Part II More On Jonathan Gruber, Basically PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper) on Healthcare, Obamacare and Lack of Transparency — The American Voters Were Not Stupid And Rejected Democrats Who Supported Obamacare By Voting Them Out of Office — But The Democratic Progressive Elitist Establishment Are Liars and Losers — Stupid Is As Stupid Does — Death Knell of Socialized Medicine — Repeal Obamacare Now! — Videos

Posted on November 15, 2014. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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

Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 320: August 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 319: August 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 318: August 27, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 317: August 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 316: August 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 315: August 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 314: August 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 313: August 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 312: August 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 311: August 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 310: August 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 309: August 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 308: August 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 307: August 1, 2014

Story 1: Part II More On Jonathan Gruber, Basically PhD (Piled Higher and Deeper) on Healthcare, Obamacare and Lack of Transparency — The American Voters  Were Not Stupid And Rejected Democrats Who Supported Obamacare By Voting Them Out of Office — But The Democratic Progressive Elitist Establishment Are Liars and Losers — Stupid Is As Stupid Does — Death Knell of Socialized Medicine — Repeal Obamacare Now! — Videos

Stupid Is As Stupid Does


jonathan_gruber_1

obamacare_architect_jonathan_gruber_open_mic

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO [Congressional Budget Office] scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass….Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

~Jonathan Gruber

Stupid is as stupid does, Mrs. Blue..

Jonathan-Gruber

How Did The Media Cover Jonathan Gruber

SMOKING GUN! Gruber Admits Obama Was in Room During Planning of Cadillac Lie

Gruber’s ObamaCare Remarks?

CNN airs New Video of Jonathan Gruber: Exploit the Lack of American Voters’ Economic Understanding

Trey Gowdy on Gruber comments

Megyn Kelly: Democrats Committed Fraud By Not Representing Obamacare as a Tax

Greater Boston Video: Jonathan Gruber Pushes Back

Krauthammer rips Jonathan Gruber: “We’re hearing the true voice of liberal arrogance”

GRUBER: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”

The Worst of Jonathan Gruber

Flashback: Obama: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.

The Changing Touchstone of Transparency

Nets Ignore ObamaCare Architect Crediting Law’s Passage On ‘The Stupidity Of The American Voter’

Megyn Slams ObamaCare Architect Who Declined to Appear on ‘Kelly File’

WHY IS OBAMA NOT IN PRISON FOR STEALING TAXPAYER MONEY?

ObamaCare: Bill’s architect Gruber admits lies, deception necessary because Americans are stupid

President Obama in 2009: Mandate is Not a Tax

Obama on single payer health insurance

Barack Obama Promotes Single-Payer Universal Healthcare

Dems including Harry Reid, Sebelius, and Obama admit Single Payer Healthcare is ultimate goal

 

Democrats Push for a Single Payer Health Care System Katie Pavlich Charles Payne 8 12 13

Socialize Medicine! – Influential Democrat Calling For Single Payer System Amid Obamacare Trouble

 

obamacare

“If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” – Barack Obama

obama

Obama-If-You-Like-Your-Health-Care-Plan-You-Can-Keep-It

losing_plan

Jon Stewart on You Can Keep Your Plan. Period.

Jonathan Gruber on MSNBC says he “regrets” calling the American voter stupid

Conversation: “Health Care Reform,” The Comic Book

Gruber Files- Harvard University

The Cadillac Tax

Obama admits he DID raise taxes

Obamacare’s Cadillac Tax Pushing People To Plans With High Deductible- Union You Got What You Wanted

Jonathan Gruber brags about the “basic exploitation” of American voters

What is the “cadillac tax?” M3 Insurance HCR

Unions & Cadilac Health Care Plans

Obama’s Health Care Lies And Reversals

Obama lies about “cadillac” plan taxation.

Rep Joe Courtney Discusses “Cadillac Tax” with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business News Channel

HealthCare Reform – Modified Community Rating Part 1 – Federal Marketplace

HealthCare Reform – Modified Community Rating Part 2 – Federal Marketplace

Community Rating – How the Affordable Care Act Impacts Small Business Owners

Forrest Gump TRAILER

Honest Trailers – Forrest Gump

Forrest Gump’s most beautiful quote

Funeral Toll & Peal, Mount Angel Abbey

When a monk passes away during the night, the toll is sounded early the following morning. It is repeated after the funeral Mass, when the monks process down to the cemetery, and ends with a peal of all the bells. These are the last few tolls of the sequence on the largest bell in the Pacific Northwest.

Please pray for the eternal repose of the soul of this monk, that he may enter into everlasting life with Christ.

Martin Luther King – For whom the bell tolls

Nancy Pelosi says she doesn’t know who Jonathan Gruber is. She touted his work in 2009.

By Aaron Blake

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that, not only did Jonathan Gruber not play a significant role in drafting Obamacare, but that she doesn’t even “know who he is.”

Many have pointed out since then that Pelosi’s office has cited Gruber’s work in the past. That’s notable, but it’s very unlikely Pelosi herself wrote those press releases herself or even participated in their drafting.

But then there’s this: Pelosi herself has also mentioned Gruber and his work — back in November 2009, at the height of the Obamacare debate.

Here’s the transcript, via Nexis:

Q: As you know, the Republicans released their health- care bill this week. And I wanted to get your comment on the bill, and specifically on the CBO analysis that it would cost significantly less than the Democratic plan and that it would lower premiums.

PELOSI: Let me just say this. Anything you need to know about the difference between the Democratic bill and the Republican bill is that the Republicans do not end the health insurance companies’ discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. They let that stand. That’s scandalous, the fact that it exists. I don’t understand why they have not heard the American people, who have said preexisting conditions should not be a source of discrimination.

And secondly, the Republican plan ensures about 3 million more people than now, and ours does 36 million people. So that’s a very big difference in that.

We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.

So again, we’re confident about what we set out to do in the bill: middle class affordability, security for our seniors, and accountability to our children.

Pelosi’s office told the Washington Post that the minority leader meant that she didn’t know Gruber personally.

“She said she doesn’t ‘know who he is,’ not that she’s never heard of him,” Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said.

Hammill added: “We’ve cited the work of dozens upon dozens of economists over the years. As the leader said today, Mr. Gruber played no role in drafting our bill.”

Pelosi clearly wants to distance herself and Obamacare from Gruber, given Gruber’s controversial comments about “the stupidity of the American voter,” and Democrats are going to argue that Gruber wasn’t instrumental in the bill. But, as an architect of the Massachusetts health-care law and a consultant to the White House on Obamacare, he’s been regularly cited by Democrats as an authority on this issue — including, apparently, by Pelosi.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/13/nancy-pelosi-says-she-doesnt-know-who-jonathan-gruber-is-she-touted-his-work-in-2009/

This Philly-Based Investment Adviser Has Become Obamacare’s Digital Menace

Sam Stein

You could pardon Rich Weinstein for gloating. These past few days, he’s enjoyed the type of journalistic high that comes with unearthing a particularly meaty scoop.

Except Weinstein is no journalist. He’s a Philadelphia-based investment adviser approaching 50 who, until a half-year ago, was unknown to the political world. A set of videos he found of Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who played an important role in drafting the Affordable Care Act, changed all that. The videos have become rich context for a legal challenge to the law now heading to the Supreme Court, and they’ve made Weinstein the celebration of conservative circles.

“This is going to sound a little cocky and I don’t want it to be,” Weinstein told The Huffington Post Tuesday in one of the the media interviews he’s given on his feat. “But I’m not partially responsible for finding those clips. I’m completely responsible.”

Weinstein’s story, in some respects, would be the stuff of a made-for-TV movie — if the director is a member of the tea party and eager to dramatize the Affordable Care Act’s unraveling (those two points, admittedly, are redundant).

Weinstein, who runs his own company, and his family lost their health insurance after Obamacare forced higher standards for policies. On the exchange, the only plan with similar benefits was twice the cost of his old one. Irritated, he began looking into who put together the Affordable Care Act, searching Google with the term “ACA architects.” Days consumed with researching old videos became nights.

“Remember when the husbands used to come home at night in the ’50s and ’60s and grab a newspaper and read it?” said Weinstein. “Well, I’m like that with the iPad. It was a lot of time. For the past year, I put a lot of time into this.”

His break came last winter. An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, outlined a long-shot legal argument that said a direct interpretation of Affordable Care Act precluded giving subsidies to people on federally run exchanges. Weinstein had seen that argument before, albeit from a different vantage point. Months earlier, he had stumbled across video of Gruber stating that the subsidies to help low-income Americans buy insurance are reserved for state-established exchanges, if only to give states an incentive to establish an exchange

Weinstein had a smoking gun, but no one to show it to.

“I’ve got the tinfoil hat,” Weinstein said, excusing the reporters who ignored his early entreaties. “People in the media must be overwhelmed with idiots like me who think they have something.”

So he took time off — three to four months — and watched his kids play lacrosse. Then, in July, two conservative justices on a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the subsidies for those shopping on federally run exchanges were, indeed, illegal. People were talking about the issue again.

Weinstein dropped comments about his Gruber video onto The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog. Eventually, Ryan Radia, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, noticed and turned it into a blog post.

Dominos began to fall. Weinstein’s first video was included in the legal challenge to Obamacare. And that challenge — King v. Burwell — ended up making its way to the Supreme Court. “Which is crazy,” Weinstein said. “Crazy because I found it. Not crazy because it is a crazy legal case.”

This week, another of Weinstein’s videos emerged. This one is of Gruber saying that a bit of budgetary deception helped Obamacare pass in Congress (“call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever,” said the professor). This, too, found its way into the mainstream conversation. Gruber on Tuesday went on MSNBC to apologize for his language, though he may have return. Weinstein said he has another video of a similar comment that he will soon release.

Should the Supreme Court ultimately rule against subsidies being available on federally run insurance exchanges, it would, in some ways, make the perfect ending to a conservative-inspired Horatio Alger story.

“I’m kind of a nobody,” said Weinstein. “And, I think, people who are out there, just the average person who gets hacked off about something or has an interest about something, I think I’m a perfect lesson that any one person can make a difference. Anybody. Even guy with the tinfoil hat in his mom’s basement.”

Except life and politics aren’t that simple. There is texture. Weinstein doesn’t live in his mom’s basement. He just says it for rhetorical flair. For those who would like to dismiss him as a knee-jerk partisan, he’s not that, either. He voted for Bill Clinton, he said, before he cast a ballot for Ross Perot and, most recently, Mitt Romney. Certainly, he’s no longer a “nobody” in the fight against Obamacare. Elements of the conservative movement have geared up to both promote and protect his work.

Phil Kerpen, who founded the group American Commitment and formerly was vice president for the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, helped spread the second of Weinstein’s videos. Once Kerpen found out an article was in the works, he sent a tweet suggesting The Huffington Post was “doxxing” Weinstein for attacking Gruber. The tweet came just minutes after The Huffington Post asked Weinstein whether he had used an online alias before commenting on The Volokh Conspiracy.

But the real nuance is in the history and the policy details. Gruber was an architect of Obamacare. But he wasn’t the only architect. The staffs to former Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), among others, deserve their fair share of credit or blame, depending on one’s perspective.

On the issue of subsidies, the Gruber statement that Weinstein unearthed remains a gem for a reason. It’s because it’s rare (Gruber called it a “speak-o” — like a typo). There has been one other instance unearthed of Gruber discussing tax incentives as a means of compelling a state to set up an exchange.

For defenders of the law, that’s still thin gruel compared with the widely accepted belief during and after the crafting of the bill that subsidies would be universal. (The IRS ruled this way in May 2012, five months after Gruber’s speech.)

For critics, it’s proof enough.

“I don’t think he misspoke at all. I don’t think he was taken out of context and I don’t think he misspoke,” said Weinstein.

And then there is the issue of practical outcomes. Weinstein became a digital archaeologist after the cost of his insurance went up two-fold. Should a lawsuit succeed in eliminating subsidies for those buying insurance on federally run exchanges, it would result in many people confronting similar, or worse, price hikes. It’s an outcome that Weinstein admitted weighs on him, even as he keeps scanning the Web for more Gruberisms.

“It does,” Weinstein said. “But the way you say it makes it sound like nothing else will happen. Like it is a straight line. Subsidies are taken away and the world ends. And I think that’s not fair. I think there will most certainly be a disruption. No doubt about it. I think some states will go build their own exchanges quickly. But, I think the markets would find a way to adjust.”

“It does bother me,” he added later. “I get it. I’m not an evil person. I just think people should see these videos. I just think people should know what’s going on. “

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/11/rich-weinstein-jonathan-gruber_n_6142340.html

Hearings floated as Hill Republicans seize on Gruber Obamacare comments

 By Robert Costa and Jose A. DelReal

Congressional Republicans seized Wednesday on controversial commentsmade by a former health-care consultant to the Obama administration, with one leading House conservative suggesting that hearings could be called in response as part of the GOP effort to dismantle the law in the next Congress and turn public opinion ahead of the 2016 election.

“We may want to have hearings on this,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), an influential voice among GOP hardliners and a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, in an interview at the Capitol. “We shouldn’t be surprised they were misleading us.”

The firestorm began when a video emerged showing Jonathan Gruber, a high-profile architect of the Affordable Care Act and one of its fiercest advocates, suggesting that the health reform law passed through Congress because of the “stupidity of the American voter” and a “lack of transparency” over its funding mechanisms. The remarks were originally made in 2013 during a panel discussion at the University of Pennsylvania but began heavy circulation on social media Monday.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the ‘stupidity of the American voter’ or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”

Gruber apologized for his incendiary remarks in an on-air interview with MSNBC Tuesday afternoon, calling his comments inappropriate and saying he was speaking “off the cuff.” On Tuesday evening, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly aired a second video, of Gruber calling voters stupid, also from 2013.

The controversy has lit a fire under conservatives eager to dismantle the law and has raised eyebrows among the law’s defenders, who are concerned that such comments will further damage the law’s already shaky standing with American voters. It also comes after a sweeping electoral victory for Republicans last Tuesday, who won control of the Senate and bolstered the size of their majority in the House.

Jordan said House Republicans have been sending each other a blizzard of e-mails and text messages this week, and he expects the interest in “bringing [Gruber] up here to talk” will gain traction as members return to Washington. House Republicans will gather Thursday evening for their first series of votes since the election.

“I just had a colleague text me saying, ‘We’ve got to look into this!” Jordan said as he glanced at his phone outside the House floor Wednesday morning.

The chatter among lawmakers echoes the outrage among the conservative grassroots over the comments. Sen. Ted Cruz in a speech last week said targeting ACA must remain the party’s top priority. “Now is the time to go after and do everything humanely possible to repeal Obamacare,” he said.

House GOP leadership aides expressed new optimism that their desire to target the ACA could get some momentum. While rhetorically committed to full repeal, in order to keep the party’s right flank on board, the party is looking more seriously at undermining specific parts of the law as it navigates divided government next year. Those moves could include repealing the medical device tax; watering down a requirement that employers offer full time workers coverage, which takes effect in January; and changing the definition of a full-time worker from someone who works at least 30 hours a week to someone who works at least 40 — all proposals which could win some Democratic support.

On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who is slated to become chairman of the powerful Senate budget committee, also threw his support behind possible hearings. In a furious gaggle with reporters, Sessions said Gruber’s comments could make dealings with the White House more difficult, days after Republican leaders said they would seek areas of common ground.

“The strategy was to hide the truth from the American people,” Sessions said. “I’m not into this post-modern world where you can say whatever you want to in order to achieve your agenda. That is a threat to the American republic… This is far deeper and more significant than the fact that he just spoke.”

Other Senate Republicans expressed similar discomfort with Gruber, but warned conservatives to not get their hopes up about repealing the health-care law while President Obama remains in office, underscoring the tonal difference between the more rabble-rousing House GOP and the new and more even-tempered Republican Senate majority.

Heading into a party luncheon on Wednesday, retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said the health care law “is going to still be there regardless because we don’t have the votes” to undo it.

“We can talk all we want but he is going to veto whatever we send him,” Coburn said. “That’s the reality.”

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he was unsure of how Senate Republicans would use the Gruber kerfuffle to go after the law, if at all. For the moment, he said, Republicans should focus on using the episode to highlight how the national press has covered the president’s signature policy.

“What Gruber said should be read and reported on by every news organization,” he said. “People should be aware of how this administration thinks.”

Several Democrats said Wednesday that they were unaware of Gruber’s comments and declined to speculate on whether there could be political consequences, underscoring how much of the discussion is being driven by Republicans. One, however, did distance herself from the arguably aloof phrasing used by Gruber. “I have not seen them,” said Sen. Patty Murrary (D-Wash). “But I do think voters are pretty smart.”

The challenge for Republicans will be balancing the conservative ire surrounding Gruber with the leaders’ political imperative to establish themselves as a governing congressional majority. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and incoming Senate Majority Leader McConnell (R-Ky.) have pledged to bring another repeal bill to floor, but are also focused on achieving incremental legislative gains on Keystone XL and trade agreements.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/12/hearings-floated-as-hill-republicans-seize-on-gruber-obamacare-comments/

 

 

Jon Gruber finally speaks! … to MSNBC

POSTED AT 6:01 PM ON NOVEMBER 11, 2014 BY NOAH ROTHMAN

On Saturday, Newsbusters was the first major website to feature a video posted to YouTube by AmericanCommitment of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber boasting in 2013 how he helped deceive the public via a lack of transparency about that bill. Some readers were anxious about that video being made better known to the public since at the time the article was published, there were only a couple of dozen views of the video on YouTube.

Well they needn’t have worried because since then the video has gone over the top viral to the extent that Rush Limbaugh led his show talking about it at length this morning as did Sean Hannity on his radio show. In addition, the video made it into the mainstream media other than Fox News when Jake Tapper showed the video today on The Lead and The Hill has an article about it as well. As of this writing the video has over 177,000 views and growing fast. Reason today had an excellent analysis of the Gruber revelations:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Jonathan Gruber was, by most accounts, one of the key figures in constructing the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. He helped designed the Massachusetts health care law on which it was modeled, assisted the White House in laying out the foundation of the law, and, according to The New York Times, was eventually sent to Capitol Hill “to help Congressional staff members draft the specifics of the legislation.” He provided the media with a stream of supportive quotes, and was paid almost $400,000 for his consulting work.

Jonathan Gruber, in other words, knows exactly what it took to get the health care law passed.

And that’s why you should take him seriously when he says, in the following video, that it was critical to not be transparent about the law’s costs and true effects, and to take advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter” in order to get it passed:

Here’s the full quote:

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO [Congressional Budget Office] scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass….Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

This validates much of what critics have said about the health care law, and the tactics used to pass it, for years.

For one thing, it is an explicit admission that the law was designed in such a way to avoid a CBO score that would have tanked the bill. Basically, the Democrats who wrote the bill knowingly gamed the CBO process.

It’s also an admission that the law’s authors understood that one of the effects of the bill would be to make healthy people pay for the sick, but declined to say this for fear that it would kill the bill’s chances. In other words, the law’s supporters believed the public would not like some of the bill’s consequences, and knowingly attempted to hide those consequences from the public.

Most importantly, however, it is an admission that Gruber thinks it’s acceptable to deceive people if he believes that’s the only way to achieve his policy preference. That’s not exactly surprising, given that he failed to disclose payments from the administration to consult on Obamacare even while providing the media with supposedly independent assessments of the law.

…Gruber may believe that American voters are stupid, but he was the one who was dumb enough to say all this on camera.

Now that various MSM outlets have begun to pay attention to the Gruber Obamacare deception video, it will be fascinating to see what type of excuses will be made by the pundits to cover for what he admitted. Bonus points to Jonathan Cohn at New Republic or Politico or any of a vast number of liberal sources for whoever can dream up the most entertaining spin control to explain away this viral video.

p.s. Did I mention that Newsbusters was the first major website to feature this video?

– See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2014/11/10/jonathan-gruber-obamacare-deception-video-goes-viral-newsbusters-was#sthash.OIUxVcFC.dpuf

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/11/jon-gruber-finally-speaks-to-msnbc/

Jonathan Gruber at Noblis – January 18, 2012

Honors Colloquium 2012 – Jonathan Gruber

Dr. Jonathan Gruber is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1992. He is also the Director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a Research Associate. He is an Associate Editor of both the Journal of Public Economics and the Journal of Health Economics. In 2009 he was elected to the Executive Committee of the American Economic Association. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the National Academy of Social Insurance.

Dr. Gruber received his B.S. in Economics from MIT, and his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University. Dr. Gruber’s research focuses on the areas of public finance and health economics. He has published more than 140 research articles, has edited six research volumes, and is the author of Public Finance and Public Policy, a leading undergraduate text, and Health Care Reform, a graphic novel. In 2006 he received the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the best health economist in the nation aged 40 and under. During the 1997-1998 academic year, Dr. Gruber was on leave as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department. From 2003-2006 he was a key architect of Massachusetts’ ambitious health reform effort, and in 2006 became an inaugural member of the Health Connector Board, the main implementing body for that effort. In that year, he was named the 19th most powerful person in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare Magazine.

2012-01-09 Jonathan Gruber on Mitt Romney and Health Care Reform

Jonathan Gruber Once Again Says Subsidies Are Tied to State-Based Exchanges

Jonathan Gruber discusses health care law’s next step

Healthcare Reform 101 Part 1.

Healthcare Reform 101 Part 2.

Healthcare Reform 101 Part 3.

Jonathan Gruber on Obamacare: Part 1 of 3

Jonathan Gruber on Obamacare: Part 2 of 3

Crafting ObamaCare

Obamacare Architect: No State Exchange = No Subsidies; Blatant Enough

#GruberGate: Tale of the Tapes

Rush Limbaugh – MIT Gruber Lied about Obamacare

Rush Limbaugh: Jonathan Gruber says you are Life’s Lottery Winners – Eugenics

Gwen and Jonathan Gruber Talk Health Care with Chris Matthews

Obama 2008: Bypassing Congress Unconstitutional; I’ll Reverse It

Lec 1 | MIT 14.01SC Principles of Microeconomics

 

Meet Jonathan Gruber, the man who’s willing to say what everyone else is only thinking about Obamacare

By Jason Millman

Jonathan Gruber might not be a household name, but in the world of health care policy, he’s a pretty big deal. And now he’s also known as the guy who’s credited “the stupidity of the American voter” for the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

An old video surfaced this week of Gruber saying that a lack of transparency was one of the reasons Obamacare got through Congress in 2010. Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology health economist who’s credited as one of the intellectual godfathers of the Affordable Care Act, has apologized for speaking off the cuff, but critics of the law are eagerly highlighting his comments.

That’s because of what Gruber represents. He was one of the architects of the 2006 Massachusetts health care law, which became the basis for the ACA, and he helped craft the federal legislation that used a similar scheme of guaranteed coverage, financial assistance and insurance mandates. He was far from the only person who helped shape the ACA, but he has been one of its most vocal academic defenders in the nearly five years since it passed. (And he’s the only one to write a comic book about the law.)

It’s easy to see why Gruber’s comments get pored over by ACA opponents. There’s plenty of misunderstanding about what’s in the ACA and mistrust of the motivations for passing the law — just recall Nancy Pelosi’s infamous line about needing to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. So when someone like Gruber, who’s supposed to know the law inside and out, seemingly confirms critics’ worst suspicions, that makes for a powerful anecdote.

Gruber, who’s fiercely intelligent and passionate about the health reforms he helped create, also isn’t one to always sugarcoat things.

Earlier this year, a pretty important health policy study showed that the expansion of Medicaid coverage in Oregon was associated with a spike in emergency room visits. The research potentially undercut an argument by supporters of the law who said it would save money since giving more people health insurance meant patients would rely more on primary care providers, rather than expensive trips to the ER. And Gruber, commenting on the study, offered an uncomfortable truth.

“I would view [the study] as part of a broader set of evidence that covering people with health insurance doesn’t save money,” Gruber told the Washington Post at the time. “That was sometimes a misleading motivator for the Affordable Care Act. The law isn’t designed to save money. It’s designed to improve health, and that’s going to cost money.”

You may also remember Gruber from the last presidential campaign, when there was plenty of debate over just how similar Obamacare and Romneycare actually were to one another. It was Gruber who artfully cleared up the confusion. “They’re the same f—— bill,” he told Capital New York in what became a widely circulated interview three years ago. It’s probably what ACA supporters wanted to say all along, but only Gruber went ahead and did it.

His most potentially damaging comments surfaced just over the summer, when Gruber seemingly gave credence to the ACA challenge just taken up by the Supreme Court last week — a challenge that if successful couldtorpedo the law.

The case revolves around whether residents in states that refused to set up their own health insurance marketplaces should still be able to claim tax subsidies to help them afford their insurance. Opponents say no, Congress intentionally didn’t allow that under the law. Democrats say they never intended for people in these 36 states to not have access to the financial assistance.

Here was Gruber again, in January 2012, telling a health-care conference that states refusing to set up their own exchanges would deny their residents premium tax credits. The video wasn’t widely viewed until June of this year, but this is what he said at the time:

I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these Exchanges, and that they’ll do it. But you know, once again, the politics can get ugly around this.

Here’s the video, with these comments near the 31:30 mark:

 

Critics of the law jumped on those comments as further validation of their challenge to the subsidies in the 36 states relying on the federal-run insurance marketplaces, or exchanges. Gruber later said that he misspoke, and that his own work always assumed all exchanges — whether run by the states or the federal government — would be eligible for subsidies.

Gruber’s latest comments have surfaced at an especially inopportune time for the Obama administration. The next enrollment period is approaching this weekend with lowered expectations, just as Republicans reclaimed the Senate and the Supreme Court agreed to hear a new Obamacare challengethat could seriously weaken the law.

The Democrats, realizing how harmful Gruber’s latest comments have become, are already out doing damage control. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today to put distance between Gruber and the health-care law, saying he’s not even sure that Gruber ever met with President Obama.

“He’s a consultant, not the architect [of Obamacare,” Dean said. “I’m not excusing the language — it’s terrible.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/12/meet-jonathan-gruber-the-man-whos-willing-to-say-what-everyone-else-is-only-thinking-about-obamacare/

Jonathan Gruber (economist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other people of the same name, see Jonathan Gruber (disambiguation).
Jonathan Gruber
Born September 30, 1965 (age 49)
Nationality American
Institution MIT
Field Health economics
Alma mater Harvard University (PhD, 1992)
MIT (BSc, 1987)
Information at IDEAS/RePEc

Jonathan Holmes Gruber is a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1992. He is also the director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a research associate. He is an associate editor of both the Journal of Public Economics and the Journal of Health Economics.

Gruber has been heavily involved in crafting public health policy. He was a key architect of both the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform, sometimes referred to as “Romneycare”, and the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as “Obamacare”.

Contents

Early life

Gruber was born on September 30, 1965. He completed his BS in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1987 and his PhD in economics from Harvard University in 1992, with a thesis titled Changes in the Structure of Employer-Provided Health Insurance.[1]

Academic career

Gruber began his career as an assistant professor of economics at MIT.[2] Currently, [clarification needed] he is a professor of economics at MIT. He is also a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.[2]

Gruber’s research has focused on public finance and health economics. He has published more than 140 research articles, and has edited six research volumes. He is a co-editor of the Journal of Public Economics, an associate editor of the Journal of Health Economics, and the author of Public Finance and Public Policy.[3] and Health Care Reform, a graphic novel delineating the Affordable Care Act.[citation needed]

Public service

During the 1997–1998 academic year, Gruber was on leave as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department. From 2003–06 he was a key architect of Massachusetts health care reform, also known as “Romneycare”. In 2006 he became an inaugural member of the Health Connector Board, the main implementing body for that effort. In that year, he was named the 19th most powerful person in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare magazine. During the 2008 election he was a consultant to the Clinton, Edwards and Obama presidential campaigns.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

In 2009–10 Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the administration and Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as the ACA or “Obamacare”.[4] The act was signed into law in March 2010, and Gruber has been described as an “architect”, “writer”, and “consultant” of the legislation. He was widely interviewed and quoted during the roll-out of the legislation. [5][6][7][8][9]

In January 2010, after news emerged that Gruber was under a $297,000 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, while at the same time promoting the Obama administration‘s health care reform policies, some conservative commentators suggested a conflict of interest.[10][11][12] While he did disclose his HHS connections in an article for the New England Journal of Medicine, his oversight in doing this earlier was defended in the New York Times .[13]

One heavily-scrutinized part of the ACA reads that subsidies should be given to healthcare recipients who are enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State”. Some have read this to mean that subsidies can be given only in states that have chosen to create their own healthcare exchanges, and do not use the federal exchange, while the Obama administration says that the wording applies to all states. This dispute is currently part of an ongoing series of lawsuits referred to collectively as King v. Burwell. In July 2014, two separate recordings of Gruber, both from January 2012, surfaced in which he seemed to contradict the administration’s position.[4] In one, Gruber states, in response to an audience question, that “if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits”,[14] while in the other he says, “if your governor doesn’t set up an exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens.”[15] When these recordings emerged, Gruber called these statements mistaken, describing them as “just a speak-o — you know, like a typo”.[14]

In a panel discussion about the ACA at the University of Pennsylvania in October 2013, Gruber stated that the bill was deliberately written “in a tortured way” to disguise the fact that it created a system in which “healthy people pay in and sick people get money”. He stated that this obfuscation was necessary, due to “the stupidity of the American voter or whatever”, in order to get the bill passed and that a “lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”[16] His comments caused controversy after a video of them was placed on YouTubein November 2014.[17][18][19][20]

Published works

  • On February 15, 2006, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities published an article by Gruber entitled “The Cost and Coverage Impact of the President’s Health Insurance Budget Proposals”[21]
  • In a December 4, 2008 New York Times op-ed, “Medicine for the Job Market”, he claimed that expanding health insurance, even in difficult financial times would stimulate the economy.[22]
  • On February 9, 2011, the Center for American Progress published an article by Gruber titled “Health Care Reform Without the Individual Mandate,” analyzing the health insurance coverage impacts of alternative policy options for encouraging purchase of health insurance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including the mandate, a late penalty, and auto-enrollment.[23]

He has published over 100 research articles.[24]

Awards and honors

In 2006, Gruber received the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the best health economist in the nation aged 40 and under.[25] He was elected a member of the Institute of Medicine in 2005.[26] In 2009 he was elected to the Executive Committee of the American Economic Association.

In 2011 he was named “One of the Top 25 Most Innovative and Practical Thinkers of Our Time” by Slate Magazine. In both 2006 and 2012 he was rated as one of the top 100 most powerful people in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare Magazine.

References

  1. Jump up^ Gruber, John. “Changes in the structure of employer-provided health insurance”. ProQuest. Retrieved 9 January 2014.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b http://economics.mit.edu/files/6400. Retrieved 25 July 2014. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. Jump up^ Worth Publishers Student Center for Public Finance and Policy
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b Cannon, Michael. “ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber: “If You’re A State And You Don’t Set Up An Exchange, That Means Your Citizens Don’t Get Their Tax Credits””. Forbes. Retrieved 25 July 2014.
  5. Jump up^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/jon-gruber-on-the-premiums-in-health-care-reform/2011/08/25/gIQAN0TUWS_blog.html
  6. Jump up^ http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/business/jonathan-gruber-health-cares-mr-mandate.html?pagewanted=all
  7. Jump up^http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654362679868966
  8. Jump up^ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/01/on-jonathan-gruber-and-disclosure/
  9. Jump up^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/how-the-white-house-used_b_421549.html
  10. Jump up^ James, Michael (January 9, 2010). “On Jonathan Gruber and Disclosure”. ABC News. Retrieved November 15, 2013.
  11. Jump up^ “Jonathan Gruber Failed to Disclose His $297,600 Contract With HHS”. Huffington Post. May 25, 2011. Retrieved November 15, 2013.
  12. Jump up^ Berger, Judson (January 8, 2010). “Economist Was Under Contract With HHS While Touting Health Reform Bill”. Fox News. Retrieved November 15, 2013.
  13. Jump up^ “Jonathan Gruber”. New York Times. January 11, 2010. Retrieved September 3, 2014.
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b Cohn, Jonathan (July 25, 2014). “Jonathan Gruber: ‘It Was Just a Mistake'”. The New Republic.
  15. Jump up^ Oops!…Gruber Did It Again, Forbes, July 25, 2014
  16. Jump up^ “GRUBER: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.””. American Commitment. October 13, 2013. Retrieved November 10, 2014.
  17. Jump up^ Roy, Avik (November 10, 2014). “ACA Architect: ‘The Stupidity Of The American Voter’ Led Us To Hide Obamacare’s True Costs From The Public”. Forbes.
  18. Jump up^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/11/obamacare-consultant-under-fire-for-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-comment/
  19. Jump up^ http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/11/10/obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law
  20. Jump up^http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/10/obamacare-architect-we-passed-law-due-to-stupidity/
  21. Jump up^ The Cost and Coverage Impact of The President’s Health Insurance Budget Proposals, February 15, 2006]
  22. Jump up^ Gruber, Jonathan (December 4, 2008), Medicine for the Job Market, New York Times
  23. Jump up^ Gruber, Jonathan (February 9, 2011), Health Care Reform Without the Individual Mandate
  24. Jump up^ NBER Working Papers by Jonathan Gruber
  25. Jump up^ Honors & awards – Fall 2006 Soundings
  26. Jump up^ National Academy of Social Insurance

External links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gruber_(economist)

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-370

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 DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Democratic Controlled U.S. Senate Fiscal Year 2014 Budget for the Federal Government — Videos

Posted on April 14, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Enivornment, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Homes, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Senate-Budget-Committee-Chair-Patty-Murray-via-AFPThe-Presidents-Fiscal-Year-2014-Budget-proposal-is-delivered-to-the-Senate-Budget-Committee_10_1The Hosue Budget Committee releases it's FY2014 Budget in Washington

Paul Ryan Questions OMB Director – President’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request

Sessions: Obama’s Persistent Budget Misrepresentations Make Compromise More Difficult

‘When Do We Hold People Accountable?’ Sessions Slams Dems For Falsely Claiming ‘Balance’ To Nation

WASHINGTON, March 22—Throughout the course of the budget debate, Democratic Senators have repeatedly suggested their budget contains a “balanced approach,” a rhetorical description that has no accounting value. (Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) went even further last night and repeatedly said his party’s plan called for “balancing the budget.”)

But as Sen. Sessions pointed out this morning, “They know they don’t have a balanced budget. They won’t tell the American people they don’t have one. They just use the word. But it’s not in their document. Where and when do we hold people accountable in this United States Senate for an accurate [description] of legislation? It’s wrong.”

To view for yourself the budget tables with the Democrats’ own numbers (in other words, before one even begins to strip out all the gimmicks and accounting tricks), please click here: http://1.usa.gov/YwdsbM. Note that cumulative deficits will amount to $5.198 trillion, and the nation’s gross debt will climb to $24.365 trillion by 2023.

Dem Senators On Budget Committee Unanimously Oppose Balancing The Federal Budget

Hatch on Senate Democrats’ Budget: ‘A Cynical Political Document’

Senator King Discusses 2014 Fiscal Year Budget Blueprint

Sessions: Dem Budget Would Trap Millions In Poverty By Shielding Failed Government Programs

 Senate Budget Committee Hearing | 4.10.13 | Chairman Murray Opening Remarks

Chairman Murray Kicks Off Senate Budget Resolution Debate with Speech on Senate Floor

Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity

U.S. Senate Budget Committee

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray unveils her vision for the Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget resolution.

For more information: http://www.budget.senate.gov/democrat­ic

Portman Remarks at Senate Budget Committee Markup 

Hatch: Entitlement Reform Not an Option, a Necessity

Background Articles and Videos

Making the Federal Budget

How do you spend four trillion dollars? Turns out, you don’t; it takes the President and the Congress to allocate, authorize, appropriate, resolve, outlay, sequester, impound, and just plain spend that much in 2011. Such a process is baffling at times. It’s so complex that you may marvel that Washington can get any action accomplished and paid for at all. So how does the federal budget happen?

Join the Mercatus Center’s Capitol Hill Campus and Senior Research Fellow Jason J. Fichtner for a walk through the process of making the federal budget. He explains the process from its beginnings in the halls of the White House, highlight the many roles Congress takes to authorize and enforce the budget, and navigate the twisting, puzzling conglomeration of bureaucratic steps, political goals, and accountancy rules that go into making our government function.

Changing the Budget Process to Promote Fiscal Responsibility

A Sustainable Approach to Entitlement Reform 

Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity

The Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget builds on the work done over the last two years to create jobs, invest in broad-based economic growth, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.

This budget takes the balanced and responsible approach to our fiscal challenges that every bipartisan group has endorsed and that the American people support. It includes responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget, as well as significant new savings achieved by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

The Senate Budget is grounded in the understanding that our country’s long-term fiscal and economic goals will only be met with policies that support a strong and growing middle class. And it keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, our families, and our communities.

The American people are sick and tired of watching their government lurch from crisis to crisis. The Senate Budget offers a serious and credible path away from this gridlock and dysfunction and toward a long-term plan to create jobs, lay down a strong foundation for broad-based economic growth, replace sequestration, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly and credibly.

This budget reflects the values of a diverse Senate serving a diverse nation, and it is guided by the principles and priorities that are strongly supported by the constituents we were elected to represent

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/senatebudget

 

Foundation for Growth: Restoring the Promise of American Opportunity

The Fiscal Year 2014 Senate Budget builds on the work done over the last two years to create jobs, invest in broad-based economic growth, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.

This budget takes the balanced and responsible approach to our fiscal challenges that every bipartisan group has endorsed and that the American people support. It includes responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget, as well as significant new savings achieved by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

The Senate Budget is grounded in the understanding that our country’s long-term fiscal and economic goals will only be met with policies that support a strong and growing middle class. And it keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, our families, and our communities.

The American people are sick and tired of watching their government lurch from crisis to crisis. The Senate Budget offers a serious and credible path away from this gridlock and dysfunction and toward a long-term plan to create jobs, lay down a strong foundation for broad-based economic growth, replace sequestration, and tackle our deficit and debt responsibly and credibly.

This budget reflects the values of a diverse Senate serving a diverse nation, and it is guided by the principles and priorities that are strongly supported by the constituents we were elected to represent.

The highest priority of the Senate Budget is to create the conditions for job creation, economic growth, and prosperity built from the middle out, not the top down.

The Senate Budget takes the position that trickle-down economics has failed as an economic policy and that true national prosperity comes from the middle out, not the top down. We believe that deficit reduction at the expense of economic growth is doomed to failure, and policies that promote a strong middle class are essential to tackling our long-term deficit and debt challenges.

The policies President Barack Obama and Congress put in place in response to the Great Recession pulled our economy back from the brink and helped to add back jobs. But with an unemployment rate that remains stubbornly high, and a middle class that has seen their wages stagnate for far too long, we simply cannot afford any threats to our fragile recovery. Therefore, the Senate Budget:

• Fully replaces the harmful cuts from sequestration with smart, balanced, and responsible deficit reduction, which would save hundreds of thousands of jobs while protecting families, communities, and the fragile economic recovery.

• Invests in long-term economic growth and national competitiveness by tackling our serious deficits in infrastructure, education, job training, and innovation to create jobs now and lay down a strong foundation for broad-based growth.

2

• Includes a $100 billion targeted jobs and infrastructure package that would start creating new jobs quickly, begin repairing the worst of our crumbling roads and bridges, and help train our workers to fill 21

st century jobs. This jobs investment package is fully paid for by eliminating loopholes and cutting wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

• Protects and continues tax cuts for the middle class and low-income working families.

The Senate Budget builds on the work we have done over the last two years to tackle our deficit and debt responsibly.

At the end of 2010, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission report laid out a responsible goal of reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over ten years. Since that time, Congress and the administration have implemented $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction, with $1.8 trillion coming from spending cuts and $600 billion coming from new revenue from the wealthiest Americans. The Senate Budget:

• Surpasses the bipartisan goal of $4 trillion in 10-year deficit reduction and puts our deficit and debt on a downward, sustainable, and responsible path.

• Builds on the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction already done with an additional $1.85 trillion in new deficit reduction for a total of $4.25 trillion in deficit reduction since the Simpson-Bowles report.

• Includes an equal mix of responsible spending cuts and new revenue raised by closing loopholes and ending wasteful spending in the tax code.

• Achieves $975 billion in deficit reduction through responsible spending cuts made across the federal budget:

o

$493 billion saved on the domestic spending side, including $275 billion in health care savings made in a way that does not harm seniors or families.

 

o

$240 billion saved by carefully and responsibly cutting defense spending to align with the drawdown of troops in our overseas operations.

 

o

$242 billion saved in reduced interest payments.

• Achieves $975 billion in deficit reduction by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful spending in the tax code that benefits the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

• Includes reconciliation instructions, a fast-track process that makes sure that the new revenue from the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations cannot be filibustered in the Senate.

3

The Senate Budget keeps the promises we have made to our seniors, families, veterans, and communities.

The Senate Budget takes the position that the promises we made to our seniors, families, veterans, and communities ought to be fulfilled. This budget:

• Preserves and protects Medicare so that it is strong for seniors today and will be there for our children and grandchildren.

• Rejects calls to dismantle, privatize, or voucherize Medicare.

• Builds on the responsible changes made in the Affordable Care Act to continue reducing health care costs while protecting patients.

• Protects the expansion of health insurance to nearly 30 million Americans and ensures the federal-state partnership on Medicaid is preserved.

• Rejects efforts to simply shift health care costs to states or make cuts that harm seniors and the most vulnerable families.

• Maintains the key principle that deficit reduction should not be done on the backs of the most vulnerable families and communities.

• Continues to make the investments we need in national defense, homeland security, and law enforcement to keep our country and our communities strong and secure.

• Keeps the promise we have made to our veterans that their country will be there for them and provide the resources and support they need when they come home.

The House Republican approach would hurt middle class families and the economy and break the promises we have made to our seniors.

The Senate Budget offers a very different vision than the approach taken by House Republicans.

Their proposals would cut the legs out from under our fragile economic recovery and threaten millions of jobs. They would slash the investments in infrastructure, education, and innovation that we need to lay down a strong foundation for broad-based growth and that would position us to compete and win in the 21

st century global economy.

House Republicans would dismantle Medicare and cut off programs that support the middle class and most vulnerable families. And they would do all that while refusing to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to contribute their fair share.

We believe that the American people strongly support the pro-growth, pro-middle class approach taken in the Senate Budget. And we look forward to engaging with families and seniors across the country as we work to pass the responsible, fair, and bipartisan budget deal the American people expect and deserve.

April 2013
March 2013

The following timetable is used to guide the federal budget process each year (see 2. U.S.C. 631)

Date Action
1st Monday in February President’s budget submission (includes OMB sequester preview report and adjustments to spending caps).
February 15 CBO budget and economic outlook report
Within 6 weeks of President’s budget Committees submit views and estimates to the Budget Committees
April 1 Senate Budget Committee reports resolution
April 15 Congress completes budget resolution. If not, Chairman of House Budget Committee files 302(a) allocations; Ways and Means is free to proceed with pay-as-you-go measures
May 15 Appropriations bills may be considered in the House
June 10 House Appropriations reports last bill
June 15 Congress completes action on reconciliation reconciliation (if applicable)
June 30 House completes action on annual appropriation bills
July 15 President submits mid-session review
October 1

Fiscal year begins

Home / Committee Resources / Glossary

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. I
  8. J
  1. M
  2. N
  3. O
  4. P
  5. R
  6. S
  7. T
  8. U

Appropriations Act: A statute, under the jurisdiction of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, that generally provides authority for Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriation act is the most common means of providing budget authority. Currently, there are 13 regular appropriations acts for each fiscal year. From time to time, Congress also enacts supplemental appropriations acts. (See Appropriations under Budget Authority; Continuing Resolution; Supplemental Appropriation.)

Authorizing Committee: A committee of the House or Senate with legislative jurisdiction over laws that set up or continue the operations of Federal programs and provide the legal basis for making appropriations for those programs. Authorizing committees also have direct control over spending for mandatory programs since the Government’s obligation to make payments for such program is contained in the authorizing legislation (See Entitlement.)

Authorizing Legislation: Legislation enacted by Congress that sets up or continues the operation of a Federal program or agency indefinitely or for a specific period of time. Authorizing legislation may limit the amount of budget authority which can be appropriated for a program or may authorize the appropriation of “such sums as are necessary.” (See Budget Authority; Entitlement.)

return to top

B

Backdoor Spending: (See Direct Spending or Mandatory Spending.)

Budget Authority: The authority Congress gives to Government agencies, permitting them to enter into obligations which will result in immediate or future outlays.

Budget authority may be classified in several ways. It may be classified by the form it takes: appropriations, borrowing authority, or contract authority. Budget authority may also be classified by the determination of amount: definite authority or indefinite authority. Finally budget authority may be classified by the period of availability: 1-year authority, multi-year authority, or no-year authority (available until used).

Forms of Budget Authority

Appropriations.–An act of Congress that permits Federal agencies to incur obligations and to make payments out of the Treasury for specified purposes. An appropriations act is the most common means of providing budget authority.

Borrowing Authority.–Statutory authority that permits a Federal agency to incur obligations and to make payments for specified purposes out of money borrowed from the Treasury, the Federal Financing Bank, or the public. The Budget Act in most cases requires that new authority to borrow must be approved in advance in an appropriation act.

Contract Authority.–Statutory authority that permits a Federal agency to enter into contracts in advance of appropriations. Under the Budget Act, most new authority to contract must be approved in advance in an appropriation act. Offsetting collections and receipts.–Income from the public which is displayed in the budget as negative budget authority. (See Offsetting Collections and Offsetting Receipts.

Budget Baseline: Projected Federal spending, revenue and deficit levels based on the assumption that current policies will continue unchanged for the upcoming fiscal year.

In determining the budget baseline under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, the Directors of OMB and CBO estimate revenue levels and spending levels for entitlement programs based on continuation of current laws. For estimating discretionary spending amounts (both defense and non- defense), the Directors assume an adjustment for inflation (GNP deflator) added to the previous year’s discretionary spending levels. The baseline also includes sufficient appropriations to cover a Federal pay comparability raise (without absorption).

Budget Deficit: The amount by which the Government’s total outlays exceed its total revenues for a given fiscal year. (See Outlays; Revenues.)

Budget Resolution: A concurrent resolution passed by both Houses of Congress setting forth, reaffirming, or revising the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for a fiscal year. A budget resolution is a concurrent resolution of Congress. Concurrent resolutions do not require a presidential signature because they are not laws. Budget resolutions do not need to be laws because they are a legislative device for the Congress to regulate itself as it works on spending and revenue bills.

(Unified) Budget Surplus: The amount by which the Government’s revenues exceed its outlays for a given fiscal year. The “on-budget surplus” excludes spending and revenues of the Social Security Trust Fund, and the Postal Service. (See Outlays; Revenues.)

return to topC

Capital Budget: A budget that segregates capital spending from all other spending, what is usually considered the “operating budget.” In a capital budget, spending and receipts in the capital budget are excluded from the operating budget and are not included in the operating budget’s deficit or surplus calculations. A capital budget would include spending only for capital assets. Capital assets are usually defined to be limited to land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property that are owned and used by the Federal government and have a useful life of more than 2 years. However, some proponents of capital budgeting have suggested that capital should be defined to include Federal “investment” spending that yields long-term benefits. President Clinton established a Commission to Study Capital Budgeting by issuing Executive Order 13037 on March 3, 1997. The Commission is required to issue its report by December 17, 1998.

Congressional Budget: (See Budget Resolution.)

Continuing Resolution: Appropriations legislation enacted by Congress to provide temporary budget authority for Federal agencies to keep them in operation when their regular appropriation bill has not been enacted by the start of the fiscal year. A continuing resolution is a joint resolution, which has the same legal status as a bill.

A continuing resolution frequently specifies a maximum rate at which obligations may be incurred, based on the rate of the prior year, the President’s budget request, or an appropriation bill passed by either or both chambers of Congress. However, there have been instances when Congress has used a continuing resolution as an omnibus measure to enact a number of appropriation bills.

A continuing resolution is a form of appropriation act and should not be confused with the budget resolution.

Credit Authority: Authority to incur direct loan obligations or to incur primary loan guarantee commitments. Under the Budget Act, new credit authority must be approved in advance in an appropriation act.

Crosswalk: Also known as “committee allocation” or “section 302 allocation.” The means by which budget resolution spending totals are translated into binding guidelines with respect to budget authority and outlays for committee action on spending bills. The Budget Committees allocate the budget resolution totals among the committees by jurisdiction, Crosswalk allocations of budget authority and outlays to the committee appear in the joint explanatory statement accompanying a conference report on the budget resolution.

Current Services Budget: A section of the President’s budget, required by the Budget Act, that sets forth the level of spending or taxes that would occur if existing programs and policies were continued unchanged through the fiscal year and beyond, with all programs adjusted for inflation so that existing levels of activity are maintained. (See Baseline.)

return to topD

Deferral of Budget Authority: An action by the executive branch that delays the obligation of budget authority beyond the point it would normally occur. Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the President must provide advanced notice to the Congress of any proposed deferrals. A deferral may not extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the President’s message proposing the deferral is made. Congress may overturn a deferral by passing a law disapproving the deferral.

Deficit: The amount by which the government’s total budget outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year.

Direct Spending: A term defined in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 to include entitlement authority, the food stamp program, and budget authority provided in law other than appropriations acts. From the perspective of the appropriations process, all direct spending is classified as mandatory as opposed to discretionary spending. New direct spending is subject to pay-as-you-go requirements. Direct spending is synonymous with mandatory spending. (See Mandatory Spending and Entitlement.)

Discretionary Spending: A category of spending (budget authority and outlays) subject to the annual appropriations process. (See Appropriations Acts.)

return to topE

Entitlement: Programs that are governed by legislation in a way that legally obligates the Federal government to make specific payments to qualified recipients. Payments to persons under the Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ pensions programs are considered to be entitlements. (See Direct Spending and Mandatory Spending.)

Emergency Spending: As provided in the Budget Enforcement Act, a provision of legislation designated as an emergency by both the President and the Congress. As a result, this additional spending is not subject to the discretionary caps or the pay go requirements and thus will not cause a sequester. In addition, emergency legislation is effectively exempt from Budget Act points of order.

There is no specific criteria in the law for emergency spending. However, the following criteria were contained in a June 1991 report prepared by the Office of Management and Budget–as required by Pub. L. No. 102-55 for the determination of whether to designate spending as an emergency spending:

Necessary expenditure.–an essential or vital expenditure, not one that is merely useful or beneficial;

Sudden.–quickly coming into being, not building up over time;

Urgent.–pressing and compelling need requiring immediate action;

Unforseen.–not predictable or seen beforehand as a coming need (an emergency that is part of an aggregate level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally estimated in advance, would not be “unforseen”); and

Not permanent.–the need is temporary in nature.

Expenditures: (See Outlays.)

return to topF

Federal Debt: Consists of all Treasury and agency debt issues outstanding. Current law places a limit or ceiling on the amount of debt. Debt subject to limit has two components: debt held by the government and debt held by the public.

Debt held by the government.–Represents the holdings of debt by federal trust funds and other special government funds. For example, when a trust fund is in surplus as is presently the case with Social Security, the law requires that this surplus be invested in government securities.

Debt held by the public.–Represents the holdings of debt by individuals, institutions, other buyers outside the federal government, and the Federal Reserve System. The change in debt held by the public in any given year closely tracks the unified budget deficit for that year.

Fiscal Policy: Federal government policies with respect to taxes, spending, and debt management intended to promote the nations’ macroeconomic goals, particularly with respect to employment, gross national product, price level stability, and equilibrium in balance of payments. The budget process is a major vehicle for determining and implementing Federal fiscal policy. The other major component of Federal macroeconomic policy is monetary policy. (See Monetary Policy.)

Fiscal Year: A fiscal year is a 12-month accounting period. The fiscal for the Federal Government begins October 1 and ends September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example fiscal year 1997 is the year beginning October 1, 1996, and ending September 30, 1997.

Functional Classification: A system of classifying budget resources by major purpose so that budget authority, outlays, and credit activities can be related in terms of the national needs being addressed (for example, national defense, health) regardless of the agency administrating the program. There are currently 20 functions. A function may be divided into two or more subfunctions depending upon the complexity of the national need addressed by that function. (See Budget Authority; Outlays.)

return to topIImpoundment: A generic term referring to any action or inaction by an officer or employee of the U.S. Government that precludes the obligation or expenditure of budget authority in the manner intended by Congress. (See Deferral of Budget Authority; Rescission of Budget Authority.) return to topJJoint Committee on Taxation (JCT): Section 8001 of the Internal Revenue Code authorized the creation of the Joint Committee on Taxation. By statute, it is composed of five members from the Committee on Finance (three majority, two minority) chosen by such Committee and five members from the Committee on Ways and Means (three majority, two minority) chosen by such Committee. In practice, the Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship of the Joint Committee on Taxation has rotated between the Chairman of the Committee on Finance and the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means with each new Congress. Among other things, the JCT’s duties are to investigate the operation and effects of the federal tax system. return to topM

Mandatory Spending: Refers to spending for programs the level of which is governed by formulas or criteria set forth in authorizing legislation rather than by appropriations. Examples of mandatory spending include: Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ pensions, rehabilitation services, Members’ pay, judges pay and the payment of interest of the public debt. Many of these programs are considered entitlement. (See Direct Spending.)

Mark-Up: Meetings where congressional committees work on language of bills or resolutions. At Budget Committee mark-ups, the House and Senate Budget Committees work on the language and numbers contained in budget resolutions and legislation affecting the congressional budget process.

Monetary Policy: Management of the money supply, under the direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system, with the aim of achieving price stability and full employment. Government actions in guiding monetary policy, include currency revaluation, credit contradiction or expansion, rediscount policy, regulation of bank reserves and the purchase and sale of Government securities. (See Fiscal Policy.)

return to topNNet Deficit Reduction: Savings below the defined budget baseline achieved for the upcoming fiscal year because of laws enacted or final regulations promulgated since January 1. CBO and OMB independently estimate these savings in their initial and final sequester reports. return to topO

Offsetting Collections: Income from the public that results from the government engaging in “business-like” activities with the public, such as the sale of products or the rendering of a service. Examples include proceeds funds derived from the sale of postage stamps. Offsetting collections are credited against the level of budget authority or outlays associated with a specific program or account. (See Offsetting receipts.)

Offsetting Receipts: Income from the public that results from the government engaging in “business-like” activities with the public such as the sale of products or the rendering of services. Examples include proceeds from the sale of timber from Federal lands or entrance fees paid at national parks. Rather than being credited against the spending of a particular program or account, (as in the case with offsetting collections) offsetting receipts are deducted from total budget authority and outlays rather than added to Federal revenues even though they are deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. Generally offsetting receipts are associated with mandatory spending. (See Offsetting collections.)

Off-budget Federal Entity: Any Federal fund or trust fund whose transactions are required by law to be excluded from the totals of President’s budget submission and Congress’ budget resolution, despite the fact that these are part of the government’s total transactions. Current law requires that the Social Security trust funds (the Federal Old Age, Survivors, and Disability trust fund) and the Postal Service be off-budget. However, these entities are reflected in the budget in that they are included in calculating the deficit in order to derive the total government deficit that must be financed by borrowing from the public or by other means. All other federal funds and trust funds are on budget. (See Unified Budget.)

Outlays: Outlays are disbursements by the Federal Treasury in the form of checks or cash. Outlays flow in part from budget authority granted in prior years and in part from budget authority provided for the year in which the disbursements occur.

Outlay Rates: The ratio of outlays (actual government disbursements) in a fiscal year relative to new budgetary resources in that fiscal year. In estimating the budget baseline and baseline deficit for their sequestration reports, CBO and OMB use outlay rates for projecting levels of spending resulting from available budget authority.

return to topP

Pay-as-you-go: Arises in two separate contexts: a point of order in the Senate and a sequester order from OMB.

Pay-as-you-go in the Senate.–Since fiscal year 1994, the budget resolution has included a pay-as-you-go rule in the Senate. The rule provides a 3/5ths vote point of order in the Senate against consideration of legislation that would cause a net increase in the deficit over a ten year period. It applies to all legislation except appropriations legislation. To determine a violation, CBO measures the budget impact of a direct spending or revenue bill combined with the budget impact of all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since the latest budget resolution’s adoption to see if the legislation would result in a net deficit increase for any one of three time periods (the first year, the sum of years 1 through 5, and the sum of years 6 through 10.) The pay-go rule sunsets at the end of fiscal year 2002.

Pay-as-you-go and sequestration under the BEA.–The Budget Enforcement Act requires OMB to also enforce a “pay-as-you-go” requirement which has a similar effect as the Senate’s point of order: Congress is required to “pay for” any changes to programs which result in an increase in direct spending, or in this case risk a sequester. If OMB estimates that the sum of all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since 1990 will result in a net increase in the deficit for the fiscal year, then the President is required to issue a sequester order reducing all non-exempt direct spending accounts by a uniform percentage in order to eliminate the net deficit increase. Most direct spending is either exempt from a sequester order or operates under special rules that minimize the reduction that can be made in direct spending. Social Security is exempt from a pay-as-you-go sequester and Medicare cannot be reduced by more than 4 percent.

President’s Budget: The document sent to Congress by the President in January or February of each year, requesting new budget authority for Federal programs and estimating Federal revenues and outlays for the upcoming fiscal year.

return to topR

Revenues: Collections from the public arising from the Government’s sovereign power to tax. Revenues include individual and corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes (such as social security payroll taxes), excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties and the like.

Reconciliation Process: A process by which Congress includes in a budget resolution “reconciliation instructions” to specific committees, directing them to report legislation which changes existing laws, usually for the purpose of decreasing spending or increasing revenues by a specified amount by a certain date. The legislation may also contain an increase in the debt limit. The reported legislation is then considered as a single “reconciliation bill under expedited procedures.”  Reserve Fund: A provision in a budget resolution that grants the Chairman of the Budget Committee the authority to make changes in budget aggregates and committee allocations once some condition or conditions have been met. Since a budget resolution establishes a binding ceiling on aggregate budget authority and outlay levels and a binding floor on revenues, budget resolutions frequently include reserve funds for deficit-neutral legislation that would otherwise violate the budget resolution and be subject to a point of order under the Budget Act. For example, the FY 1997 budget resolution included a tax reduction reserve fund that allowed the Chairman to reduce the revenue floor and the relevant spending allocations to accommodate legislation that reduced taxes if that legislation also contained offsetting spending reductions.

Rescission of Budget Authority: Cancellation of budget authority before the time when the authority would otherwise cease to be available for obligation. The rescission process begins when the President proposes a rescission to the Congress for fiscal or policy reasons. Unlike the deferral of budget authority which occurs unless Congress acts to disapprove the deferral, rescission off budget authority occurs only if Congress enacts the rescission. (See Deferral of Budget Authority; Impoundment.)

return to topS

Scoring or Scorekeeping: The process for estimating budget authority, outlay, revenue and deficit levels which result from congressional budgetary actions. Scorekeeping data prepared by the Congressional Budget Office include status reports on the effect of congressional actions and comparisons of these actions to targets and ceilings set by Congress in budget resolutions. These reports are published in the Congressional Record on a regular basis. OMB is responsible for scoring legislation to determine if a sequester is necessary.

Sequester: Pursuant to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, a presidential spending reduction order that occurs by reducing spending by uniform percentages.

Sequestrable Resource: Pursuant to Gramm-Rudman-Hollings federal funding authority (budgetary resources) subject to reductions under a presidential sequester order for achieving required outlay reductions (in non-exempt programs).

Supplemental Appropriation: An act appropriating funds in addition to those in the 13 regular annual appropriations acts. Supplemental appropriations provide additional budget authority beyond the original estimates for programs or activities (including new programs authorized after the date of the original appropriation act) in cases where the need for funds is too urgent to be postponed until enactment of the next regular appropriation bill. (See Appropriations Act.)

return to topTTax Expenditures: Revenue losses attributable to a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or to a special credit, preferential rate of tax, or deferral of tax liability. return to topU

Unfunded Mandates: A Federal Intergovernmental Mandate is any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local or tribal government, except as conditions of assistance or duties arising from participation in a voluntary federal program. Exceptions to this rule are: enforcing constitutional rights; statutory prohibitions against discrimination; emergency assistance requested by states; accounting/auditing for federal assistance; national security; Presidential designated emergencies; and Social Security. Provisions that increase stringency of conditions of assistance or decrease federal funding for large state entitlement programs (greater than $500 million) if states lack authority to decrease their responsibilities are considered mandates as well.

A Federal Private Sector Mandate is any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector. The exceptions are a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.

Unified Budget: A comprehensive display of the Federal budget. This display includes all revenues and all spending for all regular Federal programs and trust funds. The 1967 President’s Commission on Budget Concepts recommended the unified budget and it has been the basis for budgeting since 1968. The unified budget replaced a system of the budgets that existed before 1968 (an administrative budget, a consolidated cash budget, and a national income accounts budget).

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/index.cfm/glossary

Budget Control Act

The Budget Control Act Serves as the Budget for 2012 and 2013

The Budget Control Act states: “For the purpose of enforcing the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 through April 15, 2012 … the allocations, aggregates, and levels set in subsection (b)(1) shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.” In many ways, the Budget Control Act is even more extensive than a traditional budget resolution. Number one, it has the force of law, unlike a budget resolution that never goes to the President. A budget resolution is purely a Congressional document; the Budget Control Act is a law. Number two, it sets discretionary caps for 10 years, instead of the one year normally set in a budget resolution. Number three, it provides enforcement mechanisms, including two years of “deeming resolutions,” which allow budget points of order to be enforced. And fourth, it creates a reconciliation-like “Super Committee” process to address both entitlements and tax reform. And it backs that process up with a $1.2 trillion sequester.

Budget Control Act Legislative Text

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

Eat The Rich!–Vote Obama In 2012 For More Spending, More Taxes, More Deficits, More Debt, More Unemployment, More Recession–No Hope–No Change–No Deal!–Videos

Posted on September 20, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

EAT THE RICH!

 

Obama sets the record straight: It’s not class warfare …It’s MATH

 

President Obama – It’s Not Class Warfare to Ask Millionaire to Pay Same Tax Rate as Secretary

 

Obama the Socialist wants to spread YOUR money around

Obama – Taxes, Capital Gains

 

President Barack Obama, September 19, 2011

“…So I am ready, I am eager, to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the tax code to make it simpler, make it fairer, and make America more competitive.  But any reform plan will have to raise revenue to help close our deficit.  That has to be part of the formula.  And any reform should follow another simple principle:  Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires.  That’s pretty straightforward.  It’s hard to argue against that.  Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett.  There is no justification for it.

It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out.  They should have to defend that unfairness — explain why somebody who’s making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that — paying a higher rate.  They ought to have to answer for it.  And if they’re pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution. …”

2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets

Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:

2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets

Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:

Tax Rate Single Married Filing Joint Married Filing Separate Head of Household
10% Up to $8,500 Up to $17,000 Up to $8,500 Up to $12,150
15% $8,501 – $34,500 $17,001 – $69,000 $8,501 – $34,500 $12,151 – $46,250
25% $34,501 – $83,600 $69,001 – $139,350 $34,501 – $69,675 $46,251 – $119,400
28% $83,601 – $174,400 $139,351 – $212,300 $69,676 – $106,150 $119,401 – $193,350
33% $174,401 – $379,150 $212,301 – $379,150 $106,151 – $189,575 $193,351 – $379,150
35% Over $379,150 Over $379,150 Over $189,575 Over $379,150

In addition to the tax brackets above, you may owe tax under the alternative minimum tax. You can review the 2011 AMT exemption to see if it will apply to you.

Proposed 2012 Tax Rates & Tax Brackets

Tax Rate Single Married Filing Joint Head of Household
10% Up to $8,600 Up to $17,200 Up to $12,250
15% $8,601 – $34,900 $17,201 – $69,800 $12,251 – $46,750
25% $34,901 – $84,500 $69,801 – $140,850 $46,751 – $120,700
28% $84,501 – $195,950 $140,851 – $237,700 $120,701 – $216,800
36% $195,951 – $383,350 $237,701 – $383,350 $216,801 – $383,350
39.6% Over $383,350 Over $383,350 Over $383,350

Married Filing Separate was not included in the release. I’ll update the 2012 federal tax tables for all filing statuses as soon as the information is available.

2012 Tax Rates vs 2011 Tax Rates

Want to compare the proposed 2012 tax brackets to the current year to see the changes?

The biggest changes in the proposal are expanding the 28% bracket and replacing the 33% and 35% brackets with 36% and 39.6% brackets.

http://www.mydollarplan.com/tax-brackets/

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

“…This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1
percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes
and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think
tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15
percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between
$40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in
federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7
percent.

The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income
taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or
more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes,
according to the IRS.

Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal
income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3
percent.

Obama’s claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and
individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The
top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax
rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above
$379,150.

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because
the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and
credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper on
revenue issues.

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low-
and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most,
however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes. …”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b

Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008(Updated October 2010)

Number of Returns with Positive AGI AGI ($ millions) Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) Group’s Share of Total AGI Group’s Share of Income Taxes Income Split Point Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers 139,960,580 8,426,625 1,031,512 100% 100% 12.24%
Top 1% 1,399,606 1,685,472 392,149 20.00% 38.02% $380,354 23.27%
1-5% 5,598,423 1,241,229 213,569 14.73% 20.70% 17.21%
Top 5% 6,998,029 2,926,701 605,718 34.73% 58.72% $159,619 20.70%
5-10% 6,998,029 929,761 115,703 11.03% 11.22% 12.44%
Top 10% 13,996,058 3,856,462 721,421 45.77% 69.94% $113,799 18.71%
10-25% 20,994,087 1,821,717 169,193 21.62% 16.40% 9.29%
Top 25% 34,990,145 5,678,179 890,614 67.38% 86.34% $67,280 15.68%
25-50% 34,990,145 1,673,932 113,025 19.86% 10.96% 6.75%
Top 50% 69,980,290 7,352,111 1,003,639 87.25% 97.30% >$33,048 13.65%
Bottom 50% 69,980,290 1,074,514 27,873 12.75% 2.70% <$33,048 2.59%
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Table 6
Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2008 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 100% 19.05% 36.84% 12.44% 49.28% 23.74% 73.02% 19.93% 92.95% 7.05%
1981 100% 17.58% 35.06% 12.90% 47.96% 24.33% 72.29% 20.26% 92.55% 7.45%
1982 100% 19.03% 36.13% 12.45% 48.59% 23.91% 72.50% 20.15% 92.65% 7.35%
1983 100% 20.32% 37.26% 12.44% 49.71% 23.39% 73.10% 19.73% 92.83% 7.17%
1984 100% 21.12% 37.98% 12.58% 50.56% 22.92% 73.49% 19.16% 92.65% 7.35%
1985 100% 21.81% 38.78% 12.67% 51.46% 22.60% 74.06% 18.77% 92.83% 7.17%
1986 100% 25.75% 42.57% 12.12% 54.69% 21.33% 76.02% 17.52% 93.54% 6.46%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 100% 24.81% 43.26% 12.35% 55.61% 21.31% 76.92% 17.02% 93.93% 6.07%
1988 100% 27.58% 45.62% 11.66% 57.28% 20.57% 77.84% 16.44% 94.28% 5.72%
1989 100% 25.24% 43.94% 11.85% 55.78% 21.44% 77.22% 16.94% 94.17% 5.83%
1990 100% 25.13% 43.64% 11.73% 55.36% 21.66% 77.02% 17.16% 94.19% 5.81%
1991 100% 24.82% 43.38% 12.45% 55.82% 21.46% 77.29% 17.23% 94.52% 5.48%
1992 100% 27.54% 45.88% 12.12% 58.01% 20.47% 78.48% 16.46% 94.94% 5.06%
1993 100% 29.01% 47.36% 11.88% 59.24% 20.03% 79.27% 15.92% 95.19% 4.81%
1994 100% 28.86% 47.52% 11.93% 59.45% 20.10% 79.55% 15.68% 95.23% 4.77%
1995 100% 30.26% 48.91% 11.84% 60.75% 19.62% 80.36% 15.03% 95.39% 4.61%
1996 100% 32.31% 50.97% 11.54% 62.51% 18.80% 81.32% 14.36% 95.68% 4.32%
1997 100% 33.17% 51.87% 11.33% 63.20% 18.47% 81.67% 14.05% 95.72% 4.28%
1998 100% 34.75% 53.84% 11.20% 65.04% 17.65% 82.69% 13.10% 95.79% 4.21%
1999 100% 36.18% 55.45% 11.00% 66.45% 17.09% 83.54% 12.46% 96.00% 4.00%
2000 100% 37.42% 56.47% 10.86% 67.33% 16.68% 84.01% 12.08% 96.09% 3.91%
2001 100% 16.06% 33.89% 53.25% 11.64% 64.89% 18.01% 82.90% 13.13% 96.03% 3.97%
2002 100% 15.43% 33.71% 53.80% 11.94% 65.73% 18.16% 83.90% 12.60% 96.50% 3.50%
2003 100% 15.68% 34.27% 54.36% 11.48% 65.84% 18.04% 83.88% 12.65% 96.54% 3.46%
2004 100% 17.44% 36.89% 57.13% 11.07% 68.19% 16.67% 84.86% 11.85% 96.70% 3.30%
2005 100% 19.26% 39.38% 59.67% 10.63% 70.30% 15.69% 85.99% 10.94% 96.93% 3.07%
2006 100% 19.56% 39.89% 60.14% 10.65% 70.79% 15.47% 86.27% 10.75% 97.01% 2.99%
2007 100% 20.19% 40.41% 60.61% 10.59% 71.20% 15.37% 86.57% 10.54% 97.11% 2.89%
2008 100% 18.47% 38.02% 58.72% 11.22% 69.94% 16.40% 86.34% 10.96% 97.30% 2.70%
Source: IRS
Table 8
Average Tax Rate, 1980-2008 (Percent of AGI paid in income taxes)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 15.31% 34.47% 26.85% 17.13% 23.49% 14.80% 19.72% 11.91% 17.29% 6.10%
1981 15.76% 33.37% 26.59% 18.16% 23.64% 15.53% 20.11% 12.48% 17.73% 6.62%
1982 14.72% 31.43% 25.05% 16.61% 22.17% 14.35% 18.79% 11.63% 16.57% 6.10%
1983 13.79% 30.18% 23.64% 15.54% 20.91% 13.20% 17.62% 10.76% 15.52% 5.66%
1984 13.68% 29.92% 23.42% 15.57% 20.81% 12.90% 17.47% 10.48% 15.35% 5.77%
1985 13.73% 29.86% 23.50% 15.69% 20.93% 12.83% 17.55% 10.41% 15.41% 5.70%
1986 14.54% 33.13% 25.68% 15.99% 22.64% 12.97% 18.72% 10.48% 16.32% 5.63%
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable
1987 13.12% 26.41% 22.10% 14.43% 19.77% 11.71% 16.61% 9.45% 14.60% 5.09%
1988 13.21% 24.04% 21.14% 14.07% 19.18% 11.82% 16.47% 9.60% 14.64% 5.06%
1989 13.12% 23.34% 20.71% 13.93% 18.77% 12.08% 16.27% 9.77% 14.53% 5.11%
1990 12.95% 23.25% 20.46% 13.63% 18.50% 12.01% 16.06% 9.73% 14.36% 5.01%
1991 12.75% 24.37% 20.62% 13.96% 18.63% 11.57% 15.93% 9.55% 14.20% 4.62%
1992 12.94% 25.05% 21.19% 13.99% 19.13% 11.39% 16.25% 9.42% 14.44% 4.39%
1993 13.32% 28.01% 22.71% 14.01% 20.20% 11.40% 16.90% 9.37% 14.90% 4.29%
1994 13.50% 28.23% 23.04% 14.20% 20.48% 11.57% 17.15% 9.42% 15.11% 4.32%
1995 13.86% 28.73% 23.53% 14.46% 20.97% 11.71% 17.58% 9.43% 15.47% 4.39%
1996 14.34% 28.87% 24.07% 14.74% 21.55% 11.86% 18.12% 9.53% 15.96% 4.40%
1997 14.48% 27.64% 23.62% 14.87% 21.36% 12.04% 18.18% 9.63% 16.09% 4.48%
1998 14.42% 27.12% 23.63% 14.79% 21.42% 11.63% 18.16% 9.12% 16.00% 4.44%
1999 14.85% 27.53% 24.18% 15.06% 21.98% 11.76% 18.66% 9.12% 16.43% 4.48%
2000 15.26% 27.45% 24.42% 15.48% 22.34% 12.04% 19.09% 9.28% 16.86% 4.60%
2001 14.23% 28.20% 27.50% 23.68% 14.89% 21.41% 11.58% 18.08% 8.91% 15.85% 4.09%
2002 13.03% 28.49% 27.25% 22.95% 13.87% 20.51% 10.47% 16.99% 7.67% 14.66% 3.21%
2003 11.90% 24.64% 24.31% 20.74% 12.22% 18.49% 9.54% 15.38% 7.12% 13.35% 2.95%
2004 12.10% 23.09% 23.49% 20.67% 12.28% 18.60% 9.26% 15.53% 7.01% 13.51% 2.97%
2005 12.45% 22.52% 23.13% 20.78% 12.37% 18.84% 9.27% 15.86% 6.93% 13.84% 2.98%
2006 12.60% 21.98% 22.79% 20.68% 12.60% 18.86% 9.36% 15.95% 7.01% 13.98% 3.01%
2007 12.68% 21.46% 22.45% 20.53% 12.66% 18.79% 9.43% 15.98% 7.01% 14.03% 2.99%
2008 12.24% 22.70% 23.27% 20.70% 12.44% 18.71% 9.29% 15.68% 6.75% 13.65% 2.59%
Source: IRS

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

Summary of Outlays, Revenues (Receipts), Deficits, Surpluses Fiscal Years 1980-2010(Nominal Dollars in Millions)
Fiscal Year Outlays Revenues (Receipts) Deficits (-), Surpluses
1980 590,941 517,112 -73,830
1981 678,241 599,272 -78,968
1982 745,743 617,766 -127,977
1983 808,364 600,562 -207,802
1984 851,805 666,488 -185,367
1985 946,344 734,037 -212,308
1986 990,382 769,155 -221,277
1987 1,004,017 854,288 -149,730
1988 1,064,417 854,288 -155,178
1989 1,143,744 991,105 -152,639
1990 1,252,994 1,031,958 -221,036
1991 1,324,226 1,054,988 -269,238
1992 1,381,529 1,091,208 -290,321
1993 1,409,386 1,154,335 -255,051
1994 1,461,753 1,258,566 -203,186
1995 1,515,742 1,351,790 -163,392
1996 1,560,484 1,453,053 -107,431
1997 1,601,116 1,579,232 -21,884
1998 1,652,458 1,721,728 69,270
1999 1,701,842 1,827,452 125,610
2000 1,788,950 2,025,191 236,241
2001 1,862,846 1,991,082 128,236
2002 2,010,894 1,853,136 -157,758
2003 2,159,899 1,782,314 -377,585
2004 2,292,841 1,880,114 -412,727
2005 2,471,957 2,153,611 -318,346
2006 2,655,050 2,406,869 -248,181
2007 2,728,686 2,567,985 -160,701
2008 2,982,544 2,523,991 -458,553
2009 3,517,677 2,104,989 -1,412,688
2010 3,456,213 2,162,724 -1,293,489
2011 Est. 3,818,819 2,173,700 -1,645,119
2012 Est. 3,728,686 2,627,449 -1,101,237
2013 Est. 3,770,876 3,003,345 -767,531

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls

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

Obama lied, it is Marxist class warfare as the above charts clearly show! Marxist Math!

The Story of Spending

Is Washington Bankrupting America?

Obama sets the record straight: It’s not class warfare …It’s MATH

President Obama – It’s Not Class Warfare to Ask Millionaire to Pay Same Tax Rate as Secretary

President Obama on Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction

Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished

Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts

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

Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth

The Empirical Evidence Against Big Government

Background Articles and Videos

What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise

What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism

What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation

What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law

What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights

What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration

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

Is Ron Paul An Isolationist?–No–He Is For Free Trade and A Nonterventionist Foreign Policy–Are The NeoCons Warmongers?–Yes–Aggressive Interventionist Foreign Policy–Empire or Nation Building!–Videos

Posted on June 23, 2011. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Computers, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 34:June 29, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 33:June 22, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 32:June 15, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 31:June 8, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 30:June 2, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

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

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

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

“In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture to heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man; not such as nature may offer as the prodigy of many centuries, but such as may be expected in the ordinary successions of magistracy. War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honours and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed. It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.”

~James Madison

Is Ron Paul an Isolationist?

Isolationist: GOP’s dirty word?

SA@TAC – Is America Becoming ‘Isolationist?’

SA@TAC – Who’s a Republican?

Ron Paul – Misguided Policy of Nation Building in Iraq

American Isolationism in the 30s

Charles Lindbergh’s – September 11, 1941 Des Moines Speech

SA Radio – World War 2 and American Intervention

SA@Takimag – Why Mark Levin Hates Glenn Beck

SA@Takimag – John McCain’s Boogeyman

SA@TAC – What is Sarah Palin?

SA@Takimag – The War Party

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – Wither the Neocons?

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 1 of 11

Speech given by Congressman Ron Paul on the House floor on July 10, 2003

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 2 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 3 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 4 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 5 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 6 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 7 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 8 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 9 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 10 of 11

Neo-CONNED! by Congressman Ron Paul – Part 11 of 11

Ron Paul “Republicans Want A NeoCon Influence In The Tea Party Movement

Background Articles and Videos

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt1/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt2/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt3/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt4/5

BBC Panorama – The War Party pt5/5

Isolationism

“…Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements in hopes of focusing all of its resources into advancement within its own borders while remaining at peace with foreign countries by avoiding all entanglements of foreign agreements. In other words, it asserts both of the following:

  1. Non-interventionism – Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense).
  2. Protectionism – There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

“Isolationism” has always been a debated political topic. Whether or not a country should be or should not be isolationist affects both living standards and the ability of political rulers to benefit favored firms and industries.

The policy or doctrine of trying to isolate one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, and generally attempting to make one’s economy entirely self-reliant; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement, both diplomatically and economically, while remaining in a state of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.[1]

All the First World countries (the UK, United States, etc.) trade in a world economy, and experienced an expansion of the division of labor, which generally raised living standards. However, some characterize this as “a wage race to the bottom” in the manufacturing industries that should be curtailed by protectionism. Some argue that isolating a country from a global division of labor—i.e. employing protectionist trading policies—could be potentially helpful. The consensus amongst most economists is that such a policy is detrimental, and point to the mercantilism of the pre-industrial era as the classic example. Others argue that as the world’s biggest consumer, with its own natural resources, the U.S. can wisely dictate what conditions can apply to goods and services imported for U.S. consumption, misunderstanding the nature of prices and their emergent, non-centrally planned, nature. Countries and regions generally enjoy a comparative advantage over others in some area. Free trade between countries allows each country to do what it does best, and benefit from the products and services that others do best. But “best” too often means monetary, excluding human and ecological costs, due to firms externalizing costs as a result of inadequately defined property rights. Protectionism allegedly interferes in the market process, making people poorer than they would be otherwise. …”

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

Nonintervention

“…Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is “strategic independence”.[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.[2]

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

United States Non-interventionism

“…Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States. It is a form of “realism”.

Non-interventionism on the part of the United States over the course of its foreign policy, is more of a want to aggressively protect the United States’ interests than a want to shun the rest of the world.

Non-intervention is similar to isolationism. While isolationism includes views on immigration and trade, non-interventionism refers exclusively to military alliances and policies.

Thomas Paine is generally credited with instilling the first non-interventionist ideas into the American body politic; his work Common Sense contains many arguments in favor of avoiding alliances. These ideas introduced by Paine took such a firm foothold that the Second Continental Congress struggled against forming an alliance with France and only agreed to do so when it was apparent that the American Revolutionary War could be won in no other manner.

George Washington’s farewell address is often cited as laying the foundation for a tradition of American non-interventionism:

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

John Adams followed George Washington’s ideas about non-interventionism by avoiding a very realistic possibility of war with France. Many Americans were clamoring for war and Adams refusal and persistence in seeking negotiation would lead his political rival Thomas Jefferson to take the presidency in the next election.[citation needed]

No entangling alliances (19th century)

President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington’s ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Jefferson’s phrase “entangling alliances” is, incidentally, sometimes incorrectly attributed to Washington.[1]

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.”

After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to “join in a protest to the Tsar.”[2] Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, “defending ‘our policy of non-intervention — straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'” and insisted that “[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference.”[2]

The United States’ policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US occupy and control the Philippines.

20th century non-intervention

Theodore Roosevelt’s administration is credited with inciting the Panamanian Revolt against Colombia in order to secure construction rights for the Panama Canal (begun in 1904).

United States President Woodrow Wilson, after winning reelection with the slogan “He kept us out of war,” promptly, but reluctantly, intervened in World War I. Yet non-interventionist sentiment remained; the U.S. Congress refused to endorse the Treaty of Versailles or the League of Nations.

Protest march to prevent American involvement in World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Isolationism Between the Two World Wars

In the wake of the First World War, the isolationist tendencies of US foreign policy were in full force. First, the United States Congress rejected president Woodrow Wilson’s most cherished condition of the Treaty of Versailles, the League of Nations. Many Americans felt that they did not need the rest of the world, and that they were fine making decisions concerning peace on their own.[3] Even though ‘anti-League’ was the policy of the nation, private citizens and lower diplomats either supported or observed the League.[4] This quasi-isolationism shows that the US was interested in foreign affairs, but was afraid that by pledging full support for the League, the United States would lose the ability to act on foreign policy as it pleased.

Although the United States was unwilling to commit to the League of Nations, they were willing to engage in foreign affairs on their own terms. In August 1928, fifteen nations signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact, brainchild of American Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand.[5] This pact that was said to have outlawed war and showed the United States commitment to international peace had its semantic flaws.[6] For example, it did not hold the United States to the conditions of any existing treaties, it still allowed European nations the right to self-defense, and it stated that if one nation broke the Pact, it would be up to the other signatories to enforce it.[7] The Kellogg-Briand Pact was more of a sign of good intentions on the part of the US, rather than a legitimate step towards the sustenance of world peace.

Isolationism took a new turn after the Crash of 1929. With the economic hysteria, the US began to focus solely on fixing its economy within its borders and ignored the outside world. As the world’s democratic powers were busy fixing their economies within their borders, the fascist powers of Europe and Asia silently moved their armies into a position to start World War II. With military victory came the spoils of war – a very draconian pummeling of Germany into submission, via the Treaty of Versailles. This near-total humiliation of Germany in the wake of World War I – as the treaty placed sole blame for the war on the nation – laid the groundwork for a pride-hungry German people to embrace Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.

Isolationism Just Before WWII

As Europe moved closer and closer to war in the late 1930s, the United States Congress was doing everything it could to prevent it. Between 1936 and 1937, much to the dismay of the pro-Britain President Roosevelt, Congress passed the Neutrality Acts. These Acts did everything they could to delay U.S. entry into a European war. These Acts were not aimed at keeping America out of a modern world war, but the previous one.[8] For example, in the final Neutrality Act, Americans could not sail on ships flying the flag of a belligerent nation or trade arms with warring nations, potential causes for U.S. entry into war.

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland; Britain and France subsequently declared war on Germany, marking the start of World War II. In an address to the American People two days later, President Roosevelt assured the nation that he would do all he could to keep them out of war.[9] However, his words showed his true goals. “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger,” Roosevelt said.[10] Even though he was intent on neutrality as the official policy of the United States, he still echoed the dangers of staying out of this war. He also cautioned the American people to not let their wish to avoid war at all costs supersede the security of the nation.[11]

The war in Europe split the American people into two distinct groups: isolationists and interventionists. The two sides argued over America’s involvement in this Second World War. The basic principle of the interventionist argument was fear of German invasion. By the summer of 1940, France had fallen to the Germans, and Britain was the only democratic stronghold between Germany and the United States.[12] Interventionists feared that if Britain fell, their security as a nation would shrink immediately.[13] They were also afraid of a world after this war, a world where they would have to coexist with the fascist power of Europe. In a 1940 speech, Roosevelt argued, “Some, indeed, still hold to the now somewhat obvious delusion that we … can safely permit the United States to become a lone island … in a world dominated by the philosophy of force.”[14]

Ultimately, the ideological rift between the ideals of the United States and the goals of the fascist powers is what made the core of the interventionist argument. “How could we sit back as spectators of a war against ourselves?”[15] writer Archibald MacLeish questioned. The reason why interventionists said we could not coexist with the fascist powers was not due to economic pressures or deficiencies in our armed forces but rather because it was the goal of fascist leaders to destroy the American ideology of democracy. In an address to the American people on December 29, 1940, President Roosevelt said, “…the Axis not merely admits but proclaims that there can be no ultimate peace between their philosophy of government and our philosophy of government.”[16] It is not that the interventionists are war mongering and power hungry, it is that they are fearful for the preservation of the American way of life, after these years of war.

However, there were still many who held on to the age-old tenets of isolationism. Although a minority, they were well organized, and had a powerful presence in Congress.[17] Isolationists rooted a significant portion of their arguments in historical precedent, citing events such as Washington’s farewell address and the failure of World War I.[18] Ultimately, it came down to the moral and physical separation of the United States from the rest of the world. “If we have strong defenses and understand and believe in what we are defending, we need fear nobody in this world,” Robert Hutschins, President of the University of Chicago, wrote in a 1940 essay.[19] Isolationists believed that our safety as a nation was more important than any foreign war.[20] The interesting thing is that the arguments the isolationists used in 1940 echoed the themes of Washington and Jefferson. Charles Lindbergh’s words in a 1940 speech, “…those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must … organize for strength,”[21] are not that different from Washington’s pleas for international isolation.

As 1940 became 1941, the actions of the Roosevelt administration made it more and more clear that the United States was on a course to war. This policy shift, driven by the President, came in two phases. The first came in 1939 with the passage of the Fourth Neutrality Act, which permitted the United States to trade arms with belligerent nations, as long as these nations came to America to retrieve the arms, and pay for them in cash.[17] This policy was quickly dubbed, ‘Cash and Carry.’[22] The second phase was the Lend-Lease Act of early 1941. This act allowed the President, “…to lend, lease, sell, or barter arms, ammunition, food, or any ‘defense article’ or any ‘defense information’ to ‘the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.’”[23] He used these two programs to side economically with the British and the French in their fight against the Nazis. In doing so, he made the American economy dependent upon an allied victory. In terms of policy, the United States was on a path to war but the American people still wished to avoid it at all costs, a wish that would come untrue.

Overt Military intervention since 1945

Both Republican and Democratic presidents who, since the 1950s, have often considered used military intervention as a tactic of foreign policy, including in major cases: (in some cases the policies were continued by subsequent presidents.)[24]

  • President Harry S. Truman’s 1947 decision to NOT intervene militarily in the Chinese Civil War.
  • President Harry S. Truman’s 1950 intervention in Korea to stop the Communist invasion of South Korea, at UN direction
  • President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1954 decision to NOT intervene to support the French in Vietnam.
  • President Lyndon B. Johnson’s intervention in Dominican Republic
  • President Lyndon B. Johnson’s intervention in Vietnam
  • President John F. Kennedy’s intervention in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion.
  • President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 intervention in Grenada
  • President George H. W. Bush’s 1989 intervention in Panama to arrest General Manuel Noriega
  • President George H. W. Bush’s 1991 intervention in Kuwait to liberate it from Iraqi occupiers, at UN direction
  • President George H. W. Bush’s 1992 intervention in Somalia for humanitarian reasons, as directed by the UN Security Council
  • President Bill Clinton’s 1994 decision NOT to intervene in the Rwanda genocide
  • President Bill Clinton’s 1995 intervention in Bosnia, via NATO to prevent ethnic cleansing
  • President Bill Clinton’s 1999 intervention in Kosovo and attacks on Serbia with NATO involvement
  • President George W. Bush’s 2001 intervention in Afghanistan against the Taliban following the September 11 attacks.
  • President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein
  • President Barack Obama’s involvement in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

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

The Second American Revolution–The Taxing, Spending, Borrowing, Health Care, Illegal Immigration and Jobs Revolt!

Posted on May 10, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

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

Woman Goes Nuclear At California Town Hall Meeting

Peter Schiff: Jobs, Emigration, Student Loans, Capital Controls

 

Peter Schiff One-on-One Interview with Dan Mangru – The Mangru Report – Episode 2 – May 8, 2010

Illegal Aliens Bankrupting “Free Taxpayer” Hospital

 

Online Tax Revolt’s Mission For Tax Day

The ONLINE TAX REVOLT March ~ Join in the protest, without leaving the comforts of home!

Black America is mad about illegal alien immigration

BLACKS RISE UP AND FIGHT THE ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION!!

Illegal immigration effects on Americans

Obama Jobless Recovery gets Advice from Bernanke and causes tent sales to rise

 

Economic Collapse Prep: Home Fortification 

Socialism is a Disease…

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Entitlements

Schiff on Double-Dip Recession

 

Peter Schiff debates David Epstein of Columbia University — Nov 11 2009 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Health Care

Jeffrey Miron–Obamaomics–Videos

Individuals–Yes, Collectivists–No, Dissent–Yes, Racism–No, Life–Yes, Abortion–No, Ballots–Yes, Bullets–No–We The People Want Faith, Hope, Charity and Courage!

Obama’s Big Whopper–”The largest deficit reduction plan in a decade.”–Delusional Deceitful Democrats–Massive Tax Increases and Economy Wrecker–Health Care Bill If Passed Is Unconstitutional!

Senator Coburn Educates The Educated Fools aka Progressive Radical Socialists Who Cannot Write, Read, Or Understand The Health Care Bill or Competitive Markets!

Senator Coburn Educates The Educated Fools aka Progressive Radical Socialists Who Cannot Write, Read, Or Understand The Health Care Bill or Competitive Markets!

Senator Tom Coburn Makes The Progressive Radical Socialists Read Their Socialized Medicine Amendment to Health Care Bill!–Three Cheers–Kill The Bill!

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted ACORN Felon Richard Creamer!

Obama’s Trick On The American People: Health Insurance Reform=Huge Hikes in Taxes and Premiums for Health Insurance and Massive Medicare Funding and Payment Reimbursement Cuts–Congressional Coercion–It’s Alive!

Second Opinion: Doctors Speak Up On Proposed Health Care Reform–And A Third Texas Opinion!–Videos

American Citizens Want Jobs and Criminal Alien Removal, Not Criminal Alien Census and Health Care!

Illegal Aliens Can Buy Health Insurance Plans–No ID Needed:–Demand Criminal Alien Removal and Deportation!

Congressman Paul Ryan–Townhall Meeting–Health Care Reform and The Patients Choice Act–Videos

The Arrogance of President Obama: Hectoring Habitual Liar

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Public Option = Government Option = Pathway to Single Payer = Single Payer = Socialized Medicine = Blue Pill = Poison Pill

Obama: First We Kill The Babies, Then We Kill The Elderly, Then We Kill The Veterans–Your Life, Your Choices–Your Time Is Up!

This Joker Is A Lost Cause: Keeping President Obama Honest on Health Care–Let’s But A Smile On That Face–Staying Alive

Fact 1. Federal Government Health Insurance Is Compulsory–Kill The Bill–H.R. 3200

Patient Empowerment: Health Savings Accounts–High Deductible Catastrophic Health Insurance–Affordable, Portable, Fair, Individual Health Care Plan–Consumer Driven Health Care Reform!

The Dangers Of A Single Payer Health Care System: Ronald Reagan On Socialized Medicine and Friedrich A. Hayek On State Monopoly

The American People Believe The Government Public Option Plan Is The Path To The Single Payer Government Plan–Socialized Medicine–Obama Caught Lying To The American People!

The American People Confront Obama’s Red Shirts (ACORN) and Purple Shirts (SEIU)–Bullhorns and Beatings Over Obama Care!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Obama’s Marching Orders For His Red Shirts (ACORN), Purple Shirts (SEIU) and Black Shirts (New Panther Party)–Progressive Radical Socialists

Health Care Resources

Republican Health Care Reform: The Patients’ Choice Act

Medical Doctor and Senator Tom Coburn On Health Care–Videos

The Senate Doctors Show–Videos

Obama’s Waterloo– Government Compulsory Single Payer Socialized Medicine!–Videos

President Obama’s Plan of Massive Deficit Spending Is Destroying The US Economy–The American People Say Stop Socialism BS Now!

The Bum’s Rush of The American People: The Totally Irresponsible Democratic Party Health Care Bill and Obama’s Big Lie Exposed

Chairman Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Bill Kills Individual Private Health Care Insurance–Join The Second American Revolution!

The Obama Big Lie and Inconvenient Truth About Health Care–The Public Option Trojan Horse–Leads To A Single Payor Goverment Monopoly of Health Care and The Bankruptcy of USA!

The Obama Public Option Poison Pill For A Government Health Care Monopoly–Single Payer System–Betting Your Life and Paying Though The Nose

Government Bureaucracy: Organizational Chart of The House Democrats’ Health Plan

Dr. Robert W. Christensen–Videos

John Stossel–Sick In America–Videos

Congressman Paul Ryan–Townhall Meeting–Health Care Reform and The Patients Choice Act–Videos

The Small Business and Self-Employed Perspective on Health Care Reform

Immigration

Your Papers Please–Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic and Republican Senators Proposed National ID Card–Vote These Bums Out Of Office–Time For Operation Wetback II

Cheap Tomatoes, Cheap Labor, Criminal Aliens, Corrupt Polticians, Costing Trillions–Cradle To Grave Progressive Radical Socialism!

Obama Aids and Abets Illegal Immigration and High American Citizen Unemployment By Attacking Arizona State Law!

American Citizens Want Jobs and Criminal Alien Removal, Not Criminal Alien Census and Health Care!

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Discover The Left’s Organized Crime Network–Crime Pays–Organized Crimes Pays More–Apply for Census Taker Jobs!

US Immigration Videos

Borderline Chaos: Immigration Out of Control–Videos

The Hyphenated American and The Hyphen

The Signed “Stimulus Package” Did Not Include Funding for E-Verify and Border Fence Construction–Less Jobs And Security for American Citizens

President Obama Delays E-Verify–Shame On You Mr. President!

The Issue of The United States 2008 Presidential Election–Criminal Alien Removal (CAR) and A Border Security Fence (BSF)

The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid!

Appeasers and Oath Breakers All: Bush, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama…Who is next?

Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election! — Gum Balls

Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits

John McCain’s Position on Illegal Immigration and Criminal Alien Removal?

Alan Keyes on Immigration

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Entitlements

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

The Fate of Barack Obama, The Czars (Commissars) and Camelot After Spamming The American People

Posted on February 13, 2010. Filed under: Art, Blogroll, Climate, Communications, Computers, Cult, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Here in Camelot 

Spam = Taxes, Spending, Deficits, National Debt and Unemployment 

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

Inhofe on Kudlow To Discuss Obama Backdoor Energy Tax

Obama tosses aside pledge to keep middle-class from tax hikes

 

Obama To Break His Middle-Class Tax Vow

President Barack Obama leader of the progressive radical socialist Democrat Party and spammer of the American people on more Federal Government taxes, spending, deficits, national debt, and unemployment is breaking his pledge to the American people regarding taxes both in the health care and cap and trade tax bills.

Obama Forced to Apologzie for Health Care Spam Email scam. Caught lying 

 

The President needs both bills to pass to pay for his proposed 2011 budget.

Even if the two largest taxes increases in United States  history were to pass, which appears incresingly unlikely, the President budget also assumes the largest defcit spending and more National debt, exceeding 1,000,000,000,000 for the next two years and beyond.

The President busdetproposals are fiscally irresponsible and illustrates his complete ignorance of both economics.

Closer Look at Obama’s Spending Spree

 

The American people will not let this stand and will vote out of office all progressive radical socialist that support the health care and energy tax bills togehter with massively huge budget deficits.

President Obama is breaking his promise about no new taxes for those Americans earning less than $250,000.

When the Republicans did this, President George H. Bush was thrown out of office and in 2006 the Democrats took over control of the Senate and House.

By repeating the mistakes of the past by mulitplying them by a factor of 2 to 4 times as worse, the progressive radical socialists will share the fate of those Republicans who did not practice what they preached.

The fate of those politicians who lie to the American people about taxes:

Stoning

The fate of those politicians who want to increase defcit spending and the National Debt:

Always Look On The Bright Side of Life

The fate of those who do not learn from history:

Monty Python- Knights Of The Round Table/Camelot Song

 

Background Articles and Videos

Spam

“…Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately. While the most widely recognized form of spam is e-mail spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, spam in blogs, wiki spam, online classified ads spam, mobile phone messaging spam, Internet forum spam, junk fax transmissions, social networking spam, and file sharing network spam.

Spamming remains economically viable because advertisers have no operating costs beyond the management of their mailing lists, and it is difficult to hold senders accountable for their mass mailings. Because the barrier to entry is so low, spammers are numerous, and the volume of unsolicited mail has become very high. The costs, such as lost productivity and fraud, are borne by the public and by Internet service providers, which have been forced to add extra capacity to cope with the deluge. Spamming is universally reviled, and has been the subject of legislation in many jurisdictions.[1]

People who create electronic spam are called spammers.[2]

Spamming in different media

E-mail spam

Main article: E-mail spam

E-mail spam, known as unsolicited bulk Email (UBE), junk mail, or unsolicited commercial email (UCE), is the practice of sending unwanted e-mail messages, frequently with commercial content, in large quantities to an indiscriminate set of recipients.

Spam in e-mail started to become a problem when the Internet was opened up to the general public in the mid-1990s. It grew exponentially over the following years, and today comprises some 80 to 85% of all the email in the world, by a “conservative estimate”.[3]

Pressure to make e-mail spam illegal has been successful in some jurisdictions, but less so in others. Spammers take advantage of this fact, and frequently outsource parts of their operations to countries where spamming will not get them into legal trouble.

Increasingly, e-mail spam today is sent via “zombie networks”, networks of virus- or worm-infected personal computers in homes and offices around the globe; many modern worms install a backdoor which allows the spammer access to the computer and use it for malicious purposes. This complicates attempts to control the spread of spam, as in many cases the spam doesn’t even originate from the spammer. In November 2008 an ISP, McColo, which was providing service to botnet operators, was depeered and spam dropped 50%-75% Internet-wide. At the same time, it is becoming clear that malware authors, spammers, and phishers are learning from each other, and possibly forming various kinds of partnerships.[citation needed]

An industry of e-mail address harvesting is dedicated to collecting email addresses and selling compiled databases.[4] Some of these address harvesting approaches rely on users not reading the fine print of agreements, resulting in them agreeing to send messages indiscriminately to their contacts. This is a common approach in social networking spam such as that generated by the social networking site Quechup.[5]

Instant Messaging Spam

Main article: Messaging spam

Instant Messaging spam, known also as spim (a portmanteau of spam and IM, short for instant messaging), makes use of instant messaging systems. Although less ubiquitous than its e-mail counterpart, spim is reaching more users all the time. According to a report from Ferris Research, 500 million spim IMs were sent in 2003, twice the level of 2002. As instant messaging tends to not be blocked by firewalls it is an especially useful channel for spammers.

One way to protect yourself against spammers is to only allow messages from people on your friends lists. Many email services now offer spam filtering (Junk Mail) and some instant messaging providers offer hints and tips on avoiding email spam and spim (BT Yahoo for example).

Newsgroup spam and forum spam

Main article: Newsgroup spam

Main article: Forum spam

Mobile phone spam

Main article: Mobile phone spam

Mobile phone spam is directed at the text messaging service of a mobile phone. This can be especially irritating to customers not only for the inconvenience but also because of the fee they may be charged per text message received in some markets. The term “SpaSMS” was coined at the adnews website Adland in 2000 to describe spam SMS.

Online game messaging spam

Many online games allow players to contact each other via player-to-player messaging, chat rooms, or public discussion areas. What qualifies as spam varies from game to game, but usually this term applies to all forms of message flooding, violating the terms of service contract for the website. This is particularly common in MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft and others where the spammers are trying to sell game related items for real world money, chiefly among these items is in-game currency. This kind of spamming is also called Real Money Trading (RMT).

In World of Warcraft it is common for spammers to advertise sites that sell gold in multiple methods of spam. They send spam via the ingame private messaging system, via the ingame mailing system, via yelling publicly to everyone in the area and by creating a lot of characters and committing suicide (with hacks) and making a row of bodies resemble a site URL. The URL takes the user to a gold selling website. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(electronic)

Obama’s Radicalism Is Killing the Dow

A financial crisis is the worst time to change the foundations of American capitalism.

By Michael J. Boskin

“…New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president’s budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.

From the poorly designed stimulus bill and vague new financial rescue plan, to the enormous expansion of government spending, taxes and debt somehow permanently strengthening economic growth, the assumptions underlying the president’s economic program seem bereft of rigorous analysis and a careful reading of history.

Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government’s meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.

On the growth effects of a large expansion of government, the European social welfare states present a window on our potential future: standards of living permanently 30% lower than ours. Rounding off perceived rough edges of our economic system may well be called for, but a major, perhaps irreversible, step toward a European-style social welfare state with its concomitant long-run economic stagnation is not.”

Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

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

Glenn Beck–Wrong Way: California’s Progressive Government Policies–Right Way: Texas limited Government Policies–Videos

Posted on February 5, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

 

Glenn Beck Show – February 5, 2010 – Pt 1 of 7

 

Glenn Beck Show – February 5, 2010 – Pt 2 of 7

Glenn Beck Show – February 5, 2010 – Pt 3 of 7

Glenn Beck Show – February 5, 2010 – Pt 4 of 7

Glenn Beck Show – February 5, 2010 – Pt 5 of 7

Glenn Beck Show – February 5, 2010 – Pt 6 of 7

Glenn Beck Show – February 5, 2010 – Pt 7 of 7

Replace all Federal taxes with a national sales consumption tax–The Fair Tax.

The FairTax: It’s Time

The FairTax–Videos

 

Then limit Federal Government spending to 90% of the previous years FairTax collections.

The remaining 10% would be used to pay down the National Debt.

Pass a Constitutional Amendment that institutes the above.

To save the Social Security and Medicare benefits that Americans have been paying for by payroll taxes, shut-down and permanently close 10 Federal Departments, many agencies and numerious programs.

Social Security and Medicare Projections – I.O.U.S.A.

 

Until the above is implemented both political parties are not fiscally responsible and serious.

The progressive radical socialists of both parties oppose the above. 

 

U.S. Debt Clock–Real Time

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ 

The National Debt Is Now Over  

$12,300,000,000,000 

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np 

The Total Unfunded Liabilities of

The United States of America Are Over 

$107,000,000,000,000 

We The People  

Are Broke! 

Stop Socialist Spending

 

Real Change and Hope 

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

   

Shut Down and Close Permanently

10 Federal Government Departments,

 Several Agencies and Many Programs Now!

 

1. Department of Agriculture

2. Department of Commerce

3. Department of Education 

4. Department of Energy

5. Department of Health and Human Resources

6. Department of Housing and Urban Development

7. Department of Interior

8. Department of Labor

9. Department of Transportation

10. Department of Veterans Affairs

11. Environmental Protection Agency 

12. Other Independent Agencies

13. International Assistance Programs

  

If

We The People

 Do Not Do This Now

You Can Forgot About

Receiving  Your

Social Security and Medicare Benefits!

 

 

 

http://www.federalbudget.com/

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

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

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

Stimulus II: A Sequel America Can’t Afford

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

 

We The People Stimulus Package

Ray Stevens – We The People

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Economists

The FairTax–Videos

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

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

United States Social Security Administration

Posted on January 30, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Security, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Saddling Posterity with Debt

“We believe–or we act as if we believed–that although an individual father cannot alienate the labor of his son, the aggregate body of fathers may alienate the labor of all their sons, of their posterity, in the aggregate, and oblige them to pay for all the enterprises, just or unjust, profitable or ruinous, into which our vices, our passions or our personal interests may lead us. But I trust that this proposition needs only to be looked at by an American to be seen in its true point of view, and that we shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life of the majority.”

~Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813

 

 

US Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

United States Social Security Administration

http://www.ssa.gov/

United States Social Security Administration

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/ssa.pdf

Social Security: A Program and Policy History

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n1/v66n1p1.html

 

Social Security Administration – $11.6 bullion +$1.1 billion from the Recovery Act

The Social Security Administration is indispensable to seniors, survivors, workers and the disable, but unfortunately the SSA can only pay full benefits until 2041. The 2010 Federal budget does not plan for 2042, but instead provides a 10% increase to help process claims more quickly. The budget also intends to help improve framework to extend the viability of the program as best possible.

Highlights of the 2010 Social Security Administration Budget

 

Social Security Administration Budget

 

Program Integrity and Operation

  • Increase staffing at the SSA to help process claims and appeals more quickly – exact amount not disclosed
  • Increase Social Security card processing and Social Security Number distribution – exact amount not disclosed
  • Increase integrity of SSA to ensure efficient government spending – $759 million

 

United States Social Security Administration

The United States Social Security Administration (SSA)[2] is an independent agency of the United States federal government that administers Social Security, a social insurance program consisting of retirement, disability, and survivors’ benefits. To qualify for these benefits, most American workers pay Social Security taxes on their earnings; future benefits are based on the employees’ contributions.

The Social Security Administration was established by a law currently codified at 42 U.S.C. § 901. Its current commissioner is Michael J. Astrue, who was sworn in on February 12, 2007 and whose six-year term expires on January 19, 2013.

SSA is headquartered in Woodlawn, Maryland, just to the west of Baltimore, at what is known as Central Office. The agency includes 10 regional offices, 8 processing centers, approximately 1300 field offices, and 37 Teleservice Centers. As of 2007[update], about 62,000 people were employed by the SSA.[3] Social security is currently the largest social welfare program in the U.S., constituting 37% of government expenditure and 7% of GDP.[4]

…”

“…History

The Social Security Act created a Social Security Board (SSB),[5] to oversee the administration of the new program. It was created as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal with the signing of Social Security Act of 1935, August 14, 1935.[6] The Board consisted of three presidentially appointed executives, and started with no budget, no staff, and no furniture. It obtained a temporary budget from the Federal Emergency Relief Administration headed by Harry Hopkins.[5]

The first Social Security office opened in Austin, Texas, on October 14, 1936. Social Security taxes were collected first in January 1937, along with the first one-time, lump-sum payments.[6] The first person to receive a Social Security benefit was Ernest Ackerman, who was paid 17 cents in January 1937. This was a one-time, lump-sum pay-out, which was the only form of benefits paid during the start-up period January 1937 through December 1939. The first person to receive monthly retirement benefits was Ida May Fuller of Brattleboro, Vermont. Her first check, dated January 31, 1940 was in the amount of US$22.54.[7]

In 1939, the Social Security Board merged into a cabinet-level Federal Security Agency, which included the SSB, the U.S. Public Health Service, the Civilian Conservation Corps, and other agencies.[8] In January 1940, the first regular ongoing monthly benefits were begun.[6]

In 1946, the SSB was renamed the Social Security Administration under President Harry S. Truman’s Reorganization Plan.

In 1972, Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) were introduced into SSA programs to deal with the effects of inflation on fixed incomes.

In 1953, the Federal Security Agency was abolished and the SSA was placed under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. HEW became the Department of Health and Human Services in 1980. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed into law 42 U.S.C. § 901 returning the SSA to the status of an independent agency in the executive branch of government.

Coverage

The SSA’s coverage under the Social Security program originally covered nearly all non-government workers in the continental U.S. and the territories of Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands below the age of 65. All workers in interstate commerce and industry were required to enter the program, except railroad, state and local government workers. In 1939, the age restriction for entering Social Security was eliminated. When it was introduced, all of these people were brought into Medicare as well.

Railroad workers were covered by the Railroad Retirement Board before Social Security was founded; they still are, though a portion of each railroad pension is designated as “equivalent” to Social Security. Railroad workers also participate in Medicare.

Most state and local government workers were eventually brought into the Social Security system under “Section 218 Agreements“. A Section 218 Agreement is a voluntary agreement between a state and SSA. The original 218 interstate instrumentalities were signed in the 1950s. All states have a Section 218 agreement with the Social Security Administration. For more information see Chapter 10 of the Social Security Handbbook.[9] The Social Security handbook chapter 10, section 1002 defines what is an “interstate instrumentality.[10] The provisions of Section 218 of the Social Security Act and the instrumentalities agreement and subsequent modifications determine social security and medicare or Medicare-only coverage for state and local government employees enrolled in state and local government retirement systems. To determine if your state has signed a 218 agreement contact your State Social Security Administrator. A list of State Social Security administrators that administer section 218 agreement is maintained on-line at[11] All State and local government hired since 1986, or who are covered by section 218 agreements, participate in Medicare even if not covered by Social security.[12] How State And Local Government Employees are covered By Social Security And Medicare see The Federal-State reference guide appendix[13] Other local and state employees were brought into coverage under a 1991 Social Security law that required these employees to join Social Security if their employer did not provide them with a pension plan. It is believed that some state and local governments continue to maintain their own pension plans and have not executed Section 218 agreements; if so, their workers do not participate in Social Security. (If those workers also have service in Social Security, however, their Social Security benefits are reduced by a rule known as the Windfall Elimination Provision; there is also a similar Government Pension Offset for their spouses.)

Old Age, Survivors and Disability

The SSA administers the old age, survivors, and disabled social insurance programs, which provide monthly benefits to retired or disabled workers, their spouses and children, and to the survivors of insured workers. In 2004, more than 47 million Americans received approximately US$492 billion in Social Security benefits. The programs are financed by mandatory contributions which employers, employees, and self-insured persons pay. These revenues are placed into a special trust fund.

The SSA administers its disability program partly through its Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR), which has regional offices and hearing offices across the United States. ODAR publishes a manual, called HALLEX, which contains instructions for its employees regarding how to implement its guiding principles and procedures.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

SSA administers the SSI program, which is needs-based, for elderly, blind, or disabled persons. This program was originally called by its separate names, Old Age Assistance (originally Title I of the Social Security Act of 1935), and Disability Assistance (added in 1946). In 1973, these assistance programs were renamed and reassigned to SSA. SSI recipients are paid out of the general revenue of the U.S. In addition, some states pay additional SSI funds. Approximately 7 million persons are covered by SSI.

Medicare

The administration of the Medicare program is a responsibility of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but SSA district offices and program service centers are used for determining eligibility, processing premium payments, and for some public contact.

Operations

To ensure consistent and efficient treatment of Social Security beneficiaries across its vast bureaucracy, SSA has compiled a giant book known as the Programs Operations Manual System (POMS) which governs practically all aspects of SSA’s internal operations. POMS describes, in excruciating detail, a huge variety of situations regularly encountered by SSA personnel, and the exact policies and procedures that apply to each situation.

Automation

 
A few of the hundreds of keypunch operators SSA employed throughout the late 1930s and into the 1950s.

While the establishment of Social Security predated the invention of the modern digital computer, punch card data processing was a mature technology, and the Social Security system made extensive use of automated unit record equipment from the program’s inception. This allowed the Social Security Administration to achieve a high level of efficiency. SSA expenses have always been a small fraction of benefits paid.

Baby name popularity report

Each year, just before Mother’s Day, the Social Security Administration releases a list of the names most commonly given to newborn babies in the United States in the previous year, based on applications for Social Security cards. The report includes the 1,000 most common names for each gender. The Popular Baby Names page on the SSA website provides the complete list and allows searches for past years and particular names.[14]

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

Background Articles and Videos

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

United States Department of Agriculture

United States Department of Commerce

United States Department of Defense

United States Department of Education

United States Department of Energy

United States Department of Health and Human Resources

United States Department of Homeland Security

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

United States Department of Interior

United States Department of Justice

United States Department of Labor

United States Department of State

United States Department of Transportation

United States Department of The Treasury

United States Department of Veteran Affairs

United States Office of Management and Budget

United States Office of Personnel Management

United States Social Security Administration

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

Do You Feel Lucky Progressives–Pass Your Health Care, Energy, Amnesty, Tax, Spend, Jobs/Stimulus Spending II Bills–The American Voters Will Throw The Thieves Out Of Office–Go Ahead Make My Day!

Posted on January 28, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

 
“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

~Abraham Lincoln

 

Dirty Harry – Do you feel lucky?

We The People Stimulus Package

Ray Stevens – We The People

 

Glenn Beck Show – January 28, 2010 – Pt 1 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 28, 2010 – Pt 2 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 28, 2010 – Pt 3 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 28, 2010 – Pt 4 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 28, 2010 – Pt 5 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 28, 2010 – Pt 6 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 28, 2010 – Pt 7 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 28, 2010 – Pt 8 of 8

Sudden Impact – “Go Ahead. Make My Day”

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

~Thomas Jefferson 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Cato Institute Scholars Analyze the 2010 State of the Union Address

 

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

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

Stimulus II: A Sequel America Can’t Afford

Kline Rejects Government Takeover of Student Loan Programs

Sen. Wicker Discusses State of the Union Speech with Neil Cavuto

Senator Thune discusses the State of the Union Address on Kudlow and Company

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

President Barack Obama State of The Union Address–Rush Limbaugh and Ron Paul Response!

The American People Rising In Revolt Against The Progressive Radical Socialists–Democrats and Republicans!

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

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

President Barack Obama–Portrait of A Progressive Radical Socialist Narcissist–A Cult Of Personality!

Barack Obama–A Reader Not A Leader–A Divider Not A Uniter–A Progressive Radical Socialist Not An American Achiever

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

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

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

Glenn Beck Pulls Obama’s Mask Off–Unemployment, Spending, Taxes, Deficits, Debt and Inflation–Up, Up and Away–Age of Obama–Let The Sunshine In!

Posted on November 12, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Health Care, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Up Up and Away – Hot air Balloons

For October 2009, the official unemployment rate hit 10.2% and jobs still keep going up, up and away.

unemployment

Glenn Beck Show – Nov 12, 2009 – Pt 1 of 5

Glenn Beck Show – Nov 12, 2009 – Pt 2 of 5

Glenn Beck Show – Nov 12, 2009 – Pt 3 of 5

The 5th Dimension – Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In

5th Dimension – Aquarius & Let the sunshine in 2008
Released 1969

When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars
This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
Age of Aquarius
Aquarius!
Aquarius!

Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind’s true liberation
Aquarius!
Aquarius!

Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in, the sunshine in
Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in, the sunshine in
Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in, the sunshine in
Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in, the sunshine in
Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in, the sunshine in

Background Articles and Videos

5ª Dimensión – Aquarius/Let the sunshine in

Glenn Beck Show – Nov 12, 2009 – Pt 4 of 5

Glenn Beck Show – Nov 12, 2009 – Pt 5 of 5

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Cap and Trade

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

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

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

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

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

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

Save Your Job and Life–Abolish The Environmental Protection Agency!

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

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE–Videos

Facing Fundamental Facts

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

 

Depressions and Recessions

Rose Colored Glasses:The Economy Is Recovering–Where Are The Jobs? When Will Inflation Hit? 2012–Election Year!

The Obama Depression Continues–Official Unemployment Hits Rate 9.8% (15,142,000 Seek Full Time Job) and Real Unemployment Rate Hits 17.0% (26,181,000 Seek Full Time Job)!

The Battle Between Keynes and Monetarism in the UK–Videos

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

The Bush Recession Is Over–The Obama Depression Has Begun!

The Big Economic Picture–Some Perspectives–Videos

United States Economic Depressions–The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly–Obama’s Depression–Over 15,000,000 Americans Seek Full Time Job!

The Triumph of Capitalism and The Power of Consumer Sovereignty Over Massive Government Failure–Bankruptcy of General Motors–Now Government Motors! 

BO’s Raw Deal: Obama’s Two Year Recession and Two Year Hyperinflation–Hopeless & Small Change!

It Is Official–The U.S. Economy Has Been In A Recession for 11 Months and Continuing!

Recession–Recession–Recession–Scaring People–Have A Hot Dog!

Rush Limbaugh: Obama is Destroying the Economy!–Videos

Bureau of Labor Statistics–Selected Tables on Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Unemployment and Employment

Rose Colored Glasses:The Economy Is Recovering–Where Are The Jobs? When Will Inflation Hit? 2012–Election Year!

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

American Citizens Want Jobs and Criminal Alien Removal, Not Criminal Alien Census and Health Care!

The Obama Depression Continues–Official Unemployment Hits Rate 9.8% (15,142,000 Seek Full Time Job) and Real Unemployment Rate Hits 17.0% (26,181,000 Seek Full Time Job)!

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record

Bureau of Labor Statistics–Selected Tables on Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Job Creating Businesses and CIT–Videos

President Barack Obama Beats It–President Franklin Roosevelt Record–Worse Unemployment Numbers Since 1933–14,700,000 Unemployed Americans Greater than 13,000,000 in 1933!

The Obama Depression (OD) Starts July 4, 2009–30 Million Americans March To Tea Parties In Washington D.C. and Over 1,000 Cities and Towns Across America!

United States Economic Depressions–The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly–Obama’s Depression–Over 15,000,000 Americans Seek Full Time Job!

Bad Government Intervention Requires Bad Government Bank-The Road Map Out Of The World Economic Crisis–Stabilize–Stimulate–Strengthen–Simultaneously! 

BO’s Raw Deal: Obama’s Two Year Recession and Two Year Hyperinflation–Hopeless & Small Change!

It Is Official–The U.S. Economy Has Been In A Recession for 11 Months and Continuing!

Recession–Recession–Recession–Scaring People–Have A Hot Dog!

Wealth, Income and Job Creation: Let A 1000 Microsofts Bloom

Bill Gates–Hope, Change and Rapid Affluence Development–Creative Capitalism

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

President Barack Obama Beats It–President Franklin Roosevelt Record–Worse Unemployment Numbers Since 1933–14,700,000 Unemployed Americans Greater than 13,000,000 in 1933!

Posted on July 2, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Investments, Life, Links, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

obama_stink_eye

Beat It

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqxo1SKB0z8

 

UPDATED

 

Unemployment Numbers Higher Than Published.

 

Unemployment Skyrockets to 9.5 Percent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILBqeuIjRWk

 

Economic Expectations – Unemployment Rate May Reach 15% – Bloomberg

 

VP Joe Biden: Sorry America but “we misread how bad the economy was”

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

 

Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 5976 6111 5783 6004 5796 5951 6025 5838 5915 5778 5716 5653  
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 7759 7972 7740 7683 7672 7551 7415 7360 7570 7457 7541 7219  
2006 7020 7176 7080 7142 7028 7039 7167 7118 6874 6738 6837 6688  
2007 7029 6887 6737 6874 6844 7028 7128 7123 7221 7295 7212 7541  
2008 7555 7423 7820 7675 8536 8662 8910 9550 9592 10221 10476 11108  
2009 11616 12467 13161 13724 14511 14729              

 

Series Id:           LNS14000000
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status:  Unemployment rate
Type of data:        Percent
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0  
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 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8  
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4  
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9  
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2  
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5  

 

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government. “

~Thomas Jefferson
 

AP Interview: Obama on the Economy

 

In-Depth Look – Jobless Claims – Bloomberg

 

Unemployment Will Rise – Bloomberg

 

Two Guys in a Newsroom (July 2, 2009)

 

The US Government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes several measures of the unemployment rates.

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force is the rate most often cited on newscasts and articles.

In June the U-3 unemployment rate hit 9.5% with the total civialian labor force of about 155 million.

This means that there were about 14,700,000 unemployed Americans in June.

Unfortunately, U-3 actually understates the number of unemployed and those seeking a full time job.

A more meaningful number is U-6 for it includes the so-called marginally attached workers and those working part-time that want a full time job.

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers and total employed part time for economic reason as a percent of the labor force hit 16.5%

This means that there were over 25 million Americans seeking a full time job from the total civilian labor force of just under 155 million.

This means that there are now over 12,000,000  more Americans seeking full time jobs that the worst year of The Great Depression, 1933, when there were about 13 million Americans unemployed.

Looks like President Obama will soon almost double FDR’s record of  13 million with over 26 million unemployed measured by the U-6.

Expect the number of uemployed measured by U-3 to exceed 15,000,000 in July with an unemployment rate at or near 10%.

I fully expect the U-3 unemployment rate to hit 13% by December  and the U-6 unemployment rate to go over 20%.

The recession will last at least another year based on the failed economic polices of President Obama.

President Obama–the Green President–will have a record of total failure surpassed only by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

President Obama now owns the recession, soon to become a Depression when it should be rightfully named the Obama Depression or OD for short.

This will be shortly followed by rising inflation or price levels that should start by late 2010  or early 2011 at the latest.

The time is now to stop the failed irresponsible fiscal economic policies of  massive Government  spending and deficits to stimulate the economy.

President Obama’s economic policies are resulting in ten of millions of Americans being unemployed for a much longer time due to massive Government intervention into the economy that does not inspire business and consumer cofidence but fear of runnaway spending, taxes and inflation.

These policies did not work in Japan in the 1990s, Great Britain in the 1970s and the United States during the 1920s during the Great Depression.

 

Turning Japanese – Is the US Creating Its Own Lost Decade?

 

Milton Friedman explains role of gold in Great Depression

 

President Obama  has also proposed largest “hidden” tax increase in the history of the United States in a middle of a recession–the Cap and Trade Energy Tax that would wreck the US economy, destroy even more jobs and kill the American dream.

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

Only fools and Green Presidents do not learn from the mistakes of others.

The American people do not suffer fools and Presidents gladly when Presidential economic policies and Congressional laws are hurting their families, friends and community.

History will once again repeat itself when President Obama like Presidents  Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter before him becomes a one-term President for ignoring the will of the people.

Thank God for small miracles and the opportunity to vote out of office both Democrats and Republicans that voted for the massive bailouts, stimulus bills, and the largest tax increase in US history the Cap and Trade Energy tax. 

Our Economic Crisis — History Repeated?

 

federal_spending

 Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

 

Stop The Spending and Deficits

US Federal Government Deficits

defcits

 

Join the Second American Revolution

we_the_people

 

The Meaning of Independence Day

 

All Americans, especially those that are currently unemployed, are invited to attend an Ice Tea Party this Saturday to Celebrate Independence Day!

 

tea_parties

AFA Registered TEA Parties on July 4 now in 1425 Cities!

 

“The America’s Independence Day Tea Party Movement is a nationwide demonstration forum for any and all groups and individuals dissatisfied with the current governance of the United States, regardless of ideology, partisan identity, or political affiliation. On July 4th, 2009, we are asking Americans everywhere to re-declare our inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” 

 

Tea Party Movement

 

Find An Indpendence Day Tea Party Nearest You

http://www.teapartyday.com/Locations.aspx

http://www.reteaparty.com/teaparties/

 

The American People Celebrate Independence Day–Saturday, July 4, 2009–By Marching in 1000 Cities and Towns and Attending Ice Tea Parties To Freeze Federal Government Spending, Taxes and Deficits–30 Million Expected Nationally–1 Million In Washington D.C.!

 

The long countdown to launch continues–all cities are ready to go–no holds expected–1 day and counting…get ready for the  relaunch of the Second American Revolution:

 

Liberty Launch Countdown to The Celebration of Independence Day–Saturday, July 4, 2009–Ice Tea Party Time To Freeze Government Expenditures, Deficits, Debts and Taxes–Expect 30 Million Nationally in 1,000 Cities and Towns and 1 Million in Washington D.C.!

 

 Tea Party, Fourth of July, Washington DC

http://teapartywdc.ning.com/events/tea-party-fourth-of-july

http://teapartywdc.ning.com/

 

Independence Day Tea Party, Lansing, Michigan, 2009

 

Tea Party Patriots Invite Janeane Garofalo for America’s Tea Party on July 4, 2009!

 

Katrina Pierson – Dallas Tea Party – April 15, 2009

 

Independence Day Tea Party July 4th, 2009 @ White River State Park

 

We Will Rock You 

 

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. “

~Thomas Jefferson

 

Background Articles and Videos

Find an Independence Day Tea Party

By Michelle Malkin 

“…If you’re looking to celebrate Independence Day with other freedom-loving, limited-government activists, go to Tea Party Patriots for a list of more than 600 Tea Parties scheduled this weekend and beyond.

I will be at the Dallas Tea Party at Southfork Ranch on Saturday for a huge shindig. More info here. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/02/find-an-independence-day-tea-party/

 

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION:  JUNE 2009
                                  
   Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in June (-467,000),
and the unemployment rate was little changed at 9.5 percent, the Bureau
of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. 
Job losses were widespread across the major industry sectors, with
large declines occurring in manufacturing, professional and business
services, and construction.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

   The number of unemployed persons (14.7 million) and the unemployment
rate (9.5 percent) were little changed in June.  Since the start of the
recession in December 2007, the number of unemployed persons has increas-
ed by 7.2 million, and the unemployment rate has risen by 4.6 percentage
points.  (See table A-1.)
  
   In June, unemployment rates for the major worker groups–adult men
(10.0 percent), adult women (7.6 percent), teenagers (24.0 percent),
whites (8.7 percent), blacks (14.7 percent), and Hispanics (12.2 per-
cent)–showed little change.  The unemployment rate for Asians was
8.2 percent, not seasonally adjusted.  (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)
  
   Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who com-
pleted temporary jobs (9.6 million) was little changed in June after
increasing by an average of 615,000 per month during the first 5 months
of this year.  (See table A-8.)
  
   The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or
more) increased by 433,000 over the month to 4.4 million.  In June, 3
in 10 unemployed persons were jobless for 27 weeks or more.  (See
table A-9.)

Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization

(Percent)

Not seasonally adjusted Seasonally adjusted

Measure

June May June June Feb. Mar. Apr. May June
2008 2009 2009 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

U-1 Persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent
of the civilian labor force………………….. 1.8 4.6 4.8 1.9 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.5 5.1

U-2 Job losers and persons who completed temporary
jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force…. 2.7 5.8 5.9 2.9 5.0 5.4 5.7 6.2 6.2

U-3 Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian
labor force (official unemployment rate)………. 5.7 9.1 9.7 5.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5

U-4 Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus
discouraged workers…………………………. 6.0 9.5 10.1 5.9 8.5 8.9 9.3 9.8 10.0

U-5 Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus
all other marginally attached workers, as a
percent of the civilian labor force plus all
marginally attached workers………………….. 6.7 10.3 10.9 6.6 9.3 9.8 10.1 10.6 10.8

U-6 Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached
workers, plus total employed part time for
economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian
labor force plus all marginally attached workers.. 10.3 15.9 16.8 10.1 14.8 15.6 15.8 16.4 16.5

NOTE: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and
are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached,
have given a job-market related reason for not looking currently for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those
who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. For more information, see “BLS
introduces new range of alternative unemployment measures,” in the October 1995 issue of the Monthly Labor Review. Updated population
controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

 

Series Id:           LNS11000000
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 139003 138967 138730 138959 139107 139329 139439 139430 139622 139771 140025 140177  
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 148005(1) 148349 148366 148926 149273 149262 149445 149794 149977 150007 150095 150002  
2006 150148(1) 150600 150793 150906 151120 151398 151414 151762 151680 152027 152425 152677  
2007 153012(1) 152879 153004 152522 152759 153085 153101 152855 153424 153162 153877 153836  
2008 153873(1) 153498 153843 153932 154510 154400 154506 154823 154621 154878 154620 154447  
2009 153716(1) 154214 154048 154731 155081 154926              
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

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

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 133027 132856 132947 132955 133311 133378 133414 133591 133707 133993 134309 134523  
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 140246(1) 140377 140626 141243 141600 141711 142029 142434 142407 142551 142555 142783  
2006 143129(1) 143424 143713 143763 144092 144358 144247 144644 144806 145289 145587 145989  
2007 145983(1) 145992 146267 145647 145915 146057 145972 145732 146203 145867 146665 146294  
2008 146317(1) 146075 146023 146257 145974 145738 145596 145273 145029 144657 144144 143338  
2009 142099(1) 141748 140887 141007 140570 140196              
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

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

 

Seasonal 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
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 7.7 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.1  
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9  
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6  
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8  
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8  
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2  
2005 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.0 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.5  
2006 8.4 8.5 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.0 7.9  
2007 8.3 8.1 8.0 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.7  
2008 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.8 10.1 10.4 10.9 11.2 12.0 12.6 13.5  
2009 13.9 14.8 15.6 15.8 16.4 16.5              

 

Measures of labor underutilization from the Current Population Survey

Working Paper 424,  March 2009

Steven E. Haugen, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

“…It is estimated that in 1933, at the depth of the Great Depression, about 13 million
persons in the U.S. were unemployed, which translates into an unemployment rate of
about 25 percent.1 However, those estimates were not available at the time. Throughout
the Great Depression, there was little information on the extent of unemployment in the
country. More important, there was no good way to assess whether the situation was
getting better or worse. The wealth of timely statistical information on the labor market
that we now take for granted simply didn’t exist.”  …”

http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/ec090020.pdf

 

Great Depression
by Gene Smiley

“…A worldwide depression struck countries with market economies at the end of the 1920s. Although the Great Depression was relatively mild in some countries, it was severe in others, particularly in the United States, where, at its nadir in 1933, 25 percent of all workers and 37 percent of all nonfarm workers were completely out of work. Some people starved; many others lost their farms and homes. Homeless vagabonds sneaked aboard the freight trains that crossed the nation. Dispossessed cotton farmers, the “Okies,” stuffed their possessions into dilapidated Model Ts and migrated to California in the false hope that the posters about plentiful jobs were true. Although the U.S. economy began to recover in the second quarter of 1933, the recovery largely stalled for most of 1934 and 1935. A more vigorous recovery commenced in late 1935 and continued into 1937, when a new depression occurred. The American economy had yet to fully recover from the Great Depression when the United States was drawn into World War II in December 1941. Because of this agonizingly slow recovery, the entire decade of the 1930s in the United States is often referred to as the Great Depression. …”

“…It is commonly argued that World War II provided the stimulus that brought the American economy out of the Great Depression. The number of unemployed workers declined by 7,050,000 between 1940 and 1943, but the number in military service rose by 8,590,000. The reduction in unemployment can be explained by the draft, not by the economic recovery. The rise in real GNP presents similar problems. Most estimates show declines in real consumption spending, which means that consumers were worse off during the war. Business investment fell during the war. Government spending on the war effort exceeded the expansion in real GNP. These figures are suspect, however, because we know that government estimates of the value of munitions spending, to name one major area, were increasingly exaggerated as the war progressed. In fact, the extensive price controls, rationing, and government control of production render data on GNP, consumption, investment, and the price level less meaningful. How can we establish a consistent price index when government mandates eliminated the production of most consumer durable goods? What does the price of, say, gasoline mean when it is arbitrarily held at a low level and gasoline purchases are rationed to address the shortage created by the price controls? What does the price of new tires mean when no new tires are produced for consumers? For consumers, the recovery came with the war’s end, when they could again buy products that were unavailable during the war and unaffordable during the 1930s. …”

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html

 

Bureau of Labor Statistics

  1. How the Government Measures Unemployment (PDF)
  2. Why does the Government collect statistics on the unemployed?
  3. Where do the statistics come from?
  4. What are the basic concepts of employment and unemployment?
  5. Who is counted as employed?
  6. Who is counted as unemployed?
  7. Who is not in the labor force?
  8. What about cases of overlap?
  9. Where can people find the data?
  10. How are seasonal fluctuations taken into account?
  11. Is there only one official definition of unemployment?
  12. What other information is collected in the CPS?
  13. How is unemployment measured for States and local areas?
  14. Where can people get more information?
  15. What do the unemployment insurance (UI) figures measure?

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

 

The Great De[ression

The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn starting in most places in 1929 and ending at different times in the 1930s or early 1940s for different countries.[2] It was the largest and most important economic depression in the 20th century, and is used in the 21st century as an example of how far the world’s economy can fall.[3] The Great Depression originated in the United States; historians most often use as a starting date the stock market crash on October 29, 1929, known as Black Tuesday.

The depression had devastating effects in virtually every country, rich or poor. International trade plunged by half to two-thirds, as did personal income, tax revenue, prices and profits. Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by roughly 60 percent.[4][5][6] Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as farming, mining and logging suffered the most.[7] However, even shortly after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, optimism persisted; John D. Rockefeller said that “These are days when many are discouraged. In the 93 years of my life, depressions have come and gone. Prosperity has always returned and will again.”[8]

The Great Depression ended at different times in different countries; for subsequent history see Home front during World War II.[9] The majority of countries set up relief programs, and most underwent some sort of political upheaval, pushing them to the left or right. In some states, the desperate citizens turned toward nationalist demagogues—the most infamous being Adolf Hitler—setting the stage for World War II in 1939.

The Great Depression was triggered by a sudden, total collapse in the stock market. The stock market turned upward in early 1930, returning to early 1929 levels by April, though still almost 30 percent below the peak of September 1929.[10] Together, government and business actually spent more in the first half of 1930 than in the corresponding period of the previous year. But consumers, many of whom had suffered severe losses in the stock market the previous year, cut back their expenditures by ten percent, and a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the summer of 1930.

In early 1930, credit was ample and available at low rates, but people were reluctant to add new debt by borrowing.[citation needed] By May 1930, auto sales had declined to below the levels of 1928. Prices in general began to decline, but wages held steady in 1930, then began to drop in 1931. Conditions were worse in farming areas, where commodity prices plunged, and in mining and logging areas, where unemployment was high and there were few other jobs. The decline in the US economy was the factor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better. Frantic attempts to shore up the economies of individual nations through protectionist policies, such as the 1930 U.S. Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and retaliatory tariffs in other countries, exacerbated the collapse in global trade. By late in 1930, a steady decline set in which reached bottom by March 1933. …”

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

 

467K jobs cut in June; jobless rate at 9.5 percent

“…WASHINGTON – Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate climbed to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent. Workers also saw weekly wages fall, suggesting Americans will have little appetite to spend and the economy’s road to recovery will be bumpy.

The Labor Department report, released Thursday, showed that even as the recession flashes signs of easing, companies likely will want to keep a lid on costs and be wary of hiring until they feel certain the economy is on solid ground.

President Barack Obama, in an interview with The Associated Press, said he is “deeply concerned” about unemployment and conceded that too many families are worried about “whether they will be next” to suffer an economic blow. He also expressed disappointment over the weak employment figures, acknowledging that “what we are still seeing is too many jobs lost.”

June’s payroll reductions were deeper than the 363,000 that economists expected and average weekly earnings dropped to the lowest level in nearly a year.

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn’t as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent. Still, many economists predict the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year, and keep rising into next year, before falling back.

All told, 14.7 million people were unemployed in June.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June, the highest on records dating to 1994. …”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_economy

 

New unemployment numbers: Quick, blame Bush!
By Michelle Malkin

“…Waiting for “we inherited this” spin from the White House…

Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June, driving the unemployment rate up to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, suggesting that the economy’s road to recovery will be bumpy.
The Labor Department report, released Thursday, showed that even as the recession flashes signs of easing, companies likely will want to keep a lid on costs and be wary of hiring until they feel certain the economy is on solid ground.

June’s payroll reductions were deeper than the 363,000 that economists expected.

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn’t as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent. Still, many economists predict the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year, and keep rising into next year, before falling back.

All told, 14.7 million people were unemployed in June.
Via AP. …”

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/02/new-unemployment-numbers-quick-blame-bush/

 

Leonard Silk Nov 1985 Air date You Tube Compression

 

 

US Unemployment Rise Pauses

 

In-Depth Look – Wall Street Job Picture – Bloomberg

 

Obama’s Far-Left Calling People to Arms—Glenn Beck’s ‘One Thing’

 

STS-115 Atlantis long countdown to launch

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Michale Jackson and Jackson Five–Videos

Queen–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Yaron Brook–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

The American People Celebrate Independence Day–Saturday, July 4, 2009–By Marching in 1000 Cities and Towns and Attending Ice Tea Parties To Freeze Federal Government Spending, Taxes and Deficits–30 Million Expected Nationally–1 Million In Washington D.C.!

Independents Lead The The Second American Revolution Surge–Independence Day–Saturday July 4, 2009 In Washington D.C.–Tea Party Time–On To Washington–Dare You To Move!

Glenn Beck Listens To Tea Party Americans–Videos 

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

United States Economic Depressions–The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly–Obama’s Depression–Over 15,000,000 Americans Seek Full Time Job!

The Obama Depression (OD) Starts July 4, 2009–30 Million Americans March To Tea Parties In Washington D.C. and Over 1,000 Cities and Towns Across America!

Operation Family Freedom (OFF): Millions Celebrate Washington Fair, Saturday, July 4, 2009–The Second American Revolution

Formerly Silent Majority Shoutout–We Are Coming For You–To Washington D.C.–Saturday, July 4, 2009–Tea Party Time!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 26 so far )

Fred Thompson On Borrowing and Spending–Yes We Can!

Posted on January 3, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Economics, Employment, Investments, Law, Links, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Regulations, Taxes, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Trying to fix problems caused by excess consumption with more spending is like telling a fat guy that the way to lose weight is to eat more donuts.

~Fred Thompson

 

Fred Thompson on the Economy

 

Great video!

Ask not what your country can spend on you, ask what you can spend for your country. Is that what made American a great country?

~Fred Thompson

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Postponing Reality

By Thomas Sowell

 

“…While Detroit’s Big Three are laying off thousands of workers, Toyota is hiring thousands of workers right here in America, where a substantial share of all our Toyotas are manufactured.

Will this save Detroit or Michigan? No.

Detroit and Michigan have followed classic liberal policies of treating businesses as prey, rather than as assets. They have helped kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. So have the unions. So have managements that have gone along to get along.

Toyota, Honda and other foreign automakers are not heading for Detroit, even though there are lots of experienced automobile workers there. They are avoiding the rust belts and the policies that have made those places rust belts.

A bailout of Detroit’s Big Three would be only the latest in the postponements of reality. As for automobile dealers, they can probably sell Toyotas just as easily as they sold Chevvies. And Toyotas will require just as many tires per car, as well as other parts from automobile parts suppliers.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/postponing_reality.html

 

Related Post On Pronk Palisades

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

BO’s Raw Deal: Obama’s Two Year Recession and Two Year Hyperinflation–Hopeless & Small Change!

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

Recession–Recession–Recession–Scaring People–Have A Hot Dog!

 

 

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

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...