Republican Pathway to Prosperity is that plan and it does not impose fiscal discipline nor does it cut down the size of the Federal Government.
Over the next ten fiscal years, there is not one single year in which the fiscal discipline of a balanced budget is met.
The Republican Pledge to America clearly stated that:
“With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt. We will also establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending from this point forward.”
For Fiscal Year 2008 the total actual outlays were $2,982 billion and total actual revenues or receipts from taxation were $2,523 billion for the U.S. Federal Government with a deficit of $458 billion.
The Republican Pathway to Prosperity proposes in Fiscal Year 2012 total estimated outlays of $3,529 billion and total estimated revenues of $2,533 billion resulting in a deficit of $997 billion.
“Extreme Spending”
The Republican establishment’s leadership in Washington D.C. needs to be replaced for they have refused to learn the lessons of the 2006 and 2008 elections and apparently need to learn another lesson in 2012.
If you are a tea party movement patriot challenge all House and Senate seats currently held by Republicans if they vote for this fiscally irresponsible and unbalanced budget for Fiscal Year 2012.
The tea party movement has been betrayed by the Republican Party leadership and establishment in Washington, D.C.
Dan Mitchell gets a A+.
It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes
Controlling Leviathan: The Battle for Limited Government
Question and Answer Session: The Fight Against Big Government
I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me.
The independents and the tea party movement have given up on both political parties.
The Pathway to Prosperity is the Republican Party’s timid attempt to capture the independents and tea party movement.
No sale.
The tea party movement will not be pleased.
They will be leaving on a jet plane.
I will be voting for Ron Paul for President in 2012 and Michele Bachmann for Vice-President.
SA@TAC – Ron Paul’s Pledge to America
P.S. You really disappointed me Congressman Ryan, your proposal is neither bold nor timid, it is fiscally irresponsible and gutless.
Suggest Paul Ryan talk to some Senators who understand the problem and what needs to be done now.
Rand Paul and Mike Lee on “Glenn Beck” with Judge Napolitano 03/07/11
ELVIS PRESLEY TWELVE OF NEVER
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Ron Paul Tells The Truth–The Political Elites Are Not Serious About Cutting The Budget–The Coming Collapse Of The Dollar And Inflation–Videos
Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann And Rand Paul–Stop Spending Money You Don’t Have!–Balance The Budget–Tea Party Budget Gets It Right–Videos
Republican Party Establishment Ruling Class Betrays The Tea Party Movement and American People With A Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution With A Deficit of $995 Billion And Budgets Not Balanced In Next Ten Years–Replace Republican Party Leadership–Videos
Republican Establishment Will Propose A Ten Year $6,200 Billion Cut In Spending Over Ten Years–The Problem Is It Does Not Balance The Budget For Another Five Years At The Earliest–Tea Party Movement Demands Balanced Budgets Starting In 2012 For The Next Ten Years!–Videos
Tea Party Movement Demands Passage of Balanced Budget Amendment and The FairTax As The Price For Raising The National Statutory Debt Limit of $ 14,294,000,000 One Last Time By $1,000,000,000,000!–Videos
The Washington Political Elites of Both Parties Are Not Serious About Balancing The Federal Budget And Funding Entitlement Liabilities–Send In The Clowns–Don’t Bother There Here–Videos
The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )SEIU Stephen Lerner’s Plan to Sabotage American Economy and Stock Market and To Destroy Capitalism–Videos
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/0311reuss.html
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2006/03/union-membership-trends-in-us-private.html
UPDATED
Stephen Lerner, former SEIU memeber, plan for strike (Occupy Wall Street): FULL Uncut Version
Glenn Beck-03/22/11-A
Glenn Beck-03/22/11-B
SEIU Planned Destruction of Capitalism
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America
“…Here are the key remarks:
Unions are almost dead. We cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also. And if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge – the big banks and everything – what they want is stability.
There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.
For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that’s totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up
If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.
Students have a trillion dollar debt
We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn’t be paying anything…
We have to think much more creatively. The key thing… What does the other side fear the most – they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down
The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:
- How do we bring down the stock market
- How do we bring down their bonuses
- How do we interfere with there ability to be rich…
So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.
And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don’t want to give any details because I don’t know if there are any police agents in the room.
The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas
- that we are not broke there is plenty of money
- they have the money - we need to get it back
- and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and destroy us
And so we need to take on those folks at the same time. And that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience – direct action all over the city. Then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.
There is going to be a ten state mobilization to try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense
Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.
Revealed — The Left’s Economic Terrorism Playbook: The Chase Campaign by a Coalition of Unions, Community Groups, Lawmakers and Students to Take Down US Capitalism and Redistribute Wealth & Power
UNCUT TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan
Background Articles and Videos
Explaining the Employee Free Choice Act
Wall Street’s “Bizarro World” for CEO Bonuses
SEIU on CNBC: Fire CEO Ken Lewis
(1 of 3) Exposed: How SEIU’s “Corporate Campaign” Used Clinton’s Department of Labor
(2 of 3) Exposed: How SEIU’s “Corporate Campaign” Used Clinton’s Department of Labor
(3 of 3) Exposed: How SEIU’s “Corporate Campaign” Used Clinton’s Department of Labor
SEIU: The Early Years | beginning
SEIU Official Apparently Taped Plotting to Disrupt Wall Street, Crash Stock Market
“…An official formerly with one of the nation’s most prominent unions, SEIU, was apparently caught on tape with a plan to take down JP Morgan Chase, the stock market, and ultimately bridge the gap between the rich and poor.
The voice of what sounds like Stephen Lerner, a former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) official, was caught on tape which were published on The Blaze website. He was speaking at a Pace University forum several days ago. SEIU is the fastest-growing union in the country with 2.2 million members.
The tape, which was published on several sites including YouTube , generated a bit of buzz throughout the Internet, including message boards and on other forums.
“We need to figure out in a much more, through direct action, much more concrete way how we really are trying to disrupt and create uncertainty for capital, for how corporations operate,” the voice said.
He added that there are “extraordinary things” that one could do to “destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.” One of those things includes taking down the stock market to make way for the lower and middle classes in America. …”
Unions see sharp membership declines again
Union membership falls sharply; private sector union ranks at pre-WWII levels
“… The nation’s labor unions saw another steep decline in membership last year, even as the economy showed signs of recovery and job losses slowed.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Friday that unions lost 612,000 members in 2010, dropping the unionized share of the work force to 11.9 percent from 12.3 percent in 2009. That follows a loss of 771,000 workers in 2008, continuing a steady decline from the 1950s when more than a third of workers belonged to unions.
The news comes as union officials are pressing President Barack Obama and other leaders to invest more money in infrastructure projects like repairing highways and bridges to help stimulate the economy and create new jobs. That plea is meeting stiff resistance from Republicans intent on cutting spending sharply to pare back the rising national debt.
Union membership in the private sector fell from 7.2 percent to 6.9 percent, a low point not seen since the infancy of the labor movement in the 1930s. The steepest decline was seen in the construction industry, where unemployment remains around 20 percent.
Public employment unions saw a 1.2 percent decline, mostly from job cuts among state and local government workers. Those unions could see further declines this year, as states eliminate jobs in an effort to make up multibillion-dollar budget deficits.
“In the absence of federal support for state and local governments, public sector cutbacks will continue to depress the overall union membership rate,” said Ben Zipperer, a senior research associate of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. …”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unions-see-sharp-membership-apf-2604944800.html
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The Washington Political Elites of Both Parties Are Not Serious About Balancing The Federal Budget And Funding Entitlement Liabilities–Send In The Clowns–Don’t Bother There Here–Videos
Judy Collins Send in the Clowns
Obama Defends 2012 Budget Proposal
Boehner Highlights Vote to Cut Spending, Help Create Better Environment for Job Creation
Chairman Hensarling: The Republican Spending Cuts Are Not Draconian
Glenn Beck-03/10/11-A
Rand Paul to vote “NO” on GOP budget
Rand Paul and Mike Lee on “Glenn Beck” with Judge Napolitano 03/07/11
It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes
Collender Says Budget Bill Doesn’t Deal With Long-Term
The Washington D.C. political establishment and ruling elites of both political parties are not serious people– they are clowns.
The American people no longer find them very funny or entertaining.
The American people now know the joke was on them.
The American people now know they were lied to about Social Security and Medicare.
The American people now know that the Social Security surpluses were spent every year by both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
The American people now know that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are not adequately funded by tax revenues and are running huge and every growing deficits.
I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: Deficits and Social Security
These entitlement programs are running huge deficits that must be stopped.
I.O.U.S.A. Bonus Reel: Social Security+Medicare Projections
Otherwise it will simply be too late to put these programs on an actuarial sound foundation.
The most either political party will cut from the fiscal year 2011 budget of over $3,800 billion is $100 billion or less than 3% of Fiscal Year 2011 outlays.
The earliest either political party would come even come close to balancing the budget is five to ten years.
Apparently both the House of Representatives and Senate is challenged when it comes to the will, courage, and vision to seeing the American economy does not have five to ten years for the Federal Government to balance a budget.
The Federal Budget must be balanced starting in Fiscal Year 2012 and every year thereafter.
Actually the Federal Budget needs to run surpluses to stop the rampant growth in unfunded Federal Government liabilities.
Any politician who speaks of a path to a balanced budget simply does not understand the magnitude of the problem.
Everything must be on the table including entitlements; and budgets must be balance starting in Fiscal Year 2012 not Fiscal Year 2020.
To balance the budget and live within ones means, namely estimated tax revenues, would require budget cuts of over $1,000 billion.
This requires the permanent shut-down of entire Federal Departments.
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)
Keep in mind the Federal National Debt does not include the increase every year of unfunded liabilities or Federal Debt for so-called mandatory spending and entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, Prescription Drugs, Medicaid and other entitlement programs and unfunded military and civilian pension obligations.
Currently these unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government exceed $100,000 billion or more than ten times the so-called National Debt owed to the public that exceeds $10,000 billion today.
These unfunded liabilities are adding at least another $3,000 billion plus each year to the unfunded liabilities of the United States Government.
The United States Government is therefore running total deficits each year of nearly $5,000 billion!
To first stop and then reverse this trend requires surplus budgets not merely balanced budgets.
Who do the clowns or educated fools of the Washington D.C. political ruling class think they are fooling–not the American people.
Ask any college freshman today if he thinks he will receive a dime from Social Security or Medicare.
President Barack Obama is addicted to tobacco, big spending and massive debts.
House Speaker John Boehner is also addicted to tobacco , big spending and massive debts.
Neither can kick their nasty habit of smoking cigarettes, spending the American people’s money and burdening future generation with debt.
President Obama’s addiction to big spending, huge deficits and a massive national debt is evidenced by his proposed fiscal year budgets for 2010, 2011, and 2012:
For Fiscal Year 2010 President Obama proposed a budget of $3,456 billion in spending outlays with estimated tax revenues of $2,162 billion resulting in an estimated total deficit of over $1,293 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2011 President Obama proposed a budget of $3,818 billion in spending outlays with estimated tax revenues of $2,173 billion resulting in an estimated total deficit of over $1,645 billion.
For Fiscal Year 2012 President Obama proposed a budget of $3,728 billion in spending outlays with estimated tax revenues of $2,677 billion resulting in an estimated deficits of over $1,101 billion.
President Obama gives real meaning to term fiscally irresponsible and delusional by proposing three budgets that have deficits totaling over $4,000 billion.
By the time President Obama is hopefully voted out of office in 2012, President Obama will have run up deficits totaling over $5,000 billion and increased the National Debt by over 50% in just four years!
Keep in mind that the total United States National Debt from its founding through President George W. Bush was just under $10,000 billion!
| Year | Gross Debt in Billions undeflated[11] | as % of GDP | Debt Held By Public ($Billions) | as % of GDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1910 | 2.6 | unk. | 2.6 | unk. |
| 1920 | 25.9 | unk. | 25.9 | unk. |
| 1928 |