David Stockman — Right On The Money, Economy, Trump and The Warfare and Welfare State — You Have Been Warned — Videos

Posted on April 30, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, Communications, Congress, conservatives, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Cult, Culture, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, European History, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Middle East, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Speech, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Video, Wahhabism, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Image result for david stockman books

Image result for david stockman books

Image result for david stockman books
Image result for david stockman booksImage result for david stockman booksImage result for david stockman booksImage result for david stockman books

Image result for cartoons about david stockman

World’s Greatest Memory and Trump’s La la Land | David Stockman’s Warning

Published on Apr 29, 2017

You can also check out the following:

David Stockman’s Warning
Jim Sinclair
James Turk
Web bot
Silver News
Gold
Bix Weir
RoadToRoota
Road To Roota
Kyle Bass
Realist News
Greg Mannarino
Rob Kirby
Reluctant Preppers
The Next Newss
Info Wars
Maneco64
Mike Maloney
Gold Silver
Eric Sprott
Jim Rickards
David Morgan
Peter Schiff
Max Keiser
Robert Kiyosaki
SilverDoctors
Finance and Liberty
Nomi Prins
Jim Willie
Clif High
Martin Armstrong
Ron Paul
Pastor Williams
Bill Holter
Bo Polny
Jim Sinclair
James Turk
Clif High

Stockman on Trump’s Tax Plan: ‘Borrowing Money Is Not the Way to Prosperity’

David Stockman: National debt is ticking time bomb

David Stockman: Trump doesn’t know anything about tax policy

David Stockman: We’re wasting money on defense

David Stockman on Trump’s wall: I think it’s a stupid idea

David Stockman: Economy is on the edge of ruin

David Stockman: We’ll have a fiscal bloodbath, not fiscal stimulus

David Stockman Trumps Efforts To Drain The Swamp

David Stockman – Trump Will Create A Debt Crisis Like Never Before – 28 Feb 17 | Gazunda

David Stockman – Global Deflation As A Result Of Massive Over-investment – 9 Feb 16 | Gazunda

David Stockman Speaks on Shakeup Expected At The White House. #TheWhiteHouse

David Stockman: We are at peak debt headed for a recession

David Stockman on Trump’s infrastructure spending

RTD News: “A 20 Trillion Ticking Time Bomb…” – David Stockman

David Stockman: We have a massive bubble in the market

David Stockman -Trump Can’t Stop Market Crash Predicts Reagan’s Budget Director

Stockman: U.S. election is Brexit on steroids

[74] David Stockman | One Big Fat Ugly Bubble

David Stockman: Lester Holt was in the tank for Hillary Clinton

Stockman: Janet Yellen is a clueless economist

David Stockman: What the Fed and the Feds Have Done to Us, and How to Reverse It

David Stockman-We Are Nearing the End

[youtube-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5exbO-Ros2Q]

David Stockman: Why a Trump Presidency Is Very Possible

What Trump Should Do – With David Stockman

David Stockman Bubbles, Economic Collapse Coming 1

Robert Kiyosaki David Stockman discuss the biggest financial crisis in US history present,future

David Stockman: The US Is Fiscally, Morally, Intellectually Bankrupt

RTD News: “There Will Be No Rescue Out Of Washington This Time” – David Stockman

David Stockman – Conversations with Casey

How Crony Capitalism Corrupts the Free Market | David Stockman

The Forgotten Cause of Sound Money | David Stockman

Stockman: Market Will Not Be Pretty Under Trump

[Ed. Note: To see exactly what this former Reagan insider has to say about Trump and specifically what he believes must be done to drain the swamp, David Stockman is sending out a copy of his book Trumped! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back out to any American willing to listen. To learn how to get your free copy CLICK HERE.]

As bonds break a three day win streak and the U.S market hitting new record highs with a trifecta of records, CNBC was roaring about what to expect going forward. The Daily Reckoning contributor David Stockman joined Courtney Reagan to discuss what to expect going forward.

After the CNBC host positioned the critiques offered by David Stockman of the Trump administration she asked whether that would continue given the state of the market. Stockman did not mix words beginning the conversation with, “What’s going on today is complete insanity. The market is apparently pricing in a huge Trump stimulus package, when if you just look at the real world out there the only thing that is going to happen is a fiscal bloodbath and a White House train wreck like never before in U.S history.

How much more evidence do these so called traders need? Trump is lost in Twitter-land and he is out of control. He is turning out to be a complete jackass in the Oval Office. Co-President Bannon is off the deep end on terrorism, travel bans, Mexican walls, immigrant bashing and protectionism.”

David Stockman is a former Reagan Administration official who was the Office of Management and Budget Director. He also served as a two-term Congressman from the great state of Michigan. His latest book, Trumped! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back is out now. It offers his insight and exclusive analysis on exactly what the newly elected president must do in order to succeed in the White House. To get your own FREE copy, CLICK HERE to learn how.

“[They are] having nothing to do with the economic agenda and Trump has got an empty economic bench. He’s got no Secretary of the Treasury, no Office of Management and Budget, no Council of Economic Advisor Chairman. By this time, when I was there with the Reagan Administration, the plan was ready to go and he was going to Congress within a couple of days into February. We have a debt ceiling freight train coming down the road which will hit March 15 and then the cash will start running out and the system will be on edge. All of the continuing resolutions expire in April.”

“They are going to spend the year trying to repeal and replace Obamacare and it will be a fiasco. Nothing is going to happen this year. I don’t even think they can pass the budget resolution. There is going to be no tax action this year. If there is any bill next year it is going to be deficit neutral. Which means it is not going to add $15 to earnings like these crazy people expect.”

“Why would you be trading in this market, with this kind of chaos emerging everywhere at twenty six times trailing earnings? That’s where we are. It is completely crazy and it is only a question of how many more days or weeks that this kind of fantasy land can last.”

David Stockman Market In Text 2

Courtney Reagan then pressed back asking, “At what point do you give in and admit that [Trump] is atypical but maybe he could get things done? I mean, look at all of the CEO’s that Trump has met with.” The former Reagan insider remarked that, “CEO’s come and go with every president. They came in with Reagan, they tell a president what they want to hear. These guys are just selling the song and dance about how many jobs they’re going to create in the next five years. They have no clue.”

“If we have a recession in the next five years, which surely we will, because recessions have not been outlawed and we haven’t had one for ten years. None of this stuff is going to happen. This is meaningless. What is meaningful is that Trump is out of control. This tweeting and getting off track on all of this terrorism stuff. This is a sign that there is going to be no governing coalition and that all of this fiscal stimulus expected by Wall Street is a complete fantasy. It can’t happen.”

Rickards’ Reaction: A Model For Predicting Financial Collapse

Jim Rickards’ reveals the only model you need to safe guard your wealth from the next financial crisis. In this 5-part exclusive framework a former Wall Street and intelligence community insider breaks down his analysis into a model to warm of impending financial collapse. The model is designed to offer the easiest and fastest way to apply hard facts, science and good sound analysis. Sign up for the Daily Reckoning e-letter today and receive your FREE report.

We will NOT share your email address

When CNBC then turned over the camera to a day trader who asked about the positive sentiment that exists within the market regarding Trump and his plan to deregulate Stockman stayed true to message. “Trump is just putting out press releases and the guise of Executive Orders. All of this stuff is going to get litigated, it goes through a rulemaking process, that takes years. So the relief on regulation will be important, but it way down the road and it won’t be that impactful.”

“The second thing, is we’re at 92 months in this expansion already. It is running out of gas. You can’t expect it to run forever. That is seemingly what is priced in by the market.”

“The third thing is, we have a giant debt and deficit problem. The debt ceiling is coming back into play it will be 20 trillion when it freezes in on March 15th. I’ll tell you this, people aren’t paying attention to the fact that Trump will never get a debt ceiling increase through the Congress without a government shutdown. When that happens it is, “bar the doors” because nobody is expecting it. We need to look at the facts, not the hopes.”

As the CNBC affirmed, it is not clear that the market is just going to drop tomorrow and history will repeat itself, Stockman repositioned. “The market it clearly factoring in a big Trump stimulus and I think anybody down there would admit if it doesn’t happen, if we get zero tax cuts, if we get a fiscal bloodbath in the Washington I am describing – the market is not going to stay where it is today at these absurd multiples of earnings.”

“This is all based on the idea that there is going to be a surge of economic growth and that profits are going to come back from about $89 a share by basis, where they were during the last twelve months, to a potential $110 or $130. My argument is there is not going to be any economic rebound. There is not going to be any profit surge. Therefore the market will be repricing dramatically downward once it is clear.”

Another CNBC analysis asked why – with the positive trends in jobless claims, manufacturing increasing, interest rates at near record lows – would the market not close out the year near record levels? “The market is assuming that profits are going to rebound. That we are not going to have any market dislocation and that nobody is going to be pushing back on Trump. It is hard to understand how people watching the day-to-day action down there could believe that.”

“Everybody is pushing back on Trump, he can’t even get his cabinet approved. He’s going to be bogged down in a Supreme Court fight, he’s going to be bogged down in a fight over a ridiculous travel ban. The idea that there is not going to be pushback is naive. What there is going to be is a train wreck. It is already clear that the people in the White House have no idea what they’re doing and it is only a matter of time before this honeymoon goodwill evaporates and the politicians get down to doing what they do best. Which is to undermine and obstruct anything that might be positive.”

When finally asked whether there is anything positive that would make him turn bullish in the near future he responded affirmably, “No, because Trump is inheriting thirty years of a disaster created by his predecessors. We have to take this $20 trillion of debt seriously. There is $10 trillion more built in under current policy, and that is without a dime of Trump tax cuts, infrastructure or stimulus. There is going to be a tremendous fiscal crisis in the years ahead which will prevent any of the kind of action that the “stimulus junkies” are looking for.

To catch the full interview with David Stockman on CNBC click here. If you would like to claim your own free copy of David Stockman’s bestseller Trumped! Click here to learn how.

Thanks for reading,

Craig Wilson, @craig_wilson7
for the Daily Reckoning

https://dailyreckoning.com/stockman-market-under-trump/

David Stockman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
David Stockman
David Stockman by Gage Skidmore.jpg
Director of the Office of Management and Budget
In office
January 21, 1981 – August 1, 1985
President Ronald Reagan
Preceded by Jim McIntyre
Succeeded by Jim Miller
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Michigan‘s 4th district
In office
January 3, 1977 – January 21, 1981
Preceded by Edward Hutchinson
Succeeded by Mark Siljander
Personal details
Born David Alan Stockman
November 10, 1946 (age 70)
Fort Hood, Texas, U.S.
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Jennifer Blei (1983–present)[1]
Education Michigan State University (BA)
Harvard University
Website Official website

David Alan Stockman (born November 10, 1946) is a former businessman and U.S. politician who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan (1977–1981) and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985) under President Ronald Reagan.

Early life and education

Stockman was born in Fort Hood, Texas, the son of Allen Stockman, a fruit farmer, and Carol (née Bartz).[2] He is of German descent, and his family’s surname was originally “Stockmann”.[3] He was raised in a conservative family, and his maternal grandfather, William Bartz, was a Republican county treasurer for 30 years.[4][5] Stockman was educated at public schools in Stevensville, Michigan. He graduated from Lakeshore High School in 1964[6] and received a B.A. in History from Michigan State University in 1968. He was a graduate student at Harvard University, 1968–1970 studying theology

Political career

Stockman’s Congressional portrait

He served as special assistant to United States Representative and 1980 U.S. presidential candidate John Anderson of Illinois, 1970–1972, and was executive director, United States House of Representatives Republican Conference, 1972–1975.

Congress

Stockman was elected to the United States House of Representatives for the 95th Congress and was reelected in two subsequent elections, serving from January 3, 1977, until his resignation January 21, 1981, to accept appointment as Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Office of Management and Budget

Stockman was one of the most controversial OMB directors ever appointed, also known as the “Father of Reaganomics.” He resigned in August 1985. Committed to the doctrine of supply-side economics, he assisted in the passing of the “Reagan Budget” (the Gramm-Latta Budget), which Stockman hoped would curtail the “welfare state“. He thus gained a reputation as a tough negotiator with House Speaker Tip O’Neill‘s Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Majority Leader Howard Baker‘s Republican-controlled Senate. During this period, Stockman became well known to the public during the contentious political wrangling concerning the role of the federal government in American society.

Stockman’s influence within the Reagan Administration was weakened after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the infamous 18,246 word article, “The Education of David Stockman”,[7] in its December 1981 issue, based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider.

Stockman was quoted as referring to Reagan’s tax act in these terms: “I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan’s 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate…. It’s kind of hard to sell ‘trickle down.’ So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really ‘trickle down.’ Supply-side is ‘trickle-down’ theory.”[7] Of the budget process during his first year on the job, Stockman was quoted as saying, “None of us really understands what’s going on with all these numbers,” which was used as the subtitle of the article.[7]

After “being taken to the woodshed by the president” because of his candor with Greider, Stockman became concerned with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he resigned from OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to endorse a reduction of government spending to offset large tax decreases to avoid the creation of large deficits and an increasing national debt.

Fiscal legacy

President Jimmy Carter’s last fiscal year budget ended with a $79.0 billion budget deficit (and a national debt of $907,701,000,000 [8] as of September 30, 1980), ending during the period of David Stockman’s and Ronald Reagan’s first year in office, on October 1, 1981.[9] The gross federal national debt had just increased to $1.0 trillion during October 1981 ($998 billion on 30 September 1981, up from $907.7 billion during the last full fiscal year of the Carter administration[8]).

By 30 September 1985, four and a half years into the Reagan administration and shortly after Stockman’s resignation from the OMB during August 1985, the gross federal debt was $1.8 trillion.[8] Stockman’s OMB work within the administration during 1981 until August 1985 was dedicated to negotiating with the Senate and House about the next fiscal year’s budget, executed later during the autumn of 1985, which resulted in the national debt becoming $2.1 trillion at fiscal year end 30 September 1986.[8] Reaganomics had just begun.

In 1981, Stockman received the Samuel S. Beard Award for Greatest Public Service by an Individual 35 Years or Under, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.[10]

Business career

After leaving government, Stockman joined the Wall St. investment bank Salomon Brothers and later became a partner of the New York–based private equity company, the Blackstone Group.[11]:125–127 His record was mixed at Blackstone, with some very good investments, such as American Axle, but also failures, including Haynes International and Republic Technologies.[11]:144–147 During 1999, after Blackstone CEO Stephen A. Schwarzman curtailed Stockman’s role in managing the investments he had developed,[11]:146 Stockman resigned from Blackstone to start his own private equity fund company, Heartland Industrial Partners, L.P., based in Greenwich, Connecticut.[12]

On the strength of his investment record at Blackstone, Stockman and his partners raised $1.3 billion of equity from institutional and other investors. With Stockman’s guidance, Heartland used a contrarian investment strategy, buying controlling interests in companies operating in sectors of the U.S. economy that were attracting the least amount of new equity: auto parts and textiles. With the help of about $9 billion in Wall Street debt financing, Heartland completed more than 20 transactions in less than 2 years to create four portfolio companies: Springs Industries, Metaldyne, Collins & Aikman, and TriMas. Several major investments performed very poorly, however. Collins & Aikman filed for bankruptcy during 2005 and when Heartland sold Metaldyne to Asahi Tec Corp. during 2006, Heartland lost most of the $340 million of equity it had invested in the business.[13]

Collins & Aikman Corp.

During August 2003, Stockman became CEO of Collins & Aikman Corporation, a Detroit-based manufacturer of automotive interior components. He was ousted from that job days before Collins & Aikman filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 on May 17, 2005.

Criminal and civil charges

On March 26, 2007, federal prosecutors in Manhattan indicted Stockman in “a scheme… to defraud [Collins & Aikman]’s investors, banks and creditors by manipulating C&A’s reported revenues and earnings.” The United States Securities and Exchange Commission also brought civil charges against Stockman related to actions that he performed while CEO of Collins & Aikman.[14] Stockman suffered a personal financial loss, over $13 million, along with losses suffered by as many as 15,000 Collins & Aikman employees worldwide.

Stockman said in a statement posted on his law firm’s website that the company’s end was the consequence of an industry decline, not due to fraud.[15] On January 9, 2009, the US Attorney’s Office announced that it did not intend to prosecute Stockman for this case.[16]

Web site

In March 2014 Stockman launched a web based daily periodical, David Stockman’s Contra Corner featuring both his own articles and those from leading contrarian thinkers on geopolitics, economics, and finance.

Personal life

Stockman lives in the Upper East Side of Manhattan in New York City.[12] He is married to Jennifer Blei Stockman and is the father of two children, Rachel and Victoria. Jennifer Blei Stockman is a chairwoman emerita of the Republican Majority for Choice,[17] and President of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation Board of Trustees.[18] In 2013, Stockman signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in favor of same-sex marriage.[19]

Quotes

  • “[Social Security] has to be means-tested. And Medicare needs to be means-tested […] Let the Bush tax cuts expire. Let the capital gains go back to the same rate as ordinary income.”[20]
  • “The Republican Party has totally abdicated its job in our democracy, which is to act as the guardian of fiscal discipline and responsibility. They’re on an anti-tax jihad — one that benefits the prosperous classes.”[21]
  • “I invest in anything that Bernanke can’t destroy, including gold, canned beans, bottled water and flashlight batteries.”[22]
  • “Ninety-two percent of the wealth is owned by five percent of the people.” (Bloomberg TV 2013)
  • “[T]he Republican Party was hijacked by modern imperialists during the Reagan era. As a consequence, the conservative party cannot perform its natural function as watchdog of the public purse because it is constantly seeking legislative action to provision a vast war machine of invasion and occupation.” [23]

Bibliography

  • The Reagan Economic Plan, 1981
  • The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, Harper & Row, 1986, ISBN 9780060155605
  • The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, PublicAffairs, 2013, ISBN 9781586489120
  • Trumped!: A Nation on the Brink of Ruin, and How to Bring it Back, 2016

References

  1. Jump up^ “LOSING THE BATTLES AND WINNING THE WAR”. Lexington Herald-Leader. April 7, 1985.
  2. Jump up^ Hunter, Marjorie (December 12, 1980). “Office of Management and Budget David Alan Stockman; Strong Support From Kemp Chosen by House Republicans Views on Economy”. The New York Times.
  3. Jump up^ “News65”. 19 June 1998.
  4. Jump up^ “The Tuscaloosa News – Google News Archive Search”.
  5. Jump up^ “The Montreal Gazette – Google News Archive Search”.
  6. Jump up^ Heibutzki, Ralph (2012-06-04). “Stockman Surprise Speaker at Lakeshore’s Graduation”. The Herald-Palladium. Retrieved 2012-06-04.
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b c William Greider (December 1981). “The Education of David Stockman”. The Atlantic Online.
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Treasury Department’s Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 1950 – 1999
  9. Jump up^ Office of Management and Budget Historical Tablessee Table 1.1 (Excel Spreadsheet)
  10. Jump up^ “Jefferson Awards”. Jefferson Awards.
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b c David Carey & John E. Morris (2001). King of Capital: The Remarkable Rise, Fall and Rise Again of Steve Schwarzman and Blackstone. Crown.
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b “Collins & Aikman seeks to emerge from bankruptcy,” Bloomberg News article by Jeff Bennett, published in the newspaper The Advocate of Stamford and (identical version, perhaps with changes by the local editor in the common business section for both newspapers) in the Greenwich Time on September 5, 2006, page A7, The Advocate
  13. Jump up^ David Carey and Lou Whiteman, “PE firms find buyer for Metaldyne,” The Deal, Sept. 1, 2006.
  14. Jump up^ Levin, Doris (29 March 2007). “Stockman Outsmarts Self in Detroit”. Bloomberg. Retrieved 19 September 2014.
  15. Jump up^ “Ex-Collins Chief David Stockman Charged With Fraud (Update10)”. Bloomberg. March 26, 2007. Retrieved 2010-08-02.
  16. Jump up^ “Fraud charges dropped against ex-Reagan aide David Stockman”. Chicago Tribune. 10 January 2009. Retrieved 19 September 2014.
  17. Jump up^ About Us Republican Majority for Choice
  18. Jump up^ Trustees, Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation
  19. Jump up^ [1]
  20. Jump up^ “Why David Stockman Isn’t buying it”. CBS News. March 2, 2012.
  21. Jump up^ Dickinson, Tim (Nov 9, 2011). “How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich”. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2011-11-10.
  22. Jump up^ David Stockman: I Invest In Anything Bernanke Can’t Destroy, John Carney, CNBC, October 6, 2010
  23. Jump up^ Stockman, David (2013). The Great Deformation — the corruption of capitalism in America. PublicAffairs. p. 688. ISBN 978-1586489120.

External links

United States House of Representatives
Preceded by
Edward Hutchinson
Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
from Michigan’s 4th congressional district

1977–1981
Succeeded by
Mark Siljander
Political offices
Preceded by
Jim McIntyre
Director of the Office of Management and Budget
1981–1985
Succeeded by
Jim Miller
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Federal Reserve Opposes More Congressional Oversight and Audit Proposed By Senator Rand Paul — Audit The Fed and Then End The Fed — Videos

Posted on February 8, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Homes, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Raves, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Story 1: The Federal Reserve Opposes More Congressional Oversight and Audit Proposed By Senator Rand Paul — Audit The Fed and Then End The Fed — Videos

rand Paul

janet-yellen

Fed-Funds 03_Fed Balance SheetCentral-bank-balance-sheetsfed_funds_rate_qe_1_2_3Fed-AssetsFed-Balance-sheetFed-Balance-Sheet-SP500-010815 Fed-Balance-Sheet-VS-SP500-112013Federal-Reserve-Asset-Composition-QE (1)
gold federal balance sheet Mortgage-Backed-Securities-held-by-the-Federal-Reserve-All-Maturities.1 peter-catranis-fed-funds1 sp federal balance sheet

Rand Paul – Audit the Fed!

Major Move! House Passes Bill to Audit Federal Reserve!

Senator Vitter (R-LA) asks Janet Yellen about Audit the Fed (S.209)

Rand Paul on Janet Yellen, Transparency At The Fed, And Nsa Spying Bloomberg

Rand Paul: ‘Audit the Fed’ – CNBC 5/22/2013

Audit the Fed. by Ron Paul. Harry Reid gets slammed –

Fed fires back at Rand Paul

The Federal Reserve is lashing out at Sen. Rand Paul’s plan to give Congress more oversight over the central bank, a proposal that could gain traction in the new Republican-led Congress.

The Kentucky Republican reintroduced his “Audit the Fed” legislation last month with 30 co-sponsors, including other potential 2016 GOP hopefuls, Sens. Ted Cruz (Texas) and Marco Rubio (Fla.).

The proposal — once championed by his father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) —would subject the central bank to an audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Regional bank presidents from around the country are decrying the plan, which they argue could damage the economy.

“Who in their right mind would ask the Congress of the United States — who can’t cobble together a fiscal policy — to assume control of monetary policy?” Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, said during an interview with The Hill.

Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen has already vowed to fight the legislation, and President Obama would likely veto it.

Still, Fed watchers note that Paul has become emboldened by the new Republican majority in Congress. And he possesses an ever louder national microphone, as he moves closer to a 2016 presidential run.

Together, those factors could elevate the issue in the coming months, a prospect that has spurred strong words from bank officials.

Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser told The Hill that financial auditing “already exists” for the Fed, and warned that Paul’s plan would empower Congress “to audit and question monetary policy decisions in real time.”

“This runs the risk of monetary policy decisions being based on short-term political considerations instead of the longer-term health of the economy,” Plosser said.

Paul pushed back against the criticism, saying Fed officials “will say and do anything to keep their business hidden from the American people.”

For Paul, the legislation allows him to burnish his Republican-libertarian credentials.

And he appears to want to make it part of his early presidential campaigning. On Friday, Paul will hold an Audit the Fed rally in Des Moines, Iowa, as part of a weekend trip to the early presidential caucus state.

The issue could give Paul an opening to tap into the public’s mistrust of the government, more than six years after the federal bailouts that followed the 2008 economic crisis.

“This secretive government-run bureaucracy promotes policies that have impacted the lives of all Americans,” Paul said. “Citizens have the right to know why the Fed’s policies have resulted in a stagnant economy and record numbers of people dropping out of the workforce.”

Fisher said lawmakers are looking to shift blame, having proven “unable to get together with their own colleagues on a working fiscal policy or construct a regulatory regime that incentivizes investment and job creation.”

“So they simply find it convenient to create a boogeyman out of an entity that does its job efficiently — the Federal Reserve,” Fisher said. “To some outsiders the Fed appears to be some kind of combination of Hogwarts, the Death Star, and Ebenezer Scrooge — especially to those who don’t take the time to read the copious amounts of reports and speeches and explanations we emit.”

The twelve presidents of the Fed’s regional banks are well connected, their boards of directors stacked with influential business leaders. They are likely to intensify their opposition to Paul’s proposal.

On Wednesday, Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester criticized the legislation as “misguided” during public remarks in Columbus, Ohio.

“They really are about allowing political considerations to influence monetary policy decisions,” Mester said in her speech. “This would be a tremendous mistake, because it would ultimately lead to poorer economic performance.”

Yellen, who met with Senate Democrats last week on Capitol Hill, is scheduled to testify before Congress later this month. The appearance will be her first since Republicans seized control of the Senate, and she will likely face questions on the legislation.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), whose panel has jurisdiction on the bill, has also said he is interested in holding hearings on the issue.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/231822-fed-fires-back

Rand Paul Slams Federal Reserve’s Secrecy, Reintroduces Bill to ‘Audit the Fed’

Sen. Rand Paul is reviving his push to audit the Federal Reserve.

The Kentucky Republican and presumptive 2016 presidential candidate said he wants to bring several of the Fed’s monetary activities under congressional oversight.

In a statement released Monday, Paul said it was time to end the secrecy behind the Fed. He believes an audit is the best way to do it.

“[An] audit of the Fed will finally allow the American people to know exactly how their money is being spent by Washington.” Paul said.
He slammed the Fed’s current operating practices, saying it works “under a cloak of secrecy and it has gone on for too long.”

Paul concluded that “the American people have a right to know what the Federal Reserve is doing with our nation’s money supply.”

>>> Much More to Friedman Than Rule-Based Monetary Policy

Calls for a Fed audit increased after the 2008 financial crisis. The ensuing collapse in the housing market and financial industry sparked an ongoing effort to bring more sunlight to the agency.

Norbert Michel, a research fellow in financial regulations at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal he agreed with the senator.

“There is no justification for secrecy,” Michel said. “They should have a full policy audit and the Federal Open Market Committee’s full transcript, not just the minutes, should be released.”

Although the main goal of Paul’s legislation is to have a full audit of the Fed, completed within six months, there are several other reforms he’d like to implement. They include eliminating restrictions on the Government Accountability Office’s ability to conduct oversight and giving Congress oversight of Fed policies like quantitative easing.

>>> House Republicans Attempt to Lift ‘Veil of Secrecy’ From Federal Reserve

The bill has already gained popularity in the Republican caucus with 30 co-sponsors, including Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., potential presidential rivals in 2016.

“The Fed has expanded its balance sheet fivefold, yet economic growth is still tepid, businesses are sitting on cash, and median income and household wealth are depressed,” Cruz noted in a statement.

Cruz also slammed the Fed for its secrecy.

“Enough is enough,” Cruz said. “The Federal Reserve needs to fully open its books so Congress and the American people can see what has been going on. This is a crucial first step to getting back to a more stable dollar and a healthy economy for the long term.”

http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/29/rand-paul-slams-federal-reserves-secrecy-reintroduces-bill-audit-fed/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-411

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Producers vs. Moochers: Obama’s Execution of The Cloward-Piven Strategy: Food Stamps, Medicaid, Welfare, Disability Benefits, Earned Income Credits, Obamacare, Student Loans, Veterans Administration, Open Borders, Massive Deficits and Debts, Unsustainable Unfunded Liabilities, High Unemployment Rates — Legal Status — Amnesty — Citizenship for 30-50 Million Illegal Aliens — Overloading The Welfare System — Democratic Progressive Party Tyranny — Obama’s Unconstrained Utopian Vision– Videos

Posted on June 12, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Crisis, Diasters, Economics, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Freedom, Friends, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, liberty, Life, Literacy, media, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Terrorism, Unions, Video, Welfare | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 276: June 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 275: June 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 274: June 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 273: June 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 272: June 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 271: June 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 270: May 30, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 269: May 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 268: May 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 267: May 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 266: May 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 265: May 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 264: May 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 263: May 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 262: May 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 261: May 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 260: May 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 259: May 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 258: May 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 257: May 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 256: May 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 255: May 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 254: May 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 253: April 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 252: April 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 251: April 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 250: April 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 249: April 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 248: April 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 247: April 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 246: April 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 245: April 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 244: April 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 243: April 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 242: April 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 241: April 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 240: April 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 239: April 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 238: April 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 237: April 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 236: April 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 235: March 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 234: March 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 233: March 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 232: March 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 231: March 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 230: March 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 229: March 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 228: March 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 227: March 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 226: March 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 225: March 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 224: March 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 223: March 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 222: March 3, 2014

 Story 1:Producers vs. Moochers:  Obama’s Execution of The Cloward-Piven Strategy: Food Stamps, Medicaid, Welfare, Disability Benefits, Earned Income Credits, Obamacare, Student Loans, Veterans Administration, Open Borders, Massive Deficits and Debts, Unsustainable Unfunded Liabilities,   High Unemployment Rates — Legal Status — Amnesty — Citizenship for 30-50 Million Illegal Aliens — Overloading The Welfare System — Democratic Progressive Party Tyranny — Obama’s Unconstrained Utopian Vision– Videos

cloward-piven

cloward-and-piven

Cloward-Piven

org_chart_howard_piveni

rules-for-radicals

obama-read

obama_rules_radicals

rules_radicals

barack-meme-generator-using-cloward-piven-usa-will-be-bankrupt-and-ripe-for-communist-revolutionrules-for-radicals (1)

the-cloward-piven-model-spendgali-politics

Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals

Here is the complete list from Alinsky.

* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

dependencyrulers

cycle of government dependency

John Stossel – A Nation Of Moochers

John Stossel – Serious Crony Capitalism

How Crony Capitalism Corrupts the Free Market | David Stockman

David Stockman on TARP, the Fed, Ron Paul and Reagan [FULL VERSION]

The Forgotten Cause of Sound Money | David Stockman

Carmen Reinhart on Financial Crisis and Fiscal Policy

Kenneth Rogoff – Why Austerity is right & Growth is critical (19.12.12)

Record Number Of Americans Receiving Disability Benefits – Stuart Varney – America’s Newsroom

Number Of People On Food Stamps Up 70% Since 2008 – America’s News HQ

Economics 101-The Dangers Of Government Dependency

Opinion: The Government Dependency Trap

Land of The Freebies, Home of the Enslaved

Is Government Dependence the New American Way – Working Doesn’t Pay

Welfare fraud investigation

Mark Levin: The Cloward Piven & Obama strategy

Matthew Vadum on Glenn Beck Program, May 28, 2009 (replayed June 4, 2009)

Glenn Beck Learns About Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 1

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 2

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 3

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 4

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 5

The Cloward/Piven Strategy 6

Frances Fox Piven’s opinion of Glenn Beck

Professor Frances Fox Piven on Glenn Beck targeting her

Saul Alinsky speaking at UCLA 1/17/1969

Alinsky for Dummies (Mr. Joseph A. Morris – Acton Institute)

02-05-13 Macro Analytics – The Cloward Piven Strategy

What In The World Is Cloward-PIven (and is it working?)

The End of America….The Cloward-Piven Strategy

complete cloward piven strategy project

Cloward Piven Strategy

Fall 2010 Marc Sumerlin Lecture Series Featuring Prof. Carmen Reinhart

MILTON FRIEDMAN-what alinsky never told obama..

Milton Friedman Versus A Socialist

Thomas Sowell – Frances Fox Piven vs. Milton Friedman

Obama’s Vision for America by Thomas Sowell!

Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions

Blues Brothers – Minnie the Moocher (Cab Calloway)

 

Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama’s connections to his radical mentors — Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama’s radical connections since the beginning.
Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama’s life comprise a who’s who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.
But even this doesn’t fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis
In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress – with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?
Why?
One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.
I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent – the failure is deliberate. Don’t laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It describes their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.
The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:
The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.
Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:
“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)
Newsmax rounds out the picture:
Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.
In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:
By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.
No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:
  1. The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
  2. The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
  3. The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.
Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Reform Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their “rights.” According to a City Journal article bySol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, “one person was on the welfare rolls… for every two working in the city’s private economy.”
According to another City Journal article titled “Compassion Gone Mad“:
The movement’s impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay’s first two years; spending doubled… The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.  
The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO’s Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani citedCloward and Piven by name as being responsible for “an effort at economic sabotage.” He also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.
Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals’ threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:
Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.
The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven’s thrill that “…the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.”
ACORN, the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear
In 1970, one of George Wiley’s protégés, Wade Rathke — like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) — was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn’t accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke’s group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income “rights.” Shortly thereafter they changed “Arkansas” to “Association of” andACORN went nationwide.
Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing, voting rights, illegal immigration and other issues. According to ACORN’s website: “ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low-and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country,” It is perhaps the largest radical group in the U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity on many fronts.
Voting
On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and Piven since the early1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at the signing ceremony.
ACORN’s voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:
  • 1. Register as many Democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
  • 2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
  • 3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.
In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has beenfrequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.
ACORN’s website brags: “Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote.” Project vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them are dead? For the 2008 cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops. Given their furious nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone.
Barack Obama ran ACORN’s Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive was credited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun elected. Newsmax reiterates Cloward and Piven’s aspirations for ACORN’s voter registration efforts:
By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation’s wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.
Illegal Immigration
As I have written elsewhere, the Radical Left’s offensive to promote illegal immigration is “Cloward-Piven on steroids.” ACORN is at the forefront of this movement as well, and was a leading organization among a broad coalition of radical groups, including Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Service Employees International Union (ACORN founder Wade Rathke also runs a SEIU chapter), and others, that became the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. CCIR fortunately failed to gain passage for the 2007 illegal immigrant amnesty bill, but its goals have not changed.
The burden of illegal immigration on our already overstressed welfare system has been widely documented. Some towns in California have even been taken over byillegal immigrant drug cartels. The disease, crime and overcrowding brought by illegal immigrants places a heavy burden on every segment of society and every level of government, threatening to split this country apart at the seams. In the meantime, radical leftist efforts to grant illegal immigrants citizenship guarantee a huge pool of new democrat voters. With little border control, terrorists can also filter in.
Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he broughtagainst the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.
His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists.According to the Wall Street JournalAfter 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote…”
ACORN’s dual offensives on voting and illegal immigration are handy complements. Both swell the voter rolls with reliable democrats while assaulting the country ACORN seeks to destroy with overwhelming new problems.
Mortgage Crisis
And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago.  It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter’s answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: “a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks.”
ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. Economist Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post:
In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining”-claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.
In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications-but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.
ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA.Obama represented ACORN in the Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 1994 suit against redlining.  Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively.
As a New York Post article describes it:
A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.
Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.
Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.
Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999and $600 billion by early 2003.
The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.
The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical “housing rights” groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)
Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit.”
And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN’s negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an “Affordable Housing Trust Fund,” granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.
Even now, unbelievably — on the brink of national disaster — Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported last night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!
This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN’s efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.
Enter Barack Obama
In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama’s Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

Cloward Piven Strategy

The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who’s who of the American radical left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. 
They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.
Saul Alinsky
Most people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in “community organizing” from Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. But he did. In and of itself that marks his heritage and training as that of a radical activist. One really needs go no further. But we have.
Bill Ayers
Obama objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is being smeared with “guilt by association.” But they worked together at theWoods Fund. The Wall Street Journal added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail Obama’s work over five years with SDS bomber Bill Ayers on the board of a non-profit, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, to push a radical agenda on public school children. As Stanley Kurtz states:
“…the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.”
Also included in the mix is Theresa Heinz Kerry’s favorite charity, the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU, ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other radical group there is. ACORN’s Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center.
Carl Davidson and the New Party
We have heard about Bomber Bill, but we hear little about fellow SDS memberCarl Davidson. According to Discover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago’s New Party, a synthesis of CPUSA members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other radicals. Obama sought and received the New Party’s endorsement, and they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also developed a strong relationship with ACORN. As an excellent article on the New Party observes: “Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate.”
George Soros
The chart also suggests the reason for George Soros’ fervent support of Obama. The President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier, founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As mentioned above, three other former SDS members had extensive contact with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely Aryeh Neier would have heard from his former colleagues of the promising new politician. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting the hugely successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain back their favored candidate, Barack Obama.
ACORN
Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz’s excellent National Review article, “Inside Obama’s Acorn.” also describes Obama’s ACORN connection in detail. But I can’t improve on Obama’s own words:
I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career (emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. – Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)
In another excellent article on Obama’s ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging question:
It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
I ask you, is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership positions within ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is it possible ACORN would put Obama in leadership positions without clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it possible that this most radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for?
As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as alead organizer for ACORN’s Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN’s successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN’s representative in lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns — both with money and campaign workers; it is doubtful that he was unaware of ACORN’s true goals. It is doubtful he was unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony for newly-elected Illinois Senator, Barack Obama. Mudd called, the Congressional Black Caucus “our family” and “the conscience of Fannie Mae.”
In 2005, Republicans sought to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by Fannie and Freddie.
In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?
His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.
Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama’s V.P. search after this gem came out:
An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[1] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson’s tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.[2] A 2006 OFHEO report[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson’s compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.
Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of “Obama’s political circle.” Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books.
Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama’s presidential campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn’t seem to have come out of it too badly.
As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.
Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard that would result from the government making implicit guarantees to underwrite private sector financial risk? They should have known that freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure to ensue. I think they did.
Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!
God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Explained

By  Email To A Friend Email To A Friend

Editors Note: Shortly after becoming part of a local Tea Party Group, I became aware of something called The Cloward-Piven Strategy. After researching this topic extensively, I discovered an article written in September, 2008 BEFORE Barack Obama was elected President. The article was written by James Simpson and originally posted at American Thinker. Here’s a link to the original post if you’d like to check it out. Mr. Simpson has graciously given us permission to repost the article here and will be contributing other material to this site in the future. We are looking forward to his further investigations! As far was TeaPartyConnect.com is concerned, this article should be required reading for all Tea Party members.
TheGuru

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II:
Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama’s connections to his radical mentors – Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama’s radical connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama’s life comprise a who’s who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

But even this doesn’t fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress – with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

Why?

One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway because they somehow benefit.

I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little, they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more malevolent – the failure is deliberate. Don’t laugh. This method not only has its proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It animates their agenda, tactics, and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy of Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.

In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to public attention.

 

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

  • The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
  • The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
  • The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding their “rights.” According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City, where the strategy had been particularly successful, “one person was on the welfare rolls… for every two working in the city’s private economy.”

According to another City Journal article titled “Compassion Gone Mad”:

The movement’s impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay’s first two years; spending doubled… The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade later it had 1.5 million.

The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO’s Cloward-Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward and Piven by name as being responsible for “an effort at economic sabotage.” He also credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.

Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals’ threatening tactics also would accrue an intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:

Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous. Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.

The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city, remember Cloward and Piven’s thrill that “…the drain on local resources persists indefinitely.”

ACORN, the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear

In 1970, one of George Wiley’s protégés, Wade Rathke – like Bill Ayers, a member of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) – was sent to found the Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it alone couldn’t accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke’s group broadened the offensive to include a wide array of low income “rights.” Shortly thereafter they changed “Arkansas” to “Association of” and ACORN went nationwide.

Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing, voting rights, illegal immigration and other issues. According to ACORN’s website: “ACORN is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country,” It is perhaps the largest radical group in the U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity on many fronts.

Voting

On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments, schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and Piven since the early1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at the signing ceremony.

ACORN’s voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:

  1. Register as many democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them vote, multiple times if possible.
  2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even contrived names.
  3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification standards.

In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has been frequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.

ACORN’s website brags:

“Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and minority citizens apply to register to vote.”

Project Vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them had a pulse. For the 2008 cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops. Given their furious nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by fraudulent votes alone.

Barack Obama ran ACORN’s Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter registration drive wascredited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-Braun elected. Newsmax reiteratesCloward and Piven’s aspirations for ACORN’s voter registration efforts:

By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward & Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute the nation’s wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.

Illegal Immigration

As I have written elsewhere, the Radical Left’s offensive to promote illegal immigration is “Cloward-Piven on steroids.” ACORN is at the forefront of this movement as well, and was a leading organization among a broad coalition of radical groups, including Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Service Employees International Union (ACORN founder Wade Rathke also runs a SEIU chapter), and others, that became theCoalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. CCIR fortunately failed to gain passage for the 2007 illegal immigrant amnesty bill, but its goals have not changed.

The burden of illegal immigration on our already overstressed welfare system has been widely documented. Some towns in California have even been taken over by illegal immigrant drug cartels. The disease, crime and overcrowding brought by illegal immigrants places a heavy burden on every segment of society and every level of government, threatening to split this country apart at the seams. In the meantime, radical leftist efforts to grant illegal immigrants citizenship guarantee a huge pool of new democrat voters. With little border control, terrorists can also filter in.

Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought against the Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to widespread vote fraud.

His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists. According to the Wall Street Journal: “After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19 hijackers were registered to vote…”

ACORN’s dual offensives on voting and illegal immigration are handy complements. Both swell the voter rolls with reliable democrats while assaulting the country ACORN seeks to destroy with overwhelming new problems.

Mortgage Crisis

And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929. But this is a problem created in Washington long ago. It originated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA was Carter’s answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: “a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks.”

ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a whip. EconomistStan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post:

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining”—claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications—but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.

ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Most significant of all, ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its subsidiary,ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively. Barack Obama represented ACORN in this effort.

As a New York Post article describes it:

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide – rescued by Bank of America in July – which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.

Investor’s Business Daily added:

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical “housing rights” groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit.”

And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN’s negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an “Affordable Housing Trust Fund,” granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.

Even now, unbelievably – on the brink of national disaster – Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported Thursday night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!

This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN’s efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.

Enter Barack Obama.

In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama’s Radical Left connections and his connection to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed following flow chart. It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken together, they constitute a who’s who of the American Radical Left, and guiding all is the Cloward-Piven strategy.

Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate, or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American, communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

Saul Alinsky

Most people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in “community organizing” from Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. But he did. In and of itself that marks his heritage and training as that of a radical activist. One really need go no further. But we have.

Bill Ayers

Obama objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is being smeared with “guilt by association.” But they worked together at the Woods Fund. The Wall Street Journal has added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail Obama’s work over five years with Ayers on the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a non-profit Ayers designed to push a radical agenda on public school children. As Stanley Kurtz states: “…the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.”

Also included in the mix is John and Theresa Heinz Kerry’s favorite charity, the Tides Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU, ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and practically every other radical group there is. ACORN’s Wade Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center. No wonder Kerry, Kennedy et al love Obama. Just one big happy family.

Carl Davidson and the New Party

We have heard about Bomber Bill, but we hear little about fellow SDS member Carl Davidson. According toDiscover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago’s New Party, a synthesis of CPUSA members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other radicals. Obama sought and received the New Party’s endorsement, and they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also developed a strong relationship with ACORN. As an excellent article on the New Party observes: “Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party candidate.”

George Soros

The chart also suggests one reason for George Soros’ fervent support of Obama. The President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier, founder of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). As mentioned above, three other former SDS members had extensive contact with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely Aryeh Neier would have heard of the promising new politician from his former colleagues. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting the hugely successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain back their favored candidate, Barack Obama. Soros is a natural suspect in this fiasco as he has made all his ill-gotten gains short-selling on national disaster. The extent of his dirty dealings is worthy of its own book.

ACORN

Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz’s excellent National Review article, “Inside Obama’s Acorn.” also describes Obama’s ACORN connection in detail. But I can’t improve on Obama’s own words:

I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career (emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work. — Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy Newsmax.)

In another excellent article on Obama’s ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging question:

It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

I will put it more bluntly: Barack Obama is fully aware of the Cloward-Piven strategy and has actively worked to achieve its goals for most of his adult life.

I ask you, is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership positions within ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is it possible ACORN would put Obama in leadership positions without clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it possible that this most radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for???

As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead organizer for ACORN’s Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN’s successful efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN’s representative in lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political campaigns – both with money and campaign workers; it is inconceivable that he was unaware of ACORN’s true goals. It is inconceivable he was unaware of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony for newly-elected Illinois Senator, Barack Hussein Obama. Mudd called, the Congressional Black Caucus “our family” and “the conscience of Fannie Mae.”

In 2005, Republicans sought to reign in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by Fannie and Freddie.

In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?

His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.

Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama’s V.P. search after this gem came out:

An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[1] from September 2004 found that, during Johnson’s tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.[2] A 2006 OFHEO report[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson’s compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million.

Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of “Obama’s political circle.” Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a result of juggling the books. To add insult to injury, the $3 million fine was paid with Fannie Mae’s insurance fund.

Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama’s presidential campaign, helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as owner and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in life savings of the bank’s approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn’t seem to have come out of it too badly.

As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.

Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard that would result from the government making implicit guarantees to underwrite private sector financial risk? They should have known that freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure to ensue. I think they did.

Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of the bailout pie!

God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of this Marxist tidal wave.

Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in American ThinkerWashington Times, FrontPage MagazineDefenseWatchSoldier of Fortune and others. His blog is Truth and Consequences.

You can access the other parts of the Cloward-Piven series of articles by James Simpson at the American Daughter Media Center which also includes versions of these articles in Word Document format for downloading and re-printing.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis 
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II — print copy
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings 
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III — print copy

http://www.teapartyconnect.com/102/the-cloward-piven-strategy-explained/

 

Cloward–Piven strategy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”. Cloward and Piven were a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in liberal[1] magazine The Nation titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”.[2]

The two stated that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would strain local budgets, precipitating a crisis at the state and local levels that would be a wake-up call for the federal government, particularly the Democratic Party. There would also be side consequences of this strategy, according to Cloward and Piven. These would include: easing the plight of the poor in the short-term (through their participation in the welfare system); shoring up support for the national Democratic Party then-splintered by pluralistic interests (through its cultivation of poor and minority constituencies by implementing a national “solution” to poverty); and relieving local governments of the financially and politically onerous burdens of public welfare (through a national “solution” to poverty)[citation needed].

 

 

The strategy

Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They stated that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[3] They wrote:

The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.[3]

Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven “proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy.”[4]

Focus on Democrats

The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. “Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition,” they wrote. “Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few… would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”[5]

Reception and criticism

Howard Phillips, chairman of The Conservative Caucus, was quoted in 1982 as saying that the strategy could be effective because “Great Society programs had created a vast army of full-time liberal activists whose salaries are paid from the taxes of conservative working people.”[6]

Liberal commentator Michael Tomasky, writing about the strategy in the 1990s and again in 2011, called it “wrongheaded and self-defeating”, writing: “It apparently didn’t occur to [Cloward and Piven] that the system would just regard rabble-rousing black people as a phenomenon to be ignored or quashed.”[7]

Impact of the strategy

In papers published in 1971 and 1977, Cloward and Piven argued that mass unrest in the United States, especially between 1964 and 1969, did lead to a massive expansion of welfare rolls, though not to the guaranteed-income program that they had hoped for.[8]Political scientist Robert Albritton disagreed, writing in 1979 that the data did not support this thesis; he offered an alternative explanation for the rise in welfare caseloads.

In his 2006 book Winning the Race, political commentator John McWhorter attributed the rise in the welfare state after the 1960s to the Cloward–Piven strategy, but wrote about it negatively, stating that the strategy “created generations of black people for whom working for a living is an abstraction.”[9]

According to historian Robert E. Weir in 2007, “Although the strategy helped to boost recipient numbers between 1966 and 1975, the revolution its proponents envisioned never transpired.”[10]

Some commentators have blamed the Cloward–Piven strategy for the near-bankruptcy of New York City in 1975.[11][12]

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck referred to the Cloward-Piven Strategy often on his Fox News television show, Glenn Beck, during its run from 2009 to 2011, reiterating his opinion that it had helped to inspire President Barack Obama‘s economic policy. On February 18, 2010, for example, Beck said, “you’ve got total destruction of wealth coming … It’s the final phase of the Cloward-Piven strategy, which is collapse the system.”[13]

Richard Kim, writing in 2010 in The Nation (in which the original essay appeared), called such assertions “a reactionary paranoid fantasy …” but says that “the left’s gut reaction upon hearing of it–to laugh it off as a Scooby-Doo comic mystery–does nothing to blunt its appeal or limit its impact.”[14] The Nation later stated that Beck blames the “Cloward-Piven Strategy” for “the financial crisis of 2008, healthcare reform, Obama’s election and massive voter fraud” and has resulted in the posting of much violent and threatening rhetoric by users on Beck’s website, including death threats against Frances Fox Piven.[15] For her part, Piven vigorously continues to defend the original idea, calling its conservative interpretation “lunatic”.[16]

References

  1. Jump up^ Peters, Jeremy W. (November 7, 2010). “Bad News for Liberals May Be Good News for a Liberal Magazine”The New York Times. Retrieved June 17, 2010.
  2. Jump up^ Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances (May 2, 1966). “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty”. (Originally published in The Nation).
  3. Jump up to:a b Cloward and Piven, p. 510
  4. Jump up^ Reisch, Michael; Janice Andrews (2001). The Road Not Taken. Brunner Routledge. pp. 144–146. ISBN 1-58391-025-5.
  5. Jump up^ Cloward and Piven, p. 516
  6. Jump up^ Robert Pear (1984-04-15). “Drive to Sign Up Poor for Voting Meets Resistance”. The New York Times.
  7. Jump up^ Glenn Beck and Fran Piven, Michael Tomasky, Michael Tomasky’s BlogThe Guardian, January 24, 2011
  8. Jump up^ Albritton, Robert (December 1979). Social Amelioration through Mass Insurgency? A Reexamination of the Piven and Cloward Thesis. American Political Science Review. JSTOR 1953984.
  9. Jump up^ McWhorter, John, “John McWhorter: How Welfare Went Wrong“, NPR, August 9, 2006.
  10. Jump up^ Weir, Robert (2007). Class in America. Greenwood Press. p. 616. ISBN 978-0-313-33719-2.
  11. Jump up^ Chandler, Richard, “The Cloward–Piven strategy“, The Washington Times, October 15, 2008
  12. Jump up^ Frances Fox Piven: Glenn Beck Seeks ‘Foreign, Dark-Skinned, Intellectual’ Scapegoats, Kyle Olson, BigGovernment.com, February 8, 2010
  13. Jump up^ Beck, Glenn (February 18, 2010). “Study Says We’re Toast”.
  14. Jump up^ Kim, Richard (April 12, 2010). “The Mad Tea Party”The Nation.
  15. Jump up^ “Glenn Beck Targets Frances Fox Piven”The Nation. February 7, 2011.
  16. Jump up^ Piven, F.F. (2011) Crazy Talk and American Politics: or, My Glenn Beck StoryThe Chronicle of Higher Education (The Chronicle Review) 57(25), B4-B5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw3p2

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

Labor Participation Drops To Low of 62.8% Lowest in 35 Years — Record 91.5 Million Americans Not In Labor Force —720,000 Leave Labor Force in October — U-3 Unemployment Rate Increases to 7.3%

Posted on November 8, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Constitution, Diasters, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

sgs-emp

November 8th 2013 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (October Jobs Report)

Employment Level

143,568,000

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

Employment_Level

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

Civilian Labor Force Level

154,839,000

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

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

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate

62.8%

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.1 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.6
2013 63.6 63.5 63.3 63.3 63.4 63.5 63.4 63.2 63.2 62.8

Unemployment Level

11,272,000

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

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

U-3 Unemployment Rate

7.3%

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

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

Employment-Population Ratio

58.3%

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

Employment_Population_Ratio

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

Unemployment Rate – 16-19 Years Old

22.2%

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 17.8 16.6 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 20.0 20.3 20.5
2009 20.7 22.2 22.2 22.2 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.1 26.9 26.6
2010 26.0 25.4 26.2 25.5 26.6 26.0 26.0 25.7 25.8 27.2 24.6 25.1
2011 25.5 24.0 24.4 24.7 24.0 24.7 24.9 25.2 24.4 24.1 23.9 22.9
2012 23.4 23.7 25.0 24.9 24.4 23.7 23.9 24.5 23.7 23.7 23.6 23.5
2013 23.4 25.1 24.2 24.1 24.5 24.0 23.7 22.7 21.4 22.2

Unemployment Rate – White

6.3%

Series Id:           LNS14000003
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - White
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Race:                White

Unemployment_Rate_White
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.5
2001 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.9 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.7 4.9 5.1
2002 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
2003 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.1 5.2 5.0
2004 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5
2005 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.2
2006 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.9
2007 4.2 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.4
2008 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.9 6.2 6.7
2009 7.1 7.6 8.0 8.1 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.9 9.0 9.2 9.2 9.0
2010 8.8 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.9 8.5
2011 8.1 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.0 8.1 8.0 7.9 7.9 8.0 7.7 7.5
2012 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.9
2013 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.3

Unemployment Rate – Black or African American

13.1%

Series Id:           LNS14000006
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Black or African American
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Race:                Black or African American
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 8.2 8.1 7.4 7.0 7.7 7.8 7.7 7.9 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.4
2001 8.2 7.7 8.3 8.0 7.9 8.3 8.0 9.1 8.9 9.5 9.8 10.1
2002 10.0 9.9 10.5 10.7 10.2 10.5 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.8 10.7 11.3
2003 10.5 10.7 10.3 10.9 10.9 11.5 10.9 10.9 11.1 11.4 10.2 10.1
2004 10.4 9.7 10.3 9.8 10.1 10.2 11.0 10.5 10.3 10.8 10.7 10.7
2005 10.6 10.9 10.5 10.3 10.1 10.2 9.2 9.7 9.4 9.1 10.6 9.2
2006 8.9 9.5 9.5 9.4 8.7 8.9 9.5 8.8 9.0 8.4 8.5 8.3
2007 7.9 8.0 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.5 8.1 7.6 8.0 8.5 8.5 9.0
2008 9.1 8.4 9.2 8.6 9.6 9.4 10.0 10.6 11.3 11.4 11.5 12.1
2009 12.7 13.7 13.6 15.0 15.0 14.9 14.8 14.9 15.3 15.9 15.7 16.1
2010 16.5 16.1 16.8 16.5 15.5 15.3 15.6 16.0 15.9 15.8 16.0 15.6
2011 15.8 15.5 15.7 16.3 16.3 16.2 15.8 16.5 15.8 14.9 15.5 15.6
2012 13.6 14.1 14.0 13.1 13.6 14.4 14.1 14.0 13.4 14.5 13.2 14.0
2013 13.8 13.8 13.3 13.2 13.5 13.7 12.6 13.0 12.9 13.1

Unemployment Rate – Hispanic or Latino

9.1%

Series Id:           LNS14000009
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate - Hispanic or Latino
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Ethnic origin:       Hispanic or Latino
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5.6 5.7 6.1 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.1 6.0 5.7
2001 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.4 6.3 6.6 6.2 6.5 6.7 7.1 7.3 7.7
2002 7.8 7.0 7.5 8.0 7.1 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.9 7.8 7.9
2003 7.9 7.6 7.8 7.6 8.1 8.4 8.1 7.7 7.3 7.4 7.5 6.6
2004 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.1 7.0 6.6 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.7 6.7 6.5
2005 6.2 6.4 5.8 6.4 5.9 5.7 5.5 5.8 6.5 5.9 6.2 6.1
2006 5.7 5.5 5.2 5.3 4.9 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.5 4.7 5.1 5.0
2007 5.8 5.3 5.1 5.5 5.7 5.6 5.9 5.5 5.8 5.6 5.8 6.3
2008 6.5 6.3 7.0 7.0 6.9 7.7 7.6 8.1 8.0 8.8 8.6 9.3
2009 10.0 11.1 11.7 11.4 12.6 12.2 12.5 13.1 12.7 12.9 12.5 12.8
2010 12.7 12.4 12.7 12.5 12.3 12.4 12.2 12.0 12.5 12.5 13.0 12.9
2011 12.1 11.6 11.4 11.9 11.8 11.6 11.3 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.3 11.0
2012 10.5 10.6 10.3 10.3 11.0 11.0 10.3 10.2 9.9 10.0 9.9 9.6
2013 9.7 9.6 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.4 9.3 9.0 9.1

Average Weeks Unemployed

36.1 Weeks

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

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

Median Weeks Unemployed

16.3 Weeks

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

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

Employment Level – Part-Time for Economic Reasons

8,050,000

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

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

Not in Labor Force, Searched for Work and Available, Discourage

Series Id:                       LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:                    (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status:              Not in labor force
Type of data:                    Number in thousands
Age:                             16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force:  Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force:      Discouragement over job prospects  (Persons who believe no job is available.)

Not_in_Labor_Force_Discourage

U-6 Total Unemployed Rate

13.8%

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

U_6_unemployment_rate

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Oct.
2012
Aug.
2013
Sept.
2013(p)
Oct.
2013(p)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm 160 238 163 204
Total private 217 207 150 212
Goods-producing 16 20 27 35
Mining and logging -6 4 5 5
Construction 16 1 18 11
Manufacturing 6 15 4 19
Durable goods(1) 1 23 10 12
Motor vehicles and parts -3.6 16.7 3.3 5.7
Nondurable goods 5 -8 -6 7
Private service-providing(1) 201 187 123 177
Wholesale trade 7.8 6.4 14.3 -5.4
Retail trade 52.1 38.3 22.3 44.4
Transportation and warehousing 13.7 12.3 29.5 0.0
Information 1 -21 4 5
Financial activities 11 -1 -1 7
Professional and business services(1) 53 42 32 44
Temporary help services 9.0 15.1 11.4 3.3
Education and health services(1) 34 57 6 23
Health care and social assistance 37.4 50.6 8.7 17.5
Leisure and hospitality 22 49 13 53
Other services 7 4 3 6
Government -57 31 13 -8
WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2)
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES
Total nonfarm women employees 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4
Total private women employees 47.9 48.0 47.9 47.9
Total private production and nonsupervisory employees 82.7 82.6 82.6 82.6
HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 34.3 34.5 34.4 34.4
Average hourly earnings $23.58 $24.05 $24.08 $24.10
Average weekly earnings $808.79 $829.73 $828.35 $829.04
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) 96.5 98.8 98.6 98.8
Over-the-month percent change -0.4 0.5 -0.2 0.2
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) 108.5 113.3 113.3 113.6
Over-the-month percent change -0.5 0.7 0.0 0.3
HOURS AND EARNINGS
PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 33.6 33.7 33.7 33.6
Average hourly earnings $19.82 $20.20 $20.24 $20.26
Average weekly earnings $665.95 $680.74 $682.09 $680.74
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) 104.2 106.2 106.3 106.2
Over-the-month percent change 0.0 0.5 0.1 -0.1
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) 137.9 143.3 143.7 143.7
Over-the-month percent change 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0
DIFFUSION INDEX(5)
(Over 1-month span)
Total private (266 industries) 64.8 59.8 57.5 61.5
Manufacturing (81 industries) 56.2 51.2 51.9 56.2
Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(p) Preliminary

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed             USDL-13-2120
until 8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, November 8, 2013

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

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

                     THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- OCTOBER 2013

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 204,000 in October, and the 
unemployment rate was little changed at 7.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics reported today. Employment increased in leisure and 
hospitality, retail trade, professional and technical services, 
manufacturing, and health care.

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.3 million, and the
unemployment rate, at 7.3 percent, changed little in October. Among
the unemployed, however, the number who reported being on temporary
layoff increased by 448,000. This figure includes furloughed federal
employees who were classified as unemployed on temporary layoff under
the definitions used in the household survey. (Estimates of the
unemployed by reason, such as temporary layoff and job leavers, do not
sum to the official seasonally adjusted measure of total unemployed
because they are independently seasonally adjusted.) For more
information on the classification of workers affected by the federal
government shutdown, see the box note. (See tables A-1 and A-11.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men
(7.0 percent), adult women (6.4 percent), teenagers (22.2 percent),
whites (6.3 percent), blacks (13.1 percent), and Hispanics (9.1 percent) 
showed little or no change in October. The jobless rate for Asians was 
5.2 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year 
earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or
more) was little changed at 4.1 million in October. These individuals
accounted for 36.1 percent of the unemployed. The number of long-term
unemployed has declined by 954,000 over the year. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force was down by 720,000 in October. The labor
force participation rate fell by 0.4 percentage point to 62.8 percent
over the month. Total employment as measured by the household survey
fell by 735,000 over the month and the employment-population ratio
declined by 0.3 percentage point to 58.3 percent. This employment
decline partly reflected a decline in federal government employment.
(See table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons
(sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little
changed at 8.1 million in October. 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 October, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor
force, little changed from 2.4 million a year earlier. (The data are
not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor
force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job
sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed
because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the
survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 815,000 discouraged workers
in October, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are
not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not
currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available
for them. The remaining 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the
labor force in October had not searched for work for reasons such as
school attendance or family responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 204,000 in October. Job
growth averaged 190,000 per month over the prior 12 months. In
October, job gains occurred in leisure and hospitality, retail trade,
professional and technical services, manufacturing, and health care.
Federal government employment continued to trend down. There were no
discernible impacts of the partial federal government shutdown on the
estimates of employment, hours, and earnings from the establishment
survey. (See table B-1.)

Leisure and hospitality employment rose by 53,000 in October. Within
the industry, employment in food services and drinking places
increased by 29,000, the same as its average monthly gain over the
prior 12 months.

Employment in retail trade increased by 44,000 in October, compared
with an average monthly gain of 31,000 over the prior 12 months. Job
growth was widespread within the industry in October, with gains in
food and beverage stores (+12,000), electronics and appliance stores
(+10,000), sporting goods and hobby stores (+8,000), general
merchandise stores (+8,000), and building material and garden supply
stores (+7,000). Clothing and clothing accessories stores lost 13,000
jobs.

Professional and technical services employment rose in October
(+21,000) and has grown by 213,000 over the past 12 months. Within the
industry, employment in management and technical consulting services
rose by 8,000 in October.

Manufacturing added 19,000 jobs in October, with job growth occurring
in motor vehicles and parts (+6,000), wood products (+3,000), and
furniture and related products (+3,000). On net, manufacturing
employment has changed little since February 2013.

Health care employment increased over the month (+15,000). Job growth
in health care has averaged 17,000 per month thus far this year,
compared with an average monthly gain of 27,000 in 2012.

In October, employment showed little or no change elsewhere in the
private sector, including mining and logging, construction, wholesale
trade, transportation and warehousing, information, and financial
activities.

Federal government employment declined by 12,000 in October. Over the
past 12 months, federal government employment has decreased by 94,000.
Federal employees on furlough during the partial government shutdown
were still considered employed in the payroll survey because they
worked or received pay for the pay period that included the 12th of
the month. For more information on the classification of workers
affected by the partial federal government shutdown, see the box note.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was
unchanged in October at 34.4 hours. The manufacturing workweek was
40.9 hours, the same as in September, and factory overtime was
unchanged at 3.4 hours. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged down by 0.1
hour to 33.6 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In October, average hourly earnings for all employees on private
nonfarm payrolls edged up by 2 cents to $24.10. Over the year, average
hourly earnings have risen by 52 cents, or 2.2 percent. In October,
average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees
edged up by 2 cents to $20.26. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for August was revised
from +193,000 to +238,000, and the change for September was revised
from +148,000 to +163,000. With these revisions, employment gains in
August and September combined were 60,000 higher than previously
reported.

____________
The Employment Situation for November is scheduled to be released on
Friday, December 6, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

    ------------------------------------------------------------------
  |                                                                   |
  |                Partial Federal Government Shutdown                |
  |                                                                   |
  |  Some agencies of the federal government were shut down or were   |
  |  operating at reduced staffing levels from October 1, 2013,       |
  |  through October 16, 2013. All household and establishment survey |
  |  operations, including data collection, were suspended during     |
  |  that time period. Shortly after the shutdown ended, October data |
  |  collection for both surveys began. The Bureau of Labor           |
  |  Statistics (BLS) delayed the publication of this release by 1    |
  |  week to allow enough time to collect data. The reference periods |
  |  for the surveys were not changed. The response rate for the      |
  |  household survey was within its normal range, and the response   |
  |  rate for the establishment survey was above average.             |
  |                                                                   |
  |  In the household survey, individuals are classified as employed, |
  |  unemployed, or not in the labor force based on their answers to  |
  |  a series of questions about their activities during the survey   |
  |  reference week. Workers who indicate that they were not working  |
  |  during the entire survey reference week and expected to be       |
  |  recalled to their jobs should be classified in the household     |
  |  survey as unemployed on temporary layoff. In October 2013, there |
  |  was an increase in the number of federal workers who were        |
  |  classified as unemployed on temporary layoff. However, there     |
  |  also was an increase in the number of federal workers who were   |
  |  classified as employed but absent from work. BLS analysis of the |
  |  data indicates that this group included federal workers affected |
  |  by the shutdown who also should have been classified as          |
  |  unemployed on temporary layoff. Such a misclassification is an   |
  |  example of nonsampling error and can occur when respondents      |
  |  misunderstand questions or interviewers record answers           |
  |  incorrectly. According to usual practice, the data from the      |
  |  household survey are accepted as recorded. To maintain           |
  |  data integrity, no ad hoc actions taken to reassign survey       | 
  |  responses.                                                       |
  |                                                                   |
  |  It should be noted that household survey data for federal        |
  |  workers are available only on a not seasonally adjusted basis.   |
  |  As a result, over-the-month changes in federal worker data       |
  |  series cannot be compared with seasonally adjusted over-the-     |
  |  month changes in total employed and unemployed.                  |
  |                                                                   |
  |  In the establishment survey, businesses report the number of     |
  |  people who work or receive pay for any part of the pay period    |
  |  that includes the 12th of the month. Persons who work or receive |
  |  pay for any part of the pay period are defined as employed. This |
  |  method of classifying workers is the same in all industries,     |
  |  including the federal government. Federal employees on furlough  |
  |  during the partial federal government shutdown were still        |
  |  considered employed in the payroll survey because they worked or |
  |  received pay for the pay period that included the 12th of the    |
  |  month.                                                           |
  |                                                                   |
  |  Additional information is available online at                    |
  |  www.bls.gov/bls/shutdown_2013_empsit_qa.pdf.                     |
  |                                                                   |
   -------------------------------------------------------------------
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Rabid Reid Democratic Dog — Mad Dogs Need To Be Put Down In Upcoming Elections — Videos

Posted on October 7, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, History of Economic Thought, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Tax Policy, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

obamacare-down

harry_reid_mad_dog

nurse_reid

reid_budget

harry_reid

Obama taxCowboyPoetry-big

Cartoon-They-Opted-Out

Cartoon-Les-Miserables

Runaway-big

Rabies Symptoms

To Kill A Mockingbird – Atticus shoots a mad dog

Rand Paul: We Haven’t Had a Big Debate About Obamacare – 10/1/13

Shutdown: Republican Reaction – Rand Paul (R) On Hannity – Wake Up America

Hannity Gets In Shoutfest With Guest Over Real ‘Anarchists’ Occupy Or Tea Party

Glenn Beck Tears Apart Harry Reid for ‘Tea Party Anarchists’ Remark: Is He ‘Going Senile’?

Harry Reid Pits ‘Reasonable’ Republicans Against Tea Party ‘Extremists’ in Senate Debate

Taxes, Anarchy, Jobs & Immigration- Sen. Reid Talks to the Tea Party

Ted Cruz uses Harry Reid’s own words against him

Harry Reid to Ted Cruz: You Are a Schoolyard Bully – May 6, 2013

Ted Cruz Mocks Harry Reid’s Demonstration Of Civility And Candor On Senate Floor

Sen. Ted Cruz with Greta Van Susteren on Harry Reid’s Shutdown

Smash-mouth Reid (Video)

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326819-smash-mouth-reid

President Obama has handed over the reins of leadership on government funding and the debt limit to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Reid is now fully in charge of his party’s negotiating strategy, a significant change from past showdowns with Republicans.

He has taken the initiative from Obama, who played the principal role in the 2011 debt-limit talks and New Year’s fiscal cliff deal. Some Democrats on Capitol Hill are relieved by the switch.

The majority leader has brought a more pugnacious style to the debate, bashing House conservatives as “anarchists” and mocking the “Banana Republican mindset.” This is a welcome change for Democrats who thought Obama was too accommodating to Republicans during previous crises.

Simply put, they believe less is more when it comes to Obama’s involvement in negotiations with the GOP.

Liberal Democrats do not fully trust Obama, in part because of his more diplomatic style. Their disquiet was deepened by his past tax deals with Republicans and repeated offers to trim Social Security and Medicare costs.

Obama alarmed some in the Senate Democratic caucus last week when he convened congressional leaders at the White House to discuss the government shutdown and looming debt-limit debate.

They feared he might take the lead in the talks and make concessions to get past the current fiscal crisis.

“There’s some concern being expressed now that Obama is calling the leaders to the White House that this might be premature,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, a senior Democrat from Iowa. “What’s he going to say? What’s he going to do?

“I hope he just says, ‘Harry’s the leader. We’re following Sen. Reid,’” he added.

Reid praised the president after the Wednesday meeting, reassuring colleagues.

“The president of the United States was very, very strong, strong, strong,” he said.

Democratic aides say Obama has served as a crucial backstop by refusing to negotiate over the debt limit and quickly issuing veto threats against House measures to defund, delay or otherwise erode the Affordable Care Act.

“There’s no question, Reid is now the quarterback,” said a Senate Democratic aide.

That became clear when Reid persuaded Obama last month to abandon an effort to set up a bipartisan meeting of congressional leaders before government funding expired.

Reid is pursuing a high-stakes strategy in the hope that by staring down Tea Party conservatives now, he will dissuade them from demanding major concessions in exchange for passing future bills essential to the smooth functioning of government.

His biggest asset has been the solid unity of the Democratic caucus, liberals and centrists alike, despite personal preferences for higher spending levels and changing key elements of the Affordable Care Act.

Nine months ago, Reid failed to hold back the administration as it sought a last minute deal to keep all of the Bush-era tax rates from expiring.

Reid wanted Democrats to take a harder line on the so-called fiscal cliff, say Democratic senators and staff. He was willing to let the tax rates expire to give Democrats more leverage.

Instead, Obama dispatched Vice President Biden to meet with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). The resulting deal made most of the Bush tax rates permanent and exempted inheritances under $5 million from taxation.

Many liberals were dismayed.

“We’re going to lock in forever the idea that $450,000 a year is middle class in America?” Harkin said at the time.

Many Democrats wish they could take back the deal as it failed to address the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration. Now, there is little prospect Republicans will give any more ground on raising taxes.

“Sequestration is stupidity on steroids,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said.

Republicans would prefer to see Obama or Biden at the table instead of Reid.

“Reid has put himself in charge of this whole thing and Obama is a non-player,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said.

Hatch complained Reid “doesn’t want to do anything.”

On “Fox News Sunday,” Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.) accused Reid of being “scared” of bipartisan talks aimed at striking a deal.

A major difference between now and the 112th Congress is Obama, having won reelection, no longer has a personal electoral stake in the negotiations. Instead, preserving their Senate majority is the Democrats’ highest political priority.

Democrats feel confident that public opinion is on their side. They hope the refusal of Tea Party House conservatives to accept a “clean” bill to reopen the government will hurt Republican chances of taking control of the upper chamber after 2014.

Privately, some Republican senators agree that the GOP is playing its hand poorly.

“We have all the advantages and we’re squandering them,” said a Republican senator, who requested anonymity to speak frankly.

Reid’s tough tone has sometimes hurt his cause, however. He stumbled at a press conference last week after CNN’s Dana Bash pressed him about a GOP bill funding the National Institutes of Health, but leaving other agencies shuttered.

“If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?” she asked.

“Why would we want to do that?” Reid scoffed, noting there are over 1,000 people furloughed at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada who have “a few problems of their own.”

He subsequently clarified his comments, after the GOP had seized on them.

Reid, a Senate institutionalist, has fumed over the outsized role that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a freshman senator who has yet to serve 10 months in the upper chamber, has had in the debate.

“Sen. Cruz is now joint speaker,” he said. “He lectures the House on occasion, as he does people over here.”

Reid disputes GOP assertions that he has refused to compromise.

“We had negotiated our hearts out,” Reid said Friday, referring to a deal he struck privately with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in July to pass a clean stopgap bill at funding levels set by the House GOP.

Senate Democratic sources say Reid agreed at a meeting in Boehner’s office on July 17 to accept a stopgap set at $986.3 billion. In return, they say, Boehner promised to keep it free of legislation defunding ObamaCare.

Reid knew he would have a tough job selling liberals on a funding level $72 billion lower than what labor unions and progressive groups wanted.

When Congress reconvened after the August recess, House conservatives balked at their leadership’s plan to merely require the Senate to vote on defunding ObamaCare before considering legislation to keep the government open.

House Republican leaders in response crafted a more aggressive bill that included language to defund Obama-Care in the spending stopgap.

Reid and Boehner met on Sept. 12 to discuss a plan for avoiding the looming government shutdown.

Reid told Boehner of a Senate procedural move that could be used to strip the defund-ObamaCare language without relying on Republican votes, and send back a clean resolution funded at the House GOP level.

Boehner jumped on the plan, according to Senate Democratic sources.

The Speaker on ABC’s “This Week” did not dispute that, and suggested his GOP members wanted to go in another direction.

When the Senate passed the clean stopgap without language defunding Obama-Care, Boehner, under pressure from Tea Party conservatives, rejected it.

Reid made little effort to hide his frustration.

“[We] can’t perform the most basic functions of government because he doesn’t have the courage to stand up to that small band of anarchists,” Reid told reporters.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326819-smash-mouth-reid#ixzz2h3mAMcuo
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

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

Communism Failed, Socialism Failed, Warfare and Welfare State Failing, War On Poverty Lost, War on Drugs Lost, War of Terrorism Losing — Obama Failing and Losing The American People Especially Independents — Opt Out of Obamacare! — Videos

Posted on July 25, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Diasters, Drug Cartels, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

ITS-THE-ECONOMY-OBAMA-WHITE-HOUSE-ATTIC-CAI-012610-COLOR

Obama_Capitalism

jobs_hiring

By-Yourself-590

obama_care_cartoon_large

obama_economy

obama_socialism

forward_with_obama

six-trillion-dollar-man-obama

TRAIN WRECK, OBAMA CARTOONS

cartoon-they-opted-out-500

debt

Obama’s Approval Rating Plummets – Administration Dismissing “Phony Scandals” – America Live

    Barack Obama Economic Policy Speech at Knox College in Illinois

Rush Limbaugh Slams Obama’s Economic Speech: ‘There’s Something Pathologically Wrong Here’  

Boehner: Obama’s economy speech will accomplish “nothing”

President Obama Speaks on the Economy

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly

The Story of Your Enslavement

G. Edward Griffin: The Collectivist Conspiracy  

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

The Obama Avalanche: Obamacare and Obama’s Scandals (Benghazi, AP, Fox’s James Rosen, DOJ, IRS, NSA) Lead To Failed Lame Duck Presidency — Videos

Posted on July 5, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Raves, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

obama_going_downhill

bird_of_a_feather

OBAMACARE_BOMB

obamacare

WhatBenghaziCoverUp-big

Obama-Scandals

Key Part of Obamacare Delayed for Another Year

Dr. Benjamin Carson & Mark Levin: New Calls To Repeal HealthCare Law After Employer Mandate Delayed

Lois Lerner Demands Immunity In Exchange For Testimony On IRS Scandal – Cavuto

Obama Is BIG BROTHER And He’s A LIAR!”

Total Surveillance : N.S.A. data mining all computers, phone calls, internet, emails (Jun 07, 2013)

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

We speak with Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story Thursday that the National Security Agency has obtained access the central servers of nine major internet companies — including Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo and Facebook. The Guardian and the Washington Post revealed the top secret program, code-named PRISM, after they obtained several slides from a 41-page training presentation for senior intelligence analysts. It explains how PRISM allows them to access emails, documents, audio and video chats, photographs, documents and connection logs that allow them to track a person or trace their connections to others. One slide lists the companies by name and the date when each provider began participating over the past six years. “Hundreds of millions of Americans, and hundreds of millions — in fact billions of people around the world — essentially rely on the internet exclusively to communicate with one another,” Greenwald says. “Very few people use landline phones for much of anything. So when you talk about things like online chat, and social media messages, and emails, what you’re really talking about is the full extent of human communication.” This comes after Greenwald revealed Wednesday in another story that the NSA has been collecting the phone records of millions of Verizon customers. “They want to make sure that every single time human beings interact with one another … that they can watch it, and they can store it, and they can access it at any time.”

Health Insurance Options Delayed For Small Businesses

Key Piece Of ObamaCare Set To Miss Major Deadline 

ObamaCare’s Tax Surprise

Morning Joe Panel Rips GOP Strategist Over Obamacare Delay  You Just Want ‘Election Year Issue’ 

The Political Insiders on NSA, Immigration, and More!

Mark Levin on Hannity talking IRS, Benghazi and AP scandals

The Obama IRS Targeting Scandal in Five Minutes – Unbelievable Abuse of Power

An IRS Cover-up? –  New Evidence Emerges In IRS Scandal – On The Record

Dr Ben Carson Talks Obamacare Future Disaster Waiting to Hap

Megyn Kelly Explodes At Liberal Guest Over Benghazi   Come On! Can We Have Some Honesty!

2013-05-28, Tues_Glenn Beck, The Blaze TV

Background Articles and Videos

Know The TRUTH ~ Step By Step ~ Bret Baier’s ~ ‘Death and Deceit in Benghazi’

House hearing on IRS scandal

Eric Holder testifies before House Judiciary committee

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

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

Posted on June 12, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Psychology, Radio, Raves, Resources, Reviews, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

sASHA_iSSENBER

THE_VICTORY_lAB

Strata 2013: Sasha Issenberg, “The Victory Lab”

Sasha Issenberg interviewed at Strata Santa Clara 2013

Sasha Issenberg Discusses His New Book, ‘The Victory Lab’

Sasha Issenberg | The Victory Lab: How Innovation Happens in Electioneering | PDF13

Algorithmic Trading to Algorithmic Campaigning, Behind the Political Scene w/Sasha Issenberg

The Anatomy of an Election: Technology with Sasha Issenberg

The Victory Lab: ‘Moneyball for Politics'” Sasha Issenberg

A Conversation with Sasha Issenberg

Sasha Issenberg discusses the 2012 Obama campaign

Sasha Issenberg discusses the use of social science experiments in Rick Perry’s 2006 campaign

Sasha Issenberg speaks at NationBuilder

How They Did It: Political Tactics That Helped Obama Win

Can You Replicate the Obama Strategy? | The New School for Public Engagement

Political campaigns have revolutionized the way they target, contact and motivate supporters. Strategists are taking the insights of experimental social science and marrying them to the corporate world’s Big Data marketing tools. The Obama Campaign won in large part by using statistical modeling techniques to identify persuadable voters and to fine-tune persuasive messages. This is politics today and in the future—not only for elections but on issue campaigns for education reform, health care, the environment, labor rights and beyond. Who are the pioneers? And how might you apply their the strategies?

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

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

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

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

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

U.S. Hacking China and Hong Kong — Videos

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

Related Posts on Pronk Pops

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let Obama Own The Tax Increases and Wrecking The Economy Leading To Great Depression–Videos

Posted on December 9, 2012. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, College, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Inflation, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Raves, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Rand Paul: We Should Let Dems Raise Taxes And Then Let Them Own It – CNBC’s Kudlow Report

SEN. RAND PAUL: I have yet another thought on how we can fix this. Why don’t we let the Democrats pass whatever they want? If they are the party of higher taxes, all the Republicans vote present and let the Democrats raise taxes as high as they want to raise them, let Democrats in the Senate raise taxes, let the president sign it and then make them own the tax increase. And when the economy stalls, when the economy sputters, when people lose their jobs, they know which party to blame, the party of high taxes. Let’s don’t be the party of just almost as high taxes.

LARRY KUDLOW, CNBC: Some people have called that the doomsday scenario. Others have said, ‘Look, it’s a strategic retreat on the Republicans’ behalf.’ WWould you vote present for that in the Senate if that came up?

RAND PAUL: Yes, I don’t think we have to in the Senate. In the House, they have to because the Democrats don’t have the majority. In the Senate, I’m happy not to filibuster it, and I will announce tonight on your show that I will work with Harry Reid to let him pass his big old tax hike with a simple majority if that’s what Harry Reid wants, because then they will become the party of high taxes and they can own it.

Obama Runs Rings pt4 + Rand Paul Joins the ‘Let Democrats Raise Taxes and Own It’ Crowd 

Gregory Mankiw: The Fiscal Challenge Ahead

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

2012 Presidential Debate–Foreign Policy–October 22, 2012–Lynn University, Boca Raton, Florida–Obama Unqualified for 2nd Term and Romney Qualified To Be President–Romney Wins The Debates and Presidency!–Videos

Posted on October 23, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Comedy, Communications, Diasters, Dirty Bomb, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, liberty, Life, Links, media, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Complete Third Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy 2012: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney Oct 22, 2012

Glenn Beck –  Becoming presidential

Charles Krauthammer Tells Why Romney Won the 3rd Presidential Debate 

Final Presidential Debate 2012: Mitt Romney Vs Barack Obama – Analysis – Oct 22, 2012 

Debate 3: Romney’s economy-based reason for not being aggressive on Obama foreign policy (Limbaugh)

Background Articles and Videos

Fox News broadcast on 10/19/2012.  Bret Baier hosts a special report detailing the events leading to the terrorist attack on the Libyan consulate in which Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed on 9/11/2012.

Death & Deceit in Benghazi – Part 1 of 4

Death & Deceit in Benghazi – Part 2 of 4

Death & Deceit in Benghazi – Part 3 of 4

Death & Deceit in Benghazi – Part 4 of 4

Glenn Beck – What happened in Benghazi 

Obama Benghazi cover-up unfolds 

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

The Start of The Obama Recession–Real GDP Approaching Negative Growth Rates in Third and Fourth Quarters of 2012–Videos

Posted on September 27, 2012. Filed under: Agriculture, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Tax Policy | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Last Modified: Thursday, September 27, 2012

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Current Numbers:

  • 2nd quarter 2012: 1.3 percent
  • 1st quarter 2012: 2.0 percent
Quarterly data: Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012 (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the “third” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.
Next release: October 26, 2012

3XSQ: GDP dries up, revised down to 1.3% 

GDP Show US Economy Slowed In Second Quarter, Unemployment Drops, Durable Goods Orders Plunge 

United States Fiscal Cliff – Wiki Article 

National Income and Product Accounts

Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2012 (third estimate);

Corporate Profits: Second Quarter 2012 (revised estimate)

      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "third" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.

      The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "second" estimate issued last month.  In the second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 1.7
percent (see "Revisions" on page 3).

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

      The deceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected decelerations in PCE, in
nonresidential fixed investment, and in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by smaller
decreases in federal government spending and in state and local government spending and an
acceleration in exports.

      Motor vehicle output added 0.20 percentage point to the second-quarter change in real GDP after
adding 0.72 percentage point to the first-quarter change.  Final sales of computers subtracted 0.10
percentage point from the second-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.02 percentage point to the
first-quarter change.

__________

FOOTNOTE.  Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified.  Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates.  Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.  "Real" estimates are in chained (2005)
dollars.  Price indexes are chain-type measures.

      This news release is available on BEA’s Web site along with the Technical Note and Highlights related to this release.  
For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components."
__________

      The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 0.7 percent in the second quarter, 0.1 percentage point less than the second estimate; this index
increased 2.5 percent in the first quarter.  Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross
domestic purchases increased 1.4 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4
percent in the first.

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.5 percent in the second quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.4 percent in the first.  Durable goods decreased 0.2 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 11.5 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 0.6 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6
percent.  Services increased 2.1 percent, compared with an increase of 1.3 percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 3.6 percent in the second quarter, compared with
an increase of 7.5 percent in the first.  Nonresidential structures increased 0.6 percent, compared with an
increase of 12.9 percent.  Equipment and software increased 4.8 percent, compared with an increase of
5.4 percent.  Real residential fixed investment increased 8.5 percent, compared with an increase of 20.5
percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 5.3 percent in the second quarter, compared with an
increase of 4.4 percent in the first.  Real imports of goods and services increased 2.8 percent, compared
with an increase of 3.1 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.2 percent
in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 4.2 percent in the first.  National defense decreased
0.2 percent, compared with a decrease of 7.1 percent.  Nondefense decreased 0.4 percent, in contrast to
an increase of 1.8 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 1.0 percent, compared with a decrease of 2.2 percent.

      The change in real private inventories subtracted 0.46 percentage point from the second-quarter
change in real GDP, after subtracting 0.39 percentage point from the first-quarter change.  Private
businesses increased inventories $41.4 billion in the second quarter, following increases of $56.9 billion
in the first quarter and $70.5 billion in the fourth.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.7
percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in the first.

Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 1.0 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.8 percent in the
first.

Gross national product

      Real gross national product -- the goods and services produced by the labor and property
supplied by U.S. residents -- increased 2.1 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of
0.6 percent in the first.  GNP includes, and GDP excludes, net receipts of income from the rest of the
world, which increased $27.4 billion in the second quarter after decreasing $44.1 billion in the first; in
the second quarter, receipts increased $3.5 billion, and payments decreased $24.0 billion.
Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
2.8 percent, or $107.3 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $15,585.6 billion.  In the first quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 4.2 percent, or $157.3 billion.

Gross domestic income

      Real gross domestic income (GDI), which measures the output of the economy as the costs
incurred and the incomes earned in the production of GDP, increased 0.2 percent in the second quarter,
compared with an increase of 3.8 percent in the first.  For a given quarter, the estimates of GDP and GDI
may differ for a variety of reasons, including the incorporation of largely independent source data.
However, over longer time spans, the estimates of GDP and GDI tend to follow similar patterns of
change.

Revisions

      The "third" estimate of the second-quarter percent change in real GDP is 0.4 percentage point, or
$16.0 billion, less than the "second" estimate issued last month, primarily reflecting downward revisions
to private inventory investment, to personal consumption expenditures, and to exports.

	                                Advance Estimate      Second Estimate     Third Estimate
	                                        (Percent change from preceding quarter)

Real GDP...............................       1.5                   1.7                 1.3
Current-dollar GDP.....................       3.1                   3.3                 2.8
Gross domestic purchases price index...       0.7                   0.8                 0.7

Corporate Profits

	Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital
consumption adjustments) increased $21.8 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of
$53.0 billion in the first quarter.  Current-production cash flow (net cash flow with inventory valuation
adjustment) -- the internal funds available to corporations for investment -- increased $6.0 billion in the
second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of $169.8 billion in the first.

	 Taxes on corporate income decreased $10.3 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to an
increase of $83.2 billion in the first.  Profits after tax with inventory valuation and capital consumption
adjustments increased $31.9 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of $136.2 billion in
the first.  Dividends increased $20.4 billion, compared with an increase of $9.2 billion; current-
production undistributed profits increased $11.6 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $145.5 billion.

	Domestic profits of financial corporations decreased $39.7 billion in the second quarter, compared
with a decrease of $12.3 billion in the first.  Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations increased
$27.8 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase of $7.3 billion in the first.  In the second
quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased, and profits per unit of real value
added increased.  The increase in unit profits reflected an increase in unit prices and a decrease in unit
nonlabor costs that were partly offset by an increase in unit labor costs.

	The rest-of-the-world component of profits increased $33.6 billion in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $48.0 billion in the first.  This measure is calculated as (1) receipts by U.S.
residents of earnings from their foreign affiliates plus dividends received by U.S. residents from
unaffiliated foreign corporations minus (2) payments by U.S. affiliates of earnings to their foreign
parents plus dividends paid by U.S. corporations to unaffiliated foreign residents.  The second-quarter
increase was accounted for by an increase in receipts and a decrease in payments.

	Profits before tax with inventory valuation adjustment is the best available measure of industry
profits because estimates of the capital consumption adjustment by industry do not exist.  This measure
reflects depreciation-accounting practices used for federal income tax returns.  According to this
measure, domestic profits of financial corporations decreased.  The decrease in financial corporations
was primarily accounted for by a decrease in "other" financial industries.  Domestic profits of
nonfinancial corporations increased, primarily reflecting increases in wholesale trade, in manufacturing,
and in information industries.  Within manufacturing, the largest increases were in computer and
electronic products and in "other" durable goods.

	Profits before tax decreased $16.3 billion in the second quarter, in contrast to an increase of
$188.1 billion in the first.  The before-tax measure of profits does not reflect, as does profits from
current production, the capital consumption and inventory valuation adjustments.  These adjustments
convert depreciation of fixed assets and inventory withdrawals reported on a tax-return, historical-cost
basis to the current-cost measures used in the national income and product accounts.  The capital
consumption adjustment decreased $1.7 billion in the second quarter (from -$200.7 billion to -$202.4
billion), compared with a decrease of $230.3 billion in the first.  The large decrease in the first-quarter
capital consumption adjustment mainly reflected the expiration of bonus depreciation claimed under the
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010.  The inventory
valuation adjustment increased $39.7 billion (from -$23.7 billion to $16.0 billion), in contrast to a
decrease of $10.8 billion.

                                         *          *          *

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

                                         *          *          *

                             Next release – October 26, 2012, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
                          Gross Domestic Product:  Third Quarter 2012 (Advance Estimate)

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Q2 GDP SLASHED TO 1.3%

“…The third reading on Q2 GDP just came out and the report was ugly.

The headline growth number was revised down to 1.3  percent on an annualized basis.

Economists expected the number to be unchanged at 1.7  percent.

“As we recently  noted, you’ll need to watch the rear-view mirror to see the recession come  into focus,” wrote ECRI’s Lakshman Achuthan in an email  to Business Insider.

“The “third” estimate of the second-quarter percent change in real GDP is 0.4  percentage point, or $16.0 billion, less than the “second” estimate issued last  month, primarily reflecting downward revisions to private inventory investment,  to personal consumption expenditures, and to exports,” wrote the Bureau  of Economic Analysis.

The personal consumption component was revised down to 1.5 percent.   Economists were expecting it to be unchanged at 1.7 percent. …”

From the  Bureau of Economic Analysis: ————————

Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by  labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate  of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012 (that is, from the first quarter to  the second quarter), according to the “third” estimate released by the Bureau of  Economic Analysis.  In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0  percent.
The GDP estimate released today  is based on more complete source data  than were available for the “second” estimate issued last month.  In the  second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 1.7 percent (see “Revisions” on  page 3).
The increase in real GDP in the  second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal  consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed investment, and  residential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions  from private inventory investment and state and local government spending.   Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP,  increased.
The deceleration in real GDP in  the second quarter primarily reflected decelerations in PCE, in nonresidential  fixed investment, and in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by  smaller decreases in federal government spending and in state and local  government spending and an acceleration in  exports.
Motor vehicle output added 0.20  percentage point to the second-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.72  percentage point to the first-quarter change.  Final sales of computers  subtracted 0.10 percentage point from the second-quarter change in real GDP  after adding 0.02 percentage point to the first-quarter change.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/final-q3-gdp-2012-9#ixzz27hA9f7Cd

U.S. GDP Revised Down to 1.3 Percent in Q2

“…U.S. Real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate  of 1.3 percent in the second quarter of 2012 (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the “third” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.

The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from private inventory investment and state and local government spending.  Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.
The deceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected decelerations in PCE, in nonresidential fixed investment, and in residential fixed investment that were partly offset by smaller decreases in federal government spending and in state and local government spending and an acceleration in exports.
Motor vehicle output added 0.20 percentage point to the second-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.72 percentage point to the first-quarter change.  Final sales of computers subtracted 0.10 percentage point from the second-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.02 percentage point to the first-quarter change.
Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.5 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in the first.  Durable goods decreased 0.2 percent, in contrast to an increase of 11.5 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 0.6 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent.  Services increased 2.1 percent, compared with an increase of 1.3 percent.
Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 3.6 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 7.5 percent in the first.  Nonresidential structures increased 0.6 percent, compared with an increase of 12.9 percent.  Equipment and software increased 4.8 percent, compared with an increase of 5.4 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 8.5 percent, compared with an increase of 20.5 percent.
Real exports of goods and services  increased 5.3 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 4.4 percent in the first.  Real imports of goods and services increased 2.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.1 percent.
Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.2 percent in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 4.2 percent in the first.  National defense decreased 0.2 percent, compared with a decrease of 7.1 percent.  Nondefense decreased 0.4 percent, in contrast to an increase of 1.8 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 1.0 percent, compared with a decrease of 2.2 percent.
The change in real private inventories subtracted 0.46 percentage point from the second-quarter change in real GDP, after subtracting 0.39 percentage point from the first-quarter change.  Private businesses increased inventories $41.4 billion in the second quarter, following increases of $56.9 billion in the first quarter and $70.5 billion in the fourth. …”

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

21 New or Higher Taxes Coming With Obamacare in 2013–Falling Off The Fiscal Cliff Into The Abyss of The Obama Recession And Fall–Reviving America–Reprieve–Videos

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

President Obama Grades Fixing The Economy As Incomplete–American People Grade F for Failure–We Are Definitely Worse Off Than Four Years Ago–Videos

Posted on September 4, 2012. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Immigration, Inflation, Language, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Regulations, Video, Water, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Reagan 1980 Are you better off than you were four years ago? 

GOP Pushes ‘Are You Better Off Now?’: Dems on Defense 

Obama admits ‘You are not better off than four years ago.’ 

“Defining Moment” Ad  from 2008

 

Obama Gives Himself An Incomplete Grade On Fixing The Economy After Four Years 

Government Parties While America Burns…

 

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

American History–1992 Election–Bush, Clinton and Perot–Videos

Posted on July 31, 2012. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Law, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Tax Policy, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Christopher Hitchens on Socialism, France, George Bush, and Bill Clinton (1992 -Part 1)

Christopher Hitchens on Opinion Polls and Ross Perot (1992 – Part 2)

Christopher Hitchens on Ross Perot, Fascism, and Election Campaign Financing (1992 -Part 3)

Christopher Hitchens on Taxes, Abortion, and Politics (1992 – Part 4)

Christopher Hitchens on Bill Clinton and the Democrats (1992 – Part 5)

Christopher Hitchens on Patriotism, Adultery, and Corporations (1992 – Part 6)

Christopher Hitchens on Journalism and Election Polling (1992- Part 7)

Christopher Hitchens on Republicans and Christianity (1992 – Part 8)

Christopher Hitchens on Libertarianism, Garth Brooks, and Wayne’s World  (1992 – Part 9) 

Presidential Debate 1992 #1

1992 Presidential Debate with George HW Bush, Bill Clinton & Ross Perot

The presidential candidates for the 1992 election debated each other in the second of three scheduled presidential debates. The participants were President George Bush, Governor Bill Clinton, and Ross Perot. They answered questions from the audience that regarded their campaigns and their policy preferences, which mostly focused on economic issues. The audience consisted of 209 undecided voters from the Richmond, VA area.

Presidential Debate 1992 #3

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

U.S. Economy Heads Into Obama Recession With A 63% Decline in Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) From 2011 4th Quarter 4.1% Annual Growth Rate to 2012 2nd Quarter 1.5% Annual Growth Rate!–Videos

Posted on July 27, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Resources, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

U.S. Growth Slows in Second Quarter

Congressman cheered on House floor for anti-big gov’t speech

Greenspan: U.S. Has Two Economies, the Good and the Bad

Economic Collapse | Depression 2012 | Get self employed

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

Why Haven’t We Recovered Yet? (How the Keynesians Got It Wrong Yet Again)

The Rahn Curve and the Growth-Maximizing Level of Government

Keynesian Catastrophe: Big Money, Big Government & Big Lies

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus 

Obama’s So-Called Stimulus: Good For Government, Bad For the Economy

The Empirical Evidence Against Big Government

A Red-Ink Train Wreck: The Real Fiscal Cost of Government-Run Healthcare

 

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Economic Growth Causes Consumer Spending, Not the Other Way Around 

Families v. Government Programs: Which Plays a Bigger Role in Individual Achievement?

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product

[Percent] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates

Last Revised on: July 27, 2012 – Next Release Date August 29, 2012

Line 2010 2011 2012
I II III IV I II III IV I II
1 Gross domestic product 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.4 0.1 2.5 1.3 4.1 2.0 1.5
2 Personal consumption expenditures 2.5 2.6 2.5 4.1 3.1 1.0 1.7 2.0 2.4 1.5
3 Goods 5.2 3.3 3.8 7.9 5.4 -1.0 1.4 5.4 4.7 0.7
4 Durable goods 5.5 10.5 7.2 15.2 7.3 -2.3 5.4 13.9 11.5 -1.0
5 Nondurable goods 5.1 0.1 2.2 4.5 4.6 -0.3 -0.4 1.8 1.6 1.5
6 Services 1.2 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 0.3 1.3 1.9
7 Gross private domestic investment 19.8 14.6 16.4 -5.9 -5.3 12.5 5.9 33.9 6.1 8.5
8 Fixed investment -0.9 14.5 -1.0 7.6 -1.3 12.4 15.5 10.0 9.8 6.1
9 Nonresidential 2.1 12.3 7.7 9.2 -1.3 14.5 19.0 9.5 7.5 5.3
10 Structures -23.0 13.1 -2.2 9.3 -28.2 35.2 20.7 11.5 12.9 0.9
11 Equipment and software 14.7 12.0 11.9 9.2 11.1 7.8 18.3 8.8 5.4 7.2
12 Residential -11.4 23.1 -28.6 1.5 -1.4 4.1 1.4 12.1 20.5 9.7
13 Change in private inventories
14 Net exports of goods and services
15 Exports 5.9 9.6 9.7 10.0 5.7 4.1 6.1 1.4 4.4 5.3
16 Goods 9.9 11.9 9.0 11.2 5.7 3.7 6.2 6.0 4.0 6.0
17 Services -2.2 4.5 11.1 7.4 5.8 5.1 6.1 -8.8 5.2 3.6
18 Imports 10.4 20.2 13.9 0.0 4.3 0.1 4.7 4.9 3.1 6.0
19 Goods 12.2 24.7 14.1 1.1 5.2 -0.7 2.9 6.3 2.0 6.0
20 Services 2.4 1.2 12.9 -5.0 -0.6 4.2 13.8 -1.7 9.0 5.5
21 Government consumption expenditures and gross investment -3.1 2.8 -0.3 -4.4 -7.0 -0.8 -2.9 -2.2 -3.0 -1.4
22 Federal 0.6 9.7 3.7 -4.1 -10.3 2.8 -4.3 -4.4 -4.2 -0.4
23 National defense -3.7 7.3 7.2 -6.1 -14.3 8.3 2.6 -10.6 -7.1 -0.4
24 Nondefense 10.1 14.6 -3.1 0.0 -1.7 -7.5 -17.4 10.2 1.8 -0.3
25 State and local -5.5 -1.4 -2.9 -4.6 -4.7 -3.2 -2.0 -0.7 -2.2 -2.1
Addendum:
26 Gross domestic product, current dollars 3.9 4.1 4.6 4.5 2.2 5.2 4.3 4.2 4.2 3.1

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

Background Articles and Videos

Measuring GDP using the Income Approach and the Expenditure Approach – HD 

GDP, Nominal, Real, examples

Economic Cycles Before the Fed | Thomas E Woods, Jr.

Gold and the Good Guys | Thomas E. Woods, Jr. 

The Austrian Business Cycle Theory Explained

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product

[Percent] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates

Last Revised on: July 27, 2012 – Next Release Date August 29, 2012

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EDT, FRIDAY, JULY 27, 2012BEA 12-32

National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, 2nd quarter 2012 (advance estimate);
Revised Estimates: 2009 through First Quarter 2012
Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the second quarter of 2012,
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the “advance” estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 2.0 percent.

The Bureau emphasized that the second-quarter advance estimate released today is based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page
3). The “second” estimate for the second quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on
August 29, 2012.

BOX._____
The estimates released today reflect the regular annual revision of the national income and product
accounts (NIPAs), beginning with the estimates for the first quarter of 2009. Annual revisions, which
are usually released in July, incorporate source data that are more complete, more detailed, and
otherwise more reliable than those previously available. This release includes the revised quarterly
estimates of GDP, corporate profits, and personal income and provides an overview of the effects of the
revision.

The August 2012 Survey of Current Business will contain NIPA tables and an article describing
the revisions. These NIPA tables will be available on BEA’s Web site at http://www.bea.gov by August 3,
2012.
_________

FOOTNOTE.______
Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified. Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates. Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized. “Real” estimates are in chained (2005)
dollars. Price indexes are chain-type measures.

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

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

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

Motor vehicle output added 0.13 percentage point to the second-quarter change in real GDP after
adding 0.72 percentage point to the first-quarter change. Final sales of computers subtracted 0.07
percentage point from the second-quarter change in real GDP after adding 0.02 percentage point to the
first-quarter change.

The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 0.7 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in the first.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.4 percent in
the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in the first.

Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.5 percent in the second quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.4 percent in the first. Durable goods decreased 1.0 percent, in contrast to an
increase of 11.5 percent. Nondurable goods increased 1.5 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6
percent. Services increased 1.9 percent, compared with an increase of 1.3.

Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 5.3 percent in the second quarter, compared with
an increase of 7.5 percent in the first. Nonresidential structures increased 0.9 percent, compared with an
increase of 12.9 percent. Equipment and software increased 7.2 percent, compared with an increase of
5.4 percent. Real residential fixed investment increased 9.7 percent, compared with an increase of 20.5
percent.

Real exports of goods and services increased 5.3 percent in the second quarter, compared with an
increase of 4.4 percent in the first. Real imports of goods and services increased 6.0 percent, compared
with an increase of 3.1 percent.

Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 0.4 percent
in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 4.2 percent in the first. National defense decreased
0.4 percent, compared with a decrease of 7.1 percent. Nondefense decreased 0.3 percent, in contrast to
an increase of 1.8 percent. Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 2.1 percent, compared with a decrease of 2.2.

The change in real private inventories added 0.32 percentage point to the second-quarter change
in real GDP after subtracting 0.39 percentage point from the first-quarter change. Private businesses
increased inventories $66.3 billion in the second quarter, following increases of $56.9 billion in the first
quarter and $70.5 billion in the fourth.

Real final sales of domestic product — GDP less change in private inventories — increased 1.2
percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in the first.

Gross domestic purchases

Real gross domestic purchases — purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced — increased 1.8 percent in the second quarter, the same increase as in the first quarter.

Disposition of personal income

Current-dollar personal income increased $140.5 billion (4.3 percent) in the second quarter,
compared with an increase of $199.9 billion (6.3 percent) in the first.

Personal current taxes increased $24.9 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase
of $30.0 billion in the first.

Disposable personal income increased $115.6 billion (4.0 percent) in the second quarter,
compared with an increase of $169.9 billion (6.0 percent) in the first. Real disposable personal income
increased 3.2 percent, compared with an increase of 3.4 percent.

Personal outlays increased $59.9 billion (2.1 percent) in the second quarter, compared with an
increase of $143.1 billion (5.2 percent) in the first. Personal saving — disposable personal income less
personal outlays — was $475.3 billion in the second quarter, compared with $419.5 billion in the first.
The personal saving rate — saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was 4.0 percent in
the second quarter, compared with 3.6 percent in the first. For a comparison of personal saving in
BEA’s national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve Board’s flow
of funds accounts and data on changes in net worth, go to http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp.

Current-dollar GDP

Current-dollar GDP — the market value of the nation’s output of goods and services — increased
3.1 percent, or $117.6 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $15,595.9 billion. In the first quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 4.2 percent, or $157.3 billion.

BOX._________
Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note
that is posted with the news release on BEA’s Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed
“Key Source Data and Assumptions” file is posted on the Web site. In the middle of each month, an
analysis of the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site;
click on Survey of Current Business, “GDP and the Economy.”
_____________

Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts

The revised estimates, which begin with 2009, reflect the results of the annual revision of the
national income and product accounts (NIPAs). These revisions, usually made each July, incorporate
newly available and more comprehensive source data, as well as improved estimation methodologies. In
this annual revision, the notable revisions primarily reflect the incorporation of newly available and
revised source data. For example, the revised estimates of profits reflect newly available Internal
Revenue Service tabulations of tax returns for corporations for 2010 and revised tabulations for 2009.

Because of the additional data shown, tables 3, 11, and 12 are each divided into two separate
tables — 3A and 3B, 11A and 11B, and 12A and 12B. There are also a number of special tables that
compare the revised and previously published estimates for selected periods: table 1A shows the
percent change in real GDP and related measures; table 1B shows revisions to current-dollar GDP, to
national income, and to the disposition of personal income; table 2A shows contributions to the percent
change in real GDP; table 4A shows the percent change in the chain-type price indexes for GDP and
related measures; and table 12C shows revisions to corporate profits by industry.

With the release of the annual revision, statistics for selected NIPA tables will be available on
BEA’s Web site (www.bea.gov). Shortly after the GDP release, BEA will post a table on its Web site
showing the sources of major current-dollar revisions to the annual estimates for 2009–2011 for each
component of GDP, national income, and personal income. The August 2012 Survey of Current
Business will contain NIPA tables and an article describing the revisions. The August 2012 issue will
also contain an analysis of the “advance” GDP estimate for the second quarter of 2012 (“GDP and the
Economy”).

This section of the release discusses the highlights of annual revision, including the newly
incorporated source data and changes in methodology and presentation.

Summary of revisions

For this annual revision, the revisions are limited to the period from 2009 to the first quarter of
2012.

* For 2008–2011, real GDP increased at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent; in the previously
published estimates, real GDP had increased at an average annual rate of 0.4 percent. From the
fourth quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2012, real GDP increased at an average annual rate
of 1.5 percent; in the previously published estimates, real GDP had increased 1.4 percent.

* The percent change in real GDP was revised up 0.4 percentage point for 2009, was revised down
0.6 percentage point for 2010, and was revised up 0.1 percentage point for 2011.

* The revisions to the annual estimates for 2009–2011 reflect partly offsetting revisions to the
quarters within the year. For example, for 2009, the annual rate of change in GDP was revised
up 1.4 percentage points for the first quarter, was revised up 0.4 percentage point for the second
quarter, and was revised up 0.2 percentage point for the fourth quarter, while the growth rate for
the third quarter was revised down 0.3 percentage point. For 2010, the annual rate of change in
GDP was revised down 1.6 percentage points for both the first and second quarters, while the
growth rates for the third and fourth quarters were each revised up 0.1 percentage point. For
2011, the annual rate of change in GDP was revised up 1.2 percentage points for the second
quarter and was revised up 1.1 percentage points for the fourth quarter, while the growth rates for
the first and third quarters were revised down 0.3 percentage point and 0.5 percentage point,
respectively.

* For the 13 quarters from the first quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2012, the average revision
(without regard to sign) was 0.7 percentage point. The revisions did not change the direction of
change in real GDP (increase or decrease) for any quarter.

* For 2008–2011, the average annual rate of growth of real disposable personal income was
revised down 0.1 percentage point, from 0.2 percent to 0.1 percent.

* From the fourth quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2012, the average annual rate of increase in
the price index for gross domestic purchases was 1.6 percent, the same rate of increase as in the
previously published estimates. The average annual rate of increase in the price index for
personal consumption expenditures (PCE) was 1.8 percent; in the previously published
estimates, the price index for PCE had increased 1.9 percent. The average annual rate of
increase in the “core” PCE price index (which excludes food and energy) was 1.5 percent; in the
previously published estimates, the “core” PCE price index had increased 1.6 percent.

* The percent change in real gross domestic income (GDI) was revised up 0.1 percentage point for
2009, was revised down 0.5 percentage point for 2010, and was revised down 0.2 percentage
point for 2011.

* National income was revised down for all 3 years: 0.1 percent for 2009, 0.2 percent for 2010,
and 0.5 percent for 2011.

* Corporate profits was revised down for all 3 years: 1.4 percent for 2009, 5.4 percent for 2010,
and 6.0 percent for 2011.

Revisions to the 2009-2011 estimates

The percent change from the preceding year in real GDP was revised up from a decrease of 3.5
percent to a decrease of 3.1 percent for 2009, was revised down from an increase of 3.0 percent to an
increase of 2.4 percent for 2010, and was revised up from an increase of 1.7 percent to an increase of 1.8
percent for 2011.

For 2009, the largest contributors to the revision to the change in real GDP were upward
revisions to state and local government spending and to inventory investment. For 2010, the largest
contributors to the revision were downward revisions to nonresidential fixed investment, to PCE, and to
inventory investment. For 2011, the largest contributors to the revision were upward revisions to PCE
and to inventory investment; these revisions were partly offset by downward revisions to state and local
government spending, to federal government spending, and to nonresidential fixed investment.

The percent change from fourth quarter to fourth quarter in real GDP was revised up from a
decrease of 0.5 percent to a decrease of 0.1 percent during 2009, was revised down from an increase of
3.1 percent to an increase of 2.4 percent during 2010, and was revised up from an increase of 1.6 percent
to an increase of 2.0 percent during 2011.

For the period of contraction from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2009, real
GDP decreased at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent; in the previously published estimates, it had
decreased 3.5 percent. The cumulative decrease in real GDP (not at an annual rate) was 4.7 percent; in
the previously published estimates, the cumulative decrease was 5.1 percent.

For the period of expansion from the second quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2012, real
GDP increased at an average annual rate of 2.3 percent; in the previously published estimates, it had
increased 2.4 percent.

The percent change from the preceding year in real gross domestic income (GDI) was revised up
from a decrease of 4.0 percent to a decrease of 3.9 percent for 2009, was revised down from an increase
of 3.6 percent to an increase of 3.1 percent for 2010, and was revised down from an increase of 2.0
percent to an increase of 1.8 percent for 2011.

The percent change from the preceding year in the price index for gross domestic purchases was
revised down from a decrease of 0.1 percent to a decrease of 0.2 percent for 2009, was revised up from
an increase of 1.5 percent to an increase of 1.6 percent for 2010, and was unrevised at 2.5 percent for
2011. For the corresponding quarters, the largest downward revision was 0.6 percentage point for the
first quarter of 2011; the largest upward revision was 0.4 percentage point (for both the third and fourth
quarters of 2010).

Current-dollar GDP was revised up $34.7 billion, or 0.2 percent, for 2009; was revised down
$27.6 billion, or 0.2 percent, for 2010; and was revised down $18.3 billion, or 0.1 percent, for 2011.
The percent change from the preceding year was revised up from a decrease of 2.5 percent to a decrease
of 2.2 percent for 2009, was revised down from an increase of 4.2 percent to an increase of 3.8 percent
for 2010, and was revised up from an increase of 3.9 percent to an increase of 4.0 percent for 2011.
Current-dollar gross national product (GNP) (GDP plus net receipts of income from the rest of the
world) was revised up $26.0 billion, or 0.2 percent, for 2009; was revised down $7.7 billion, or 0.1
percent, for 2010; and was revised down $12.0 billion, or 0.1 percent, for 2011. Net receipts of income
from the rest of the world was revised down $8.8 billion for 2009, was revised up $19.9 billion for 2010,
and was revised up $6.4 billion for 2011. The revisions to net receipts of income — which affect GNP,
national income, corporate profits, net interest and miscellaneous payments, and personal income
receipts on assets — resulted from the revisions to BEA’s international transactions accounts (ITAs) that
were released in June. (An article describing the revisions to the ITAs was published in the July 2012
issue of the Survey of Current Business.)

National income was revised down for all 3 years: $15.0 billion, or 0.1 percent, for 2009; $28.7
billion, or 0.2 percent, for 2010; and $62.3 billion, or 0.5 percent, for 2011. For 2009, downward
revisions to corporate profits, to net interest, and to rental income of persons were partly offset by an
upward revision to nonfarm proprietors’ income. For 2010, a downward revision to corporate profits
was partly offset by an upward revision to nonfarm proprietors’ income. For 2011, a downward revision
to corporate profits was partly offset by upward revisions to nonfarm proprietors’ income and to
supplements to wages and salaries.

Corporate profits from current production — profits before tax with inventory valuation and
capital consumption adjustments — was revised down for all 3 years: $19.7 billion, or 1.4 percent, for
2009; $97.7 billion, or 5.4 percent, for 2010; and $115.8 billion, or 6.0 percent, for 2011. For 2009,
downward revisions to profits of domestic financial corporations and to profits from the rest of the world
were partly offset by an upward revision to profits of domestic nonfinancial corporations. For 2010 and
2011, downward revisions to profits of domestic financial and nonfinancial corporations were partly
offset by an upward revision to profits from the rest of the world.

Profits before tax was revised down for all 3 years: $15.2 billion for 2009, $3.2 billion for 2010,
and $42.2 billion for 2011. The before-tax measure of profits does not reflect, as does profits from
current production, the capital consumption and inventory valuation adjustments. These adjustments
convert depreciation of fixed assets and inventory withdrawals reported on a tax-return, historical-cost
basis to the current-cost measures used in the national income and product accounts. The capital
consumption adjustment was revised down for all 3 years: $7.0 billion for 2009, $94.9 billion for 2010,
and $71.2 billion for 2011. The inventory valuation adjustment was revised up $2.6 billion for 2009,
was revised up $0.4 billion for 2010, and was revised down $2.5 billion for 2011.

Personal income was revised down for all 3 years: $63.2 billion, or 0.5 percent, for 2009; $51.6
billion, or 0.4 percent, for 2010; and $43.9 billion, or 0.3 percent, for 2011. For 2009, downward
revisions to personal dividend income, to rental income of persons, and to personal interest income were
partly offset by an upward revision to nonfarm proprietors’ income. For 2010, a downward revision to
personal dividend income was partly offset by upward revisions to nonfarm proprietors’ income and to
personal interest income. For 2011, downward revisions to personal dividend income, to government
social benefits to persons, and to farm proprietors’ income were partly offset by upward revisions to
nonfarm proprietors’ income, to supplements to wages and salaries, and to personal interest income.

Disposable personal income (DPI) (personal income less personal current taxes) was revised
down for all 3 years: $66.4 billion, or 0.6 percent, for 2009; $52.6 billion, or 0.5 percent, for 2010; and
$44.2 billion, or 0.4 percent, for 2011. Personal current taxes was revised up for all 3 years: $3.2 billion
for 2009, $0.9 billion for 2010, and $0.3 billion for 2011. The percent change from the preceding year
in real DPI was revised down from a decrease of 2.3 percent to a decrease of 2.8 percent for 2009, was
unrevised at 1.8 percent for 2010, and was revised up from an increase of 1.2 percent to an increase of
1.3 percent for 2011.

Personal outlays — PCE, personal interest payments, and personal current transfer payments —
was revised down $22.0 billion for 2009, was revised down $26.5 billion for 2010, and was revised up
 $4.8 billion for 2011. For 2009 and 2010, downward revisions to PCE accounted for most of the
 revisions to personal outlays. For 2011, upward revisions to personal interest payments and to PCE
were partly offset by a downward revision to personal current transfer payments to government. The
personal saving rate (personal saving as a percentage of DPI) was revised down for all 3 years: from 5.1
percent to 4.7 percent for 2009, from 5.3 percent to 5.1 percent for 2010, and from 4.6 percent to 4.2
percent for 2011.

The statistical discrepancy is current-dollar GDP less current-dollar gross domestic income
(GDI). It arises because most components of GDP and of GDI are estimated independently. GDP
measures final expenditures — the sum of consumer spending, private investment, net exports, and
government spending. GDI measures the incomes earned in the production of GDP. In concept, GDP is
equal to GDI. In practice, they differ because they are estimated using different source data and
different methods.

As a result of the annual revision, the statistical discrepancy as a percentage of GDP was revised
up for all 3 years: from 0.6 percent to 0.8 percent for 2009, from less than 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent for
2010, and from a negative 0.2 percent to a positive 0.2 percent for 2011. For 2009, the revision to the
discrepancy reflected an upward revision to GDP and a downward revision to GDI. For 2010 and 2011,
the revisions to the discrepancy reflected downward revisions to GDI that were larger than the
downward revisions to GDP.

New source data

The annual revision incorporated data from the following major federal statistical sources:
Census Bureau annual survey of manufactures for 2009 (revised) and 2010 (preliminary); Census
Bureau annual surveys of merchant wholesale trade and of retail trade for 2009 (revised) and for 2010
(preliminary); Census Bureau revised monthly indicators of manufactures, of merchant wholesale trade,
and of retail trade for 2009–2011; Census Bureau annual surveys of services for 2009 (revised), 2010
(revised), and 2011 (preliminary), and of state and local government finances for fiscal years 2008
(revised), 2009 (revised), and 2010 (preliminary); Census Bureau monthly survey of construction
spending (value put in place) for 2009–2011 (revised); Census Bureau quarterly services survey for
2009–2011 (revised); Census Bureau current population survey/housing vacancy survey for 2011;
federal government budget data for fiscal years 2011 and 2012; Internal Revenue Service tabulations of
tax returns for corporations for 2009 (revised) and 2010 (preliminary) and for sole proprietorships and
partnerships for 2010; Bureau of Labor Statistics quarterly census of employment and wages for 2009–
2011 (revised); Department of Agriculture farm statistics for 2009–2011 (revised); and BEA’s ITAs for
2009–2011 (revised).

Changes in methodology and presentation

The annual revision also incorporated improvements to estimating methodologies, including the
following:

* Beginning with the estimates for 2010, data from the Census Bureau’s expanded service annual
survey (SAS) are incorporated into the annual estimates of PCE categories for ground
transportation for intercity buses, taxicabs, private urban transit systems, school bus
transportation, and “other” road transportation. Newly available SAS data are also incorporated
into the PCE estimates of water transportation; both ground transportation and water
transportation are included in the PCE category public transportation. In addition, newly
available SAS data are incorporated into the PCE estimates of commercial and vocational
schools and into the PCE estimates of water supply and sanitation services. Similarly, beginning
with the estimates for the first quarter of 2011, data from the Census Bureau’s expanded
quarterly services survey (QSS) are incorporated into the quarterly estimates of most of these
same PCE categories. As a result, the percentage of quarterly PCE services that are based on the
QSS has increased to 42 percent.

* Beginning with the estimates for 2010, retail motor vehicle inventory investment is derived using
a weighted average of private industry data on motor vehicle unit inventories and of inventory
data from the Census Bureau’s retail trade surveys. This methodology is used for both the
annual inventory investment estimates and the current quarterly extrapolations of inventory
investment. Prior to this methodology change, estimates of annual inventory investment were
based solely on retail trade inventory data from the Census Bureau, and the current quarterly
extrapolations were based solely on the unit inventory data. This new approach takes into
account differences in the scope and coverage of these two data sources and makes the annual
and current quarterly methodologies more consistent and should result in smaller revisions
during annual revisions.

* Beginning with the estimates for the second quarter of 2012, data for the “preliminary”
composite refiner acquisition cost of crude oil from the Energy Information Administration are
used in place of the producer price index for crude petroleum as the indicator for the estimates of
the refiner crude acquisition cost, which is used in the estimation of a number of important series
of private inventory investment and their corresponding inventory valuation adjustments.

* Beginning with the estimates for the first quarter of 2009, revised seasonally adjusted foreign
trade prices are incorporated on a “best-level” basis into BEA’s chained-dollar estimates of
exports and imports. The revised prices reflect BEA’s work with the Census Bureau’s Foreign
Trade Division to develop more consistent measures of chained-dollar exports and imports.

* A new group of tables is introduced on BEA’s Web site to show GDP, GDI, and other major
NIPA aggregates (including GNP and various command-basis measures) side-by-side. Most of
the measures in these tables are already available in other NIPA tables. The new tables are
intended to facilitate comparison of these major aggregates.

* * *

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

* * *

Next release — August 29, 2012, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2012 (Second Estimate)
Corporate Profits: Second Quarter 2012 (Preliminary Estimate)

Comparisons of Revisions to GDP

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________

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

Advance to latest……………….. .3 1.2 1.0

________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________

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

Advance to latest……………….. .2 1.3 1.0

NOTE. These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2008.

http://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product

[Percent] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates

Last Revised on: July 27, 2012 – Next Release Date August 29, 2012

Line 2010 2011 2012
I II III IV I II III IV I II
1 Gross domestic product 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.4 0.1 2.5 1.3 4.1 2.0 1.5
2 Personal consumption expenditures 2.5 2.6 2.5 4.1 3.1 1.0 1.7 2.0 2.4 1.5
3 Goods 5.2 3.3 3.8 7.9 5.4 -1.0 1.4 5.4 4.7 0.7
4 Durable goods 5.5 10.5 7.2 15.2 7.3 -2.3 5.4 13.9 11.5 -1.0
5 Nondurable goods 5.1 0.1 2.2 4.5 4.6 -0.3 -0.4 1.8 1.6 1.5
6 Services 1.2 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 0.3 1.3 1.9
7 Gross private domestic investment 19.8 14.6 16.4 -5.9 -5.3 12.5 5.9 33.9 6.1 8.5
8 Fixed investment -0.9 14.5 -1.0 7.6 -1.3 12.4 15.5 10.0 9.8 6.1
9 Nonresidential 2.1 12.3 7.7 9.2 -1.3 14.5 19.0 9.5 7.5 5.3
10 Structures -23.0 13.1 -2.2 9.3 -28.2 35.2 20.7 11.5 12.9 0.9
11 Equipment and software 14.7 12.0 11.9 9.2 11.1 7.8 18.3 8.8 5.4 7.2
12 Residential -11.4 23.1 -28.6 1.5 -1.4 4.1 1.4 12.1 20.5 9.7
13 Change in private inventories
14 Net exports of goods and services
15 Exports 5.9 9.6 9.7 10.0 5.7 4.1 6.1 1.4 4.4 5.3
16 Goods 9.9 11.9 9.0 11.2 5.7 3.7 6.2 6.0 4.0 6.0
17 Services -2.2 4.5 11.1 7.4 5.8 5.1 6.1 -8.8 5.2 3.6
18 Imports 10.4 20.2 13.9 0.0 4.3 0.1 4.7 4.9 3.1 6.0
19 Goods 12.2 24.7 14.1 1.1 5.2 -0.7 2.9 6.3 2.0 6.0
20 Services 2.4 1.2 12.9 -5.0 -0.6 4.2 13.8 -1.7 9.0 5.5
21 Government consumption expenditures and gross investment -3.1 2.8 -0.3 -4.4 -7.0 -0.8 -2.9 -2.2 -3.0 -1.4
22 Federal 0.6 9.7 3.7 -4.1 -10.3 2.8 -4.3 -4.4 -4.2 -0.4
23 National defense -3.7 7.3 7.2 -6.1 -14.3 8.3 2.6 -10.6 -7.1 -0.4
24 Nondefense 10.1 14.6 -3.1 0.0 -1.7 -7.5 -17.4 10.2 1.8 -0.3
25 State and local -5.5 -1.4 -2.9 -4.6 -4.7 -3.2 -2.0 -0.7 -2.2 -2.1
Addendum:
26 Gross domestic product, current dollars 3.9 4.1 4.6 4.5 2.2 5.2 4.3 4.2 4.2 3.1

http://bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

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

U.S. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Decl